Sporting Events Bill
Tuesday 20th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 23 hours, 24 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
09:25
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are now sitting in public in. The proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I wings. Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions in view of the time available. I hope we can take these matters formally without debate. I first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the programming subcommittee for this bill.
09:25
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is the programme motion, as on the amendment paper, as many as are of the opinion, say I. I to the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move the motion about written evidence formally. The question is the motion as on the amendment paper. As many as are of the opinion, say I. On the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Copies of written evidence which the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room. We now begin line by line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A member who has put their name on the amendment in a group is called first for debates on the clause stand part. The Minister will be called first. Other members are then free to indicate they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please, Bob, on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Minister who moved the amendment or new clause again.
Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause, or to seek a decision. If any member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, this is at the chair's discretion. My discretion. I remind members that the selection and grouping document shows the way in which amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any division on amendments and new clauses take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper. We start with Group one, which is amendment one to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment two clauses one, two and three and new schedule one.
I call Mr. Louis French to move amendment one.
The selection list for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A member who has put their name on the amendment in a group is called first for debates on the clause stand part. The Minister will be called first. Other members are then free to indicate they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please, Bob, on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Minister who moved the amendment or new clause again.
Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause, or to seek a decision. If any member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, this is at the chair's discretion. My discretion. I remind members that the selection and grouping document shows the way in which amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any division on amendments and new clauses take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper. We start with Group one, which is amendment one to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment two clauses one, two and three and new schedule one.
I call Mr. Louis French to move amendment one.
09:27
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm pleased to be opening the first day of this Committee on the Sporting Events Bill for His Majesty's most loyal opposition. As always, it's a pleasure to serve under your chair today. I'll start by referring to my register of interest and the widespread engagement, including events with stakeholders, as the Shadow Minister for DCMs. I beg to move that these amendments in my name are considered here today. I appreciate that some of these amendments in my name was moved in the other place and defeated, but we remain of the view that there is a need for for a mechanism which can enable a deliberative delivery authority to be created, in particular for major events like the World Cup, the Olympics, or even the mooted Northern Olympics.
Madam chairman, in a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former prime minister, Mr. Starmer, including these final King's speech a commitment to introduce a sporting events bill. Luckily for us, even stop clocks are right twice a day. As honourable members will know, in years gone by, His Majesty's Government has introduced event specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympics and Paralympics Games Act in 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Acts in 2020. We agree that this bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK's best exports to be even better.
However, it is with the government's intention that this framework could only be used for sporting events that do not regularly take place and are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, Madam Chairman, the government was defeated in the other place and in this place. We will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British Grand Prix at Silverstone or golf's original championship, the open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so.
So moving on to the amendments, honourable members will know that for the London 2012 Olympics, the primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Games Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures and the infrastructure and transport planning that required, and indeed many of these events will require significant cross-sector efforts, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sport, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association local government, including the host cities and central government departments.
There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land for those stadiums and improve transport links for spectators so they can get there. As this bill stands before us, if there was a need, if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event, it would require new primary legislation to be brought forward. That undermines, we believe, the aim of the government's bill before us today, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events and to help ensure their delivery in the most efficient way possible.
These amendments and new clauses that stand in my name will create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. It does not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority at any point, but gives them the ability to do so without having to undertake the whole process. This bill is aiming to avoid these amendments. Would I quote with your leave, Madam Chairman, prepare for the sporting event. Make arrangements in preparation for in connection with the use of management of premises of other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event.
Ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of the facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event and ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the event. Moreover, the improvements we are seeking to make set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. This includes membership of between 7 and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part three would also provide procedural rules of delegation by such authorities and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authorities to submit a report on the authority's progress, which must be laid before Parliament.
Finally, part four would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill. Madam chairman, I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments again. If she believes her bill, once enacted, will never have any further primary legislation, then surely this bill must try to cover unlikely requirements for future events. Some of the events, particularly the largest and irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country.
That is why I beg to move, Madam Chair.
Madam chairman, in a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former prime minister, Mr. Starmer, including these final King's speech a commitment to introduce a sporting events bill. Luckily for us, even stop clocks are right twice a day. As honourable members will know, in years gone by, His Majesty's Government has introduced event specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympics and Paralympics Games Act in 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Acts in 2020. We agree that this bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK's best exports to be even better.
However, it is with the government's intention that this framework could only be used for sporting events that do not regularly take place and are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, Madam Chairman, the government was defeated in the other place and in this place. We will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British Grand Prix at Silverstone or golf's original championship, the open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so.
So moving on to the amendments, honourable members will know that for the London 2012 Olympics, the primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Games Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures and the infrastructure and transport planning that required, and indeed many of these events will require significant cross-sector efforts, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sport, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association local government, including the host cities and central government departments.
There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land for those stadiums and improve transport links for spectators so they can get there. As this bill stands before us, if there was a need, if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event, it would require new primary legislation to be brought forward. That undermines, we believe, the aim of the government's bill before us today, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events and to help ensure their delivery in the most efficient way possible.
These amendments and new clauses that stand in my name will create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. It does not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority at any point, but gives them the ability to do so without having to undertake the whole process. This bill is aiming to avoid these amendments. Would I quote with your leave, Madam Chairman, prepare for the sporting event. Make arrangements in preparation for in connection with the use of management of premises of other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event.
Ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of the facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event and ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the event. Moreover, the improvements we are seeking to make set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. This includes membership of between 7 and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part three would also provide procedural rules of delegation by such authorities and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authorities to submit a report on the authority's progress, which must be laid before Parliament.
Finally, part four would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill. Madam chairman, I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments again. If she believes her bill, once enacted, will never have any further primary legislation, then surely this bill must try to cover unlikely requirements for future events. Some of the events, particularly the largest and irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country.
That is why I beg to move, Madam Chair.
09:31
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Alan Khan. And I'd like to begin by thanking all honourable members on both sides of the committee for taking part in this committee. The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the economic and social benefits of these occasions are felt across the country. This bill is a framework bill with a range of powers including ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. This will help improve our competitiveness when bidding for major sporting events, helping to bring more iconic sporting moments to the UK.
The Bill will enhance enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event ready. With the amendments tabled in my name, the government is also seeking to refine the bill following the amendment in the other place, ensuring where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events as well, and we will discuss this later in the committee. The UEFA European Championships in 2028 will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin.
The tournament is projected to bring in a six fold return on public investment. 40% of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the government backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. As this tournament shows, the major sporting events do far more than entertain. They drive economic growth, they foster national pride and they inspire young people. And this bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come. I'd now like to turn to the honourable member for Bexley and Sidcup amendments, which would seek to place, on the face of the bill a model for a dedicated delivery body.
Now, while we recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed for setting up a delivery authority with proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up with a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement.
Conversely, a special purpose incorporated company was established by the relevant five football authorities to deliver Euro 2028 an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament is relying overwhelmingly on existing stadia and infrastructure without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must be similarly determined based on what is targeted and proportionate to the specific needs and requirements of that event. In order to maximize effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. And as such, while many of the honourable member's recommendations are eminently sensible, these amendments unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted.
In every scenario where greater oversight is rightly required, the government already has requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body, subject to the appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny. As the Olympic Delivery Authority regularly was, for these reasons, I'd ask the honourable member withdraw his amendments to.
The Bill will enhance enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event ready. With the amendments tabled in my name, the government is also seeking to refine the bill following the amendment in the other place, ensuring where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events as well, and we will discuss this later in the committee. The UEFA European Championships in 2028 will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin.
The tournament is projected to bring in a six fold return on public investment. 40% of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the government backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. As this tournament shows, the major sporting events do far more than entertain. They drive economic growth, they foster national pride and they inspire young people. And this bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come. I'd now like to turn to the honourable member for Bexley and Sidcup amendments, which would seek to place, on the face of the bill a model for a dedicated delivery body.
Now, while we recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed for setting up a delivery authority with proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up with a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement.
Conversely, a special purpose incorporated company was established by the relevant five football authorities to deliver Euro 2028 an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament is relying overwhelmingly on existing stadia and infrastructure without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must be similarly determined based on what is targeted and proportionate to the specific needs and requirements of that event. In order to maximize effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. And as such, while many of the honourable member's recommendations are eminently sensible, these amendments unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted.
In every scenario where greater oversight is rightly required, the government already has requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body, subject to the appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny. As the Olympic Delivery Authority regularly was, for these reasons, I'd ask the honourable member withdraw his amendments to.
09:35
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I do appreciate the comments of the Minister. Obviously, we've set out our position and our concerns. We do absolutely understand the point the Minister is making with regards to Euro 2028. It was obviously the likes of the Olympics is what this amendment was primarily aimed at. But in light of the comments , we won't be pushing for the vote.
09:36
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I beg to move the amendments in my name, namely seven eight, as well as New Clause five and New Schedule two, which are designed to make sure that maliciously timed strikes do not undermine the entirety of the major sporting event. The standing part of this bill, any event covered by the framework that this bill would establish is by the definitions in clause three, likely to be of significant international or national interest, or that the event is likely to bring social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it.
Industrial action during an event would wholly undermine the objectives of this bill. Amendment seven would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event, and amendment eight requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause five defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions, and new schedule two sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendment seven A and new clause five sets out the penalties for breaching them.
Madam chairman, taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial actions as a core part of the sporting events framework that this bill establish. I'm sure the honourable members opposite may set up a little bit upright when they're hearing this being these amendments being made, but I want to assure those members that these changes are made in the spirit of the bill and its intended outcome, and they only apply to sporting events operating under this framework. However, these are not optional extras in the minds of the opposition or something that will be applied to some events and not others.
They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. The government is seeking through this bill, to establish a permanent framework that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new legislation. Every time we host a major event, and we welcome people and people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights under unauthorised association. But crucially, it does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event. The disruption caused by strikes.
Honourable members will know the damage that these actions cause. Last September's tube strikes, for example, caused near total shutdown, costing transport for London estimates of between 20 to 25 million in lost revenue. Fares alone and imposed an estimated 230 million of direct costs to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. These impacts include workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that effect in the United Kingdom's ability to host a major sporting event like the World Cup or the Olympics. Madam chairman, even the Foreign Secretary, then leader of the Labour Party said ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games.
This is a celebration for the whole country and it must not be disrupted. I'm sure honourable members will remember the Commonwealth Games also in 2022, when Aslef and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. And more recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports also voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games in an effort to force a new pay deal as the unions involved well knew. Such a walkout would have a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of these games.
Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks, but are occurring and increasing phenomenon under governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure that this cannot be left to chance. The punishments for breaches are common in comparison with those the government have drafted for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offence elsewhere in the bill. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that any conduct which threatens the integrity of a major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, which threatens to close down the event entirely at any less seriously.
There are, of course, limits on the provisions I am seeking to include within the bill. The ability to prevent strikes will only apply for the specified period, tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event on which I have tabled. Amendment number nine two. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are by definition mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held and applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The new schedule in my name also provides a full enforcement code notice of intention.
The right to make representations. A final notice with reasons and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of this mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the bill. All of the House will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just the economy, but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and into grassroots sports. We cannot let this be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the government to ransom over pay deals when we have secured a major event. We owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.
And therefore, I beg to move, Madam Chair.
Industrial action during an event would wholly undermine the objectives of this bill. Amendment seven would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event, and amendment eight requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause five defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions, and new schedule two sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendment seven A and new clause five sets out the penalties for breaching them.
Madam chairman, taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial actions as a core part of the sporting events framework that this bill establish. I'm sure the honourable members opposite may set up a little bit upright when they're hearing this being these amendments being made, but I want to assure those members that these changes are made in the spirit of the bill and its intended outcome, and they only apply to sporting events operating under this framework. However, these are not optional extras in the minds of the opposition or something that will be applied to some events and not others.
They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. The government is seeking through this bill, to establish a permanent framework that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new legislation. Every time we host a major event, and we welcome people and people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights under unauthorised association. But crucially, it does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event. The disruption caused by strikes.
Honourable members will know the damage that these actions cause. Last September's tube strikes, for example, caused near total shutdown, costing transport for London estimates of between 20 to 25 million in lost revenue. Fares alone and imposed an estimated 230 million of direct costs to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. These impacts include workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that effect in the United Kingdom's ability to host a major sporting event like the World Cup or the Olympics. Madam chairman, even the Foreign Secretary, then leader of the Labour Party said ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games.
This is a celebration for the whole country and it must not be disrupted. I'm sure honourable members will remember the Commonwealth Games also in 2022, when Aslef and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. And more recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports also voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games in an effort to force a new pay deal as the unions involved well knew. Such a walkout would have a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of these games.
Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks, but are occurring and increasing phenomenon under governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure that this cannot be left to chance. The punishments for breaches are common in comparison with those the government have drafted for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offence elsewhere in the bill. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that any conduct which threatens the integrity of a major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, which threatens to close down the event entirely at any less seriously.
There are, of course, limits on the provisions I am seeking to include within the bill. The ability to prevent strikes will only apply for the specified period, tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event on which I have tabled. Amendment number nine two. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are by definition mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held and applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The new schedule in my name also provides a full enforcement code notice of intention.
The right to make representations. A final notice with reasons and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of this mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the bill. All of the House will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just the economy, but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and into grassroots sports. We cannot let this be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the government to ransom over pay deals when we have secured a major event. We owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.
And therefore, I beg to move, Madam Chair.
09:41
09:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Amendment seven, a new clause five and new schedule two, tabled by the honourable member for all. Vaccines, will prevent transport and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. As the honourable gentleman just outlined, this includes creating offences relating to the participation in and the organisation or inducement of such action. As the committee will be aware, the government repealed the minimum service legislation and a number of other restrictions on the right to strike via the Employment Rights Act 2025. These amendments would reintroduce a significant restriction on the ability of workers to take industrial action, and the government has been clear we will not support such restrictions.
This government does not consider it. It is right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation, and must not seek to carve out core components of our employment rights. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, and this includes a new industrial relations framework that establish expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public.
Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. But on the basis of the points I've made, I'd ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.
This government does not consider it. It is right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation, and must not seek to carve out core components of our employment rights. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, and this includes a new industrial relations framework that establish expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public.
Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. But on the basis of the points I've made, I'd ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Ellen Grant I. Rachel. Hopkins. No. Andrew. Lewin. No. Alex Meyer. No. Devender. Mishra. No. Edward. Morella. James. Nash. Matthew. Patrick. Stephanie. Peacock. No. Shivani. Raja. I.
Martin. Rhodes. No. Anna. Celine. And. Matt. To me. No. I just said. The eyes were for the nose. Were ten. I think the nose have it. The nose have it. We now come to group three, which is amendment 13 to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment 14, new schedule three and clause one stand part.
I call Mr. Louis French to move amendment 13.
Martin. Rhodes. No. Anna. Celine. And. Matt. To me. No. I just said. The eyes were for the nose. Were ten. I think the nose have it. The nose have it. We now come to group three, which is amendment 13 to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment 14, new schedule three and clause one stand part.
I call Mr. Louis French to move amendment 13.
09:44
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll start with clause one, the Sporting Events Framework. This clause introduced a common legislative framework for major sporting events held in the UK. The framework sets out. Set out covers five aspects of sporting events, namely ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport. The legislative provisions for these five aspects are set out in schedules 1 to 5. I beg to move amendments 13 and 14, as well as new schedule three, all of which stand in my name and add provisions to protect single sex to this framework. These will make sure that the.
There is provision of single sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events. These amendments proposed for events taking place under the framework established by the Bill to establish a duty to ensure provision of single sex competitions, facilities. It also sets out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to gender or sex, of the participants, that reference must be biological sex. Any events to which the bill's framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. I appreciate that the noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to make the argument that these amendments were not necessary when tabled in the other place, as events to which the bill's framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.
Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, the law has been clear for some time and there are still organisations. Thankfully only a few, including which the minister has responsibility for, which are not complying with the law. As clarified by the case of the For Women Scotland Limited versus the Scottish Ministers 2025 judgment of April last year. We have all seen the inspirational case of the eight female nurses at the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation, who successfully appealed the trust's policy and management's dismissal of their concerns. An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurse dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination.
That was almost a year after the law had been clarified, and these cases continued to arise despite the law being clear. If the minister was right, these cases would not be arising any more and the law would be sufficient. But even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect the rights of women and girls spaces, particularly in the sporting context. But across the world, sporting governments are coming around to biological reality. In March 2026, the IOC banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 Summer Olympics and future Olympic Games, and the IOC president stated that the new policy was based on silence and made because it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.
However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by this government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, Madam Chairman, the Minister for women told the that they must tone down its guidance, which is designated to protect women and girls and single sex spaces. That is why the amendments in my name are essential, so that any organiser of a major sporting event has it before them as part of this framework, that they must provide that all competition competitors in the sporting event compete against those of same biological sex where designated in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use single sex accommodation based on their biological sex, single sex, changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex and single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
The amendments also provide that all spectators, or any person attending a sporting event can use single sex toilets based on their biological sex and single sex, changing and washing facilities where necessary, based on their biological sex. This is necessary, Madam Chairman, because both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are unable to commit to protecting single sex spaces for women and girls. We know that girls already spend an average of then 90 minutes per week less playing sport than boys, and the drop out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys.
The 2024 BBC Elite British Sportswomen study also found that those who are uncomfortable with transgender participation elite women's categories outnumbers those who are comfortable with it by 10 to 1 from the respondents. With your leave, Madam Chairman, comments included and I quote, it makes it too much of an unfair playing field. Regardless of what sport you are competing in and putting them in. Women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild and rebuild women back up again. That is why the Conservative Party is fully committed to ensuring women and girls have safe, single sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age, but also throughout their lives.
We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes, and in doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women and girls sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them. Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment, and my amendments make sure that that will be the case. I beg to move.
There is provision of single sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events. These amendments proposed for events taking place under the framework established by the Bill to establish a duty to ensure provision of single sex competitions, facilities. It also sets out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to gender or sex, of the participants, that reference must be biological sex. Any events to which the bill's framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. I appreciate that the noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to make the argument that these amendments were not necessary when tabled in the other place, as events to which the bill's framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.
Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, the law has been clear for some time and there are still organisations. Thankfully only a few, including which the minister has responsibility for, which are not complying with the law. As clarified by the case of the For Women Scotland Limited versus the Scottish Ministers 2025 judgment of April last year. We have all seen the inspirational case of the eight female nurses at the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation, who successfully appealed the trust's policy and management's dismissal of their concerns. An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurse dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination.
That was almost a year after the law had been clarified, and these cases continued to arise despite the law being clear. If the minister was right, these cases would not be arising any more and the law would be sufficient. But even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect the rights of women and girls spaces, particularly in the sporting context. But across the world, sporting governments are coming around to biological reality. In March 2026, the IOC banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 Summer Olympics and future Olympic Games, and the IOC president stated that the new policy was based on silence and made because it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.
However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by this government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, Madam Chairman, the Minister for women told the that they must tone down its guidance, which is designated to protect women and girls and single sex spaces. That is why the amendments in my name are essential, so that any organiser of a major sporting event has it before them as part of this framework, that they must provide that all competition competitors in the sporting event compete against those of same biological sex where designated in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use single sex accommodation based on their biological sex, single sex, changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex and single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
The amendments also provide that all spectators, or any person attending a sporting event can use single sex toilets based on their biological sex and single sex, changing and washing facilities where necessary, based on their biological sex. This is necessary, Madam Chairman, because both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are unable to commit to protecting single sex spaces for women and girls. We know that girls already spend an average of then 90 minutes per week less playing sport than boys, and the drop out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys.
The 2024 BBC Elite British Sportswomen study also found that those who are uncomfortable with transgender participation elite women's categories outnumbers those who are comfortable with it by 10 to 1 from the respondents. With your leave, Madam Chairman, comments included and I quote, it makes it too much of an unfair playing field. Regardless of what sport you are competing in and putting them in. Women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild and rebuild women back up again. That is why the Conservative Party is fully committed to ensuring women and girls have safe, single sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age, but also throughout their lives.
We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes, and in doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women and girls sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them. Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment, and my amendments make sure that that will be the case. I beg to move.
09:49
09:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair. I'd like to begin by speaking briefly to clause one. This introduced the framework provisions in the Bill. As I outlined at the beginning of the committee designed to help the UK deliver its commitments to event owners and ensure we remain a credible and competitive host of major sporting events. Delivering such commitments usually requires time consuming, event specific legislation. This bill changes the game. Any of the framework provisions can be applied as needed to any qualifying sporting event through secondary legislation. The framework provisions will help to protect commercial rights and the experience of fans by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets and preventing unauthorised advertising and trading around sporting events.
The provisions will ensure we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK's position as an attractive host of the biggest events. And finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably to get. Taken together, these signal the UK's commitment to hosting excellence and ensure we are ready to welcome the world. I'd now like to turn to the amendments 13 and 14, a new schedule three tabled by the honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I understand the honourable member's intent is to ensure that this bill's framework provisions can only be applied when major sporting events ensure single sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the bill's framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation that is applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex and the provision of facilities and sport are included in this.
Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets and accommodation to biological sex where proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear for sport competition designated as women's competitions to ensure fairness or safety. Participation is determined based on biological sex. This would apply to all events in scope of this bill as they are all competitive sporting events, so an explicit statutory duty on the face of the Bill is therefore a necessary.
The provisions will ensure we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK's position as an attractive host of the biggest events. And finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably to get. Taken together, these signal the UK's commitment to hosting excellence and ensure we are ready to welcome the world. I'd now like to turn to the amendments 13 and 14, a new schedule three tabled by the honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I understand the honourable member's intent is to ensure that this bill's framework provisions can only be applied when major sporting events ensure single sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the bill's framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation that is applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex and the provision of facilities and sport are included in this.
Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets and accommodation to biological sex where proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear for sport competition designated as women's competitions to ensure fairness or safety. Participation is determined based on biological sex. This would apply to all events in scope of this bill as they are all competitive sporting events, so an explicit statutory duty on the face of the Bill is therefore a necessary.
09:51
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Eyes are four. No's are ten. The nos have it the nos habit. We now come to the question of clause one stand part, which was debated with amendment 13 in group three. The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. Carry on through. We now come to Group four, led by Government amendment 22 to clause two, with which it will be convenient to consider government amendments 21 and 23 to 31, government amendments 42 and 43, and government.
New clause 14. I call the Minister to move government amendment 22.
New clause 14. I call the Minister to move government amendment 22.
09:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm grateful. Chair, it's the bill passed through the other place. We heard the strong case from peers and sporting bodies alike, that a small number of our world class recurrent events could face the same delivery, commercial protection and hosting challenges as itinerant events in the future. The government has heard and agrees with the intent of the amendment, so I will now speak to government amendments 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 42, 43 and New Clause 14 tabled in my name. These domestic sporting events, as referred to in the Bill, contribute significant economic and social value to the UK.
However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope with such reference to domestic appeal potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar without safeguards to ensure the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks an extremely large pool of events being eligible for protections and therefore having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities, and even a restricted scope of domestic sporting events rightly requires clarity on how the government will extend these provisions to these events, which currently operate independently of our operational support. And that is why we have brought forward this package of government amendments.
So firstly, turning to amendment 28, which removes the addition of national interest. This is because, as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation, such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There were already two framework conditions. The first condition is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and the second condition is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK, or the event must be of strategic value, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria.
Next, Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events referred to in the Bill as domestic sporting events. These are defined under Government Amendment 25 as a sporting event, which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority. Requesting that the framework be applied. The event organizer must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to their event. The Secretary of State or devolved governments may then consider such events on a case by case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events.
This is a necessary distinction for the cohort of domestic sporting events, which currently are both numerous and run independently of government. These independent events are not routinely subject to government evaluation, which could otherwise inform a decision to extend these provisions. This amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that the provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. This then allows government to ensure they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.
A further, I will give way. Yeah.
However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope with such reference to domestic appeal potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar without safeguards to ensure the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks an extremely large pool of events being eligible for protections and therefore having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities, and even a restricted scope of domestic sporting events rightly requires clarity on how the government will extend these provisions to these events, which currently operate independently of our operational support. And that is why we have brought forward this package of government amendments.
So firstly, turning to amendment 28, which removes the addition of national interest. This is because, as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation, such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There were already two framework conditions. The first condition is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and the second condition is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK, or the event must be of strategic value, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria.
Next, Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events referred to in the Bill as domestic sporting events. These are defined under Government Amendment 25 as a sporting event, which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority. Requesting that the framework be applied. The event organizer must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to their event. The Secretary of State or devolved governments may then consider such events on a case by case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events.
This is a necessary distinction for the cohort of domestic sporting events, which currently are both numerous and run independently of government. These independent events are not routinely subject to government evaluation, which could otherwise inform a decision to extend these provisions. This amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that the provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. This then allows government to ensure they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.
A further, I will give way. Yeah.
09:57
James Naish
-
-
James Naish
Thank you very much for giving way. She well knows that Trent Bridge is based in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and I'm just wondering what an event like the Ash is, what sort of category that might fall into, where collectively it's an international, internationally significant event, but actually it's a roaming event and that it goes from different locations. I'm just wondering whether that would fall under this category or a different category.
09:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. Any sporting event can apply. It would be an evidence based threshold on royal assent. We will publish the application process. So happy to follow up in writing with him, but they will be able to apply and make a case, and then it will be on a case by case basis. Further safeguard to ensure the proportionality of applying these measures is set out in amendment 31, which adds a sunset provision which ensures that regulations applying provisions to recurrent events may not run past five years. This is to ensure that no event should benefit from these provisions in perpetuity.
In perpetuity, without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. This does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in Group 12, I will set out some additional safeguards that the government considers necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate. Turning to Government Amendment 24, after extensive exploration, the government believes that the transport provisions within the Bill do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events, and they already benefit from.
They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time limited events, with the powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of this provision would not materially add to this government support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we won't pursue legislation we believe is not materially useful. And finally, turning to new clause 14. As this committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable.
In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry on enforcement of the advertising and trading offences. Under the bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point, and that is why New clause 14 introduced a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences. For current events. Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that they have incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events.
This includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the cost of administering an authorization process and engage with the local businesses. It is fair and proportionate that financial beneficiaries of provision should pay for additional burdens of enforcement, rather than British taxpayers. That provision is deliberately broad. It will allow enforcement authorities and event organisers to agree the details, such as how and when payments are made on a case by case basis. Guidance to the sector will, however, emphasise that this applies only to additional unfunded burdens and does not replace existing regulatory and enforcement arrangements.
Neither should enforcement authorities use the provision for an event as wrong party to cover prosecution costs. This new clause provides the mechanism for local authorities and other enforcement authorities to recover the costs of the regulatory services they provide for recurrent events. I beg to move these amendments.
In perpetuity, without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. This does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in Group 12, I will set out some additional safeguards that the government considers necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate. Turning to Government Amendment 24, after extensive exploration, the government believes that the transport provisions within the Bill do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events, and they already benefit from.
They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time limited events, with the powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of this provision would not materially add to this government support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we won't pursue legislation we believe is not materially useful. And finally, turning to new clause 14. As this committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable.
In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry on enforcement of the advertising and trading offences. Under the bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point, and that is why New clause 14 introduced a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences. For current events. Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that they have incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events.
This includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the cost of administering an authorization process and engage with the local businesses. It is fair and proportionate that financial beneficiaries of provision should pay for additional burdens of enforcement, rather than British taxpayers. That provision is deliberately broad. It will allow enforcement authorities and event organisers to agree the details, such as how and when payments are made on a case by case basis. Guidance to the sector will, however, emphasise that this applies only to additional unfunded burdens and does not replace existing regulatory and enforcement arrangements.
Neither should enforcement authorities use the provision for an event as wrong party to cover prosecution costs. This new clause provides the mechanism for local authorities and other enforcement authorities to recover the costs of the regulatory services they provide for recurrent events. I beg to move these amendments.
10:00
10:00
10:00
Anna Sabine
-
-
Anna Sabine
In this group I would intend to call a division on all the amendments which provide for an additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events under amendment 30. And I'd also like to speak to the Division on amendment 28. And in the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the scope of this bill to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. This was an amendment that received great support from the industry, with bodies like the England and Wales Cricket board, Formula One, the Lawn Tennis Association, the FA, the London Marathon and the RFU.
Signing our letter to push for this amendment to the Bill, which was then voted through. I was pleased in the second reading to hear the Minister accept this amended scope. However, I'm concerned that the amendments tabled here don't deliver this. I understand the government's intention. Not every Premier League match had received the specific benefit of this bill, but amendment 28 removes national interest from the sporting events framework. This would significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters, in particular for women's sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention.
So I would seek clarification today. Can the minister confirm that major national events like Wimbledon remain covered by the provisions in this bill?
Signing our letter to push for this amendment to the Bill, which was then voted through. I was pleased in the second reading to hear the Minister accept this amended scope. However, I'm concerned that the amendments tabled here don't deliver this. I understand the government's intention. Not every Premier League match had received the specific benefit of this bill, but amendment 28 removes national interest from the sporting events framework. This would significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters, in particular for women's sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention.
So I would seek clarification today. Can the minister confirm that major national events like Wimbledon remain covered by the provisions in this bill?
10:01
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chair. And this group of amendments tabled by the government is part of the changes they seek to make in relation to the application of sporting events framework. I'm grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these with me and her thinking behind them last week. It includes changes, as we've heard, which define a domestic sporting event, mean that sporting events, the sporting events framework, could be applied to a sporting event only if it's likely to be of significant international interest. Provide for additional condition which must be met in the case of domestic sporting events.
Provide the regulations under section two, which relate to sporting. Domestic sporting events cease to have effect after a certain period of time, and mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting events. The Minister has assured me that there is broad support amongst stakeholders for these tweaks the government is seeking to make. But, Madam Chairman, it also includes new clause 14, which would insert a new clause after clause 21, the maximum penalty amount amounts which would enable certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.
The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance have written in last night, I suspect, to a number of MPs in this committee because they are concerned that it opens a precedent for where the victim of an offence is required to pay for the enforcement of that offence. Now, the Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world and for major events around the Home Office's ongoing engagement with the police, for example, around how costs are split by that split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. So it is a concern that on this side of the House we do have, and I'm particularly keen to hear the Minister on what reassurance she can provide the Committee today that this precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major events and domestic events.
More broadly, I am pleased that the government has seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place, but I do understand the comments being made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I'm very keen to hear the minister's response and see what assurances can provide this committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Provide the regulations under section two, which relate to sporting. Domestic sporting events cease to have effect after a certain period of time, and mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting events. The Minister has assured me that there is broad support amongst stakeholders for these tweaks the government is seeking to make. But, Madam Chairman, it also includes new clause 14, which would insert a new clause after clause 21, the maximum penalty amount amounts which would enable certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.
The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance have written in last night, I suspect, to a number of MPs in this committee because they are concerned that it opens a precedent for where the victim of an offence is required to pay for the enforcement of that offence. Now, the Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world and for major events around the Home Office's ongoing engagement with the police, for example, around how costs are split by that split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. So it is a concern that on this side of the House we do have, and I'm particularly keen to hear the Minister on what reassurance she can provide the Committee today that this precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major events and domestic events.
More broadly, I am pleased that the government has seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place, but I do understand the comments being made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I'm very keen to hear the minister's response and see what assurances can provide this committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
10:04
10:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm grateful to the contribution for both the opposition spokesperson and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, indeed, for their time last week to discuss this. As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, the government has listened and acknowledged that we needed to go further. And as I set out in my contribution, there are certain conditions that will need to be met in order for recurrent events to meet the criteria in order to receive the protections. And as I outlined previously, that's wholly or partly held in the United Kingdom and of significant international interest and likely to bring social or economic benefits, I will give way.
Yeah, very.
Yeah, very.
10:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Grateful to Mr. Liberal spokesperson referenced Wimbledon. I think that would be a very good example of an event which clearly does have international interest. I've been watching the tournament for 30 years. There are players from all across the world, so I hope she stands reassured that that is precisely the type of event that will be protected under the bill.
10:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The honourable gentleman's done my job before me then. Not at all. Absolutely fine. I was I was just about coming on to say. And of course, the event also must be of strategic value to help us secure other events. But to answer the specific question, yes, we would anticipate Wimbledon, the open, Silverstone, for example, the marathon, all would be the sorts of events. I discussed this with both honourable members last week, but as I outlined in answer to the intervention I took earlier, all events can. A wide range of events can apply, but there is an evidential threshold in order for them to meet to to receive those powers.
And it's worth noting, of course, they may not want all of the powers in this bill. They may simply want some of them. In answer to the point the honourable gentleman made around New Clause 14. Of course, I did outline the reasons why we have. We included that. Of course, it is a balance to be taken, but we don't believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers. I will give way.
Yes.
And it's worth noting, of course, they may not want all of the powers in this bill. They may simply want some of them. In answer to the point the honourable gentleman made around New Clause 14. Of course, I did outline the reasons why we have. We included that. Of course, it is a balance to be taken, but we don't believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers. I will give way.
Yes.
10:05
James Naish
-
-
James Naish
Thank you very much for giving way. Just a small moment. I don't think is covered by this particular clause. So maybe she can confirm that. But it is very important to my constituents where you have three international venues, all very close by, is parking and the cost of parking enforcement. I wonder whether there's anything that she would consider around support for local authorities who take on that extra burden when these major events come to town.
10:06
10:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
For your itinerant events, transport provisions in this bill. But in this group of amendments, we are talking about the recurrent events, and we have exempted them from the transport provisions because in consultation and conversation with both the events and local authorities, they already have transport plans in place. Of course, I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level, and I've seen that obviously in my own area of Barnsley, can cause challenges, particularly where transport and perhaps I could reflect his comments to the relevant Transport Minister. So for for those reasons, I hope I've answered the points that both members have made.
10:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that the government Amendment 22 be made, as many as are of the opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendment 21, 23 and 24. Clause two have been debated in Group four. The leader of the committee. I'll put a single question on those amendments. I call the minister to move the amendments formally.
10:07
10:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that government amendments 21, 23 and 24 be made, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group five, an amendment to clause two, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment ten and clause two stand part. Call Mr. Louis French to move amendment nine.
10:07
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will start with new clause two and what it's seeking to achieve. And this is the application of the framework to major sporting events. This clause establishes how sporting events framework can be applied to individual sporting events. It gives the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved governments powers to apply ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions, while the Secretary of State can also apply unauthorised association and transport provisions. These powers, however, can only be utilised where the event meets the conditions as set out in clause three. The regulations also can cover connected events, such as cultural events that are held in connection with the main sporting event.
This clause also established the scrutiny procedures for these regulations. Madam chairman, moving on to the amendments, I beg to move that amendment nine tabled in my name stamped out of this bill. The amendment would set a maximum period in which sporting framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event. As the Bill stands, there is no limit for which the regulations made under this bill can be in effect. Madam chairman, we think this is a clear admission. The framework as designed applies to specific and time limited events. Therefore, it seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to remain extend extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate.
Our amendment proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit to those powers. As honourable members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic Games between them spanned 45 days. The UEFA European Championships runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes around 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. This balanced approach gives both a generous margin for organisers with which to operate, while also giving Parliament the public the reassurance that these powers do not accidentally remain in place beyond the event's needs. I'm sure that the minister will echo the comments of the minister in the other place and say that there is a need for flexibility, and we understand the need for this.
However, just as my my noble friend the Lord Parkinson, asked the noble minister, I would also be interested to know what event she has in mind that may require a longer period than this, particularly as the Minister has now tabled Government Amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the committee why one event would need a time limit, but the others would not, given they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework. If flexibility is the key, then my amendment hopefully helps provide the solution. I hope Madam Chairman of this committee will agree with me that this amendment helps to dovetail the intentions of the Bill, the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished.
Now, moving on to the amendment, I also beg to move amendment ten also in my name, a stand part of the bill. This amendment would ensure that all regulations apply to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both houses as drafted. This bill provides the affirmative procedure procedure to apply only on the first set of regulations, establishing the framework for a particular event. Any subsequent regulations which amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure. My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause two are subject to affirmative procedures.
The principle here is straightforward. We are talking about a framework which could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic Games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These are matters which warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. Madam chair, I hope you and the committee will agree with me that Parliament should therefore , have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under this clause, not just the first set.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson, that hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time limited guillotines on secondary legislation will still be in place. And it's such an eloquent comment. I want to be clear that's his and not mine. It is in Delegated Powers memorandum. The Department for culture, Media and Sport argues the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail, or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event.
However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to the arrangements already in place. It's difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework, while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes to proceed without the same level of scrutiny or indeed any scrutiny. Madam chair, if the government's argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest that the Minister and this committee that this is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far reaching consequences.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and I beg to move.
This clause also established the scrutiny procedures for these regulations. Madam chairman, moving on to the amendments, I beg to move that amendment nine tabled in my name stamped out of this bill. The amendment would set a maximum period in which sporting framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event. As the Bill stands, there is no limit for which the regulations made under this bill can be in effect. Madam chairman, we think this is a clear admission. The framework as designed applies to specific and time limited events. Therefore, it seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to remain extend extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate.
Our amendment proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit to those powers. As honourable members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic Games between them spanned 45 days. The UEFA European Championships runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes around 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. This balanced approach gives both a generous margin for organisers with which to operate, while also giving Parliament the public the reassurance that these powers do not accidentally remain in place beyond the event's needs. I'm sure that the minister will echo the comments of the minister in the other place and say that there is a need for flexibility, and we understand the need for this.
However, just as my my noble friend the Lord Parkinson, asked the noble minister, I would also be interested to know what event she has in mind that may require a longer period than this, particularly as the Minister has now tabled Government Amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the committee why one event would need a time limit, but the others would not, given they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework. If flexibility is the key, then my amendment hopefully helps provide the solution. I hope Madam Chairman of this committee will agree with me that this amendment helps to dovetail the intentions of the Bill, the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished.
Now, moving on to the amendment, I also beg to move amendment ten also in my name, a stand part of the bill. This amendment would ensure that all regulations apply to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both houses as drafted. This bill provides the affirmative procedure procedure to apply only on the first set of regulations, establishing the framework for a particular event. Any subsequent regulations which amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure. My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause two are subject to affirmative procedures.
The principle here is straightforward. We are talking about a framework which could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic Games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These are matters which warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. Madam chair, I hope you and the committee will agree with me that Parliament should therefore , have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under this clause, not just the first set.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson, that hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time limited guillotines on secondary legislation will still be in place. And it's such an eloquent comment. I want to be clear that's his and not mine. It is in Delegated Powers memorandum. The Department for culture, Media and Sport argues the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail, or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event.
However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to the arrangements already in place. It's difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework, while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes to proceed without the same level of scrutiny or indeed any scrutiny. Madam chair, if the government's argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest that the Minister and this committee that this is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far reaching consequences.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and I beg to move.
10:12
10:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. I'm grateful. Chair, I'd like to speak to clause two, which provides the mechanism by which the framework established in the Bill can be applied to individual events. Major sporting events differ in scale, in geography and in specific operational challenges. They present. Therefore, right. The Bill does not seek to seek to impose a one size fits all regime in every case. Clause two enables the framework to be tailored to the circumstances of a particular event, applying only those provisions that are necessary and proportionate. There is no appetite to put in place measures that are not needed.
This is a practical approach, but it's also a responsible one. The power is not open ended. Regulations may be made only where the condition is in the framework are all met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause two will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The clause also provides important clarity about the way in which this bill operates across the UK, because this is a bill that has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right we look to ensure every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation.
Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory. Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate a UK wide approach is most desirable and I'll say more about that when we come to clause five, only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association, as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied to the Secretary of State. The Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations, as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved governments were content, they already had adequate provision.
Transport coordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved governments and the delivery partners, ensuring arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation, whilst supporting coherent UK wide delivery of major events. In short, clause two provides the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It also ensures that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied, and having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each of the powers in this clause for an event must be subject to debate.
I'd now like to turn to amendment nine, tabled by the honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. The Bill needs flexibility to apply provisions on a case by case basis according to the needs of each event, where it is sensible to set clear limits, the Bill already does so. The advertising and trading offences can apply for no more than ten days before an event begin, and must end no later than five days after it concludes. In practice. For most locations, they will be enforced for a far shorter period than that. A blanket 50 day cap would undermine other provisions in the bill.
Ticketing protections, for example, will need to be in place before tickets for an event go on sale. And for many major sporting events, this is more than a year in advance. The unauthorised association provision should last only as long as is needed to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event for itinerant events. This will typically affect the period between awarding the hosting rights and the delivery of the event itself. For recurrent events, we've been we've brought forward an amendment limiting their application to no more than 28 days before an event begins and seven days after it ends.
Our approach is simple powers should last no longer than necessary, but they must remain available for as long as required. And that is why he asked the question about why they're different. We have taken we've focused on proportionality for recurrent events, as they obviously happen every year. Amendment ten would ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. In the other place, we brought forward amendments to ensure that all regulations apply in the provisions will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In other words, they will come before Parliament for a full debate and scrutiny.
There is only one exception where urgency demands it. In such exceptional circumstances, such as last minute changes to the competition schedule, we would use the made affirmative resolution procedure. This means regulations come into force before they are debated in Parliament. This allows us to act quickly if needed, while also enabling parliamentary oversight. We introduce those amendments having listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and having reflected closely on the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I hope, therefore, that these changes reassure the honourable member that we are committed to both parliamentary oversight and practical delivery.
This is a practical approach, but it's also a responsible one. The power is not open ended. Regulations may be made only where the condition is in the framework are all met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause two will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The clause also provides important clarity about the way in which this bill operates across the UK, because this is a bill that has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right we look to ensure every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation.
Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory. Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate a UK wide approach is most desirable and I'll say more about that when we come to clause five, only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association, as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied to the Secretary of State. The Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations, as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved governments were content, they already had adequate provision.
Transport coordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved governments and the delivery partners, ensuring arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation, whilst supporting coherent UK wide delivery of major events. In short, clause two provides the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It also ensures that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied, and having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each of the powers in this clause for an event must be subject to debate.
I'd now like to turn to amendment nine, tabled by the honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. The Bill needs flexibility to apply provisions on a case by case basis according to the needs of each event, where it is sensible to set clear limits, the Bill already does so. The advertising and trading offences can apply for no more than ten days before an event begin, and must end no later than five days after it concludes. In practice. For most locations, they will be enforced for a far shorter period than that. A blanket 50 day cap would undermine other provisions in the bill.
Ticketing protections, for example, will need to be in place before tickets for an event go on sale. And for many major sporting events, this is more than a year in advance. The unauthorised association provision should last only as long as is needed to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event for itinerant events. This will typically affect the period between awarding the hosting rights and the delivery of the event itself. For recurrent events, we've been we've brought forward an amendment limiting their application to no more than 28 days before an event begins and seven days after it ends.
Our approach is simple powers should last no longer than necessary, but they must remain available for as long as required. And that is why he asked the question about why they're different. We have taken we've focused on proportionality for recurrent events, as they obviously happen every year. Amendment ten would ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. In the other place, we brought forward amendments to ensure that all regulations apply in the provisions will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In other words, they will come before Parliament for a full debate and scrutiny.
There is only one exception where urgency demands it. In such exceptional circumstances, such as last minute changes to the competition schedule, we would use the made affirmative resolution procedure. This means regulations come into force before they are debated in Parliament. This allows us to act quickly if needed, while also enabling parliamentary oversight. We introduce those amendments having listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and having reflected closely on the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I hope, therefore, that these changes reassure the honourable member that we are committed to both parliamentary oversight and practical delivery.
10:16
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is the government amendment 25 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause two, as amended, stand part which has just been debated. The question is that clause two, as amended, stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendment 26 to clause three was debated with Government amendment 22 in Group four.
I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
10:18
10:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that government Amendment 26 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group six, led by amendment 15 to clause three, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment 16 and 17 in clauses three and four stand part I call Anna Sabine to move. Amendment 15.
10:18
10:18
Anna Sabine
-
-
Anna Sabine
I wish to speak to amendments 15, 16 and 17 in my name together, and in which for which we do intend this time to call a division any sporting event falling under this bill, and especially any sporting events receiving financial support from the government, should be free to air. Sport is a huge part of our culture. We get to the topic of. We get to the topic of tickets later in this debate, but the reality is it's expensive to see sports live. We can all agree that being able to watch England play football in the World Cup should be free for everyone to watch on the TV.
This amendment would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under this bill, and especially when government funding is going towards that event, will be able to do so for free. Public service broadcasters have pioneered free to air coverage and have demonstrated that this has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV, and research by the Women's Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free to air directly, free to air directly impacts how many people are watching women's sport.
These amendments not only ensure that every fan is able to watch their team play, but it also ensures that emerging sports funded by the government are provided for through this bill, are accessible for all to see. Thank you.
This amendment would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under this bill, and especially when government funding is going towards that event, will be able to do so for free. Public service broadcasters have pioneered free to air coverage and have demonstrated that this has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV, and research by the Women's Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free to air directly, free to air directly impacts how many people are watching women's sport.
These amendments not only ensure that every fan is able to watch their team play, but it also ensures that emerging sports funded by the government are provided for through this bill, are accessible for all to see. Thank you.
10:19
10:19
Jim Dickson
-
-
Jim Dickson
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll start with clause three. In the framework condition, this clause sets out the conditions that must be satisfied. Satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and meet either significant or strategic priorities to meet the significant priorities, the sporting event must be of significant international or national interest. With a sporting event or organiser that has asked for the framework to be applied, and event must likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the United Kingdom.
The Framework Conditions Clause three set out the criteria for what may be taken into account in determining if a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. This includes the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected from outside the UK. To meet the strategic priorities, it must be proven that hosting a sporting event will improve the UK's chance of securing hosting rights. Two events that meet the significant priorities, and I think all members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events.
And that is obviously something that goes across party and often, often successive governments start the bid and then another government, government hosts it. Clause four on the restriction of application of framework, this clause sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility. With the full authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority's consent. At the same time, the clause sets out, the devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where tickets out provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly with the relevant devolved territory.
Now, amendment 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would would require all sporting events hosting under this bill to be made available free to air. And, Madam Chair, understandably, this has raised a number of concerns amongst sporting bodies themselves. Now, before I get into the details of why these amendments would not just upset the applecart, but would risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I would start by disagreeing with the terminology free to air as my own, as my noble friend, the Lord Hayward pointed out during committee stage. In the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence.
Therefore, these events are never free to air. Secondly, I would add that a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieving the expansion of sports coverage, which I do agree with the intentions of that amendment, than a blanket ban, which will likely have unintended consequences due to the complexities of global broadcast deals. Because at a glance, it may well sound like an attractive proposition designed to appeal to liberal Democrats across the Home counties. And while we do all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy a major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy, and these amendments risk doing real damage to the very sports they are meant to support.
Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down through the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation, hopefully world beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League's current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over the next four years. The EFL deal, again, is another example.
Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. These agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it. Madam chairman, the question the Liberal Democrats are simple is a simple one. If there are amendments, put their income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain the facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I do appreciate that there are amendments start as a major events hosted under the framework this bill provides for, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA can not sell their broadcast rights at market value.
The effects. The effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens, Madam Chair, I can answer for them. It will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made available free to air. Its popular, I understand it, but someone still has to pay for the rights the broadcaster. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport.
They will be felt throughout the sport, sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment. The Liberal Democrats should also recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In fact, in 2024 2025 financial year, UK sports invested a record 213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary Code of Conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested 1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter, Madam Chair. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment into sports, not introducing blanket restrictions that undermine risk undermining at any level.
That is particularly important at a time when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this government. The bill, this bill and the Liberal Democrats should not be adding further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport for amendments that could jeopardize jeopardize the broadcasting review upon which it depends. Let me be clear. Once again, I want more people watching major sporting events. I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes families to enjoy the biggest occasions in British sport, to reach the widest possible audience. But we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive.
We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports. The answer is to review the listed events regime, to make most, to make and to make. Most of the commercial broadcasting agreements encourage investment in grassroots sports, and to ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which the ecosystem would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular without adequately addressing the clear consequences.
Madam chair.
The Framework Conditions Clause three set out the criteria for what may be taken into account in determining if a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. This includes the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected from outside the UK. To meet the strategic priorities, it must be proven that hosting a sporting event will improve the UK's chance of securing hosting rights. Two events that meet the significant priorities, and I think all members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events.
And that is obviously something that goes across party and often, often successive governments start the bid and then another government, government hosts it. Clause four on the restriction of application of framework, this clause sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility. With the full authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority's consent. At the same time, the clause sets out, the devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where tickets out provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly with the relevant devolved territory.
Now, amendment 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would would require all sporting events hosting under this bill to be made available free to air. And, Madam Chair, understandably, this has raised a number of concerns amongst sporting bodies themselves. Now, before I get into the details of why these amendments would not just upset the applecart, but would risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I would start by disagreeing with the terminology free to air as my own, as my noble friend, the Lord Hayward pointed out during committee stage. In the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence.
Therefore, these events are never free to air. Secondly, I would add that a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieving the expansion of sports coverage, which I do agree with the intentions of that amendment, than a blanket ban, which will likely have unintended consequences due to the complexities of global broadcast deals. Because at a glance, it may well sound like an attractive proposition designed to appeal to liberal Democrats across the Home counties. And while we do all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy a major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy, and these amendments risk doing real damage to the very sports they are meant to support.
Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down through the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation, hopefully world beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League's current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over the next four years. The EFL deal, again, is another example.
Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. These agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it. Madam chairman, the question the Liberal Democrats are simple is a simple one. If there are amendments, put their income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain the facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I do appreciate that there are amendments start as a major events hosted under the framework this bill provides for, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA can not sell their broadcast rights at market value.
The effects. The effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens, Madam Chair, I can answer for them. It will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made available free to air. Its popular, I understand it, but someone still has to pay for the rights the broadcaster. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport.
They will be felt throughout the sport, sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment. The Liberal Democrats should also recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In fact, in 2024 2025 financial year, UK sports invested a record 213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary Code of Conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested 1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter, Madam Chair. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment into sports, not introducing blanket restrictions that undermine risk undermining at any level.
That is particularly important at a time when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this government. The bill, this bill and the Liberal Democrats should not be adding further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport for amendments that could jeopardize jeopardize the broadcasting review upon which it depends. Let me be clear. Once again, I want more people watching major sporting events. I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes families to enjoy the biggest occasions in British sport, to reach the widest possible audience. But we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive.
We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports. The answer is to review the listed events regime, to make most, to make and to make. Most of the commercial broadcasting agreements encourage investment in grassroots sports, and to ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which the ecosystem would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular without adequately addressing the clear consequences.
Madam chair.
10:26
10:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I break for chair. Firstly, I'd like to say I'm grateful to the honourable member for Somerset for tabling amendments 15, 16 and 17 and for the thoughtful points that she has raised. These amendments seek to add further condition which the Secretary of State and devolved governments must consider is met in order for the provisions of the Sporting Events Bill to be applied to a sporting event or for an event to rely on funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of that event must be available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom licensed platform, accessible without a subscription.
The government recognises the intent behind these amendments and is committed to ensuring major sporting events are accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom. However, these amendments are not ones the government can accept decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events. And indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in some detail some of the figures associated with this.
The amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the bill provides for. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to a wider audience as possible, by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of that event without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders to specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much needed revenue and ensuring access to sport coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.
The government recognises the intent behind these amendments and is committed to ensuring major sporting events are accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom. However, these amendments are not ones the government can accept decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events. And indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in some detail some of the figures associated with this.
The amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the bill provides for. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to a wider audience as possible, by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of that event without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders to specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much needed revenue and ensuring access to sport coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.
10:27
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Rights holders to specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much needed revenue and ensuring access to sport coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and. development of the sport. Turning briefly to clause three. This sets out sets out the. conditions a sporting event must meet before the bill's framework provisions can be applied to it. As we have had a thorough debate on this matter in Group four, I hope the Committee agree it is not necessary to revisit these points. And finally, moving on to clause four, which ensures that the bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope.
The clause makes clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing. advertising and trading to a sporting event in areas of devolved. competence without their consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may only exercise these powers where the matters fall within their legislative.
The clause makes clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing. advertising and trading to a sporting event in areas of devolved. competence without their consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may only exercise these powers where the matters fall within their legislative.
10:28
10:28
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Where the ticketing provisions are being applied, the event in question must also take place at least partly within the territory. The devolved authority making the regulations. This clause is therefore an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world class events .
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Opinion, say I, I the contrary. No. No. Division vision. Room 11. Okay. John Cooper. Abstain. Jim. Dixon. Louis. French. Helen. Grant. Abstain. Rachel. Hopkins. No. Andrew. Lewin. No. Alex.
Maier no. Navendu. Mishra. Edward. Morella I. James. Nash no. Matthew Patrick. No. Stephanie. Peacock. No. Shivani. Raja. Martin. Rhodes. No. Anna. Sabine I .
Maier no. Navendu. Mishra. Edward. Morella I. James. Nash no. Matthew Patrick. No. Stephanie. Peacock. No. Shivani. Raja. Martin. Rhodes. No. Anna. Sabine I .
10:29
10:29
10:30
10:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Government amendment 27 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. At number 28. Even a push a vote on government amendment 28. No. Government amendment. 28 to 30 to clause three were debated with government amendment 22 in Group four. With the leave of the committee, I will put a single question on the amendments.
I call the Minister to move the amendments formally. Formally, the question is that .
I call the Minister to move the amendments formally. Formally, the question is that .
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:32
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
The question is that clause five stand part of the bill. Minister clause five deals with the important issue of ticketing. It is integral to the framework provisions within this bill and in particular, to delivering the requirements of major sporting events owners when we seek and secure events hosted in the UK. The ticketing provisions in this bill are time limited and designed to ensure that tickets can only be resold with the authorisation for an event owner or organiser. Clause five provides that any. regulations applying to the ticketing measures must specify the period for which those measures are to apply.
This ensures that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the particular. circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important given that these provisions fall within devolved competence. We expect the effectiveness of these provisions to be significantly reduced if there is an. inconsistency in their. application or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. And that is precisely why clause five is so important.
It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis, where the consent of the devolved government has been secured. The government's strong preference is, of course, for a. coherent UK wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event.
This ensures that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the particular. circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important given that these provisions fall within devolved competence. We expect the effectiveness of these provisions to be significantly reduced if there is an. inconsistency in their. application or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. And that is precisely why clause five is so important.
It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis, where the consent of the devolved government has been secured. The government's strong preference is, of course, for a. coherent UK wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event.
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Such as the sale and resale of tickets. Only a person who is suitable can be designated to grant authorisations. In effect, this means they have the primary right to sell tickets to an event which we expect would only include an event owner or organiser. The event owner. organiser could then determine who authorised based on commercial.
10:34
10:34
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
As unauthorised public resale will be a criminal offence. The government expects that accessible authorised channels will be made available for the resale of tickets, where people can no longer attend an event, conditions may be imposed upon an event owner or organiser who can authorise ticket sales, for example, requiring them to maintain a register of platforms that can legally sell. Before I conclude, it is worth touching on our manifesto commitment to ban ticket touting, and this nods to the new clause ten and 11, tabled by the honourable member for Frome and Somerset, which we will consider later in the Committee.
I understand and indeed share the objectives that underpin these amendments, and that's why, at the second reading, the Secretary of State affirmed our intention to treat this piece of legislation as a priority to ensure that we get it on the statute book. That bill will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all events, including those captured under this bill, and it will provide strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. This will ensure, regardless of the event, that fans are treated fairly and have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market, fans should take further confidence that UEFA has already confirmed for Euro.
2028 that we know dynamic pricing, with more than 40% of tickets made available .
I understand and indeed share the objectives that underpin these amendments, and that's why, at the second reading, the Secretary of State affirmed our intention to treat this piece of legislation as a priority to ensure that we get it on the statute book. That bill will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all events, including those captured under this bill, and it will provide strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. This will ensure, regardless of the event, that fans are treated fairly and have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market, fans should take further confidence that UEFA has already confirmed for Euro.
2028 that we know dynamic pricing, with more than 40% of tickets made available .
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Clause seven stand part. I call Mr. Louis French to move amendment 11. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as we are debating tickets out. regulations particularly related to football, it's probably it's probably right that I disclose that I did attend the FIFA World Cup in a private capacity and bought my own ticket. So just in case we get. Just in case we get a mention of FIFA anywhere. Yes. So clause seven, the exceptions to the ticket touting offence. This clause allows regulations to specify activities that are exempt from the ticket touting events. In doing so, it gives the appropriate national authority flexibility to accommodate legitimate activities that should not be prohibited.
And my amendment 11. A new clause six is a relatively small one, Madam Chair, which would enable the charitable resale of tickets. I'm sure the committee would agree with me that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises fact, but asserted, and I quote, it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket. exemption as this could undermine the Bill's objective. I'm not sure which objective it would undermine. Madam chair, one of the premises under which the government has brought forward this bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and social good for the United Kingdom.
Madam chair, one of the key vessels through which social good can be delivered. Charities are. So why is it that government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities and why they are prioritising, for example, FIFA's ability to resell tickets tickets at a hugely inflated price instead of the money going towards a good cause or to a charity? I think, Madam Chair, the problem here is one of confusion among the government in one part of the bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and ticket resale sites, as we've just heard, whether it's Viagogo or StubHub, should not be able to make significant profits from the service they do.
And in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, as a result of this, this bill, as it stands, eliminates the ability for charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for the good cause. Instead, the noble minister said that charity, and I quote charities looking to raise money for themselves, will be able to apply for the. authorization to auction tickets. This request should be considered on a case by case basis.
And my amendment 11. A new clause six is a relatively small one, Madam Chair, which would enable the charitable resale of tickets. I'm sure the committee would agree with me that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises fact, but asserted, and I quote, it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket. exemption as this could undermine the Bill's objective. I'm not sure which objective it would undermine. Madam chair, one of the premises under which the government has brought forward this bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and social good for the United Kingdom.
Madam chair, one of the key vessels through which social good can be delivered. Charities are. So why is it that government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities and why they are prioritising, for example, FIFA's ability to resell tickets tickets at a hugely inflated price instead of the money going towards a good cause or to a charity? I think, Madam Chair, the problem here is one of confusion among the government in one part of the bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and ticket resale sites, as we've just heard, whether it's Viagogo or StubHub, should not be able to make significant profits from the service they do.
And in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, as a result of this, this bill, as it stands, eliminates the ability for charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for the good cause. Instead, the noble minister said that charity, and I quote charities looking to raise money for themselves, will be able to apply for the. authorization to auction tickets. This request should be considered on a case by case basis.
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Competing against the likes of UEFA or FIFA and their international. infrastructure to simply auction a ticket to a sporting event in aid of a chosen cause. It is ridiculous to expect the vast majority of charities, often small, to be able to do this and in practice and in practice, creates a ban on these elections taking place, which will be to the .
10:37
10:37
10:38
10:38
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Can be applied to the way the offence operates. It is important to clarify here that the ticketing offence does not prohibit the transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. Clause seven enables regulations applying the ticketing provision to specify exceptions to the offence, which may include activities carried out by charities for charitable.
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
I've asked my officials to discuss this further with UEFA before we bring forward regulations next year, and I'm confident we can agree on an approach which supports the work of our fantastic charity sector and particularly local charities in our host cities, which of course speaks to the points made by the honourable gentleman and indeed amendments. 11 A new clause 16, tabled by the honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would create an exception to the ticketing offence on the face of the bill, where a ticket is sold by auction and the proceeds go to charity.
Fully recognise the spirit of this amendment, we listen carefully to concerns raised in the Other place about the potential impact of this framework on charitable fundraising, and that is precisely why the government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through. regulations in relation to activities carried out by. charities for charitable.
Fully recognise the spirit of this amendment, we listen carefully to concerns raised in the Other place about the potential impact of this framework on charitable fundraising, and that is precisely why the government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through. regulations in relation to activities carried out by. charities for charitable.
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And this means that it would not be an offence under this bill for a person to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from somebody else, unless the first person already knows, or will be reasonably expected to know that the second person is in fact touting a ticket to the event. This is a rather small and simple change, which would improve the protections for those who would, under its current drafting, be an inadvertently guilty of committing a crime. It is unreasonable to expect that everybody in the first person's shoes should know the entirety of the story of the second person, and how they come about the ticket.
If somebody is knowingly advertising a ticket, then of course they should face the full and proper penalties as provided for in this bill. I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree that this is a small and simple change that avoids trapping. unsuspecting persons in a legal mess because they have been misled or did not know by somebody else's actions. Now, moving on to amendment three in my name. This adds to the face of Bill, a requirement for any person granting a ticketing. authorization under this. paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event can be transferred or sold to another person.
The principle behind this amendment is straightforward people who purchase tickets to major sporting events should not be left out of pocket if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to attend. Life happens, people fall ill. Family commitments change. As we all know, as MPs and work or travel arrangements can fall through. It cannot be right that a fan who has paid good money for a ticket should have no reasonable means of transferring it to somebody else. Of course, Madam Chair, we recognize the importance of protecting phantom ticket touting, excessive resale prices and fraudulent activity.
Those are legitimate concerns. Whether there is a clear distinction between organised housing for profit and an ordinary supporter who simply wishes to recover the cost of the ticket they can no longer use. As the Lord Fuller said. In the other place, not only does the bill as it's drafted prevent the honest sale or transfer of a ticket, but find someone. £50,000 for trying it, in my view, unacceptable. Under this government you would perhaps get less of a punishment for burglary.
A properly managed transfer or resale mechanism can help to protect.
If somebody is knowingly advertising a ticket, then of course they should face the full and proper penalties as provided for in this bill. I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree that this is a small and simple change that avoids trapping. unsuspecting persons in a legal mess because they have been misled or did not know by somebody else's actions. Now, moving on to amendment three in my name. This adds to the face of Bill, a requirement for any person granting a ticketing. authorization under this. paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event can be transferred or sold to another person.
The principle behind this amendment is straightforward people who purchase tickets to major sporting events should not be left out of pocket if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to attend. Life happens, people fall ill. Family commitments change. As we all know, as MPs and work or travel arrangements can fall through. It cannot be right that a fan who has paid good money for a ticket should have no reasonable means of transferring it to somebody else. Of course, Madam Chair, we recognize the importance of protecting phantom ticket touting, excessive resale prices and fraudulent activity.
Those are legitimate concerns. Whether there is a clear distinction between organised housing for profit and an ordinary supporter who simply wishes to recover the cost of the ticket they can no longer use. As the Lord Fuller said. In the other place, not only does the bill as it's drafted prevent the honest sale or transfer of a ticket, but find someone. £50,000 for trying it, in my view, unacceptable. Under this government you would perhaps get less of a punishment for burglary.
A properly managed transfer or resale mechanism can help to protect.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Give organisers greater oversight of who holds a ticket, and reduce the incentive for fans to turn to an unofficial platforms on the black market, where the risk of fraud may be. considerably greater. This part of the bill is seemingly stuck in the past, as it fails to consider the ways fans can be protected from scammers with modern techniques. This includes providing. identity and internet.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Validates and authenticates tickets. That was a lot easier to read last night when I was preparing this. It is my. understanding that this my understanding this is something that the resale sector is calling for. But the ticket sales and distribution companies are refusing to engage with. Perhaps the minister would speak to her ministerial colleagues in both her department and in the Department for business, innovation, Science and. Technology to update me on discussions this government is having with the sector regarding the. introduction of Inter try again ability between ticket distribution companies and resale sites. This would hopefully allow those resale companies to prevent ghost ticketing and would help to facilitate a regular exchange between consenting adults.
No more fake tickets sold, no more disappointed fans. Would she undertake to ensure that her colleagues do this and perhaps write to me after the committee? If the government's aim is to protect consumers, and I'm sure it is, then there must be an ability for the fans who no longer need a ticket to be able to either resell the ticket or transfer it with little difficulty. The bill currently only allows for fans to sell their tickets back to the.
No more fake tickets sold, no more disappointed fans. Would she undertake to ensure that her colleagues do this and perhaps write to me after the committee? If the government's aim is to protect consumers, and I'm sure it is, then there must be an ability for the fans who no longer need a ticket to be able to either resell the ticket or transfer it with little difficulty. The bill currently only allows for fans to sell their tickets back to the.
10:45
10:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Who then have no cap on resale value of these tickets. In the other place, the noble Lord Fuller gave the good example of the World Cup and we're coming back to it again, madam. Madam chair, outrageous prices. I felt it myself. Ghost ticketing the 15% resale fees from monopoly suppliers and no regulatory regulated secondary market. It encourages fans to hang around on the.
10:45
10:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Which is a recipe for disaster and not in the best interests of all fans of the sport. If the bill is enacted, it would aid and abet these activities and prevent the government intervening. The minister would be giving the likes of FIFA the legal right to do whatever it wants to charge fans as much as they want. Major sporting events should be accessible to genuine supporters, and their ticketing arrangements should reflect the realities of everyday life. We should not create a system in which tickets become worthless to the person who purchased them, simply because they can no longer attend.
I would therefore welcome the Minister's thoughts on how this government intends to make sure that ticket audits have a practical and secure meaning, means of transferring or reselling tickets, while maintaining appropriate .
I would therefore welcome the Minister's thoughts on how this government intends to make sure that ticket audits have a practical and secure meaning, means of transferring or reselling tickets, while maintaining appropriate .
10:46
10:46
10:46
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
The question is the amendment be made, Minister? Thank you. I'll firstly speak to schedule one and then I'll come on to speak to the honourable member's amendment. Schedule one sets out the scope and detail of the tickets in offence and the enforcement measures available. Principally, the schedule sets out the criminal offence for the ticketing, but will only apply in part or parts of the United Kingdom that have been specified in the.
10:46
10:46
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
As this is a devolved area of competence, the Secretary of State can only apply the ticketing offences to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with their consent. An event ticket is defined as anything that is or claims to be, a ticket to the sporting event in question. This includes any opening or closing. ceremonies or connected events, such as the official cultural programmes, where those events are.
10:47
10:47
10:47
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Of warm up events. Would they also be covered by this schedule? We would, of course, set it out in. regulations depending on what event it is, but I would. The examples that you give, I would anticipate they would be included, but that would be for this House to to debate it as part of the. regulations for each event. It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, exposed for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase a certain circumstances. This includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace with a view to making a profit or in the course of a business.
Whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away such a ticket to someone who pays or agrees to pay for other goods and services. This would include where an event ticket is included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods and services. Penalty levels are designed to ensure there is sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than.
Whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away such a ticket to someone who pays or agrees to pay for other goods and services. This would include where an event ticket is included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods and services. Penalty levels are designed to ensure there is sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than.
10:48
10:48
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
And in Scotland to a fine not exceeding £20,000. Of course, on conviction or. indictment in Scotland to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect the differences in the judicial systems and legal framework across the UK. As an alternative prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts, as ticketing is not confined to the UK, ticketing offences are not confined to the UK. We must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside of our borders, and that is why a UK national , an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body.
incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland, can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK or in part of the UK, where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out a ticketing. activity in the course of businesses outside of the UK, in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided the UK connection connection condition is met. This is crucial in ensuring that we can take action against activity which affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carries out business in the UK, or direct their activity to people in the UK, enforcement authorities will have the power to impose financial penalties of up to.
£20,000 as an alternative to.
incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland, can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK or in part of the UK, where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out a ticketing. activity in the course of businesses outside of the UK, in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided the UK connection connection condition is met. This is crucial in ensuring that we can take action against activity which affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carries out business in the UK, or direct their activity to people in the UK, enforcement authorities will have the power to impose financial penalties of up to.
£20,000 as an alternative to.
10:49
10:49
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
While the level of penalty is at discretion of the enforcement authority, this can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out. There will be the right to appeal to the first tier tribunal and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures. Turning to Government Amendment 56, which addresses a drafting omission, it provides that reference to the sale of an event ticket in the bill includes reference to the giving an event ticket as a prize. This is the longstanding intention of this provision and ensures we can satisfy our hosting commitments.
This prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so, for example, because they are an official sponsor. Ultimately, this amendment will ensure that large businesses are not able to exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding events, which they have made no contribution. Government amendments. 57 to 16 in England and Wales and Northern Ireland that a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court.
This provides flexibility to accommodate different. arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and makes clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under the order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act of.
This prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so, for example, because they are an official sponsor. Ultimately, this amendment will ensure that large businesses are not able to exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding events, which they have made no contribution. Government amendments. 57 to 16 in England and Wales and Northern Ireland that a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court.
This provides flexibility to accommodate different. arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and makes clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under the order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act of.
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:51
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Amendment 12, tabled by the Honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence to the ticket touting offence. mirroring the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act of 2020. But the position in this Bill is different and that matters. Under the Birmingham Commonwealth Games.
10:51
10:51
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided they were not acting as a business that meant to avoid committing an offence. Someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of a business. A person could avoid. liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew or ought to have known that it was being sold commercially or for profit.
That introduced.
That introduced.
10:51
10:51
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
And a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this bill, the rule is clear it applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser. Amendment three also in the name of the honourable member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing. activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform.
The bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers from the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend are able to resell tickets legally and safely. I also want to reassure honourable member that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform, and regardless, the bill ensures fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value or advertise them through private social media channels.
For those reasons, I beg to move government amendments.
The bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers from the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend are able to resell tickets legally and safely. I also want to reassure honourable member that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform, and regardless, the bill ensures fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value or advertise them through private social media channels.
For those reasons, I beg to move government amendments.
10:53
10:53
10:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Withdraw his amendments three and 12. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my First Amendment and I appreciate the Minister's comments. As we said, we were trying to stop or hoping to stop a situation where an innocent member of the public perhaps shares a Facebook post and says, this person has got a ticket for sale at this game, are you interested? Or whatever the post may say. And that's what we're trying to achieve here. We don't want those type of people to accidentally get caught up by provisions in this act and face significant penalties. I've heard the minister's comments, but we do have concerns too, and we will look to push the vote on that.
Likewise, on amendment three, we again, we want fans to have the opportunity to have the ability to resell tickets if they're no longer attending. I've listened carefully to the minister's comments and I do appreciate them. I think our overall concern is that we end up with a. structure where the event organiser is effectively a monopoly that stops the ability for fans to transfer tickets as easy, and we are slightly concerned what that could mean for ticket resale prices.
Without that cap on the .
Likewise, on amendment three, we again, we want fans to have the opportunity to have the ability to resell tickets if they're no longer attending. I've listened carefully to the minister's comments and I do appreciate them. I think our overall concern is that we end up with a. structure where the event organiser is effectively a monopoly that stops the ability for fans to transfer tickets as easy, and we are slightly concerned what that could mean for ticket resale prices.
Without that cap on the .
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group ten, and the question of clause eight stand part with which it would be convenient to consider. Clauses nine and ten stand part government amendments. 61 and 62. Schedule two stand part and government amendments 45 and 48.
10:57
10:57
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Is that clause eight stand part of the bill, Minister? Thank you. Chair. I will speak to clause eight. To begin with, sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. Clause eight protects these commercial rights by preventing advertisers from ambushing an event to compete for brand exposure against official sponsors. Advertising activity, as defined in schedule two, is, and I quote. anything done wholly or partly for the purposes of promoting a product, service or business specifically to members of the public who are in restricted advertising zone, or watching or listening to a broadcast of the sporting event.
This clause ensures advertising restrictions are applied flexibly and.
This clause ensures advertising restrictions are applied flexibly and.
10:58
10:58
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Reflecting operational requirements. Regulations must make clear the places and periods to which the restrictions apply. A place may be specified only if it is being used for the sporting event itself , used in connection with it, such as a fan zone or a transport hub, and is in the vicinity of those.
10:58
10:58
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Such as key spectator routes. Proportionality is the underlying principle here as it is across the Bill. This clause limits restrictions to no earlier than ten days before and no later than five days after the event. Restricting advertising zones cover activity in the airspace above it and on waterways, or close enough to the zone to be seen from within it. This ensures the provisions are effective in practice, government will work closely with local authorities, event organisers, businesses and community groups to minimise the impact on existing businesses and local. communities where these regulations are applied. Clause nine deals with advertising authorities.
This clause provides a clear mechanism to allow advertisers, for example, a media owner operating in a restricted advertising zone to apply for permission to continue. advertising activity while restrictions are in place. We have made clear in the bill that the power to grant authorisation should only be exercised by a suitable body. In practice, this means a public body or a time limited private body set up to deliver a major sporting event, such as a local organising committee. Clause ten enables exceptions to the advertising offence to be set out in event specific regulations. Amongst other things, exceptions may apply to activities carried out for a specified purpose, which could mean selling or distributing a.
newspaper or by a specified description of a person, such as an event. organiser or a sponsor, in connection with existing advertising law. And I know we will come back to this point later in committee. There was understandable interest in the other place regarding protections around charities, and in response, we made clear that exceptions may include advertising carried out to promote. charitable to promote charities or services provided by. charities where an exception is provided. This means that a charity that has purchased and secured advertising space in a restricted zone would not require extra. permission to advertise.
We do not want vital public interest services such as suicide prevention helplines or foodbanks, to be inadvertently caught by the offence. Importantly, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted advertising zone , along with any other person considered appropriate. This will include, for example, event. organisers and representatives of the advertising industry. I'm happy to set this intention on the record. I'm grateful for the engagement of industry bodies, including the Advertising Association. Today, schedule two sets out the detailed framework for the advertising events, authorised advertising and fixed penalty notice.
The schedule creates a time limited criminal offence in England and Wales. The offender may face an unlimited fine on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, a fine of up to. £50,000 in Scotland, a fine of up to. £20,000 or a fine on conviction on indictment. This is to accommodate the different forms of trial. procedures and respective penalties across the different UK legal jurisdictions. Advertising activity will not be an offence where it has been authorised under this bill or where an exception applies. The schedule also enables enforcement authorities to issue fixed penalty notices where they have a reason to believe that an advertising offence has been committed that provides a.
proportionate and effective alternative to prosecution. The fixed penalty will be set by the enforcement authority to a maximum of.
This clause provides a clear mechanism to allow advertisers, for example, a media owner operating in a restricted advertising zone to apply for permission to continue. advertising activity while restrictions are in place. We have made clear in the bill that the power to grant authorisation should only be exercised by a suitable body. In practice, this means a public body or a time limited private body set up to deliver a major sporting event, such as a local organising committee. Clause ten enables exceptions to the advertising offence to be set out in event specific regulations. Amongst other things, exceptions may apply to activities carried out for a specified purpose, which could mean selling or distributing a.
newspaper or by a specified description of a person, such as an event. organiser or a sponsor, in connection with existing advertising law. And I know we will come back to this point later in committee. There was understandable interest in the other place regarding protections around charities, and in response, we made clear that exceptions may include advertising carried out to promote. charitable to promote charities or services provided by. charities where an exception is provided. This means that a charity that has purchased and secured advertising space in a restricted zone would not require extra. permission to advertise.
We do not want vital public interest services such as suicide prevention helplines or foodbanks, to be inadvertently caught by the offence. Importantly, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted advertising zone , along with any other person considered appropriate. This will include, for example, event. organisers and representatives of the advertising industry. I'm happy to set this intention on the record. I'm grateful for the engagement of industry bodies, including the Advertising Association. Today, schedule two sets out the detailed framework for the advertising events, authorised advertising and fixed penalty notice.
The schedule creates a time limited criminal offence in England and Wales. The offender may face an unlimited fine on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, a fine of up to. £50,000 in Scotland, a fine of up to. £20,000 or a fine on conviction on indictment. This is to accommodate the different forms of trial. procedures and respective penalties across the different UK legal jurisdictions. Advertising activity will not be an offence where it has been authorised under this bill or where an exception applies. The schedule also enables enforcement authorities to issue fixed penalty notices where they have a reason to believe that an advertising offence has been committed that provides a.
proportionate and effective alternative to prosecution. The fixed penalty will be set by the enforcement authority to a maximum of.
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:02
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Would be covered in the regulations that we're talking about? Yeah, no, I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. Perhaps I could write to him on that specific point, and I'll perhaps come back to him later in committee. The ambition of this bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for the sporting events held in the UK. But as I said at second reading, my equally clear we must protect small businesses. Government amendment 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone.
The means. authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise, and it is important safeguard. I'm acutely aware of the practical effects of these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business, such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than ten staff and a small business as one as at least ten, but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.
The means. authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise, and it is important safeguard. I'm acutely aware of the practical effects of these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business, such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than ten staff and a small business as one as at least ten, but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
No, it's just written in here differently every time. No. No problem, Shadow Minister. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So clause A this clause requires regulations to identify the restricted advertising zones and the periods during which advertising restrictions apply. These zones must relate to event venues, locations used in connection with the event or their surrounding areas. For events involving devolved authority, these zones must remain within their own jurisdictions. This clause sets out the restrictions may begin no earlier than ten days before the event and must end no later than five days afterwards. This clause allows regulations to address fixed penalty notice for.
offences and how advertising restrictions apply to. locations such as airspaces and waterways. Clause nine and this is regarding delegations and regulations. Designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designation may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable. representative appointed by the authority. This enables a legitimate advertising by. sponsors and other approved parties with restricted advertising zones, and I think we all understand why this is so important.
Again, for when bidding for the major international tournaments. This is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have. In those international.
offences and how advertising restrictions apply to. locations such as airspaces and waterways. Clause nine and this is regarding delegations and regulations. Designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designation may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable. representative appointed by the authority. This enables a legitimate advertising by. sponsors and other approved parties with restricted advertising zones, and I think we all understand why this is so important.
Again, for when bidding for the major international tournaments. This is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have. In those international.
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Authorisations granted, clause ten allows regulations to exempt specified types of advertising from. advertising offence. Exceptions may relate to the purpose, location, person or method of advertising and may cover cases or charity promotion, event, authorised advertising and certain electronic communications. Existing lawful advertising arrangements may also be taken into account. Before creating exceptions, the relevant authority must consult the local authorities in which the restricting advertising zone would be, and any other appropriate person, which I believe is. appropriate given the impact, as we've discussed already with major events have on local communities. But on this point, Madam Chair, I want to reiterate the question that was asked from from the Labour benches, because it was a question I had written down, and that is really to ask the minister what she thinks the relationship will be for existing sponsorship, particularly of athletes.
And if we think about football, we think about athletes. It's often shoe sponsorship, whether that's Nike, Adidas, etc. how will those existing sponsorship or.
And if we think about football, we think about athletes. It's often shoe sponsorship, whether that's Nike, Adidas, etc. how will those existing sponsorship or.
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:06
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
This group of amendments tabled by the government amend clauses 8 to 10 and schedule two of the bill relating to advertising sporting events. These amendments include requiring the designated authority authorising person to take into account existing advertising licences when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. They also require the designated authorising person to take into account whether a person in a small or micro business, in determining whether or not to grant an advertising authorisation. Government amendments 45 and 48 define small businesses having. between 10 and 50 members of staff. Whilst the micro business is defined as having fewer than ten members of staff, these amendments, on the face of it, Madam Chair, seem entirely sensible to us and I know the concerns that were shared across the House, and I appreciate myself and the minister have this conversation last week in private.
And again, on the face of it, these amendments .
And again, on the face of it, these amendments .
11:06
11:07
11:07
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Likely to suggest to the public that a person has an official. connection with an event, such an official sponsor, rather than a competing team or athlete. We consider it for an event owners to determine and enforce their own policies and procedures regarding athlete sponsorship and. association promote associated promotional activity. But happy to write to both. Honourable gentleman indeed to the whole .
11:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Committee to clarify that point, if it's helpful. The question is that clause eight is that part of the bill? As many as are of opinion, say I, I of the contrary? No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses nine and ten have just been debated with the leader of the committee. I'll put a single question on those clauses. The question is that clause nine and ten stand part of the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. Government amendment 61 and 62 to schedule two have just been debated with the leave of the committee.
I'll put a single question on those amendments. I call the Minister to move the amendment formally. Formally, the question is the government amendment 61 and 62 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary? No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that's schedule two, as amended, stand part, which was debated with clause eight stand part in Group ten. The question is that schedule two, as amended, be the second schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary.
No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 11, led by the government amendment 32 to clause 11, with which it will be convenient to consider. Clause 11 stand part government amendments 33, 40, 46 and 47. Clauses 12 and 13 stand part Government amendments. 6365 and .
I'll put a single question on those amendments. I call the Minister to move the amendment formally. Formally, the question is the government amendment 61 and 62 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary? No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that's schedule two, as amended, stand part, which was debated with clause eight stand part in Group ten. The question is that schedule two, as amended, be the second schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary.
No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 11, led by the government amendment 32 to clause 11, with which it will be convenient to consider. Clause 11 stand part government amendments 33, 40, 46 and 47. Clauses 12 and 13 stand part Government amendments. 6365 and .
11:08
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Schedule three stand part I call the Minister to move amendment 32. I'm grateful this group deals with the issue of restrictions on to trading, to which the Bill defines as selling, offering or exposing an item for sale, providing or offering to provide a service for gain or reward, providing public entertainment for gain or reward, and appealing for money and other property. Such restrictions are required to protect commercial rights, while enabling the safe and easy flow of spectators in and around event locations. Turning first to clause 11, this mirrors much applause eight, which deals with advertising restrictions in respect of trading.
The clause requires that regulations applying trading restrictions specify where they apply and for how long. A place may be included in a restricted trading zone. If it is used for in connection with a sporting event or in the vicinity of such a place. Again, this limits restrictions only to locations where they are needed. Clause 11 sets out the same limits on timing as applied to advertising no earlier than ten days before an event, and no later than five days after. In most cases, it is more likely that restrictions apply from the day before a venue is in use or the day after that activity.
The clause requires that regulations applying trading restrictions specify where they apply and for how long. A place may be included in a restricted trading zone. If it is used for in connection with a sporting event or in the vicinity of such a place. Again, this limits restrictions only to locations where they are needed. Clause 11 sets out the same limits on timing as applied to advertising no earlier than ten days before an event, and no later than five days after. In most cases, it is more likely that restrictions apply from the day before a venue is in use or the day after that activity.
11:09
11:09
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
This clause also enables regulations to clarify when a person is to be treated as doing something, or being in part of a restricted trading zone. This means, for example, that a trading offence may be applied to waterways or airspace, helping to ensure that event specific. requirements and local circumstances can be properly taken into account. Regulations may provide further detail about the giving or fixed penalty notices, including their form, payment and fine levels, while also allowing that approach to be applied where appropriate.
11:10
11:10
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Trading restrictions must be underpinned by. proportionality and there are distinctions between how this is applied in relation to one off events and recurrent events, which I will come on to. However, in common, they ensure trading provisions meet the needs of sporting events while minimising. disruption on those living and working nearby. Government amendments 32, 40, 46 and 47 do just this for itinerant events where traders with an existing licence granted by a local authority are unable to trade as usual due to the regulations being applied, those regulations must confer a duty on specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to.
mitigate any adverse impacts on such traders. In practice, this would establish a clear. expectation that options are proactively explored, such as alternative trading. arrangements for those unable to continue trading inside a restricted zone. Government amendment 33 introduces additional further safeguards. It makes clear a condition imposed on a designated authority authorising person in.
mitigate any adverse impacts on such traders. In practice, this would establish a clear. expectation that options are proactively explored, such as alternative trading. arrangements for those unable to continue trading inside a restricted zone. Government amendment 33 introduces additional further safeguards. It makes clear a condition imposed on a designated authority authorising person in.
11:11
11:11
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
Such as a local authority or event organiser, may include a requirement to put in place a review process. This would allow an applicant. dissatisfied with a trading authorisation decision to request a review. Clause 12 provides the mechanism to authorise trading activity that would otherwise be an offence. Under this bill, regulations may designate one or more suitable person, such as a local authority or a. non-departmental public body, to grant authorisations for trading activity. However, only a public body would be suitable for this role. Those with an existing trading licence may may be able to apply for.
authorisation for itinerant events. It is right that the authorising person must continue to take into account whether somebody has an existing trading licence when determining an application to trade. The important matter of exemptions to the trading offence is dealt with in schedule three, covering premises adjoining a highway and included on the face of the bill to ensure that deliveries and services provided to local residents and businesses are unaffected by the restrictions. Clause 13 enables further exemptions to the trading offence to be set out in regulations and tailored to the needs of each event. There is precedent here, and the Bill sets out that such exceptions may include providing a public service facility or amenity, such as a public toilet or ATM, providing a transport service including taxis and private hire services, and providing services relating to motor vehicles such as a petrol station.
The Bill also provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that exceptions take account of local. circumstances and event specific needs. The Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted trading zone, along with any other person. The Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult such an event . Organisers and local businesses. Government amendments. 63 to 64 ensure there will be no disproportionate impact from trading restrictions arising from recurrent events. It's right that we take a different approach here and go as far as possible to protect existing traders who operate in their vicinity.
For current events, the Bill will now provide a blanket exception to trading events for traders in a restricted zone, who already hold a licence granted by the local authority. That is an important protection. It means that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as a long standing independent food seller, will have greater certainty and a fair opportunity to continue to benefit from the economic. activity that domestic sporting events can bring. As there is no such exemption for itinerant events. Government amendment 64 makes clear that those events existing trading licence must be taken into account where.
applications for. authorisations are determined. That is an important. safeguard designed to help ensure that existing traders, especially those licensed by the local authority, can continue to operate at itinerant events wherever possible. Schedule three accompanies clause. 11 to 13 and sets out the detailed framework for the trading offence, along with the provision for authorised trading and the issuing of fixed penalty notice. These measures will help to ensure that a major sporting events can be delivered safely and smoothly, while protecting spectators and supporting a consistent, well-managed event environment. The schedule creates a time limited criminal offence for a person to carry out trading.
activity or arrange permits.
authorisation for itinerant events. It is right that the authorising person must continue to take into account whether somebody has an existing trading licence when determining an application to trade. The important matter of exemptions to the trading offence is dealt with in schedule three, covering premises adjoining a highway and included on the face of the bill to ensure that deliveries and services provided to local residents and businesses are unaffected by the restrictions. Clause 13 enables further exemptions to the trading offence to be set out in regulations and tailored to the needs of each event. There is precedent here, and the Bill sets out that such exceptions may include providing a public service facility or amenity, such as a public toilet or ATM, providing a transport service including taxis and private hire services, and providing services relating to motor vehicles such as a petrol station.
The Bill also provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that exceptions take account of local. circumstances and event specific needs. The Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted trading zone, along with any other person. The Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult such an event . Organisers and local businesses. Government amendments. 63 to 64 ensure there will be no disproportionate impact from trading restrictions arising from recurrent events. It's right that we take a different approach here and go as far as possible to protect existing traders who operate in their vicinity.
For current events, the Bill will now provide a blanket exception to trading events for traders in a restricted zone, who already hold a licence granted by the local authority. That is an important protection. It means that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as a long standing independent food seller, will have greater certainty and a fair opportunity to continue to benefit from the economic. activity that domestic sporting events can bring. As there is no such exemption for itinerant events. Government amendment 64 makes clear that those events existing trading licence must be taken into account where.
applications for. authorisations are determined. That is an important. safeguard designed to help ensure that existing traders, especially those licensed by the local authority, can continue to operate at itinerant events wherever possible. Schedule three accompanies clause. 11 to 13 and sets out the detailed framework for the trading offence, along with the provision for authorised trading and the issuing of fixed penalty notice. These measures will help to ensure that a major sporting events can be delivered safely and smoothly, while protecting spectators and supporting a consistent, well-managed event environment. The schedule creates a time limited criminal offence for a person to carry out trading.
activity or arrange permits.
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
Rachel Hopkins
-
-
Rachel Hopkins
To ensure proportionality. The trading restrictions only apply in what the Bill calls a relevant public part. That includes a highway a publicly accessible building used for a sporting event, a building generally used as a car park or a transport hub, or any other place accessible to the public. That is not a building. A person may still commit the offence, even if not physically, within the restricted trading zone. If their activity is directed at someone within it, for example by trading just outside a restricted zone, for example, peddlers. unlicensed unless regulations provide otherwise. The trading offence does not apply to existing business premises adjoining a highway, providing that those premises are usually used for that activity.
This means goods can be displayed outside a shop and a business, and can serve customers on the highway. It is not a defence of the activity was carried out under a street trading or peddler's licence penalties have been carefully determined to provide an effective deterrent on summary conviction. A person will be liable in England and Wales to unlimited fine in Northern Ireland, up to £50,000 in Scotland, up to. £20,000 or on indictment to a fine. In reality, we expect punitive measures to be used as a last resort, and we're not aware of any court case being brought for advertising and trading activity under previous legislation.
The schedule also includes. exemptions for premises adjoining a highway. This ensures that deliveries that are business activity, such as winter cleaning, can still take place within the restricted trading zone. Part two of schedule three also provides for a fixed penalty notice of no more than. £300 to be given. Where an enforcement authority has reason to believe that a trading offence has been committed. This is an alternative to prosecution and builds on lessons learned from enforcement authorities during the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. Taken together, these provisions provide a clear and proportionate framework, one that protects event. operations and public safety while recognising the interests of existing traders and .
This means goods can be displayed outside a shop and a business, and can serve customers on the highway. It is not a defence of the activity was carried out under a street trading or peddler's licence penalties have been carefully determined to provide an effective deterrent on summary conviction. A person will be liable in England and Wales to unlimited fine in Northern Ireland, up to £50,000 in Scotland, up to. £20,000 or on indictment to a fine. In reality, we expect punitive measures to be used as a last resort, and we're not aware of any court case being brought for advertising and trading activity under previous legislation.
The schedule also includes. exemptions for premises adjoining a highway. This ensures that deliveries that are business activity, such as winter cleaning, can still take place within the restricted trading zone. Part two of schedule three also provides for a fixed penalty notice of no more than. £300 to be given. Where an enforcement authority has reason to believe that a trading offence has been committed. This is an alternative to prosecution and builds on lessons learned from enforcement authorities during the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. Taken together, these provisions provide a clear and proportionate framework, one that protects event. operations and public safety while recognising the interests of existing traders and .
11:16
11:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
11 is on the amendment paper. The question is the amendment be made? Shadow Minister? Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the comments of the Minister and the comments that we discussed this again last week in a pre pre committee briefing. And the government are seeking, quite rightly, to try and balance the commitments required to host major international sporting events with the rights of existing local traders. And that is not an easy balance. And I'm sure, I'm sure already, unfortunately, there will be disputes when we get to those events in the future. But I appreciate what the government is seeking to do today.
Even if we do have some concerns about what enforcement may look like in the future. Now, these amendments tabled by the government define a non domestic sporting event. They would also mean that where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non domestic sporting event, then in certain circumstances the regulations must require specific specified public. authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse. impacts that applying the trading provisions to the event will have on already licensed traders. Madam chair, as part of these amendments, the Bill would then provide that in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading license granted by a local authority.
Moreover, they provide that the conditions which may be imposed on the designated authorising person include requiring the person to arrange for their. authorisation decisions to be reviewed and define a public authority for the sake of the framework. Following my discussions, I said with the Minister last week, I am pleased to see that these amendments have been tabled. This will have the effect that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as the long standing independent food seller, and I know the minister has referred to a burger vans. I think before I'm more of a hot dog guy that would get me cancelled by the Conservative Party for saying that, but we understand the point she's trying to make.
Yeah. Sorry. Apologies, design. Yeah. It also makes alternatives as proactively explore to help those traders who cannot remain in situ because of those legal commitments that we are required to make to host the likes of European Championships or the World Cup. Madam chair, on the face of it, I think these amendments are rather sensible, particularly in view of the government's concession in .
Even if we do have some concerns about what enforcement may look like in the future. Now, these amendments tabled by the government define a non domestic sporting event. They would also mean that where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non domestic sporting event, then in certain circumstances the regulations must require specific specified public. authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse. impacts that applying the trading provisions to the event will have on already licensed traders. Madam chair, as part of these amendments, the Bill would then provide that in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading license granted by a local authority.
Moreover, they provide that the conditions which may be imposed on the designated authorising person include requiring the person to arrange for their. authorisation decisions to be reviewed and define a public authority for the sake of the framework. Following my discussions, I said with the Minister last week, I am pleased to see that these amendments have been tabled. This will have the effect that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as the long standing independent food seller, and I know the minister has referred to a burger vans. I think before I'm more of a hot dog guy that would get me cancelled by the Conservative Party for saying that, but we understand the point she's trying to make.
Yeah. Sorry. Apologies, design. Yeah. It also makes alternatives as proactively explore to help those traders who cannot remain in situ because of those legal commitments that we are required to make to host the likes of European Championships or the World Cup. Madam chair, on the face of it, I think these amendments are rather sensible, particularly in view of the government's concession in .
11:18
11:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Domestic but recurring events to apply to use this framework. Thank you. The question is the government Amendments 32 be made as many as are of the opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause 11, as amended, stand part which had just been debated. The question is that clause 11, as amended, stand part of .
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
13 stand part of the bill, as many as are of the opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendment. 63 to 65 to schedule three have just been debated with the leave of the committee. I'll put a single question on those amendments. I call the minister to move the amendments formally. Formally, the question is the government amendments. 63 to 65 be made as many as are of the opinion, say I, I of the contrary? No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.
We now come to the question of schedule three, as amended, stand part which was debated the government amendments 32 in Group 11. The question is that schedule three, as .
We now come to the question of schedule three, as amended, stand part which was debated the government amendments 32 in Group 11. The question is that schedule three, as .
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:20
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
Anna Sabine
-
-
Anna Sabine
30% of children aged 11 to 17 spend their own money on gambling. Up to 2.7% of adults could be considered problem gamblers. And behind those figures are real people whose mental health, finances, family life and relationships are all being harmed. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms, and we believe the events covered by this bill should be free of gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship. This amendment is the right thing to do. It will help prevent the harms that gambling is causing by keeping adverts out of major events hosted in the UK.
15:13
15:13
15:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll start by just declaring an additional register of interest in the sense of. I am also the shadow Gambling Minister, and I do attend a number of events with the racing community throughout the year as the shadow Gambling Minister. So just in addition to my comments, given the nature of this amendment. Now New clause 12 seeks to prevent gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sports events covered by this bill. Now, I do understand the intention of of the amendment, but I do believe that we believe that it's short sighted and again, strip sports of vital sponsorship funding, especially in particular, I'm thinking about how this bill might work in the future of the likes of the Grand National, which could possibly qualify.
And I think that would be a huge impact on the sport of racing, particularly the Grand National, if we were to prevent gambling, advertising, regulated gambling, advertising for the likes of the Grand National. Now, we've had this debate previously in Westminster Hall around gambling, advertising and there, of course, are legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to gambling, advertisers, advertising and that responsible gambling must remain a priority. However, I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at a major sporting event is the right approach, especially when the rise of the illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses, in my opinion, a greater threat to all consumers, but especially younger people.
Sponsorship, as we've already heard today, plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends. Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences, not only for major competition competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting economy and broadcasters, as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. We have seen in recent weeks that Betfred have withdrawn their long term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in the future, especially for the women's game.
We should all recognise that major sporting events operate in a competitive international market. If we want this country to attract the biggest competitions, we must ensure that our regulatory framework remains proportionate and that we do not place unnecessary restrictions on the commercial arrangements that make those sporting events viable. That does not mean that there should not be safeguards. Gambling advertised must must operate within the rules designed to protect consumers, and there should be appropriate protections against irresponsible marketing as provided for in law and by the Gambling Commission itself. But those safeguards should be targeted and proportionate.
Rather than imposing a blanket ban on an entirely entire category of sponsorship. Ultimately, we need to strike the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving the commercial and revenues that help fund British sport. For these reasons, we cannot support New Clause 12 and as I said in my comments earlier, the rise of the illegal black market and the advertising to young people is the greatest concern to the Conservative Party.
And I think that would be a huge impact on the sport of racing, particularly the Grand National, if we were to prevent gambling, advertising, regulated gambling, advertising for the likes of the Grand National. Now, we've had this debate previously in Westminster Hall around gambling, advertising and there, of course, are legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to gambling, advertisers, advertising and that responsible gambling must remain a priority. However, I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at a major sporting event is the right approach, especially when the rise of the illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses, in my opinion, a greater threat to all consumers, but especially younger people.
Sponsorship, as we've already heard today, plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends. Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences, not only for major competition competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting economy and broadcasters, as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. We have seen in recent weeks that Betfred have withdrawn their long term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in the future, especially for the women's game.
We should all recognise that major sporting events operate in a competitive international market. If we want this country to attract the biggest competitions, we must ensure that our regulatory framework remains proportionate and that we do not place unnecessary restrictions on the commercial arrangements that make those sporting events viable. That does not mean that there should not be safeguards. Gambling advertised must must operate within the rules designed to protect consumers, and there should be appropriate protections against irresponsible marketing as provided for in law and by the Gambling Commission itself. But those safeguards should be targeted and proportionate.
Rather than imposing a blanket ban on an entirely entire category of sponsorship. Ultimately, we need to strike the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving the commercial and revenues that help fund British sport. For these reasons, we cannot support New Clause 12 and as I said in my comments earlier, the rise of the illegal black market and the advertising to young people is the greatest concern to the Conservative Party.
15:16
15:16
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. I'm grateful to the honourable member from Frome and East Somerset for tabling this amendment, which will prohibit gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at major sporting events. The government supports the sporting sector's commercial freedoms and right to enter into sponsorship arrangements. Through these arrangements, the licensed gambling sector has provided vital financial support to sports. These arrangements are constructed within a robust regulatory framework, which ensures that advertising is socially responsible and does not promote excessive or harmful gambling. In 2024, we welcome the introduction of the sponsorship codes of conduct across all major sports. These codes promote social responsibility, support reinvestment in the sport and strengthen safeguards for children.
Sporting bodies have reviewed how these codes are working in practice, and the government welcomes their ongoing commitment to reviewing and strengthening these codes. We have also welcomed the Premier League's ban on the front of gambling sponsorship, which will help reduce the prominence of gambling. Advertising in football advertising remains one of the clearest ways in which licensed operators can distinguish themselves from the illegal providers who pose a threat to British consumers, and that is why the government has recently consulted on banning unlicensed gambling, sponsorship and physical advertising within sports and other sectors. The government recognises that the relationship between sporting gambling must be handled with care, particularly because of the impact it can have on children, young people and vulnerable people.
We consider the fullest possible range of evidence before taking any further policy steps. Any additional restrictions must be thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. We continue to support the sporting sector's commercial freedoms while working with the Advertising Standards Authority, the Gambling Commission, the Betting and Gaming Council and sporting bodies to further raise standards. So let me be clear the purpose of this bill is neither to alter the regulation of gambling advertising, nor to limit the benefits that sponsorship arrangements can bring to the sector, and I therefore ask the member to withdraw her amendments.
Sporting bodies have reviewed how these codes are working in practice, and the government welcomes their ongoing commitment to reviewing and strengthening these codes. We have also welcomed the Premier League's ban on the front of gambling sponsorship, which will help reduce the prominence of gambling. Advertising in football advertising remains one of the clearest ways in which licensed operators can distinguish themselves from the illegal providers who pose a threat to British consumers, and that is why the government has recently consulted on banning unlicensed gambling, sponsorship and physical advertising within sports and other sectors. The government recognises that the relationship between sporting gambling must be handled with care, particularly because of the impact it can have on children, young people and vulnerable people.
We consider the fullest possible range of evidence before taking any further policy steps. Any additional restrictions must be thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. We continue to support the sporting sector's commercial freedoms while working with the Advertising Standards Authority, the Gambling Commission, the Betting and Gaming Council and sporting bodies to further raise standards. So let me be clear the purpose of this bill is neither to alter the regulation of gambling advertising, nor to limit the benefits that sponsorship arrangements can bring to the sector, and I therefore ask the member to withdraw her amendments.
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
Edward Morello
-
-
Edward Morello
Clause 13 would ensure that major sporting events, receiving government funding or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport. If public money is being used to support a major sporting event, some of that benefit should reach local schools, grassroots clubs and community facilities in West Dorset. That could mean better facilities, more opportunities for children to play sport and more support for local clubs. We've seen this model work through the legacy funding from the Women's Rugby World Cup, following for women's rugby following the Women's Rugby World Cup after the Red roses historic World Cup win, 14.55 million was allocated to support the legacy of women's rugby.
The number of girls playing age grade rugby has increased by 35%. This funding has also helped clubs improve their changing facilities, many of which were built when rugby was predominantly played by men. Do not provide the facilities that women and girls need. Improving these facilities can make the real difference to whether or not people feel able to take part. The same approach could help support other groups who face barriers to sport, including disabled people, children in deprived areas and young people who lack access to equipment or local facilities. This new clause would make sure that major sporting events will be the lasting benefit of the local communities, and I hope the government will support it.
The number of girls playing age grade rugby has increased by 35%. This funding has also helped clubs improve their changing facilities, many of which were built when rugby was predominantly played by men. Do not provide the facilities that women and girls need. Improving these facilities can make the real difference to whether or not people feel able to take part. The same approach could help support other groups who face barriers to sport, including disabled people, children in deprived areas and young people who lack access to equipment or local facilities. This new clause would make sure that major sporting events will be the lasting benefit of the local communities, and I hope the government will support it.
15:20
15:20
15:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am sympathetic to the intentions behind New Clause 13. And I thank the honourable member for West Dorset for for raising it. And the amendment, as we've heard, seeks to ensure that major sporting events receive government receiving, government financial assistance or special statutory support to deliver a lasting benefit for community sport itself. The honourable gentleman outlined a number of concerns and challenges that grassroots sports clubs face, and we do want to increase the participation across the country now. Major sporting events should be about more than what happens over a few days or weeks of competition.
They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure communities rely on long after the final whistle. This is particularly important for children and young people, as we've heard in deprived communities and groups who have traditionally had lower levels of participation. We should be asking how this. The excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities, although we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges.
As we've discussed already today, any requirement, therefore attached to the government's support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring an organisers and bringing major competitions to this country. Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that these commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply a box ticking exercise.
That is why, when in government, the Conservative Party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots school and elite sports from an unprecedented £400 million of investment into grassroots sports, £300 million of emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme we conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. This is worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and totalled almost 3.5 billion directly to schools since its introduction back in 2013. This government, on the other hand, I'm afraid to say, has cut funding £57 million from the opening schools facilities funds, £35 million in investment into grassroots cricket, cut, £11 million from multi-sports grassroots facility programme cut £25 million in real terms from cut from grassroots sports investment compared to the previous conservative government.
I welcome the Minister's views on how the government intends to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events itself, and reach the communities that need them most. Considering that the government she serves in continues to cut funding for grassroots sports.
They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure communities rely on long after the final whistle. This is particularly important for children and young people, as we've heard in deprived communities and groups who have traditionally had lower levels of participation. We should be asking how this. The excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities, although we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges.
As we've discussed already today, any requirement, therefore attached to the government's support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring an organisers and bringing major competitions to this country. Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that these commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply a box ticking exercise.
That is why, when in government, the Conservative Party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots school and elite sports from an unprecedented £400 million of investment into grassroots sports, £300 million of emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme we conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. This is worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and totalled almost 3.5 billion directly to schools since its introduction back in 2013. This government, on the other hand, I'm afraid to say, has cut funding £57 million from the opening schools facilities funds, £35 million in investment into grassroots cricket, cut, £11 million from multi-sports grassroots facility programme cut £25 million in real terms from cut from grassroots sports investment compared to the previous conservative government.
I welcome the Minister's views on how the government intends to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events itself, and reach the communities that need them most. Considering that the government she serves in continues to cut funding for grassroots sports.
15:23
Anna Sabine
-
-
Anna Sabine
Thank you, chair. I thank my honourable friend for tabling this amendment. In my constituency of Somerset. We have loads of fantastic community sporting groups. I recently visited the Freedom Flyers WFC and the Summer Valley Strikers to women's walking football clubs in my constituency, who represent everything that's great about local community sports. Community groups could benefit enormously from increased funding, and that's exactly what this amendment would deliver. As my honourable friend said, there are clear examples of major international events leaving lasting community benefits when local funding is built in, particularly for women and girls disadvantaged groups in sport.
This bill is our chance to make sure international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area. They should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. This amendment simply makes sense and I hope the government will support it.
This bill is our chance to make sure international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area. They should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. This amendment simply makes sense and I hope the government will support it.
15:24
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. Well, I want to thank the honourable member for West Dorset for this important amendment. I fully recognise the issue he raises, and the government shares his commitment to maximising the positive legacy of major sporting events that we support. We don't believe these amendments are necessary, as the Bill already provides for these outcomes while retaining the flexibility to adapt our approach to the specific event in question, and I'll outline some of the reasons why. First, the likelihood of bringing social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom, or part of it, is already a criteria for consideration when considering if the framework can be applied to a major sporting event that would encompass the sort of community participation and wider local benefit the honourable member is seeking to secure.
Secondly, clause 25 of the Bill is also clear that funding can be given subject to conditions. These could include requirements relating to these important areas where appropriate. More broadly, the vast majority of major sporting events that could fall within scope of the bill would already have social impact embedded from the outset. In the case of itinerant events, the gold framework is clear that when seeking investment from the government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact for communities around the country, including to drive up levels of physical activity and participation.
Many recurrent events also already support significant community engagement. Wimbledon annually contributes nearly £50 million to the work of the Lawn Tennis Association. The Lawn. So I thought we could intervene. The London Marathon Foundation has distributed more than 120 million in grant funding since its inception in 1981, and the British Grand Prix generates more than 100 million annually for the local economy. Just to take a few examples, critically, the evidence is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities they're meant to support, enabling us to target support and funding where it is truly needed.
And that is why we think the current system works. It recognises the one size does not fit once it fits all, and provides flexibility that these amendments would reduce how happily give way.
Secondly, clause 25 of the Bill is also clear that funding can be given subject to conditions. These could include requirements relating to these important areas where appropriate. More broadly, the vast majority of major sporting events that could fall within scope of the bill would already have social impact embedded from the outset. In the case of itinerant events, the gold framework is clear that when seeking investment from the government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact for communities around the country, including to drive up levels of physical activity and participation.
Many recurrent events also already support significant community engagement. Wimbledon annually contributes nearly £50 million to the work of the Lawn Tennis Association. The Lawn. So I thought we could intervene. The London Marathon Foundation has distributed more than 120 million in grant funding since its inception in 1981, and the British Grand Prix generates more than 100 million annually for the local economy. Just to take a few examples, critically, the evidence is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities they're meant to support, enabling us to target support and funding where it is truly needed.
And that is why we think the current system works. It recognises the one size does not fit once it fits all, and provides flexibility that these amendments would reduce how happily give way.
15:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I welcome the bill's focus on legacy and of course, the Minister's genuine enthusiasm for women in sport. And as a former minister for sport, I know how great major sporting events can be for people and for our country, but they don't automatically ensure more female participation, more women coaches, more women on boards and a good example might be a football competition, might result in five new 5G pitches. But if subsequently those pitches are booked out 90% of the time by boys and men, that is not going to move the diversity and inclusion dial and and do something about the gender gap.
So it would be very good to to hear how the minister would actually address those issues. And if if she doesn't feel it's appropriate to respond in complete detail today, then I'd be more than happy to have a chat with her. Or of course, she could write to me. Yeah.
So it would be very good to to hear how the minister would actually address those issues. And if if she doesn't feel it's appropriate to respond in complete detail today, then I'd be more than happy to have a chat with her. Or of course, she could write to me. Yeah.
15:27
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'm grateful to the former minister for her contribution and she makes a really, really important point. And that's why, Sports Minister, I set up the Women's Sports Task Force, and I'd be very happy to extend an invite to her to attend one of those meetings. If she if she was very useful to share the expertise that she obviously gathered when she did the job that I currently do. And through that task force, we're looking at practical ways in which we can support women in sport. Just one example. From our grassroots funding. We want to double priority slots, for example, that the member also gave some really good examples from the Women's Rugby World Cup.
I was delighted to attend four of the matches, but also I visited one of the grassroots just up the road in West Yorkshire with the now Health Secretary, I believe the then Foreign Secretary in her constituency, to see that first hand the impact that that had had getting girls into into rugby. So I totally take that point and appreciate that. We want to see the dial move, move quicker, and that's why we are doing things through our allocation of grassroots funding. But happy to write to her and indeed to continue the conversation. So I will just bring my comments to a conclusion on some of the points that the honourable gentleman made.
We welcome the intention behind the amendment, but we do respectfully suggest that the bill already provides the right framework to secure the benefits without imposing additional statutory tests that may reduce flexibility with, of course, the first major sporting event that we hope to use this this bill for the euros 28. We have already established £45 million of social impact, £23 million given by the UK government and I. I don't recognise the picture that the Shadow Minister paints of our approach to grassroots sport. £400 million in grassroots sport, £500 million in major sporting events, £250 million through Sport England and on the p e premium.
There are certainly examples where it works well, but sadly too many kids are not active, 50% are not meeting the chief medical officer's guidelines, and that is why we make no apologies for taking a different view. But of course, that does fall outside of the debate today.
I was delighted to attend four of the matches, but also I visited one of the grassroots just up the road in West Yorkshire with the now Health Secretary, I believe the then Foreign Secretary in her constituency, to see that first hand the impact that that had had getting girls into into rugby. So I totally take that point and appreciate that. We want to see the dial move, move quicker, and that's why we are doing things through our allocation of grassroots funding. But happy to write to her and indeed to continue the conversation. So I will just bring my comments to a conclusion on some of the points that the honourable gentleman made.
We welcome the intention behind the amendment, but we do respectfully suggest that the bill already provides the right framework to secure the benefits without imposing additional statutory tests that may reduce flexibility with, of course, the first major sporting event that we hope to use this this bill for the euros 28. We have already established £45 million of social impact, £23 million given by the UK government and I. I don't recognise the picture that the Shadow Minister paints of our approach to grassroots sport. £400 million in grassroots sport, £500 million in major sporting events, £250 million through Sport England and on the p e premium.
There are certainly examples where it works well, but sadly too many kids are not active, 50% are not meeting the chief medical officer's guidelines, and that is why we make no apologies for taking a different view. But of course, that does fall outside of the debate today.
15:29
15:29
Edward Morello
-
-
Edward Morello
I thank the Minister for her comments and the shadow minister and members who contributed. I think , given the perilous state of community sports in my constituency and across the UK, it's incumbent upon us to drive as much money as possible down to those grassroots clubs and community centres, and so the Liberal Democrats would like to drive on this.
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The eyes were two. The nos were 11. So the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. We now come to the final group. Group 26, led by Government amendment 49 to clause 26, which it will be convenient to consider. Government amendments 50 to 53, clause 26 and part Government Amendment 54 clauses 27 to 29 stand part government Amendment 55 and clause 30 standard parts. I call the Minister to move government amendment 49.
15:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. These next government amendments and the final clause is provide the practical provisions needed to ensure the Bill is implemented effectively and operates as intended. Amendments 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 have been developed following engagement with the devolved governments and demonstrate the government's commitment to ensuring that this UK wide framework operates effectively while respecting the responsibility of the devolved institutions. It is right that where consequential changes are needed within devolved competence, the relevant devolved government should be able to make those changes directly. Without these amendments, the UK government could be required to make consequential regulations on behalf of a devolved government, even where the use of the framework otherwise engages only devolved matters.
The powers are there for practical, proportionate and consistent with the devolution settlements. They will allow each government to take responsibility for the operation of the framework within its own area of competence. A devolved authority make may make only provision that is within its devolved competence, and the power may be used where the change is consequential on the bill, where regulations amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the relevant legislature. Government government amendment 54 is a consequential drafting change that ensures the hybridization de hybridizing provision captures regulations made by the made affirmative procedure.
Government amendment 55 seeks to remove the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords parliamentary procedure requires such amendment where the bill originating the Lords has financial implications to recognise the Commons primacy in matters relating to taxation and charges on public funds. Now, turning to the final provisions, clause 26 gives the Secretary of State a standard power to make consequential changes to existing legislation where necessary as a result of the bill, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny attached. Clause 27 sets out the general provisions that apply to the bill's regulation making powers, including providing the detail on the procedures that will govern regulations under the act.
Clause 28 provides that the Bill extends across the United Kingdom, reflecting its purpose of supporting the delivery of major sporting events in all four nations. Clause 29 provides for the commencement two months after royal Assent. And finally, clause 30 gives the act its short title, the Sporting Events Act 2026. These are sensible and necessary amendments and provisions, and therefore I beg to move government amendments 49 to 55.
The powers are there for practical, proportionate and consistent with the devolution settlements. They will allow each government to take responsibility for the operation of the framework within its own area of competence. A devolved authority make may make only provision that is within its devolved competence, and the power may be used where the change is consequential on the bill, where regulations amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the relevant legislature. Government government amendment 54 is a consequential drafting change that ensures the hybridization de hybridizing provision captures regulations made by the made affirmative procedure.
Government amendment 55 seeks to remove the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords parliamentary procedure requires such amendment where the bill originating the Lords has financial implications to recognise the Commons primacy in matters relating to taxation and charges on public funds. Now, turning to the final provisions, clause 26 gives the Secretary of State a standard power to make consequential changes to existing legislation where necessary as a result of the bill, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny attached. Clause 27 sets out the general provisions that apply to the bill's regulation making powers, including providing the detail on the procedures that will govern regulations under the act.
Clause 28 provides that the Bill extends across the United Kingdom, reflecting its purpose of supporting the delivery of major sporting events in all four nations. Clause 29 provides for the commencement two months after royal Assent. And finally, clause 30 gives the act its short title, the Sporting Events Act 2026. These are sensible and necessary amendments and provisions, and therefore I beg to move government amendments 49 to 55.
15:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll be very brief, because I appreciate the last part of the bill working together and recognising that the points that the minister made working together and ensuring the accountability of the devolved administrations, obviously is vital for all major sporting events, not least the European 2028 Championships, UEFA Championships, which are obviously going to be across a number of the British Isles, which is obviously a great thing for the whole of the United Kingdom to hopefully be able to partake in and to benefit from what we would obviously like to see going forward is obviously some detail on some of the queries that we've raised today, and I appreciate the offer of the minister to follow up with a meeting to talk through some of these various aspects we've discussed in the bill.
The His Majesty's official opposition has tried to approach this bill in the manner which I hope is respected and understood by by the government in trying to improve it, rather than to delay or stop it for the sake of it. We do think this bill can help deliver major sporting events for the country and for the whole of the UK to benefit going into the future.
The His Majesty's official opposition has tried to approach this bill in the manner which I hope is respected and understood by by the government in trying to improve it, rather than to delay or stop it for the sake of it. We do think this bill can help deliver major sporting events for the country and for the whole of the UK to benefit going into the future.
15:34
15:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To respond to the to the Shadow Minister. I'd just like to say I'm grateful for the way in which His Majesty's opposition have approached the this bill and this bill Committee, and I'm very happy to continue the conversation with him, if he'd like. I made an offer to come and talk about the event strategy, but indeed, very happy to talk about the broader major events and indeed the rollout of the euros. There were some specific questions put to me, particularly around unofficial resale and how, of course, the Competition Markets Authority will enforce that. But I'm really happy to write to write to him on some of those specific points, but I would like to thank him for the constructive way in which he has approached this.
15:35
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The question is that Government Amendment 49 be made as many as are of the opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendments 50 to 53 to clause 26 have just been debated with the leave of the committee. I'll put a single question on those amendments. I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
15:35
15:35
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The question is that government amendments 50 to 53 be made, as many as are of opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question of clause 26, as amended, stand, part of which has just been debated. The question is that clause 26, as amended, stand part of the Bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I for the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendment 54 to clause 27 has just been debated.
I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
15:36
15:36
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The question is that government amendment 54 be made as many as are of the opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause 27, as amended, stand part, which has also just been debated. The question is clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the I have it. Clause 28 and 29 have also been debated with the leave of the Committee. I will put a single question on those clauses.
The question is that clauses 28 and 29 stand part of the Bill, as many as are of the opinion, say I. I on the contrary, no. Think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendment 55, clause 30 has also just been debated. I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
The question is that clauses 28 and 29 stand part of the Bill, as many as are of the opinion, say I. I on the contrary, no. Think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government amendment 55, clause 30 has also just been debated. I call the Minister to move the amendment formally.
15:36
15:36
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The question is that government amendment 55 be as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question, clause 30, as amended, stand part, which has just been debated. The question is that clause 30, as amended, stand part of the Bill, as many as are of the opinion, say I. I have the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The final question I must put is that I do report the bill, as amended, to the House.
15:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. Chair. I would like to conclude the Committee by putting some thanks on the record. So, of course, to to the chair, Doctor Alan Khan, thank you for your chairship and indeed taking the whole bill through committee today. I'd like to thank the whole committee for their contributions to this bill for giving up their time to serve on it. I'd like to thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with us along the way, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we implement the bill. Of course, the views have been vital in shaping the bill before us today.
I would like to thank the DCMs officials who have worked incredibly hard on the bill and indeed, the civil servants and officials from across government. I'd like to thank Thomas Williams from my private office, who has supported the bill, and I'm ever grateful to my head of office, Sam. And of course, my parliamentary team. I thank the shadow spokesperson, the member for Bexley and indeed the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the PPS and the whips. So I look forward to seeing the bill continue through Parliament.
And I appreciate the constructive debate that we've had today.
I would like to thank the DCMs officials who have worked incredibly hard on the bill and indeed, the civil servants and officials from across government. I'd like to thank Thomas Williams from my private office, who has supported the bill, and I'm ever grateful to my head of office, Sam. And of course, my parliamentary team. I thank the shadow spokesperson, the member for Bexley and indeed the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the PPS and the whips. So I look forward to seeing the bill continue through Parliament.
And I appreciate the constructive debate that we've had today.