Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swimming Facilities

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on Government support for swimming facilities. I will start with the importance of swimming and public facilities, and then move on to the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, as well as some of the challenges faced by providers and operators. I will then finish with the support that has been received historically, and with my asks and considerations for the Government.

Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England, with around 12.5 million adults going swimming each year—that is around 27% of the population. Participation levels are higher than for hockey, football, rugby and tennis combined. Seventy-two per cent of schools use public pools to deliver their statutory responsibility for learning to swim, and 85% of young people learn to swim in a public pool, with almost 2 million children learning to swim outside school through Swim England’s “Learn to Swim” programme each year. Seventy-five per cent of grassroots sports clubs use leisure facilities to deliver social and sporting opportunities to communities. And 66% of NHS cancer rehabilitation services take place in leisure facilities. Swimming helps to save our NHS around £357 million a year. The number of people with a limiting health condition or disability taking to the pool has grown from 15% two years ago to 24% more recently.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many of our constituents. I recently gave medals to members of Larkfield swimming club in my constituency, and it was obvious that swimming is helping the health and fitness of so many young people, as well as teaching life lessons of leadership, teamwork, discipline, respect, how to win and how to lose. It was the club and the swimming—it all helped. Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming is a force for good, and that it is very important for our local authorities to be aware of the major benefits for mental health and physical health? They need to support the funding of these facilities.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that swimming is hugely important for young people and for the mental and physical health of the nation, for all these different reasons. We rely heavily on local authorities for ensuring that these facilities remain open to the public and, crucially, accessible to less well-off people.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson]

I do agree. It looks like the Government do not understand that healthcare is delivered not only by the NHS, so when they chose to exempt the NHS from the damaging rises, they either did not understand or had disregard for all the other healthcare providers, without which the NHS could not function properly.

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

rose—

[Joe Robertson]

I will give some examples before I give way to my hon. Friend.

The change will cost Marie Curie almost £3 million a year, and it says that without further support critical services for the terminally ill may be scaled back. Hospices throughout the country will pay between £30 million and £50 million a year. For the Mountbatten hospice in my constituency it will cost £338,000—just for one hospice. Just before Christmas, the Government announced £100 million of investment in hospices over two years—so £50 million a year—which is merely giving back, broadly, what they have already taken. That money is targeted at capital spending, when hospices tell me their main pressure is revenue. Are the Government taking revenue from them and giving it back provided they spend it on capital? Clearly, they are not going to give money to all hospices, but they are going to take money from all hospices—that seems inevitable.

[Helen Grant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Heart of Kent hospice in my constituency does amazing work caring for families at a time of crisis, but the Government changes to NICs and the national living wage will cost the charity more than £200,000 per annum. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s approach is undermining many hospices, damaging the vital services they provide, and ultimately putting more pressure on the NHS?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree. Putting pressure on other health providers and social care providers inevitably leads to pressure on the NHS. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head in her comments and I thank her for them.

For Carers Trust the cost of this rise is £3 million—that is not its tax bill; that is just the bill from this rise in the Budget. For Stroke Association it is £2.1 million over two years, and for Teenage Cancer Trust it is £300,000. It is not just about health and social care charities, but charities tackling poverty and homelessness. The Labour Government say it is their aim, and it was in their manifesto that they would develop a new cross-party strategy

“to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness”.

What good is a strategy when it is stripping £60 million from charities trying to do what the Government want them to do? The homelessness charity Crisis says the rise will cost an additional £750,000 and—here is the point—with little or no time to prepare. That announcement was made just a few months before the effects will kick in, and Crisis says it is likely to lead to a reduction in frontline services.

I will mention a few other charities. The changes will cost Single Homeless Project £650,000. Rick Henderson, the CEO of Homeless Link, says—his words, not mine—that they are “desperately worried” about closures of homelessness services, leaving thousands without support, and that this NI increase

“could be the final nail in the coffin.”

Those are not my words, or the words of politicians, but the words of charity leaders up and down the United Kingdom.

The change affects charities supporting other vulnerable people, as well as charities supporting women and girls. Labour pledged in its manifesto to halve violence against women and girls, but chief executives of seven charities, including Victim Support and Rape Crisis, have warned the rise could result in their losing staff, closing waiting lists and ultimately closing the doors to some vulnerable victims of crime. That is the result of this Budget national insurance rise.