Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

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

[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 ---

[Rebecca Paul]

The Opposition will not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. We support the fundamental purpose of the Bill and believe Britain should be the best place in the world to host major sporting events. A permanent legislative framework will help us achieve that ambition. The great tragedy of this process, however, is that the Bill we have before us could have been so much more. Thanks to the work of Conservative peers, alongside others in the other place, the Bill was significantly improved before reaching this House. Yet, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) in Committee and the arguments we have put forward during the Bill’s subsequent passage, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to go further.

In this Bill, we had an opportunity to establish clear statutory safeguards for female athletes, to protect the integrity of single-sex competition and to ensure that sporting organisations benefiting from the privileges conferred by the Bill respect the rights and safety of women and girls. Is that not what female athletes deserve? Is that not what all women deserve?

I have to say that I am shocked at the result of the vote on amendment 8. Ninety-three Members in this place voted to protect the women’s category, almost all of those Conservatives, and no Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] I have huge respect for the Culture Secretary, but we do not believe this matter is covered. We know that in practice males are able to participate in competitions. As I said in my speech on Report, we know that the London marathon is considering including male pacemakers, yet the London marathon is meant to be covered by the Bill. We also have the numerous issues at FIFA level. Therefore, with respect, I do not believe that the issue is covered. It is gut-wrenching that a rare chance to address those concerns has been squandered by those on the Government Front Bench, many of whom still struggle to articulate what a woman even is. It will now fall to a future Conservative Government to do what is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of women’s sport—and the House should make no mistake, we will do it.

For now, we can add sport to Labour’s long list of safeguarding failures for women and girls. It has refused to move the dangerous men unlawfully held in women’s prisons, dragged its feet on the grooming gang inquiry, stood by as nurses are harassed by the NHS for not wanting to undress in front of males, and refused to stop the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, which would cause irreversible harm to hundreds of children. Yet Labour has the gall to say that reducing violence against women and girls is one of its priorities. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Government have the chance to do the right thing, and time and again they do not. For them, party will always come before country.

Equally disappointing has been the Government’s refusal to address properly the threat of industrial action disrupting major sporting events. I struggle to see the logic in legislating to protect ticketing arrangements, commercial interests and advertising rights, but stubbornly refusing to take action on the strikes that could bring those same events to a standstill. What good are all the commercial protections if spectators cannot reach the stadium and an event that has taken years to organise is thrown into chaos by union bosses looking for their next bit of leverage? We all know why the Government will not support that: they cannot upset their union paymasters. I hope they all declared their interests today while they do their paymasters’ bidding.

With all that said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. We recognise the benefits it will bring and the considerable work that has gone into improving it. However, the Government will know deep down that this was a missed opportunity to deliver something considerably more meaningful. The Bill will almost certainly make Britain better equipped to host major sporting events, but sadly, it does not make Britain a better place for a female athlete to compete, and that is a terrible shame.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.