Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have retabled Amendments 6, 8, 9, 41 and 42 to press the Government a little further on how parliamentary accountability will be guaranteed in the application of the new framework. Amendment 6 would introduce a maximum period for which the framework can be applied. Amendments 8 and 9 would ensure that all regulations applying the framework, or modifying the application of it, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I am grateful to the Minister, in tabling her Amendment 7, for taking on board the points that I and others made in Committee, and the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House.

Amendments 41 and 42 are consequential and would ensure that financial assistance can be provided by an appropriate national authority only if the corresponding legislature has approved that financial assistance by positive resolution. In Committee I cited Erskine May to highlight the importance of this matter, and those words still stand. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments today, this is something the Government should continue to consider when the Bill heads to another place.

The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 10 to 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock—a full house of political and non-political Benches. The amendments have also attracted cross-sector support from sporting bodies: the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the Lawn Tennis Association, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club for Wimbledon, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the R&A for the Open Championship, the Rugby Football League and the Rugby Football Union. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Caine sitting behind me; he was a non-exec and a board member for the Rugby League World Cup in 2021. These bodies have been joined by UK Athletics, the London Marathon and Silverstone—the host of the British Grand Prix.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests. I was one of more than 570,000 people who attended the Formula 1 events at Silverstone just a few days ago—the largest ever event in Formula 1. Unlike so many other host nations that hold Grands Prix, Silverstone does so without state funding. All those sporting bodies do a tremendous job delivering huge sporting events that bring great delight to those who watch them, inspire people to become more active and involved in sport, and contribute so much to our economy here in the UK. So I hope the Minister will accept the amendments that noble Lords have put forward, and I look forward to hearing them speaking for their amendments.

These amendments may not be perfectly drafted, but if we can put them in the Bill they could be improved in another place. It would be very important to broaden the Bill—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said at Second Reading, that would make the Bill a bit bolder in a very important way. If the Government are not minded to support these amendments, these Benches certainly will. I understand that the Government see Amendments 10 to 13 as a connected package. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for reading out the list of groups that have backed these amendments; I was always terrified that I was going to miss one or two of them. We will take it as read that the noble Lord got it right. I congratulate Ulysse Abbate in my Whips’ Office for helping me with the drafting of these amendments. He helped me to put down the smallest number of words I have ever put in, to the best effect.

Basically, the Government have a very good idea here. Expand it to fit in a few more events that are part of our sporting and cultural heritage. They have done something good here. Enjoy it. You do not often get this much support for a government idea to do something. If they cannot embrace this, they should have a little generosity of spirit and say, “Yes, it’s good”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, has put the cherry on the cake with her amendment, which says that events will be included but only if they ask for it. That is reasonable. One or two may want to stay out; I imagine that most will not, but allowing them that is good.

All of us, even those who do not regard the beautiful game as their most beautiful game—I am afraid that is me—wish England well tonight. I could expand on this at considerable length, but I would like to leave this Chamber with as many friends as I came in with, so I will sit down.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 13 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foulkes. I will also speak in support of Amendments 10 to 12, to which I have added my name. Although it is an unpaid position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

As we have heard, these amendments have a simple aim: to address what many of us in this House believe is a significant gap in the Bill, which we have covered in our previous debates. Taken together, they seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major established UK sporting events—events woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from the potential benefits that the framework can provide. My amendment seeks to address this gap in a proportionate way by allowing a sporting event organiser to request that the Secretary of State apply provisions—maybe one or maybe a number—from the sporting events framework to their event. This amendment is deliberately modest. It would place no obligation on the Government to extend the framework automatically, and it would create no automatic entitlement. In other words, these amendments would simply create an opportunity, not an obligation.

I am grateful for the support of the co-signatories of my amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am afraid I will repeat the list of sporting organisations that supported our amendments, because it shows how they are wanted across the sector. We are grateful for the support expressed by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the ECB, the FA, the London Marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics, all of which have written in support of our amendments.

As they state, the Bill “establishes enabling legislation”. Any use of the provisions in the sporting framework would still require the agreement of the Secretary of State following a request from the relevant body, and that decision would then be subject to affirmative approval in Parliament. Opportunities for primary legislation in this area do not arise often, so we truly believe it is sensible to include these powers now so that, if a compelling case were made in future, Governments would be able to act quickly and effectively. As the sporting organisations themselves have made clear:

“We envisage that any request submitted by a sporting event would be accompanied by supporting evidence explaining both the challenges faced and the benefits that would result from the provisions being applied”.


I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement on this issue. I know that they have also had constructive discussions across the sector. I recognise that the Government are sympathetic to the arguments for extending the framework to major regular UK sporting events that are likely to be of international interest and to bring significant social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. For that reason, we had hoped with fingers crossed that the Government might have been in a position to bring forward their own amendment at this stage, but unfortunately that has not proved possible.

I believe this gap must be addressed before the Bill leaves the House. I hope the Government will be able to accept these amendments or commit to bringing forward their own at Third Reading. If not, I will support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he calls a Division. I am grateful that the Government, as my noble friend said, have agreed that my Amendment 13 is complementary, so that this debate can continue in the Commons.

This is ultimately a question of future-proofing the Bill. These amendments would not guarantee support for any event or require the Government to exercise these powers. They would simply ensure that Ministers can respond where there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. Our world-class regular UK sporting events generate billions for the economy, attract international audiences, showcase the best of us and inspire participation across the country. This Bill provides an opportunity to support those events more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not left outside the framework it creates. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical means of achieving that objective, and I hope that, along with an England win tonight, the Government feel able to accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

10: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “two”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has clearly been reading over my shoulder at some point. I am afraid that, if we knew we were dealing with the same team, with the same leadership, maybe we would have considered not voting. I feel a little churlish—but only a little. We have got other amendments here which agree the affirmative procedure, which is welcome—I should have said that earlier. But we need something in the Bill. If something were to come back at Third Reading, I would not be pressing this to a vote. But we have not received that assurance, so I am afraid I must beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

11: Clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out subsection (3)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I shall be brief. I have signed Amendment 48, which it seems to me should be in the Bill, especially as we are living through what we are living through right now. A UK government report in 2025 exploring the financial implications of climate change on grass-roots sports estimated that climate-related disruptions already cost grass-roots sport in the UK £320 million annually. Some £200 million of that goes in repairs and maintenance, and £120 million goes in lost revenue from cancelled matches. Every age group is affected. On 19 July 2022, when the temperature soared to 37 degrees, a 23 year-old playing cricket in Durham ended up in an ice bath in hospital because he was hit by the heat. We suffer from heat in this country just as much as people in hotter countries because we are not used to it.

What is important now is to use sport. The FIFA World Cup is the most watched event in history. At the moment, 14 of the stadiums face climate risks. By 2050, 90% of host stadiums could face dangerous heat and 11 host stadiums could face completely unplayable conditions. It is a real risk, but football itself is starting to adapt. We are seeing cooling breaks, heat protocols and schedule changes. The reality is that this hits the highest levels down to the grass roots. Pitches are damaged, seasons are disrupted, water scarcity affects maintenance and community clubs face rising costs from climate-related damage. This is about the future of the entire football system, not to mention other sports, because it is local parks, schools, amateur clubs, academies and national leagues. It is the all the things we want to foster in a country that prides itself on community groups and, especially, on football.

Sport has a unique role to play in helping to drive climate action, because it can, on a practical level, do all sorts of things. Emotionally, sport, particularly football, is one of our most powerful storytelling platforms. Already, 86% of fans of the big clubs say they want clubs to speak out on climate action, and 91% say they would feel even prouder of their clubs if they took proper action.

We know what to do. We just need to move fast. We need investment in sports grounds. We need to protect people from future climate change. We need public information, shade and trees. This is stuff we know. This will improve the quality of life for everybody, and sport is a brilliant way through. Quite honestly, if sport does not give that kind of message, what kind of message does it give? It is meant to represent the health and the best of this country. Everyone will be watching this football match. We need to act on this, because it tells the right story that our Government ought to be telling.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting set of amendments. I think the most appealing one in the context of the Bill is from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. There is a general principle that might be better addressed in other legislation that goes further. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say, but I think this is the start of the process, not the end of it. We shall see.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am very glad that my noble friend Lord Harlech has returned to this issue on Report. He cannot be the only Islington resident who was dismayed by the aftermath of the parade he mentioned, but I am sure he has given it far greater thought from a legal and legislative perspective than any other resident, and I am sure all other residents of the borough will be grateful to him for returning to this in such a dogged and forensic manner. I hope the Minister will take that on board and will be able to give him some further thoughts today and in the meeting that he seeks.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is a question of what is appropriate for this Bill. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, as we heard in Committee, many international federations and event organisers now expect very high environmental commitments from those bidding to host major sporting events. If our national associations want to apply for such events, they will have to comply with these ever more ambitious sustainability and environmental requirements. I am still not convinced that this Bill is the right place to write them in, but I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of public transport from an environmental aspect as well as from an accessibility point of view in making it easier for more people to get to these sporting events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make it clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both the event owner and the local organising committee to grant authorisations if required.

Amendments 16, 37 and 38, also tabled in my name, make it clear that the power to create exceptions to the ticket-touting offence could apply to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes. The amendments also clarify the definition of a charity as applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they provide that charitable purposes are defined in accordance with the relevant legislation. We are listening to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House about the potential impact on charities. However, in our view a blanket exception could undermine the objectives of the framework or create unintended loopholes. These amendments signal our clear intention to make exceptions, in regulations, to the ticket-touting offence for charities, where appropriate.

Amendment 32, also in my name, seeks to address concerns about the impact of the trading offence on those with an existing licence to trade in a restricted zone—noting Amendment 31 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We agree that the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly street traders holding a licence from the local authority, should be mitigated. While we need to be able to control trading activity in areas of high spectator footfall, it is right that we introduce additional protections for existing traders in those areas. This amendment means a designated authorising person, such as an event organiser or local authority, must take into account whether a person has any existing trading licences when determining whether or not to grant a trading authorisation. If an existing trader cannot be accommodated in their usual spot, we will work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative trading arrangements in that limited period. We must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to provide.

I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 17 in this group, but before I speak to it, I thank the Government for many of their amendments. They have clearly listened to the problems raised. Generally speaking, this has been a Bill of good relationships. We had a meeting on Amendment 17 and the Minister brought officials in, but I made it clear that we think more should be done about ticket touting. Ticket touting is when somebody gets in between the person who provides an event and the person who buys the ticket. They put extra costs in, and they take the money away. The person providing the event does not get anything out of it and the person going to the event gets extra costs.

The amendment here is to put limitations on how much you can take out. It may be a difficult thing and there may be big players involved, saying, “But we’re providing a service”. They are not, actually. They are just giving the ticket out, and there are cheaper ways of doing it. I hope the Minister can give us something more here. We have Third Reading, and I hope we can get a little more out of it. I think we should get something more solid in the Bill; it is a major opportunity. Unless we start saying that we are going to do something about ticket touting, we will be involved in consultation for ever. For a long time it has been just a bit more consultation and, oh, they are providing a service. Is it a real service? I am not sure it is. I hope the Minister will have had some damascene conversion and will accept my amendments or give me something like them. If not, I am afraid I will have to call a vote.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 on ticketing before alighting briefly on Amendment 31 on trading. Previously I have highlighted the iniquity of not being able to trade a ticket with a Facebook friend if you have been jilted by the person you planned to go with or if in the months between buying the tickets for yourself and Grandpa, he has died. It happens. Not only preventing that sale but fining someone £50,000 for trying it is two-tier justice. You get less for burglary.

If you have bought half a dozen tickets or fewer for a game, you get to go with your family. It does not make you part of a crime family, yet this is what the Government are saying. The Bill purports to support the fan but it criminalises those whose plans have changed while failing to go after the organisers who could do so much more to sort out ticket abuse. This part of the Bill is stuck in the past in that it fails to consider the modern ways in which fans can be protected from scammers with new techniques such as proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. That prevents ghost ticketing and facilitates a regulated exchange between consenting adults.

The organisers of these events have not tried hard enough to stop the bots because it suits them to carry on just as they are. They can sell out and bank the cash on day one. We all want to ensure that the fans get a fair shot at going to the game—that is common ground—but rather than sorting the problem of the bots that stand in the way of the fans at source and ensuring that multiple bunches of tickets cannot be hoovered up, this Bill gives the organisers a free pass to do what they like. It is the ultimate unintended consequence.

I have previously given the example of the FIFA World Cup ticketing fiasco—outrageous prices, empty stadiums, ghost ticketing, the 15% resale fees from a monopoly supplier and no regulated secondary market. It encourages fans to hang around the turnstiles, which is a recipe for disaster and not in the best interests of fans. If the Bill is enacted, it would aid and abet these activities and prevent the Government intervening. We would be giving FIFA the legal right to do what it wants. Let us remind ourselves: this is the organisation that rescinded a red card under pressure from President Trump, who did not think it was a foul when he did not even watch the game. These are the people being given carte blanche. It is wrong.

Nobody wants the Olympics or the World Cup more than I do, so why are the peer-to-peer sites such as StubHub or your Facebook friends to be banned instead of encouraged to participate in regulated secondary markets? Why are we handing the organisers a monopoly for their favourite chums? Why cannot anyone get their story straight on how the mechanics of ticket surrender will work?

I ask the Minister, who I know has her lines, to concede that my previous warnings about FIFA and the World Cup ticketing have proved me right. Life has not worked out as she expected because the organisers are not the good chaps she thought; they are just in it for themselves. I invite the Minister to agree and to accept my proposal in Amendment 18 to focus more on the organisers who sell the tickets rather than the innocent families who want to go to the game and buy six tickets or fewer.

I move briefly on to trading in my Amendment 31 in this group. The whole purpose of these big events is to transform local economies. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and I made the strong case in the public interest for local traders and businesses to have some sort of economic benefit. At that stage our pleas fell on stony ground, but I am pleased now with the government amendment that says that local licensed traders will be given priority. At last, the Government have agreed with me that fans should be given the choice of consuming good local food and beer in local streets, served by local people, rather than being force-fed dismal cardboard burgers, gassy lager and overpriced tat in stadium concourses. We are agreed. We got there and, on that basis, I am happy not to move my Amendment 31.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

17: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to bring forward proposals on unauthorised ticketing activity(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out and lay before Parliament a review on—(a) the operation and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act, in particular the operation of Schedule 1, and(b) the integrity, affordability and availability of ticketing at sporting events to which this Act applies.(2) The review under subsection (1) should in particular consider whether the ticket touting provisions in this Act have prevented persons from—(a) reselling, or offering to resell, an event ticket at a price exceeding its face value amount;(b) reselling, or offering to resell, more event tickets than the person was entitled to purchase in the primary sale;(c) charging, through a ticket resale platform, a buyer a service fee, or a seller a combined commission and service fee, exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(d) charging a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(e) engaging in surge pricing;(f) operating a ticket resale platform that displays incorrect material information about an event ticket, or that fails to take reasonable steps—(i) to verify that a listed ticket exists,(ii) to prevent listings above face value or in excess of a seller’s entitlement, or(iii) to remove non-compliant listings. (3) Within six months of the day on which the review under subsection (1) is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation setting out proposals to improve the ticket touting provisions in this Act, including provision to remedy any deficiencies and shortcomings found in the relation to the points mentioned in subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a review of the ticket touting provisions in this Act and publish draft legislation to remedy any shortcomings in the effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Government think that they are doing something, but we have been waiting too long. I think we need something in the Bill to encourage this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

43: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Infrastructure strategy for major sporting events(1) Regulations under section 2 which apply the sporting events framework to a sporting event may require the appropriate national authority to publish, or require another person to publish, an infrastructure strategy for the sporting event. (2) An infrastructure strategy is a document setting out—(a) an assessment of the infrastructure needs of persons attending or participating in the sporting event,(b) the steps to be taken to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is available to meet those needs at a range of price points, and(c) any measures proposed to prevent excessive pricing of infrastructure in connection with the sporting event. (3) In this part, reference to infrastructure includes—(a) accommodation;(b) internet services;(c) energy infrastructure;(d) water infrastructure;(e) waste services;(f) health services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to ascertain how the Government will make proper provision of various infrastructure forms when hosting the major sporting event.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we come to a little triumvirate of amendments standing in my name. To take them in order, we start with the infrastructure requirements for providing any games or championship. I will not go over old ground, but I would like some assurance from the Minister about what process the Government expect to follow to make sure we get the infrastructure right. There are certain models, such as the London Olympic Games, when a great deal of infrastructure was put in; but then, with the Birmingham and Glasgow Commonwealth Games, we did not have to do much. If building has to be done, what is the process for getting assurances on it?

Then we come to what I think is my favourite of the three amendments: on getting some benefit down to grass-roots sports. This is inspired by our experience during the London Olympics, because the one thing we did not do was encourage people to play sport. We learned how to build lovely things and how to watch sport, but we did not get people to play. We thought that just watching and having a good example would be enough—it is not. There are other examples where we have been more successful, such as in championships. There is a great deal of competition between netball and rugby union regarding which has been most successful in encouraging back people who had had some training but fell out of the sport. Basically, it needs a targeted approach. What are we doing to make sure that grass-roots sports benefit directly from this activity? That is the question we are raising here.

Then we come to the thorny question of broadcasting. What are we doing to make sure that people can actually watch an event, particularly if it is one of ours, and particularly if the Government have put in money, time and energy. What are we doing to make sure that people who cannot get tickets can still watch? I could have used the term “free to air”, but I would be pulled up on it: “Ah, but you need to pay the licence fee to get it on the BBC”. I am referring to something that is not hiding behind a paywall. Are we making sure that people notice these events and can feel included, even if they are not actually there, and can obtain some benefit from them?

I hope that the Minister will have positive, reassuring answers on these amendments, so that we can take them forward for future events. I doubt very much that she will inspire me to vote again, but I hope I will get positive answers. I look forward to her reply.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this trio of amendments, which reflect the important discussions we had in Committee on sporting legacy. Those debates were enriched by the considerable number of Olympian and Paralympian Members of your Lordships’ House. Supporting grass-roots sports and sporting legacy is one of the most important lessons from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

My Amendment 49 and the consequential Amendments 52 and 53 in this group attempt to press the Government on when they will publish their major events strategy. Because of the purposes of this Bill, the amendment reflects sporting events, but this is something eagerly awaited by a number of sectors: sports, culture, arts and many more that host, or seek to host, major events. The Government have said that they will publish the strategy but have not given a clear indication of when, which has slightly affected some of our debates. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say any more on this.

I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says in Amendment 45. It is a particular shame that the Commonwealth Games to be held soon will not be broadcast and readily available for people on the BBC, for the first time since 1954. I hope the Government will consider how such an impact can be avoided for future sporting events.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which concerns the infrastructure for major sporting events. As I set out in Committee in more detail, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is exactly the type of technical requirement already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by event owners. As part of the bidding process, prospective hosts will have to provide the necessary assurances to event owners that there will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there were sufficient powers if further infrastructure is required to host an event. In the case of London 2012, a delivery authority was established with significant powers as a result of a very specific set of requirements, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. In the Government’s view, this is not going to be required for every major sporting event. We therefore do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to include prescriptive requirements in relation to infrastructure and accommodation in the Bill.

I assure the noble Lord that we will consider event requirements on a case-by-case basis. We recognise that, when the Government are required to make commitments which go beyond the common requirements set out in the Bill, or in circumstances such as the establishment of a delivery authority, it may require further primary legislation to support event delivery.

On Amendment 44, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. This would encompass supporting community participation and the growth of grass-roots sport. I am pleased to confirm that the first event this Bill will support, UEFA Euro 2028, will prioritise grass-roots participation as part of the Government-backed community programme, catalysing the growth of a more inclusive game, boosting pride and fostering togetherness across the country. In any case, the Bill already allows us to set funding conditions which could, of course, support grass-roots investment where warranted.

On Amendment 45, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, accessibility and inclusion already underpin major sporting events’ funding. It is a core objective of the Gold Framework and a non-negotiable criterion within our public funding processes. While we are committed to doing more to improve accessibility, we also need to strike a balance between protecting the independence of our media and ensuring that broadcasting revenue can be invested back into the growth of our sports. There is also a matter of practicality: event planning and broadcasting rights negotiations do not always proceed on the same timetable.

Finally, on Amendments 49, 52, and 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as I set out earlier, we are committed to publishing a major events strategy that spans events in all sectors, not just sport. I am pleased to confirm that this will be published by spring next year. It is right that we commit time to fully work this through, in collaboration with those in the industry, to ensure it accurately reflects the opportunities and challenges they face. Of course, it is also right that there continue to be specific strategies for particular issues such as the Gold Framework that underpin our strategy for major sporting events. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment. I should have commented on it, because it is a sensible suggestion.

We are at the start of a positive dialogue about building. The Government had a good idea on which they should have been bolder. These are all things that would have strengthened the Bill if there were in it but are probably not essential. Having heard what the Minister said, and liking the thinking if not all the words, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his points, which we supported in Committee and support still. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Morris for their refereeing and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I do not think a worker on a special event should have any fewer rights than a worker on any other occasion.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, as we reach the final moments of play on Report, I am pleased to turn to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It is clear that, in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts and contracts guaranteeing a minimum number of hours can benefit both employers and workers. However, without the appropriate safeguards, the flexibility they provide can operate disproportionately in favour of employers, leaving workers with greater uncertainty over their working patterns and income.

Any exclusions or exemptions introduced at this stage risk pre-empting the outcome of the Government’s ongoing consultation on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. Through this consultation, the Government are seeking evidence and views from stakeholders on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts, including whether any exclusions or exemptions may be appropriate. It is important that the views of all stakeholders are fully considered before any decisions are taken on potential exclusions or exemptions.

The Government’s objective is to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, enabling workers to better plan their lives and finances. We encourage stakeholders from the sporting events sector to engage with the consultation and help inform the development of the policy.

I also note, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that nobody would have believed she would have encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to speak longer than necessary, given the circumstances.

With that, I will blow the final whistle on my remarks but I look forward to continuing commentary and debate, both on the Bill and on tonight’s match. I know all noble Lords wish the England team the best of luck and hope, indeed, that football is coming home. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, will withdraw his amendment.