Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, please forgive me for the omission, but I neglected to refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I gave my speech some moments ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Thank you, Mr Huddleston. That has most definitely been put on the record.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing.

The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner.

Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well.

The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created.

In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.

--- Later in debate ---

Can the Government bring themselves to accept even the most modest and consensual amendment, or will anything tabled be routinely rejected? Has the ability of the House to scrutinise become so defunct that suggestions from the Lords are disregarded, and we refuse reasonable amendments to a piece of legislation on which there is broad agreement? I know it is the default position of all Governments—I have been in government—simply to reject Opposition amendments. But the amendments are extremely modest, they reflect the debates in the Lords, and I hope that Ministers will view them constructively so that the broad support for the Bill can be maintained.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.

As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.

The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.

Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.

Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.

We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.

Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.

I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.

At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.

What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.

Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.

In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.

Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?

Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.

Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:

“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”

Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.

What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.

The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same. 

I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.

This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I believe the Minister is just about to conclude—final word.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point.

We have had a very good debate on this issue, particularly in Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the whole House. We are a world leader in major events, and I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Minister has done a fantastic job.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

14:01

Division 117

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 93

Noes: 287

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Voting in today’s deferred Divisions will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for 25 minutes.

Third Reading

King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It is a slightly technical point, but with mega-events such as those the Secretary of State is talking about, unauthorised car parking can cause major problems to the event organisers—I have been one myself—requiring traffic management systems and other measures. Do you agree that it might be appropriate to have exclusion zones around stadiums and other sporting venues? Far be it from me to deter such entrepreneurial spirit, but do you also agree that any landowner who wishes to operate an unauthorised car park should work together with the event organiser so that they can better organise those traffic management plans?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind Back Benchers that it is not appropriate to say “you” and “yours” in the Chamber.

[Lisa Nandy]

I very much took the concern as being directed as me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, because it can be a significant problem. Transport provisions are already in scope of the Bill, but we would be happy to work with him and others who share our concerns about making sure that events are successful if there are particular issues that arise subsequently.

The UEFA European championship in 2028 is going to be an incredible moment for our country. It is projected to deliver a sixfold return on public investment, and we are going to use this opportunity to get more people playing football, strengthen our grassroots clubs and open up opportunities right across the country. Members will also know that we have bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup and the 2029 world para athletics championships. This Government are also committed to seeing the Ryder and Solheim cups hosted here.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week, we have committed £7 million to a detailed feasibility study for a potential bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England in the 2040s. This is personal for me: I grew up in the north of England, in Manchester, and I watched as we unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic games many years ago. Many people across the country told us that it could not be done—Manchester could not host major sporting events. Then, only a few years later, we went on to host a really successful Commonwealth games and show the world how it was done. Every part of this country deserves the chance to contribute to our incredibly rich legacy of major sporting events. We believe that the north of England has so much to offer, and we are determined to make sure that the rest of the world gets the chance to see that.

Underpinning all this is a belief that the benefits of hosting major events should not be confined to the host city or to those fortunate enough to secure a ticket. The benefits should be felt in towns and cities and in our schools, sports clubs and communities across all four nations of the UK. The events should inspire a generation of young people to go on and live the richer, larger lives that they deserve.

The Bill allows us to stand ready to host the biggest events in the world, to protect the integrity of those events to ensure that people can enjoy them, and to make certain that the benefits reach as far as possible. I am grateful to Members across the House who have engaged so constructively and thoughtfully with us during the passage of the Bill to improve it. I thank those who have supported our provisions, which we believe will improve the way that we host major sporting events.

I would like to thank in particular our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for her sterling work on this Bill. Our Whips are often unsung heroes in this place. Without them, the major benefits that we deliver to the people of this country would simply not happen.

In particular, the improvements that hon. Members have helped us to make have broadened the framework’s scope so that some of our world-class recurrent events can also benefit from its provisions. We have heard loud and clear the importance of getting the balance right to provide effective protections for major sporting events, while ensuring that the framework operates fairly and proportionately for businesses and communities. I am pleased that the safeguards are now strengthened in the Bill.

I want to address a few of the concerns that we have heard today head-on, in particular the questions about biological sex and the need to protect sporting events. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) that I have heard her points, and I know that she feels passionately about this issue, but I want to be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that participation in all events within the scope of the Bill is already based on biological sex. I do not want Members to misunderstand what we are doing through this Bill.

There were concerns raised by a few hon. Members about the prospect of sporting events being derailed by strike action. I have to say, and I hope Members will take this in the right spirit, that I could not disagree more with their proposals. It is notable that no Member could point to a single instance when a major sporting event has been derailed by strike action. When I was serving as parliamentary private secretary to Tessa Jowell, many Conservative Members raised concerns that the 2012 Olympics would be derailed by strike action. In the event, the only major disruption was when a private company, G4S, failed to deliver on its contract and the Army had to be drafted in to support. I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that if they want to avoid strike action, the best way is to treat the workforce of this country as partners in our national endeavour and to treat them properly.

I recognise the concerns about ticketing raised by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and echoed by the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I recognise the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I want to be clear: the Government rejected the amendment not because we are anything but committed to bringing in the strongest protection for fans, whether at music, sport or other live events, but because it would have, in effect, created a two-tier system where sporting events were covered but music events were not. That dilutes a comprehensive package that we are putting forward to the House to clamp down on ticket touts and to call time on the rip off that has been allowed to go on in plain sight for too long, in order to give music, sports and other live events back to their fans. I also gently say that in 14 years of Tory Government, and in five years of coalition, no action was taken on this issue. A Labour Government will deliver it.

I pay particular tribute to our devolved partners. From the outset, we have been clear that this must be legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely together to ensure that the Bill reflects that commitment and that the opportunities and rewards from hosting these events are shared across all four nations. When the world comes to our countries, it should be able to see and experience the very best of every part of our United Kingdom, of which we are so immensely proud.

Finally, I thank all of the individuals across Government who have worked hard to get us to this point. Major sporting events give us moments we remember for a lifetime, but their real value lies in what they leave behind: the communities they strengthen; the opportunities they create; the young people they inspire; and the pride that they help us share with the world. Through the Bill we stand ready to seize those opportunities and to make sure that when those moments come, the benefits belong to us all. I commend the Bill to the House.