Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”

Lord Addington Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Debbonaire said that the Bill originated as a Tory proposal when she was a shadow Minister. I do not think she had joined your Lordships’ House a year ago when we were going through this Bill and had the marvellous sight of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who had moved the Bill for the Tory party prior to the election, turning handstands to say why it was not suitable, why we really did not need it and why all sorts of changes had to be introduced before it could make any progress—the text for, “We don’t really want it to make any progress at all”. I understand that that was not always personal on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that there were forces behind him, shall we say. In many cases, they were influenced by connections with Premier League football clubs.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom I hugely respect, particularly in sporting matters—I am loath even to question his motives—that I wonder why he is doing this. Is it not rerunning some of our debates a year ago, when there was opposition to the Bill per se? I am not suggesting that he is acting on behalf of anyone else—he is well capable of speaking for himself—but it seems to me that, when he gave the Leeds United example, that was personal. He unpicked the layers, almost like an onion, of who controls the club, and I understand why there were questions there: but that seems to be more about Leeds United than about the Bill and this guidance.

I cannot understand why the noble Lord thinks the guidance is unclear. Paragraph 2.7 talks about

“significant influence or control … For example, absolute decision or veto rights”

relating to eight examples. It is quite clear. We can look too closely at what “significant influence or control” actually means: it is usually quite clear, and those involved know whether they have that. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about effectively turning people away from football because of the test they will have to meet. I suggest that, if people are not prepared to be open and transparent about what they are doing and perhaps why they are doing it, they will not be any loss to football, because there is more to that than just the financial terms.

I will make one last point. The noble Lord cited his own football club, which I think I am right in saying was not a Premier League club at this time last year, when the Bill was going through. But it seemed that the main thrust was about Premier League clubs, rather than EFL clubs. If we are declaring our interests, I declare that I am a proud part-owner and season ticket holder at AFC Wimbledon, further down the pyramid. The noble Lord said, “We didn’t think the guidance was about existing owners; it was about new owners hoping to come into the game”. Well, I did not get that impression when we had the discussions a year ago. Look at the clubs at level 2—Reading, Cardiff City and Sheffield Wednesday, which he mentioned—which could not get rid of owners who were really dragging those clubs down. It is not just about the Premier League; it is about clubs at a lower level that may have aspirations to get to the Premier League. There are more mundane examples than the high-fliers that hope to be the Arsenals of this world. So, again, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is seeking to achieve, other than to undermine the force of the Act.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw that we were going to pray against the Bill, I thought, “Oh, this is interesting”, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is good at this. He casts the fly across the water and drags it out to see what will rise and bite. Well, this trout is biting—not at the fly but at the line. The Bill is going through and we will have precedent and case law very quickly on how this is operating. We will have to let the regulator get on with it.

I agree with the noble Lord on one point: the ownership of these national bodies is incredibly complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just mentioned it. If you think this is complicated, look down the chain. The origins of many of these institutions go back to the Victorian period, and they have been through many evolutions, changes and traumatic experiences along the way, wrapped around them. There is a great mess about these institutions, which is why they get into so much trouble and why we need the regulator.

You will have to have a series of general terms, which will be defined by experience, case law and the attitude of the regulators. I hope the current regulator is a success. Let us face it, the regulator has not exactly arrived to universal fanfare, but I hope it is a success and we set a precedent for how this should be done, because we need that. It is too complicated to get the definitions and clarity the noble Lord seeks here. I know he opposed the regulation of this sport and is worried about other bits. I happen to disagree with him on this; I may agree with him on something else tomorrow, but on this I disagree with him. We should let the regulator get on with it and observe. We have other things coming in the “state of the game” report, and the Government cannot look away from this. We have to make sure that it happens independently. I hope that we just let the regulator get on with it because, let us face it, we have talked about this enough.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking when the Front Benches have started speaking—I was going to stand up, but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, jumped up far too quickly.

When it comes to football, I want to use a phrase that the late Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me. We had been working hard to get the Holy Trinity Church restored; it was a very poor congregation and fundraising was really very difficult, but we managed to do it. He came to open this amazing refurbished place, with the organ returned to its great glory. The church was full, and he said, “Your vicar, John Sentamu, can almost be compared to a Yorkshire terrier—never letting go, or only doing so in order to get a firmer grip”. That is how I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: when it comes to football, he is like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not wanting to control or anything but just because he loves football, and he knows a lot about football. He is doing this with an honest attitude. I do not think he is doing it to prevent regulations and all that is happening. But because he is like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go.

This stands on a three-legged stool. The first is what we passed here in your Lordships’ House—an Act of Parliament, the primary legislation. If you go there, you discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what he has just done. He is not doing it out of any reason other than that the Act that we passed gave him that power. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said exactly the same thing.

Secondly, there is the regulator, with powers given, again, by an Act of Parliament. The third leg is guidance—but I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things, which is why it cannot be clearly defined on every occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, guidance always has to be understood in context. You cannot simply talk about what happens to my little club, which is not in paradise. York City Football Club is climbing up slowly, but it fell out of League Two a long time ago. You cannot say to the people of York City that paragraph 1.6 should not apply to them, when it says that

“regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personnel statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, will ensure this statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to fans and the wider public”.

That will also apply to my little York City Football Club. Therefore, I do not see those phrases needing to be more precise.

This three-legged stool of the Act, the regulator and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that it actually knows who really owns it and who those people are. I think this is a good thing. I beseech the highly admired noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is the time to drop the Motion. He can continue to be keen on football, but this is not the time—otherwise, you are going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I know we are talking about English football in this debate, but I want to put on record my congratulations to the Scottish team for their epic victory last night and their qualification for the World Cup. Well done to them.

I have a brief question for the Minister about what a future process for expanding the remit of the regulator might be. During the passage of the Bill, she set out the Government’s reasons—she reiterated them just now—for not including the women’s game in the scope of the regulatory regime at this stage. Hence, it is not covered in the SI we are discussing. She mentioned the five-year review but say that in 18 months’ time, those involved in running women’s football and the clubs approach the regulator and say they would like the women’s game to be included within the regulator’s remit? If the regulator agrees with that request, what will the process be to take that forward?

Will the Government simply agree and table a revised SI to be debated again, to include the women’s game within the scope of the regime, or will Ministers and DCMS officials be more actively engaged in the process if they believe the status quo that they have argued for until now remains a sensible position? Or will they say they have to wait for five years? It would be useful to know whether the Government have given any thought to what process might be able to take place if something happens before the review.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations do not surprise anybody. They are more or less what the Act said, so congratulations on bringing clarity. The question about the women’s game is reasonable; I was going to ask something similar. It is an ongoing question. If the women’s game, which is expanding at a phenomenal rate, has any of the problems that the men’s game had—hopefully, the warning shock from this might help—it is a decent thing to ask how it is to be brought in.

It is good to get the regulator functioning at the moment. We put a great deal of time into it. It was one occasion when I agreed with Governments led by three Conservative Prime Ministers and one Labour Prime Minister. We needed this, we should have it, and we should have it operational.

The review is the most important bit of this Act, as it stands. Will the Minister like to expand a little more on the scope and how it could be expanded? What do the Government envisage? We are doing something new. We are pretty sure the existing system has failed a lot of fans and communities by threatening their clubs, Sheffield Wednesday being only the last example. We could go on for ever, and the number of near misses is great, but we should not be going through the near miss of losing your club on a periodic basis. Only a few have gone, but it is almost wondrous that there have not been more casualties.

Having said that, we wish this instrument well; after all the hours we spent debating it, we can do nothing else. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of the ongoing process because this is a first step, and a pretty bold first step. It certainly was not welcomed with open arms by the top tier of professional football. How is it going to develop? Also, the question about the women’s game is a genuine one; I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on asking it.

Before I sit down, let me, as a rugby fan who cheers for Scotland, say well done to those who kick the round ball; thank God they did not follow the example of their union colleagues.

Independent Football Regulator

Lord Addington Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

That was quite a lot of questions in one question. I will do my best to answer the noble Lord, but on his points about UEFA and the success of the Independent Football Regulator, I want to make it very clear that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The plight of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday, shows why the Government were right to establish the IFR, which is to put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.

The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s reply to a note. The Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Laurie Magnus on this point shows that he knew that the decision was for the Secretary of State. He replied on the basis that the decision had been taken. He made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given the note or confirmed that he was content, and he sincerely regrets this. The Football Governance Act is clear that DCMS Ministers alone make appointments to the board of the IFR. In practice, in the end, David Kogan was appointed as chair of the IFR not by the Secretary of State nor by the Prime Minister but by the Minister for Sport.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if we are to assume that this is cock-up and not conspiracy, can the Minister assure us of the process that will happen next time to make sure that this does not happen again? Also, it might be helpful for this ongoing situation if we could get some definition of what we are looking for as regards the success of the Independent Football Regulator.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The department has reviewed all appointments processes to ensure that this issue does not arise again. We will work with the Cabinet Office and the commissioner, as per the recommendation in the report. On what success looks like for the Independent Football Regulator, I know that the IFR under David Kogan will protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of their communities, which is exactly where they belong.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister go a bit further about the Government’s activity? It is quite clear this was not a conventional situation for the local boards that were operating. Is there not some structure by which this intelligence can be brought forward to make sure that local authorities know that there is support from outside available to them, as the Government now seem to be telling us there was?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Clearly, we need to look at why no request for additional resource through mutual aid, which is quite a standard process, was sought beforehand. I assure your Lordships’ House that, as soon as the decision was made known, the Culture Secretary, Home Secretary and Community Secretary had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others, trying to come up with a form of support that would enable the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to be present at the match. Noble Lords will be aware, however, that since then Maccabi Tel Aviv has decided to refuse any allocation of tickets. I assure the noble Lord that the Government were very active in trying to resolve the issue, particularly over the weekend after this became known.

UK and EU Trade: Arts and Creative Industries

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are a number of ways in which the UK Government are working towards ensuring youth mobility and exchange. We are working towards association with Erasmus+ on mutually agreed financial terms with the EU. We want to ensure that any agreement reflects a fair balance between the UK financial contribution and the number of UK participants. I am aware of the work that the Government in Wales have done on this and that many young people have benefited from that programme.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have been giving those bureaucrats who like designing red tape an absolute charter to have a field day on this? When will they give us a reduction of, say, 25% in the number of forms that you have to fill in? At the moment, it is just ridiculous.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I repeat that this is a high priority. A number of noble Lords asking questions today have highlighted how complex this is in terms of reducing the bureaucracy. I can only reiterate that large parts of the Civil Service are working very hard to ensure that the bureaucracy is reduced. It remains a priority for this Government and for DCMS.

Football Governance Act 2025: Implementation

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord mean in relation to how many people are employed by the regulator? To be honest, that will be largely down to the incoming regulator itself. As the noble Lord will be aware from our lengthy discussions during the passage through Parliament of the Bill, now an Act, there is a broad understanding of what we think the overall operational costs will be. We put them at around £8 million to £10 million. Clearly, the staffing costs, as well as other operational costs, would need to come within that.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can the Government give us further reassurance that they will not only look at the body they have created and make sure that it is functioning quickly but give it the backing it will need to take on vested interests? We have this periodic disaster in which people nearly lose their clubs again and again; we have had it in the past, and we are supposed to be getting rid of it. Do the Government agree?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Football Governance Act 2025 was put in place exactly to address the issues that the noble Lord identifies. As I said in my initial Answer, to make sure that we do not see any repeat of previous issues, every effort is being made to ensure that the independent football regulator is up and running as soon as possible. It is vital to ensure that we get the regulator on a firm footing and able to address the issues facing the game.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely correct—and what happened? Within a few days, all that went away. They had a look and it went away. As I mentioned, I wrote an article on the very day the idea came out, as did many other people, saying that it would not work. The clubs involved looked at that and said, “Yes, this is true. It’s not going to work”.

The noble Lord talked about Wimbledon. We are now saying, in the Bill, that clubs cannot move and there can be no dynamism. Yet I quoted a study in the debate last night that said that, when we restrict, clamp down and prevent things happening, that is when societies disintegrate. We cannot expect to have success if we say, “We know best and we’re going to stop this, that and the other, and impose this, that and the other”. I am just putting a warning down: one of these days, somebody will be in a position to say that this was an extraordinarily bad idea.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will say a couple of words to wrap up from these Benches. When we did the Bill, my first comment was, “I am not of your tribe when it comes to being a football fan”. I encourage everybody to watch a decent sport on Saturday morning, when the Lions have their first Test, but we have got that out of the way now. The thing about this is that football clearly touches people’s lives because it is their local team. What the Bill does is get better management and better structures in there. It means that somebody is overseeing them.

It may be that the market will ultimately do something or run away, or we will all end up playing ice hockey on artificial pitches or something when people get fed up with it. Who knows? But at the moment, football speaks to many communities, and the fact that we will have these clubs, which are a part of the fabric of their local society and its interaction together, surviving better, or at least standing a chance of so doing, is something for which we should actually be very grateful.

In the end, the argument about these amendments is probably over how we divide up the loot. Let us face it, we did this because bits of football were fighting with each other about money; that is where we got to at the end. The Cross Benches came up with a solution that was, I felt, a little too elegant—that congratulation is really what I felt the whole time—as opposed to a rather brutal solution by the Government. We went brutal. But we have something here that looks like it will work and have general agreement.

Live Music Industry: Support

Lord Addington Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister give us some undertaking that the Government will look at well-being and things such as mental health that go with participation in live music, particularly at accessible events? If we lose sight of that linkage, we are losing much of the benefit.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My own health is considerably enhanced by being able to attend events. From a government perspective, it is key that all children have the chance to realise their musical talent and that music events are open to all. That is why the Government are working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged students.

Media Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 7. The listed events regime is something that we all agree should happen—for sporting events and events of national importance. This amendment, initially moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is an attempt to make sure that in the current viewing world, they are still relevant in the way that they should be. Not everybody watches these listed events on an ordinary television and, if you do, you may be watching on internet television. One of the joys of this is that you have highlights and replays and can watch out of sync. I would hope in this modern world that those are guaranteed, because if you do not guarantee that these sporting cultural assets, which the nation has said should be available to everyone and there is cross-party consensus on, are made available for free then you are going to take them away.

Also, if there is any danger of these highlights being taken away—when it comes to the Olympics, for example, determined as I am, even I cannot watch 15 events at once, especially not at various times—we must make sure that they are readily available. This is the second go at this. I hope that the Minister can give us a definitive reassurance that we will have this available to us now, in this Bill, because if not, the Government have thrown away, in effect, half the listed events.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 1 and to echo some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in her Amendment 8. It is a very great honour to speak to her amendment. I congratulate her on her very important recognition with her BAFTA award last week. She has been a tireless campaigner for children’s television, which is why these two amendments are perhaps the most important that we are discussing today.

To put at the heart of the Bill the notion of public service broadcasting and to modernise it for the digital age should surely be what we are trying to achieve today. I am a member of probably the first generation of comprehensive school children who were taught using terrestrial colour television—creative programmes such as “Words and Pictures” and—dare I say it?—“Play School”. I still remember “magic e” when I write speeches for the Lords. What is sitting here is a failure to realise that we are the generation that lived in information scarcity and our children are swimming in an ocean of information abundance. That notion at the heart of public service broadcasting—good, thorough content creation that is age-appropriate and relevant to the educational journey that we ask our children and their families to go on—is what we should be addressing.

I hope that all Front-Benchers will be able to take the comments made by the movers of those amendments very seriously when they respond to the debate.

Media Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is a series of issues around the importance of sporting events being listed as cultural assets. If you do not do it in a way that holds the full panoply of technology as it stands today, you are going to miss out on the principle. As somebody who lost quite a lot of sleep trying to follow the Tokyo Games, et cetera, I am slightly annoyed that I did not add my name to all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the importance of overnight digital and highlight coverage. Live is usually preferable but you will not be able to see everything. For events that have multiple sports, you should not be able to see everything; it is a chance to see sports you do not otherwise see. It is a chance to see the panoply of sporting events going on.

We really need an undertaking from the Government that they are going to take this seriously. Is it a step back to try to get your video recorder set for the right time? I do not know, but that is the alternative. You either make sure that this is available or you accept that people will miss out. Once you have legislated to say that they do not, you will make sure they do. Can we have an undertaking here? I prefer my amendment to the one from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on this, but his amendment certainly would be better than nothing. However, I much prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

As to the one on cricket, I wondered whether the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would be containable, and it was not. I think that probably tells you why cricket should be there. Cricket is a major sporting event in this country. When the cricket team does well, the whole country has a lift. It is something unique; it is that bit of cultural capital that we keep. Anybody who doubts that, just go and watch what happens when we do well or badly. It is there; it fits into that structure. Other sports may do it, but I think cricket has a special place in the summer for this. Can the Government undertake to say how we are going to start to address this?

These are genuine issues, raised to make something that the Government have agreed to work. If we can get some firm commitment that they are going to take all these concerns and put them into something solid, I for one will have to withdraw on this; if not, we will be going back to it. We have no real choice. You are talking about sport’s place in our society as a cultural activity and something that touches the whole nation. If we are not going to do this properly, why are we doing it at all?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to express my support for Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I think she has captured, very importantly, how the character of watching major sporting events has changed over recent years, certainly a great deal since the Communications Act 2003, when I had the pleasure of working with Lord Puttnam and others in another place on that Act—the Standing Committee and the Puttnam commission—back then. Of course, when we are looking at listed events, people were understandably focused on the live coverage in those days because that was predominantly how people watched sporting events. That has changed and we must adapt the structure of the legislation to match that.

I will come on, if I may, to the difference between Amendments 29 and 30. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred kindly to Amendment 30 and I think there are advantages. I note that Amendment 29 somewhat suggests that the noble Lord and the Opposition Front Bench have started to write amendments a bit as a Government in waiting in a way in which we tend to see the Government thinking it a very good idea for Ministers to have the powers to do things however they wish. I think now the Opposition Front Bench wants to have similar sorts of powers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The House was stunned into silence by the revelation from the right reverend Prelate.

I thank noble Lords for the contributions they have made and the points raised on the other amendments in this group. We, of course, had a bit of a pre-match friendly during our debate on sport led by the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, on Thursday. Let me start with Amendments 25 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

The Government recognise the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendments, and I know that she has had concerns about in particular the necessity of the new multisport provisions, whether “adequate live coverage” will meet the mark, and whether public service broadcasters will have the freedom to choose what they cover in the interests of their audiences. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to seek to offer her and other noble Lords reassurance on these questions.

First, on whether these provisions are necessary, the Bill introduces the concept of adequate live coverage for multisport events to ensure that partnerships between broadcasters which deliver for UK audiences can still go ahead in an age where dozens of sporting events can be taking place concurrently. We do not want inadvertently to create a regime which would prevent deals like the one currently in place between Warner Bros. Discovery and the BBC. Expansion of the scope of services covered by the regime to resolve the streaming loophole poses risks to these mutually beneficial partnerships between public service broadcasters and commercial broadcasters for multisport events. That is because the existing requirement for both parties to have the same coverage does not reflect the way that coverage is actually shared between them across different types of services.

There is no intention to weaken the public service broadcasters’ hand in negotiations, simply to ensure that partnerships between them and commercial broadcasters can function effectively to deliver the best outcomes for audiences and rights holders.

On whether “adequate live coverage” will hit the mark for audiences, it will be for Ofcom to make new regulations setting out what will be considered adequate. Following scrutiny and debate in another place, the Government amended to the Bill to set out the matters that Ofcom must take into account when defining adequate live coverage in its regulations. This is an example of Parliament giving direction to the regulator through legislation. This includes the forms of live coverage that would satisfy the interests of the public, and the desirability of facilitating arrangements which result in live coverage of listed events being shown on both public service and non-public service broadcasters.

To protect audiences’ interests, and in keeping with deals we have seen before, any partnership of this nature will require at least two live broadcasts on public service broadcasters. Ofcom is given the power to require more than two streams if it deems it necessary or appropriate, and it could also set requirements regarding the percentage of coverage or other considerations.

Finally, I think the noble Baroness, like me and others who have spoken, believes that it is vital that public service broadcasters continue to have the flexibility and editorial freedom to show the most incredible moments of these multisport events to public audiences. I reassure her and other noble Lords that the Bill enables Ofcom to require that “adequate live coverage” must allow the broadcaster involved to select what parts of the proceedings it wishes to show. It is vital that public service broadcasters maintain complete editorial control of live broadcasts when they enter partnerships so that they have the freedom to make decisions about what events to screen for the British public, and the Bill makes provisions for this.

For those reasons, I do not think that we need the amendments the noble Baroness has brought before us. However, I hope my words have provided reassurance about the checks and balances in place to deliver for audiences in the way she seeks.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Is the Minister, in effect, saying that he is convinced that, under the current regime, catch up and clips will continue to be available, certainly when multiple sports are happening at different times? Will we get slightly better guidance on that? Will it be available for us to look it up and check on it—certainly before the next stage of this Bill?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, the Bill caters for the concerns that have been set out, but I will happily discuss that further with the noble Lord if on reflection he disagrees with the reasons I have set out.

I turn now to the noble Lord’s Amendment 31. The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. We acknowledge the interest that fans have in watching the sports teams of our home nations compete. As noble Lords will appreciate, however, sports rights holders use income from the sale of broadcast rights for the benefit of the sporting sector more generally, so it is important that the regime continues to strike the right balance between accessibility and the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues which they can invest in their sports at all levels.

The Government believe that the current list of events works to deliver the best outcome and strikes an appropriate balance. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. I know that will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but it is why I cannot accept his Amendment 31.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me to say a bit more about Amendment 19. We have taken the opportunity, as recommended during the pre-legislative scrutiny process for the Bill, to take steps to ensure that the streamer loophole is closed. This was a major flaw in the current regime which allowed for unregulated online services to acquire listed sports rights, while leaving Ofcom powerless to do anything. The current drafting therefore ensures that all TV-like services providing live content to UK audiences are in scope of the regime. Amendment 19, and Amendments 20 to 22, are technical amendments to future-proof the regime by closing off an opportunity for non-public service broadcaster services to qualify through the back door. The amendments tie qualification for the listed events regime to the way in which qualification for prominence is decided.