Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister, and welcoming her to her place. I was sadly not able to be there on Friday when she made her maiden speech in your Lordships’ House, but I have read it with pleasure and welcome her warmly to her position in DCMS.

As the Minister set out in her maiden speech, she brings great international experience as well as great experience in Whitehall and Westminster to the work that she does, which is particularly pertinent for the topic today of international affairs. We all look very much forward to working with her.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston for the way he introduced the debate today and thank him and all the members of your Lordships’ Committee on International Agreements for the detailed work they have done in scrutinising this proposal. I am very glad that the Government provided extra time for the committee to do its work; the very good and detailed contributions that we have had today reflect the careful thought that the committee and your Lordships’ House have brought to this matter.

The manipulation of sports competitions is a very serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, was right when he said that this goes to the very heart of the fundamental British value of fair play. We heard very strong and moving speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan about the integrity of sport and the impact that this has not just on current sportsmen and women but on young people we want to be encouraging to be more active and to represent their country on the international elite stage.

We heard from a number of noble Lords about the close links between what some people might dismiss as “just a bit of gambling gone wrong” and serious organised crime: people trafficking, terrorism, illicit financing and so many other offences. So, it is absolutely right that this issue is being taken seriously and that we are working with international colleagues to tackle this transnational issue.

As we have heard, and as the committee’s report says, the United Kingdom already has a good story to tell about this domestically. We already fulfil the requirements of the convention through, for instance, the work of the Gambling Commission, the sports betting intelligence unit and the Sports Betting Integrity Forum. We have some expertise that we can share with international partners. We have already learned lessons in tackling this.

The ratification which all noble Lords have looked forward to today would formalise existing arrangements and solidify the commitments that we have already made on the international stage. That is reflected, as we have heard, by the evidence that the committee gathered from witnesses who appeared before it, who very much supported the UK’s ratification of this convention and highlighted the need for international co-operation to tackle this.

However, as noble Lords from my noble friend Lord Johnson onwards have been at pains to point out, ratification alone is not a solution to this problem. My noble friend said that it must be seen as one part of a wider effort, and he is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan were right in pointing to the importance of international governing bodies of sports. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit about the discussions the department is already having with those governing bodies to make sure that they are doing what they ought to be doing to tackle this issue.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan is right that we should be talking particularly to nations that want to host major international sporting events. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, whom we wish a speedy recovery, is right that this is about other jurisdictions well beyond Europe. We have some leverage when people are applying to host major sporting events. The decision today by World Athletics to award the 2029 world championships to Nairobi rather than London has disappointed many, including our new colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Tooting, and all those who worked on London’s bid. They were particularly dismayed because of Kenya’s current record, with 136 athletes currently serving doping bans. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say something on that specifically, but it would be interesting to hear about the Government’s work with host nations and international bodies that make these decisions.

I will allow her to follow up the questions that noble Lords raised, rightly highlighting paragraphs 85 and 86 of the committee’s report, which deal with the reservation the Government intend to enter in respect of the convention’s jurisdictional requirements on Article 19(1)(d). The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, unsurprisingly, was particularly forensic in his examination of the evidence given by DCMS and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for his keen interest in the policies of His Majesty’s Opposition and will arrange for him to be sent a copy of the report by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, which deals with this issue in detail. But he and other noble Lords will know that the way that convention prevents us from tackling serious crimes, such as people trafficking and cross-border criminality, is eroding trust—not just in this nation but in other member states of the Council of Europe—in the way it operates. We are not the only country looking at whether it can be reformed and brought back closer to the original intent of those who drafted it many years ago. If that is not possible, I do not think we will be the only member state looking at alternatives to it. But that is a debate for another day and I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this one.

Australia: Social Media Algorithms

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This whole area is clearly developing on an ongoing basis. We will always keep under review whether the measures we have in place are adequate; we will always make sure that we take steps to do that. It is an absolute priority of this Government to keep people safe online, and we want to work across party divides to make sure this happens and that we both harness the benefits of this sector and everything that the online world can contribute and make sure that we keep everyone safe online.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Australian proposals are are all about allowing users to have the choice about what sources they see on their feeds, as are the tools and user empowerment in the Online Safety Act. Does the Minister see a tension here with the approach outlined in the Government’s media Green Paper, which is about giving the Government the power to decide which news sources are trustworthy? If we are giving people choice to switch off algorithms, will they have the opportunity to opt out of government-sanctioned trustworthy news in due course?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very interesting point, and I would be very keen to discuss it further with him. We are working with different and conflicting issues. We are really keen that it is a priority to make sure that people have trusted sources of news and they know that those news sources that come to the top of their feeds are the most trustworthy. I would be surprised if there was a huge number of people who wanted to turn off an option to get trusted news at the top of their feed, but I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord.

Touring: Impact of EU Exit

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I said previously, it is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the agenda for the UK-EU summit. We do not yet have a finalised date, and I should not pre-empt discussions between the UK and EU on the content of the agenda. Regarding our new Prime Minister, I am not sure we have ever had a Prime Minister who is as enthusiastic and passionate about music and the music industry, including performing himself. I think we should take that as an indication of his commitment to the music sector and to touring artists.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister says, other countries lose out when the UK’s brilliant musicians and other artists are unable to tour. Will she make that point, and the point made in this report, to the Government of the United States, who introduced higher artist visa charges in 2024, so that our artists are able to travel not just to the countries closest to us in Europe but all over the world?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is really useful research, and I hope we use it in our dialogue with countries across the world. I will feed that point back to Minister Ian Murray. It is really important that we use what information we can to demonstrate the huge benefit to people; it is a mutual benefit and similar issues apply.

BBC Royal Charter: Gaelic Broadcasting

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think there is, potentially, but we need to make sure that we do not assume that a one-size-fits-all approach works across the piece. I am happy to take suggestions back to the department and to speak to my colleague Ian Murray from the other place about this. We are keen to make sure that all minority languages get what works for that particular area, rather than assuming that one size fits all. On Northern Ireland and Irish-language broadcasting, which works on a cross-border basis, we are keen to continue to support that from DCMS as well.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, unlike S4C, MG Alba does not have statutory designation as a public service broadcaster, which leaves it more vulnerable to budgetary pressures from the BBC. Only last month, the BBC announced cuts of £500 million and 550 jobs. Is this something that the Government will look at as part of the royal charter review to address the vulnerability that MG Alba and Gaelic broadcasting faces?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is an interesting point. There is a statutory basis for Welsh broadcasting. Without undermining what we are trying to do in Wales, I refer noble Lords back to the fact that the budget per Gaelic speaker is considerably higher. A statutory basis on its own is not enough protection, but we will try to work through all these questions and make sure that we look at the models that work in different areas as part of our work in DCMS.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thought those were very interesting amendments. I am sorry that I had not read them, but they are interesting and worth considering by the Government.

I want to speak to Amendment 21. I begin by thanking Freddie Daley, whose work with Cool Down and Badvertising has helped to shape this amendment. His research has highlighted the growing tension between local fossil-fuel advertising bans and major sporting events. I know that the Government are not proposing a national ban on fossil-fuel advertising, even though I think they ought to. However, that argument was rejected in Committee and I am not trying to reopen that debate.

This amendment takes a different approach. It is saying that, where a host city or local authority has adopted climate, environmental or advertising policies that restrict fossil-fuel advertising, major sporting events should respect those policies. After all, the Bill is about creating a framework for hosting major sporting events. It should not become a way to bypass decisions that have already been made by local authorities.

We have a very useful example. In 2027, Edinburgh will host the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Edinburgh City Council has already voted to ban high-carbon advertising, including fossil-fuel advertising, across council-owned spaces. Sheffield has adopted a similar policy, and other local authorities have done the same or are considering doing so. Athletes should not become moving adverts for fossil-fuel companies as they race past Edinburgh Castle and through the city’s streets. These councils have made democratic decisions about the kind of places they want to be. If they have decided that fossil-fuel advertising has no place on their streets and public spaces, why should an international sporting event be treated any differently?

I do not need to repeat the reasons we brought in Committee on why this matters. This year’s Tour de France has already had to shorten a stage because of extreme heat, for the first time. Here in the UK, running races have been cancelled this week and other sporting events and transport are affected. Climate change is already changing how major sporting events are organised, yet sports, including cycling, continue to provide a valuable advertising platform for fossil-fuel companies, and these adverts are no accident. Fossil-fuel companies do not sponsor cycling because they sell bikes; they do it because it allows them to associate their brands with healthy lifestyles, beautiful places and active travel, rather than with the filthy emissions that are driving our climate emergency.

Sports such as football and cycling were once full of tobacco sponsorship. As the evidence of harm grew, public attitudes changed; the rules changed and the sport adapted. Today, that relationship feels completely out of step with the values that sport represents. I believe we are beginning to see the same shift in attitudes towards fossil-fuel advertising. If sporting events are allowed to sidestep local advertising bans, they risk becoming one of the last remaining routes for fossil-fuel companies to advertise in cities that have deliberately chosen to restrict that advertising. We should not be asking cities to choose between hosting world-class sporting events and sticking to their climate commitments. This amendment would make sure that they do not have to.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as this is my first opportunity, I am sure that we all want to send our best wishes for good luck to the England football team in their major sporting event this evening—particularly to the midfielder Elliot Anderson who, like all the best people, comes from Whitley Bay.

Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I made clear my views in Committee that the amendments we considered then and have looked at again today do not meet the test of proportionality that is important here. My view remains unchanged on that. I completely understand the concerns the noble Lord set out, but we must of course set that against the fact that many sporting events rely on sponsorship from gambling companies, a perfectly legal activity in this country. We must consider carefully how further restrictions on gambling sponsorship could affect British sport: for instance, the English Football League, whose title partner is SkyBet, or the England and Wales Cricket Board, which has been forced to relax its own restrictions this very month because of a paucity of other commercial sponsors. We need to look at this carefully and with a cool head.

In Committee, I expressed my concern, however, at the scale of illegal and unlicensed gambling. This is much more likely to lead to societal problems because the companies involved do not incorporate the necessary protections and safeguards, and have far less care for their consumers. In Committee, I pressed the Minister on the consultation, which the Government announced earlier this year, on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and advertising. This very morning, I was pleased therefore to see that she has published a Written Ministerial Statement announcing that consultation, and I look forward to hearing the views of those connected to it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not apply the advertising provisions and the trading provisions for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the advertising and trading provisions of the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event. This is consistent with the approach taken in Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the Bill already goes further than the amendment proposed. Within the provisions in the Bill, advertising and trading provisions can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of an event and no later than five days after the event concludes. I hope that these clear limitations in the Bill will reassure noble Lords.

Amendments 7, 50 and 51, tabled in my name, seek to ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in urgent cases in which the “made affirmative” resolution procedure would be used. In bringing forward these government amendments, we have listened to the concerns of the House, noting Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These amendments ensure that Parliament can debate regulations, while preserving flexibility to accommodate unforeseen and last-minute changes. I hope the amendments tabled in my name reassure noble Lords of the importance we place on ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, while providing some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes.

Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, summed it up when he said that we have a huge number of events in this country already. However, this Government recognise there is more we can do to support the whole major events sector. I can confirm today the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, a number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether the remit of the Sporting Events Bill could be extended to include recurrent major events in the UK. I am hugely grateful for the time noble Lords have taken to talk me through the rationale of how this could support our fabulous events, from Wimbledon to the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and the London Marathon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, indicated, these discussions have been hugely constructive. I have also heard directly from event organisers who are keen to explore this further, and we are continuing discussions between event organisers, officials and Ministers over the summer.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this. It is not always the case that a Government Minister is told to expand the scope of a Bill, and we recognise that the sentiment behind this is one of support for events in this country. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government see merit in exploring the idea further. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, we are committed to continuing the conversation over the summer with noble Lords and event organisers. However, I regret that, at this point, I cannot commit to a specific outcome for these discussions. There are a number of considerations we need to work through carefully, particularly around how proportionate it would be to potentially restrict fair competition for small businesses on an ongoing basis and, for instance, who would enforce regulations.

I understand there is concern that events such as the Rugby League World Cup or the Women’s T20 World Cup would be out of scope. Noble Lords will appreciate that the nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I reassure your Lordships’ House that we expect both cricket and Rugby League World Cups to be exactly the type of events that could meet the conditions. I recognise noble Lords’ good intent in relation to this matter, but I am keen that we get this right and make sure that any potential unintended consequences are considered before we make a decision in this regard.

On Amendments 41 and 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, the Government fully agree that, when it comes to public funds, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. However, these amendments are unnecessary. There are already robust mechanisms in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. As an accounting officer, the DCMS Permanent Secretary is accountable to Parliament to ensure departmental spending on major sporting events meets the Managing Public Money principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment. Therefore, requiring such scrutiny could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the time she has made available to noble Lords from across the House on the other amendments we have discussed, including with many of the sporting bodies that are involved. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans to decide what to do on their amendment.

For my part, we would be inclined in normal circumstances to take the Minister’s word for it, for she is a woman of her word who has worked hard on this. However, we find ourselves in unusual circumstances where she, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister in another place may be in different positions by the time the Bill heads to the Commons. So, your Lordships’ House would be well advised to put something in the Bill to reflect the cross-party, cross-House support we have had on this issue and the strength of feeling, and to leave that as a work in progress. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but reiterate that we will support him if he chooses to divide on this important issue. I thank the Minister for her answers to the amendments I moved and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 14 and 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be considered at every stage in the planning and delivery of our major sporting events. I note the example shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We genuinely recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and this debate is clearly in the context of an extended heatwave.

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 to a part of it. Your Lordships’ House may be pleased to know that social benefit here encompasses consideration of environmental and climate impacts where relevant. I will, of course, be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others to discuss this further.

I have shared throughout the Bill’s passage the important measures in place to integrate sustainability into our major sporting events from the outset: from the Gold Framework guiding organisers bidding for government funding to non-negotiable requirements in our spending processes. However, I have heard the strong concerns and valuable insights raised across the House and recognise that there is always room to do more, especially on matters as important as our environment.

That is why I am pleased to be able to give a firm commitment today that, as noted by my noble friend Lord Whitty, the environment will be a clear and stated consideration as the Government develop a major events strategy—not only for major sporting events but for all major events hosted across the country. Should the evidence gathered suggest that we can do more when it comes to major sporting events, we will be guided by that data to reflect on how and where we go further. In the meantime, I am happy to confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the community programme for Euro 2028, the first event that this Bill will support.

As well as taking steps to reduce the event’s impact on the environment, the Euros’ community programme will actively seek opportunities to build climate resilience into its broader ambition to support communities. I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in the adaptation reporting power. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on how best to target these powers, and is in touch with all relevant departments, although we are clear that the decision to apply it should remain at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

I turn now to Amendment 35, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Major sporting events vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and the transport networks serving them. An appropriate requirement in one case may be unnecessary, disproportionate or impractical in another. We believe that the most effective approach to tackling transport concerns would be through collaborative, integrated planning and delivery tailored to the specific needs of each event.

On Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, there is no doubt that the cleanliness of the environments in which we hold our major sporting events is vital. I will be very happy to meet with the noble Lord; I met with a number of noble Lords who took up the offer that was made in the Chamber and in my all-Peers letter. I am sorry that the noble Lord and I have not yet met up, but I will make sure that my office gets in touch with him so that we can meet before Third Reading.

Going back to the cleanliness point raised today and in Committee by the noble Lord, this is why, as set out in Committee, local authorities have a duty to support this under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is in addition to measures such as the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse statutory guidance. Also, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 confers powers to help them tackle persistent, unreasonable behaviour negatively affecting communities. Adding to those duties would require local authorities to substantively alter their operational approach; as set out in the new burdens doctrine, this requires proper assessment given the potential for significant additional costs, ultimately borne by the taxpayer. We believe that a holistic approach is more appropriate.

In light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I think we would all agree that he has brought some of the more colourful illustrations to his amendments during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps, like me, noble Lords are disappointed that the kebab did not make an appearance today, but in the dying moments the cardboard burger did. That is something to reflect upon.

I will speak to government Amendment 16 and the related charity amendments that have been brought forward on Report. When we began this process, the Bill was deficient when it came to the operations and thus the impact of charities up and down the country. The charitable sector makes such a contribution—socially, of course; psychologically, certainly; and economically, in so many ways, to the general well-being of this nation.

The London Olympics Act of 2006 contained charitable provisions, as did the Commonwealth Games Act of 2020. We have made some good progress. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their detailed discussion between Committee and Report, resulting in these amendments, which set out significant provisions and a real commitment to what could be included in subsequent regulations. It puts charities in a far clearer, far better position. It does not just benefit charities and charitable activity up and down the country; it makes sporting events and this Bill better.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways.

It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate.

I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently—to them, at least—how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea to do so, as the Bill heads to another place, because advertisers do such an important job in sustaining the climate for sporting events big and small across these islands.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make 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 event owner and local organising committee to grant authorisations if needed.

I am very grateful to noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Holmes and Lord Addington, among others, for acknowledging the changes we have made to improve the Bill based on direct discussions and discussions during earlier stages of the Bill. On the specific question relating to the Advertising Association raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, officials did speak to it ahead of the Bill’s introduction. I will ask them to engage again with the organisation concerned to make sure we are hearing its concerns directly.

--- Later in debate ---

Have I read the wrong bit? No?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Okay, I will carry on. With apologies to your Lordships’ House, I just had a moment where I asked myself, “Honestly, am I reading the right bit of paper?” I am pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, confirm, in the spirit of the debate so far, that it appears I am not reading the wrong speech. It is a big group.

We must be able both to read our speeches coherently and to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate, in this Government’s view, to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to provide. I hope that he will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised and I commend the amendments in my name to the House.

On Amendments 17 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the ticketing offence in the Bill ensures that tickets can be publicly sold or resold only with authorisation from an event owner or organiser. This means that tickets will be available only on official channels. As I noted in Committee, we are determined that major sporting events hosted in the UK are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That includes developing ticketing strategies that put fans, fairness and transparency first. We have worked closely with UEFA to ensure that these principles are at the heart of the approach to Euro 2028. Tickets for the event will go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 17 would require a report on the effectiveness of the provisions before they have been applied to regulations, and before tickets have gone on sale. We have, however, committed to evaluate the application of the Bill’s provisions within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We have also committed to bring forward a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including on the level of service fee that can be charged, and limits on the number of tickets that individuals can resell.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, noted, I hosted a briefing session yesterday to update noble Lords on this work and I look forward to providing a further update in the autumn. In response to the noble Lord, I stress and underline that the Government really want to address the considerable issues in the secondary ticketing market. I hope that noble Lords attending that meeting were reassured by the session that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have strong measures in place, at the very earliest opportunity, to tackle the secondary ticketing market. This is a clear manifesto commitment and, as set out in the King’s Speech, we intend to publish the draft Bill in this second Session for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Work to prepare this legislation is happening now and I ask noble Lords to have confidence that we intend publication to be absolutely as soon as possible, within what remains of this second Session. For example, had the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me whether I would anticipate that it will be early in the new year, I would say that I cannot commit to this, but hope it will be the case.

Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, unfortunately defeats the aim of preventing unauthorised resale and profiteering. It would create a significant gap in protections and leave us unable to meet commitments to major sporting event owners. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill was criminalising people who wanted to give away tickets or sell them at face value to friends and family. This is not the intention, and it is not the intention within the Bill to criminalise the private transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. That is why the offence applies only to activity that is carried out in a public place in the course of business, or with a view to making profit.

I turn to Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. As I previously outlined, we are committed to mitigating the impact on SMEs but are clear that 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 do. We believe that my Amendment 32 strikes the appropriate balance. I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

And I was right.

[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.

Arts Education

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Philanthropy is a significant way that we can harness the power of giving. My noble friend may be aware that Minister Peacock in the other place, who is responsible for philanthropy, recently published a philanthropy strategy and plan for how we can get place-based strategy. We are aware that it is often a barrier for schools to access the arts and trips to museums. We want to explore every avenue we can to make sure children can get to museums. Indeed, the Southeastern Railway that goes to Hastings provided 1,066 tickets for schoolchildren from the Battle of Hastings countryside to access the exhibition.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, applications open in the autumn for the next round of the Arts Council’s national portfolio investment programme. I particularly welcome that it will be a five-year window, which was one of the recommendations from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. There were many other important recommendations in her report. Will the Government work to make sure that as many as possible can be implemented before the decisions are made for that 2028 to 2033 funding window?

Live Music

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for this very well-timed debate as we head into the peak summer season of live music across the nation, which brings investment, jobs and joy to so many people. We had a powerful reminder of that on the Tube this weekend: I was on my way back from the Bad Bunny concert in Tottenham and ran into fans who were coming from Take That at West Ham, Harry Styles at Wembley and Lily Allen at the O2. Like a series of rivers eddying, we all met. It could have been a hot and bothered day on the Underground, but everyone was in such good heart. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said, music is good for the soul.

The lady who sat next to us at Bad Bunny had come all the way from Italy, especially to see him and Harry Styles earlier in the week, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey will be pleased to know that my parents travelled to KOKO just last night—they are much cooler than me. As the noble Lord said, Harry Styles’s record-breaking 12-night residency at Wembley is estimated to have brought more than £1 billion to our economy. By my calculation, with just another 40 nights we can close the funding gap in the defence investment plan.

Music makes a huge contribution to our economy, so how can we help it to do more? Well, we can celebrate it. I know that the Minister is as enthusiastic as I am for the UNESCO Living Heritage inventory. Will she ensure that lots of live music and cultural practices are enrolled on that, from sea shanties to short pipes, from Eisteddfodau to evensong?

We have heard a lot about the pipeline—artists, venues and the classroom—as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, rightly pointed out. Music venues are closing, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, at a rate of two a week. Of the 34 venues Oasis played at the start of their career, only 11 remain. If Manchesterism is to mean anything, it must surely be about arresting that decline.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned that, when the Government introduced the voluntary levy, they would look at whether it reached 50% of venues by this summer. In fact, the deadline was this Tuesday. Can the Minister say whether the Government will begin that assessment, and if they will make it public? Will they look in earnest at the agent of change proposals that have been advanced repeatedly by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and by others?

Will the Government look again at the impact of their tax hikes? The Music Venue Trust’s annual report shows that the Government’s changes to national insurance and business rates shrank the workforce in grass-roots music venues by 19%—that is 6,000 jobs. Will they protect artists themselves? At a lunch earlier this week with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and others, we heard how AI is already making it harder for songwriters and musicians. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, there is no substitute for real music.

I hope the noble Baroness will listen to the many good ideas that have come from this debate to help ensure that music continues to move our soul, our economy and our culture.

Media Green Paper

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Taken together, these proposals set out a vision for a future TV and media policy in which everyone can access world-leading public service broadcasting content, including children’s and news programming, away from the misinformation and disinformation that has defined too many of our online lives. This Government will ensure that no matter where people access their TV, they are given access to high-quality programming that informs, educates and entertains, and this Green Paper is the next stage of our ambition”.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there is much to be commended in the Green Paper, not least adding on-demand rights to the listed events regime which we have been discussing in the Sporting Events Bill. As the Government recognise, some of the questions in there are thorny ones which will need careful consideration, not least how we ensure greater prominence for trusted news sources in our increasingly crowded media environment.

When this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, one of the Labour members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee urged the Secretary of State to consider “reining in GB News”—a question that the Secretary of State rather sidestepped. Can the Minister provide a bit more reassurance that that is not the Government’s direction of travel? Do the Government consider GB News a trusted news source?

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

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The whole idea of prominence is to ensure that people know the difference between trusted sources of news and opinion, and that is where the prominence issue comes in by looking at ways we can make sure that such sites come further up in the searches that people make. On the specific question, I would say it would depend whether the item on a particular news programme was opinion purporting to be fact or more factual.

Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis of Banbury, for securing this debate and congratulate her for the way she set it out. I also congratulate Matilda and James on what sounds like a splendid wedding. As their example shows, we are discussing places that record some of the most important moments in people’s lives and link us, in many cases, to 1,000 years of history of those who have also been through such moments. They are, in urban and rural areas, often the last community venues, providing not just religious services but support to the community in so many ways. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, they are part of our civic infrastructure. The survey by the National Churches Trust has tried to put a figure on this, showing that £55 billion of social value is delivered just through churches, let alone the other places of worship of all faiths and denominations to which these schemes apply.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for speaking, and we of course send our best wishes to all the ordinands this Petertide. Liturgically, this is perhaps not the best timing for the debate, but it is a timely one to be having. These buildings, of all faiths and none, are looked after by volunteers; they are not rewarded—in this life anyway—for their service. Not every parish can rely on a former Attorney-General to help them get their head round new schemes. The old scheme had many advantages, and we have heard chiefly about its simplicity and reliability. When I was a Minister, though, I was always open to ideas. The scheme was good for those who had the money to carry out the work, but lots of churches said they wanted something that would enable them to carry out the work in the first place. I am therefore open to ideas that allow that, as the new fund does.

As others have said, however, the way that the change has been brought about is regrettable, in many ways. Initially, there was the halving of the amount available and a bit of uncertainty about whether it would continue and when, which led to a very tight window for people to be applying, certainly in this first tranche of the scheme. That of course puts further burdens on volunteers, particularly those without the resources or the professional background that would help them get their head around it. There was also a bit of a lack of consultation among the users of the scheme, which is an important point. Debates such as this are a great way for feedback to be received by the Minister and her officials in relation to those who are using the scheme to deliver that public good. However, we recognise that we are where we are, and the Government have provided clarity about the scheme for the rest of this Parliament.

I will focus, therefore, on how we can make the new scheme work best. As we have heard, it is competitive. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government will ensure that we do not have winners and losers. Previously, there was a scheme to which everyone could apply. The cap in the old scheme was only ever met once—last year, when the amount was halved. Before that, people applying knew that they were very likely to get the money back. How do we make sure there is that reliability and dependability in the new scheme? How do we make it as user-friendly as possible, through generous deadlines, clear guidance and simple forms for the volunteers to fill in?

The new scheme focuses on areas of deprivation. There has been a lot of interest, but also a lot of head-scratching among those who are trying to work it out around the country. How can we make sure that the datasets that the scheme is based on are reliable? In particular, the Community Needs Index scores an area as more affluent if it has an asset such as a church, so how do we make sure that the methodology does not count against the places with a church that are in most need? Will the Minister work with Historic England to make sure that feedback from these early tranches is fed into the user experience?

The new system is England-only, whereas the old one was UK-wide. Will the Government work with the devolved authorities to make sure that there is support in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where, because of the different denominations, particularly of churches, there are a greater number of religious buildings needing to be looked after and saved? Will the Minister recognise that not everyone can avail themselves of the National Lottery Heritage Fund? Some faith groups and denominations do not like to apply to that particular heritage fund because it involves an element of gambling. That is why this scheme is so important.

Will this scheme be evaluated? In talking about the reasons for this scheme previously, the Minister said that eight out of 10 churches said that they would have carried on the work anyway. Of course they would, because, if the roof is falling down, you have to fix it, whether you get the tax back or not. The evaluation and the analysis are really important here. Can the evaluation of this scheme be done in conversation and consultation with users to understand some of the nuances which I think might have been lost in drawing up the current one? There might be a blend of the two schemes that would help give the grants and the tax back.

I should declare an interest: I am a trustee of the Churches Conservation Trust. In fact, I have just come from a meeting of the trustees of that secular charity that looks after 350 churches across the country. It was the biggest user of the old scheme. In effect, the ending of the tax arrangements now means a tax bill in the region of £300,000 for a charity that is funded by both church and state to look after these buildings for the good of the community. I know the Minister has been generous with her time with the chairman and chief exec of the charity, and has visited a CCT church in Rugby: I hope she will continue with the open-door approach that she has.

As we have a bit of time in hand before the hour is done, I shall draw out a bit more on the point that noble Lords have made about the work that these churches do for people of all faiths and none. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is very welcome to visit a CCT church to see the range of things that we do there: art exhibitions, recording studios, model railway exhibitions, CAMRA beer festivals, and even medieval jousting. I note that his party wants a network of cold spaces in this period of heat. There are not many places colder than a church, I can tell him. We have this network that can be used by people of all faiths and none. And of course, they are engines of training for the heritage skills that we need to repair buildings, including the one we are sitting in at the moment. I hope that the Minister will take the feedback that has been given by users of the scheme to the department to make sure that we have a scheme that really thanks and understands the custodians of these buildings who are delivering such a social good.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for leading the debate on this series of amendments. As she says, it is unavoidably in our minds today in the current heatwave. I am sure that noble Lords are particularly grateful to all the organisers of major sporting events who are working to adapt and tailor their events to the extreme temperatures that we are experiencing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to point to the importance of public and sustainable transport options. She is also right that they enhance the experience of people who are attending sporting events, both large and small. I have declared my interest in Formula 1 and my interest in the register of attending the British Grand Prix weekend last year. I did so by train and on the shuttle bus that the organisers at the Silverstone Circuit have been working so hard to make available, so that people can travel there in a sustainable manner. This was part of the broader commitment by Formula 1 to be net zero by 2030. Sports organisations, governing bodies and international bodies are all doing a great deal in order to provide the leadership and the changes that people rightly expect.

Major sporting events can be important focal points and rallying cries. As outlined in the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, they can be catalysts for important change in this area. He and my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke about the experience of the work done in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned water quality. I thought, too, about the extensive debates in Paris about the quality of the water in the River Seine. When hosting these events, there is an important opportunity to bring focus to those discussions. Towards the end of his contribution, my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned ensuring that anything we do here is enabling and not too prescriptive, that it gets the balance right and acknowledges the leadership that many sporting bodies are already providing to try to achieve this. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are right to raise this: there is merit in looking at what we can do with this legislation to drive that change in a positive way. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers to the major events strategy. Again, this is an area where it would be helpful to hear some of the Government’s thinking and whether there will there be a section on the environment and sustainability when it comes out.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, he was unable to be here at Second Reading for constitutional reasons, but I am very glad to have him back in his place in your Lordships’ House. He has provided a strong example of the benefit of having a young, working parent on our Benches, taking part in debates such as this. On behalf of the residents of Islington and north London, he powerfully set out the impact of the celebrations that took place. Sadly, these were not dealt with and cleared up by Islington Council in the manner people would have expected—and certainly the manner that those who pay the large council tax in that borough would want.

I congratulate my noble friend on not reigniting the row that he had with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—who is a staunch Arsenal fan—during the debates on the Football Governance Bill. He has raised a very serious matter in this debate, and he clearly explained the impact that these things have. I hope the Minister will take seriously the concerns that he raised and make sure that the impact of major sporting events, and celebrations such as that, do not cause such hazards, inconvenience and dangers to local residents who are affected.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for their amendments. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there was clearly considerable consensus during the debate. I will, I hope, add to that a little, but I will probably not go as far as noble Lords would like.

This Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be, and is, at the heart of planning and delivering the major sporting events that we host, not least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out—as we experience the extreme heat of this week. I, for one, am delighted to be in your Lordships’ Committee this afternoon, rather than outside in the extreme temperatures.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work on the London Assembly and as deputy mayor for the environment and on sustainable travel. It was fascinating to hear from noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Mawson, about their work relating to London 2012. It was a reminder of the true expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House, which the ministerial team in DCMS is keen to make use of. This should not be seen as an issue that is not cross-party. It is our desire, and it is in all our interests, to make sure that we use the expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House. I will set in motion the setting up of a ministerial meeting with people who have been involved in previous bids. Why would the Government not want to benefit from the considerable knowledge that we have?

On the approach taken in the Bill, and to give just one example, we are proud of last year’s Women’s Rugby World Cup, which introduced a dedicated environmental sustainability programme across all eight host venues in England. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, we need to learn from current practice to get the balance right. The sector is already doing a lot.

Amendment 59 relates to sustainable transport. This Government recognise the importance of sustainable travel and are committed to supporting effective transport planning that helps spectators reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport. This issue is not about the desirability of those modes of transport in principle but whether these detailed requirements should be mandated in primary legislation.

The Government’s view is that the plans prepared under Schedule 5 retain sufficient flexibility to reflect different venues, events and local transport networks. For those reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this level of operational detail in the Bill. Major sporting events already vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and local transport provision. Requiring admission tickets to confer entitlements to travel on specific public transport services would not always be within the gift of an event organiser or designated body. It may depend on commercial agreements between multiple transport operators, as well as on existing ticketing systems, service capacity and local network coverage.

It could cause unintended consequences for people using trains to commute in a sustainable way. As someone who lives on a train line that covers Wembley, I regularly share trains with people travelling to events. Most recently, when travelling while the Harry Styles concerts were taking place, I felt very underdressed— I lacked the sequins that seemed to be a requirement. In this Government’s view, sustainable transport is better secured through proportionate, locally appropriate event planning, rather than through potentially inflexible statutory requirements, but we agree that using sustainable transport is the aim.

I turn to Amendments 87 and 88, which would require organisers of events to which the Bill’s framework has been applied to publish reports on the environmental impacts associated with the event, and require the Secretary of State and event organises to have regard to climate and environmental objectives when exercising their functions under the Bill. Again, we agree with the spirit of these amendments. This is why the Bill explicitly stipulates that a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it in order for the framework to be applied. Social benefit here encompasses environmental and climate impact.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

68: Clause 25, page 19, line 11, at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another to Clause 25 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay would require Parliamentary consent before financial assistance can be granted.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68, I will also speak to Amendments 72 and 73, all of which are much shorter than my previous amendment, which was just dispatched with.

The amendments in this group, which my noble friend Lord Markham has signed as well, are intended to prevent the financial assistance provisions in Clause 25 of the Bill becoming a blank cheque that successive Governments could fill out as they see fit. To do this, our amendments require that, before the appropriate national authority grants financial assistance in connection with a sporting event, the appropriate legislature must approve that assistance by resolution. This means in practice that, if the Secretary of State wants to help fund a particular event, the House of Commons must agree to any financial commitment. When the appropriate national authority is the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament must approve the funding, and where it is a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly must give its consent.

It is a long-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Erskine May says in paragraph 33.2 that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that

“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant”.

It continues:

“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers … to authorise the relevant expenditure”.


That is the crucial point: the Government must come to Parliament, specifically another place, with proposals for the sums to be spent on each object of expenditure, and those must be detailed requirements.

Of course, there are many Bills presented to Parliament which grant the Crown a more open-ended authorisation of expenditure, but, when those Bills are considered, Members of both Houses usually pass them knowing the object of the expenditure for which they are authorising, and the sums they are authorising. The impact assessment or a briefing or explanatory note from the Government would contain the Government’s estimate of how much the measures in that Bill would be likely to cost the public purse.

The Bill before us is not a usual piece of legislation, in the sense that it seeks to create a framework for future sporting events. We do not know to exactly which events the Bill will be applied in future, nor how much financial assistance the Government of the day might wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment, which potentially spans many decades into the future.

It is possible, without necessarily even looking many decades into the future, to envisage a Prime Minister who is fiscally less disciplined than others. I want to make sure that we are future-proofing the Bill for all eventualities.

Of course, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much money the Government propose to spend as a result of Clause 25. That is not surprising. In fact, it is perfectly understandable. The very nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this means that it is unknowable. But, if the Government are not able to tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term, it is not just reasonable but a clear requirement to ensure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, I hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation.

All that our amendments seek to do is apply a very sound constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed to by the House of Commons, elected by the people. I hope that the Minister and other noble Lords will agree. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and to agree with everything that he said. I will build on his blank cheque, which was perfectly positioned phraseology. My Amendment 71 seeks to build on that in order to get the most from the moolah. If we are going to put financial assistance in place, as we do and will, it is only right and proper to make the most of that funding, to not restrict the funding and to not put issues around it that would make it less likely for us to win these major and mega sporting events. But we need to put in conditionality that will benefit the bid itself, the event and local communities and other organisations, not just at the event time but, if correctly put in place, for years and perhaps decades to come.

In no sense am I suggesting that the wording I have set out is exhaustive or covers all the issues at hand. I seek to demonstrate a sense of the threads of E, S and G running through this funding. It has to be right that local communities benefit directly from these events, because for mega events such as the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, they put up with a lot: the bid process, the extensive build process, Games time and a significant deconstruct of all the overlay and temporary venues. They deserve, and must have, an upside during that process, at the event time and, indeed, post event. It is not just the sport that should benefit. The local community is hosting these events as well and must be included in the upside and benefits that come from that.

In my other proposed subsections, I quite rightly set out to put everything around pay gap reporting, minimum wage, procurement and supply chain in the Bill. There is so much positive impact that can be driven through the procurement and supply chain process. It is worth, at least at a principles-based level, having something in the Bill to send out the signals as to what kinds of events we want to stage in this nation: not to limit the bid, not to control and not to affect the flexibility that one needs when a governing body is bidding, but rather to enhance, sharpen and add to the bid, and to the Games and the championships experience, and to have a sense that the stadia, community, part of a city and part of our country can look forward, post Games and post event—not looking back at something that has happened in the past but taking things forward that would not have happened and would not be part of that local community were it not for the staging of that event or that Games.

It is right that we seek to get the maximum and think about what we want to say about the funding put into these events. Criteria and principles seem a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments. It was a useful discussion and I will look carefully at what the noble Baroness said as we move to the next stage of the Bill. As I said in opening, this is not an ordinary Bill. It is not normal for Parliament to be presented with a piece of legislation that permits completely open-ended financial commitments, so this is an important area for us to look at carefully.

For instance, when Parliament was considering what became the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the Mayor of London and the Government had already by that point entered into a memorandum of understanding, setting out how the Games would be funded were we to win the bid. Parliament, therefore, was aware of both the event for which it was legislating and approximately what the financial liability would be. My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out in great detail—adding, as he says, colour and practical reality—the complexities of the agreements and guarantees that are required when we host events of this scale.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that cross-party support is so important. That is why we are broadly supportive of this legislation and of the Government’s ambitions in this area. But having a proper debate in Parliament, where all the parties can get their concerns off their chest and reach a resolution, is an important part of securing that cross-party agreement. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his Amendment 71 sets out just some of the many areas that Members of Parliament in both Houses will rightly want to raise when we look at these things.

At one point in her response, the Minister talked about making a departmental funding bid to the Treasury. That is fine, but it is an internal scrutiny in Government, not a role for the elected House. This was a probing amendment, as everything is in Committee, but it is probing a very important matter, so I think we ought to look at this in more detail on Report. But, with gratitude to the Minister and all those who have spoken, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add to this briefly. I have been sitting and listening to what has been said, and the one thing I have not heard about is working and liaising with local government. At the end of the day, it is at the forefront of providing the facilities noble Lords are talking about. Over the years, underfunding has meant that swimming pools have been closed and other sports events have not been able to function. There needs to be recognition that we in this Committee and those higher up can say what we would like to see, but we have to work with local government because it has the routes into the community and the grass-roots organisations. Those volunteers—the parents noble Lords are talking about—have the reach and their first port of call is local government.

I just wanted to add that to the debate so we can bear that in mind. We cannot do this in isolation. We must involve local government.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this very helpful debate has, in many senses, continued the discussion we had thanks to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan, on day one in Committee, about the huge importance of leaving a legacy when we host a major sporting event. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke very powerfully about that on Monday as well. The huge importance of our grass-roots sports organisations is clear once again. They do so much—not just when we are hosting these major events but particularly when the spotlight is shone on them—to get young people and people of all ages more active and more physically fit, helping improve their health and helping the pipeline of elite sports people for the future.

The Saturday morning football teams, the local cricket clubs and the swimming squads that meet in leisure centres up and down the land are the real heartbeat of the sporting culture in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is absolutely right: three-quarters of grass-roots sports clubs depend on affordable, local, publicly funded leisure facilities to provide opportunities for people to get involved, try new sports and get more active. They certainly deserve our support. That is why it is sad to see the Government, in other departments, looking at watering down the role for Sport England in the planning system in protecting grass pitches and sports facilities. I do not know whether the Minister, when she comes to respond, can say a bit more about this review of the planning system and the role of Sport England. It has drawn concern from the Lioness, Jill Scott, and organisations such as Fields in Trust, and I hope their words of warning will be heeded.

Noble Lords are right to mention the sadness, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan put it, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about that aspect of the last time this country hosted the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That summer of 2012 was one of the highlights of this century for this country, but that was a part of the process that we did not get as right or make as successful as we all wanted, in spite of great initiatives such as the Sport England’s Places People Play programme and the initiative the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, mentioned, with which he was associated at the time. There is a real opportunity when we host future major sporting events to make sure that we are driving forward that grass-roots legacy and driving the improvements we all want to see for future generations. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a real privilege to be part of the debate today and, with my own background, I have really enjoyed the rich contributions from around the Chamber. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other noble Lords who have supported these amendments, especially referencing the importance they rightly attach to grass-roots sport, community participation and the legacy of major sporting events.

Taken together, these four amendments seek to enable expectations to be set around investment in grass-roots sport, including community projects and facilities, as well as in climate resilience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised again. I know we had opportunities to discuss this earlier, and I probably will not dwell as much on that aspect as a result with these amendments. The amendments would also ensure that any funding under Clause 25 could be made conditional on such investment.

I said I was particularly pleased to be involved because, as a former local government leader, I recognise and completely understand the comments about the importance of local partnerships. As my noble friend Lady Dacres rightly stressed, we need to make sure that local government is at the centre of these plans. That runs throughout the Government’s approach in this regard. I emphasise that the Government are fully committed to maximising the positive legacy of major sporting events and, of course, this includes protecting and upgrading world-class facilities. But they are not just for elite athletes; they have to be accessible to local communities afterwards, and I think we have heard a great deal about that.

Picking up on the points that were made, DCMS, I am very pleased to say, is developing a national plan for physical activity that will demonstrate commitment to place-based working, embedding physical activity into local systems to strengthen the ties. We cannot look at this in isolation: it is leisure, health, civil society—all the benefits coming together. Of course, I have discussed this a great deal with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who emphasised detail. Details matter, particularly in the setting up of local partnerships.

We have clear principles in place to do this. The Gold Framework outlines that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must “have “meaningful plans” in place to generate a positive “social impact” even before the event has started. This includes considering how the event could lead to improvements in sporting facilities and infrastructure, as well as helping to tackle environmental issues. Critically, the Gold Framework is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities that they are meant to support. Picking up on the well-made points from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is what enables us to target funding where it is truly needed.

Participation, obviously, is the key thread running through all these principles. For example, we are investing £23 million into delivering legacy initiatives for the UEFA Euro 2028, which this Bill will help us to deliver, featuring the largest-ever community programme for a Euros tournament. It is obviously a multi-city hosting model; this also means that it is committed to supporting locally led legacy programmes, directly engaging diverse communities in design and delivery. The plans will be delivered by local stakeholders in both England and Ireland—the two host countries—to harness the power of sport and culture, bringing communities together and inspiring positive change. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, we talk a lot about the issue of volunteers, and why we are not attracting as many as before. This is all part of the strategy that the Government are bringing forward.

The current system works: it recognises that one size does not fit all, and provides flexibility that these amendments, in our view, would not. We need to continue to be able to be guided by evidence in any provision of public funding, as we have been doing, to allow us to maximise the benefits of our world-leading sporting events for the diverse communities we serve throughout the UK—of course, sport is a devolved matter for Wales and Scotland. The Sporting Events Bill will increase the UK’s prospects of hosting even more events, and with it the potential to generate more lasting socio- economic benefits for athletes and communities across the UK.

Where needed, Clause 25 of the Bill already sets out that event funding can be given subject to conditions: these could include conditions relating to supporting these important areas where warranted. The Government are already doing what we can regardless: for example, we are investing £400 million across the next four years into new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities, promoting health, well-being and community cohesion. Some of that money has been used to upgrade clubhouses and pitches, but reducing our carbon footprint and improving overall durability is also absolutely fundamental. We are funding the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, providing evidence-based guidance to help ensure that both physical structures and fan welfare are protected during volatile climate events.

I just want to reference—because I am very proud of it—the bringing of the Grand Départ to Yorkshire. It was one of the proudest things that I have been involved in, and legacy was a thread running through it. I live on the edge of Leeds, and I know that it was scouts going round schools who found Lizzie Armitstead, who was not a cyclist then but a runner. The scouts went to the school and discovered her talent in cycling. That was first-hand, real experience of how this can work. Most important was the parallel event running alongside the Grand Départ, with thousands of people volunteering. They kept the route open for all the amateurs to go along afterwards for the whole day. Those events, and indeed all cycling events in Yorkshire, are now flooded with participants. It can be done.

There are many other examples of positive models. I have referred just to one that I am familiar with and am very proud of, but there are examples all over the country. We need to look at those examples with great positivity and recognise the incredible benefits they bring to a wide selection of communities, and the pride from families seeing their kids participating. There is a huge amount to be positive about in the approach that the Government are taking.

I hope, with the comments I have made, that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this point in the proceedings.