partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

   My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of improving prostate cancer treatment, which affects so many men across the UK. We are investing £2.8 million to expand access to focal therapy in specialist centres in England, and NICE will look at the progress that is being made. We would of course be keen to work with the Scottish Government on this, and for them to be able to see the same results. It is important that we continue to improve treatment.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

   I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, who is obviously undergoing the most difficult of circumstances, and it is exactly because this is such a devastating condition that we have introduced a three-month rapid review of all the research and barriers to getting more patients into trials. We are of course keen to continue to work with the devolved Governments on this, because the research benefits us all right across the United Kingdom. We will be drawing up a framework to get drugs more quickly into trials, and to get more patients into those trials.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   NHS Maternity Services: Devon

   As I made clear earlier, we are determined to see support given to North Devon maternity services so that they can reopen to provide quality maternity care. It is the responsibility of the trust to ensure that safe staffing levels are in place, but NHS regional and national teams are also working to support them.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   NHS Maternity Services: Devon

   The national maternity and neonatal intensive support team has visited the trust to look at what more can be done. The trust has a particular issue with the recruitment of consultants, and measures that it had assured us would be put in place ended up not being effective, so it now has to take further action. It is important that it continues to do so. We will keep the hon. Gentleman up to date with all the measures that we are taking nationally, but I know he is also in close contact with the local trust. Hopefully, the continued local, regional and national pressure will ensure that those services can open as swiftly as possible.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Topical Questions

   The covid-19 inquiry has today published its module 6 report on what Baroness Hallett calls the “devastating impact” of the pandemic “on people receiving and providing care and their loved ones.” My thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones in the pandemic, especially those who endured the immense distress and harm of visiting restrictions in care homes, which meant they could not be with loved ones even as they died. I also pay tribute to all those who worked to protect the most vulnerable in very difficult circumstances, from care workers to family members. The report finds that the adult social care sector was in a “fragile state” and insufficiently prepared for a pandemic, and that social care was too often treated as “an afterthought” in comparison with the priority placed on protecting the NHS. We will provide a full response to the report’s recommendations in due course, but I agree with the chair when she said that “for too long the adult social care sector has been undervalued and under-recognised”. That has to end and I hope we can work across parties to support the Prime Minister’s vision for a national care service.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Topical Questions

   I am very sorry for everything that Nicola and her family have been through. The hon. Member will know that the UK National Screening Committee guides the Government in screening decisions. It has looked at newborn screening and concluded that there is not yet enough evidence to include MLD in the test. However, it is awaiting evidence from pilot studies looking into screening for MLD and from the recently implemented Norwegian screening programme. I will look further at this issue and ensure that the hon. Member gets a meeting with Ministers to talk about MLD.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Topical Questions

   That is a little rich coming from a Member who voted for the 2012 Andrew Lansley reforms, having promised no top-down reorganisations then doing one of the worst and most damaging top-down reorganisations ever in the history of the NHS. We are taking the Health Bill through Parliament; it is currently going through the House of Lords. We want to focus on frontline care, rather than the huge expansion of bureaucracy that we saw under the right hon. Member’s Government, which ended up absorbing money, away from the frontline, and creating far too much duplication.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Topical Questions

   The right hon. Member’s party and the Government who he supported expanded the number of jobs in NHS England from around 5,000 to more than 20,000 in the space of just a few years. This Government are reducing the number of jobs in administration and bureaucracy in order to invest in expanding the number of clinical posts across the country and across our NHS. We are already making substantial savings, with further efficiency savings and productivity savings taking place this year. This Government are delivering lower waiting lists, more treatment, faster treatment and improvements for patients.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

   Topical Questions

   The story of what happened to little Finlay is devastating, and what his family have been through is unimaginable. I reiterate the apology that I have made to Finlay’s family; this happened in the summer of 2024, but it is still devastating that it should have happened, and that he should have been treated in a corridor in that way. As the hon. Member knows, since earlier this year, we have been measuring corridor care for the first time, because we have to end corridor care—it is not fair on patients. I am introducing new assessments of corridor care involving children, because that has to be the urgent priority. No child should be treated in a corridor.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    Topical Questions

    The national cancer plan, published by the Health Department, is about prevention, treatment and support, as well as, crucially, research. That research can benefit us across the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    Topical Questions

    I am clear that there has to be an independent voice for patients as part of the health system. That is why I said on Third Reading of the Health Bill that the Government were looking again at Healthwatch and would report back in the Lords. We will do that shortly, in advance of the Committee stage.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    Topical Questions

    As my hon. Friend may know, we have just announced £140 million of new investment in urgent treatment centres and same-day emergency services. That is exactly to ensure that we are easing the pressures around accident and emergency, which went up substantially this summer, linked to the extreme heat. I know that Ministers would be happy to discuss his local proposals with him.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    Topical Questions

    The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point, because people’s faith needs to be respected as part of ensuring that they have dignity in death and that they and their families are treated with care and respect. We will ensure that this issue is part of the consultations under way at the moment, and this will certainly be a central consideration in ensuring we have an effective regulation system.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    Topical Questions

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This is a moment to recognise the progress that has been made as the result of a huge amount of work across our NHS and in research, but there is still a long way to go. I will ensure that he gets the ministerial meeting he seeks.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tracy Gilbert

    Topical Questions

    Demand for surrogacy from the UK is leading to the exploitation of women in countries across the globe, including Ukraine, Nigeria and Mexico. Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment on when legislation will come to the Floor of the House, so that we can play our part in ending that exploitation as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tonia Antoniazzi

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    We cannot build a more reconciled future without honestly confronting the past. During our year-long inquiry into the legacy of the troubles, my colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I heard that message time and again from victims, survivors and families whose lives continue to be shaped by events that took place decades ago. It is a message that has stayed with me and that I firmly believe. That is why I tabled new clause 54, which reflects recommendations made by the Select Committee following our inquiry. It seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained in and carried forward from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. One message came through consistently during our inquiry: dealing with the past is about more than investigations alone. Victims, survivors and communities want meaningful progress on reconciliation. They want confidence that the stories, experiences and lessons of the troubles will be remembered in a way that is balanced, inclusive and capable of bringing people together rather than deepening division. However, many of those who gave evidence expressed uncertainty about how the memorialisation provisions under part 4 will operate in practice. Questions remain about who will lead the work, how independence will be guaranteed and what projects will ultimately receive support. New clause 54 asks the Government to do something entirely reasonable. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to set out how the part 4 provisions will be implemented, how designated persons will be appointed and which projects will receive Government funding. Those are not minor administrative details; public confidence depends on them. For many families, the legacy of the troubles is not a matter of history; it is one of lived experience. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust, engagement and confidence in the process. Families are also at the heart of my amendment 277, which concerns a matter that may appear technical, but is deeply personal for many of those who have been affected by the troubles. It, too, reflects a recommendation of our Committee’s inquiry. The inquiry repeatedly heard that the impact of troubles-related death often extends far beyond the narrow family relationships currently recognised in legislation. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews have frequently carried the burden of loss, grief and uncertainty for decades. The Government have argued that the current definition strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on immediate family members while allowing others to come forward when no close family member exists. I understand that intention, and I recognise the concern that requests should not be made against the wishes of those closest to those deceased. However, family life is rarely straightforward. Grandparents have raised grandchildren, aunts and uncles have acted as parents, and extended family members have often been among those most directly affected by a loss. Although we realise that no statutory definition can capture every circumstance, the definition should reflect that reality as far as possible. The Select Committee heard evidence that the definition of “close family member” should be broadened. Both the ICRIR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the current definition is too narrow. Amendment 277 would therefore extend that definition to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told the Committee, such an expansion is necessary to ensure compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Ultimately, this is not about legal definitions. It is about people—people who lost loved ones, who have waited many years for answers and whose family relationships do not always fit neatly with legislative categories. If we are serious about putting victims and survivors at the heart of the process, the framework must be sufficiently inclusive to recognise the wider family who continue to live with the legacy of the past. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Government to reflect carefully on the substance of these amendments.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

    19. What proportion of Best Start family hubs provide Healthy Babies support.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

    A new report by the Centre for Young Lives advocates putting health at the heart of every childhood, including putting Best Starts, Healthy Babies and remaining children’s centres on a statutory footing. Given that health services have structural advantages in providing capital management and getting new services up and running, what greater role can health services play in integrating services at Sure Start level?

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sureena Brackenridge

    Manufacturing Skills

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. Wolverhampton and Willenhall helped build Britain and beyond. Generations of skilled engineers, metalworkers and manufacturers made products that were sold across the world. Manufacturing skills are fundamental to places like mine, and call for policymakers, industry, schools and colleges to work together to rise to this Government’s ambition to reindustrialise our country. As the MP for Wolverhampton North East, I represent a constituency with a proud industrial heritage and a thriving manufacturing base, which forms an industrial ecosystem that supports skilled jobs, innovation and economic growth. While the industries have evolved, the principle has remained the same: success depends on having the skilled workforce to innovate, compete and grow, yet employers across the country continue to report shortages in the technical skills they need to grow and innovate. I commend Collins Aerospace, which chose Wolverhampton to host its new world-leading engineering centre of excellence for aircraft systems in innovation, leading the charge on collaboration with industry and academia. I was delighted this year when City of Wolverhampton college secured technical excellence college status for advanced manufacturing. That is a rubber stamp of confidence in places such as Wolverhampton, which are now among the national leaders in technical education and helping to develop the future engineers, technicians and skilled manufacturing workers that our local economy needs. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to developing a new school curriculum that values technical and vocational education alongside academic achievement. As a former school leader, I know that for far too long technical routes have been treated as a second choice. Apprenticeship starts have begun to move in the right direction; in 2024-25, they increased by more than 13,000 on the previous year. That is encouraging progress after years in which they consistently failed to recover to the level needed by our economy and manufacturing sector. However, many training providers report that funding bands no longer reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality technical training, while employers and colleges continue to face additional costs in training welders, fabricators, CNC machinists and engineering technicians, despite those being precisely the skills that our economy needs more of. A skills policy works best when decisions are made closer to the communities and employers that they affect. Greater devolution of skills and economic development powers gives manufacturing communities in places such as the west midlands a strong voice in shaping local training provision. Local employers, colleges and training providers are often best placed to identify the workforce needs of our advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors. When will the Government conclude their review of apprenticeship funding bands? Will engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3 be prioritised to address critical skills shortages? Will the Government work with Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, and with the combined authority, local colleges and schools, training providers and employers, to ensure that Wolverhampton and Willenhall have the engineering and manufacturing skills provision needed to meet the demands of major employers and their supply chains, so that local people can access the highly skilled jobs that will drive Britain’s reindustrialisation?

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Yemm

    Manufacturing Skills

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate at a time when our economy is undergoing transformation. AI, robotics and automation are changing how we manufacture and the skills that our businesses need. If we are serious about reindustrialisation, we have to make sure that our workforce is ready to seize the opportunity that those changes will bring. For places like my constituency of Mansfield, that means rebuilding the connections between education, local employees and employers, and skilled employment. Further education providers, including colleges like West Notts college in my constituency, are critical to delivering that. On constituency visits, I have been fortunate to see the great work that is already being done by employers working in partnership with West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University. One such visit was to a local aerospace and nuclear electronics company, Glenair, which has recently taken on 60 new apprentices in Mansfield. Often, people consider apprenticeships as an option for school leavers, but what I find in my area is that those opportunities exist equally for adults who want to retrain, change careers or develop new skills. I am therefore very encouraged that Mansfield recorded 680 new apprenticeship starts in 2024-25, more than half of which were taken up by people over the age of 25. The backdrop to this discussion, as Make UK has reported, is that there are almost 50,000 live vacancies across UK manufacturing. Three in five small or medium-sized manufacturing enterprises identify a lack of the right type of technical skill as a key barrier to recruitment. That apparent weakness can also be seen as an opportunity. For areas like mine, reindustrialisation and the ideas around it represent a real chance to build on our proud industrial heritage and create a new generation of skilled and well-paid jobs, but we have to make sure that local people have the skills to take on those opportunities, whether they are young people starting their careers or adults looking to retrain and learn something new, and skills for a new economy. If we get that right, as a Government and as a country, we can make sure that the industries of the future bring investment, opportunity and prosperity to places like Mansfield and that local people are properly equipped to play their full part in sharing our economic future.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part. The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the economic and social benefits of these occasions are felt across the country. This framework Bill has a range of powers, including on ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. This will help to improve our competitiveness when bidding for major sporting events, helping to bring more iconic sporting moments to the UK. The Bill will enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event-ready. The Government amendments seek to refine the Bill following its amendment in the other place to ensure that, where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can also be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events, as we will discuss later in Committee. The 2028 UEFA European championship will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this Bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin. The tournament is projected to bring a sixfold return on public investment. Forty per cent of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the Government-backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. The tournament shows that major sporting events do far more than entertain; they drive economic growth, foster national pride and inspire young people. The Bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come. The shadow Minister’s amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill a model for a dedicated delivery body. While the Government recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed. First, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up on a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement. Conversely, a special-purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football authorities to deliver Euro 2028. That is an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament overwhelmingly relies on existing stadia and infrastructure, without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion that a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must similarly be determined by what is targeted and proportionate for the specific needs and requirements of an event in order to maximise effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. As such, although many of the shadow Minister’s recommendations are eminently sensible, the amendments would unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, and particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted in every scenario. Where greater oversight is required, the Government already have the requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body that is subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny—the Olympic Delivery Authority was regularly subject to such scrutiny. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Amendments 7 and 8, new clause 5 and new schedule 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, would prevent transport and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action linked to sporting events during specified periods. That includes creating offences relating to participation in and organisation or inducement of such action. As the Committee will be aware, the Government repealed the minimum service legislation and a number of other restrictions on the right to strike via the Employment Rights Act 2025. The amendments would reintroduce a significant restriction on the ability of workers to take industrial action, and the Government have been clear that we will not support such restrictions. The Government do not consider it right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation and must not seek to carve out core components of employment rights. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations that is fit for the 21st century, and that includes a new industrial relations framework that establishes expectations for how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. On the basis of the points I have made, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 7. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Clause 1 introduces the framework provisions in the Bill, designed to help the UK deliver its commitments to event owners and ensure that we remain a credible and competitive host of major sporting events. Delivering such commitments usually requires time-consuming, event-specific legislation. This Bill changes the game: any of the framework provisions can be applied, as needed, to any qualifying sporting event through secondary legislation. The framework provisions will help to protect commercial rights and the experience of fans by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets and by preventing unauthorised advertising and trading around sporting events. The provisions will ensure that we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK’s position as an attractive host of the biggest events. Finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure that fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably. Taken together, those provisions signal the UK’s commitment to hosting excellence, and ensure that we are ready to welcome the world. I now turn to amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, tabled by the shadow Minister. I understand that his intent is to ensure that the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied only when major sporting events ensure single-sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex, and the provision of facilities and sport are included in that. Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets, and accommodation to biological sex, where proportionate, to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear: to ensure fairness or safety in sport competitions designated as women’s competitions, participation is determined based on biological sex. That would apply to all events in scope of the Bill as they are all competitive sporting events. An explicit statutory duty in the Bill is therefore unnecessary.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert “(but see subsection (3A))”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    As the Bill passed through the other place, we heard a strong case from peers and sporting bodies alike that a small number of our world-class recurrent events could face the same delivery, commercial protection and hosting challenges as itinerant events in the future. The Government have heard and agree with the intent. Domestic sporting events, as referred to in the Bill, contribute significant economic and social value to the UK. However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope, with “domestic appeal” potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar. Without safeguards to ensure that the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks giving eligibility for protections to an extremely large pool of events and having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities. Even restricting the scope of “domestic sporting event” rightly requires clarity on how the Government will extend the provisions to events that currently operate independently of our operational support. That is why we have brought forward this package of Government amendments. Amendment 28 removes the addition of “national” interest; as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There are already two framework conditions. The first is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The second is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK—or the event must be of “strategic value”, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria. Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events, referred to in the Bill as “domestic sporting events”. Those are defined under Government amendment 25 as “a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”. The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority requesting that the framework be applied. The event organiser must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to its event. The Secretary of State or devolved Governments may then consider such events on a case-by-case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events. That is a necessary distinction for a cohort of domestic sporting events that currently are both numerous and run independently of Government. The independent events are not routinely subject to Government evaluation that could otherwise inform a decision to extend the provisions. The amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. That allows the Government to ensure that they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Any sporting event can apply and must meet the evidence-based threshold. On Royal Assent, we will publish the application process. I am happy to follow up in writing with my hon. Friend, but the event will be able to apply and make a case. That will then be on a case-by-case basis. A further safeguard to ensure the proportionality of applying these measures is set out in amendment 31, which adds a sunset provision that ensures that regulations applying provisions to recurrent events may not run past five years. That will ensure that no event should benefit from these provisions in perpetuity without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. That does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but it does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in group 12, I will set out additional safeguards that the Government consider necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate. I turn to Government amendment 24. After extensive exploration, the Government believe that the Bill’s transport provisions do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events. They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time-limited events, with powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of the provision would not materially add to the Government’s support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we will not pursue legislation that we believe is not materially useful. Finally, I turn to new clause 14. As the Committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure that the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable. In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry out enforcement of the advertising and trading offences under the Bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point; that is why new clause 14 introduces a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers the additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events. Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that it has incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events. That includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the costs of administering an authorisation process and engagement with local businesses.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I am grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Frome and East Somerset, and for the time they spent last week discussing the matter. As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, the Government have listened, and we acknowledged that we needed to go further. As I set out, certain conditions will need to be met in order for recurrent events to receive the protections: they must be wholly or partly held in the United Kingdom, be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    My hon. Friend has done my job for me: I was just coming on to that point. The event must also be of strategic value to help us secure other events, but, to answer his specific question: yes, we would anticipate Wimbledon, the Open, Silverstone and the London marathon being the sorts of events that would be protected. I discussed this matter with the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset last week, and as I outlined in answer to an earlier intervention, a wide range of events can apply, but they must meet an evidential threshold to receive those powers. It is worth noting that they may not want all of the powers in the Bill; they may simply want some of them. In answer to the shadow Minister’s point about new clause 14, I have outlined the reasons why we included it. There is a balance to be struck, but we do not believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    For those itinerant events, there are transport provisions in the Bill, but this group of amendments relates to recurrent events. We have exempted them from the transport provisions, having been in consultation and conversation with both the event organisers and local authorities, because they already have transport plans in place. I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level can cause challenges, particularly with transport—I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley—so perhaps I can pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Transport Minister. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ points. Amendment 22 agreed to. Amendments made: 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after “section” insert “in relation to a sporting event”. This amendment contains a drafting refinement. Amendment 23: in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from “if” to end of line 13 and insert “— (a) the first and second conditions in section 3 are met, and (b) in the case of a domestic sporting event, the third condition in that section is also met.” See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30. Amendment 24: in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert— “(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not apply the transport provisions to a domestic sporting event.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Clause 2 provides the mechanism by which the framework established in the Bill can be applied to individual events. Major sporting events differ in scale, in geography and in the specific operational challenges they present. It is therefore right that the Bill does not seek to impose a one-size-fits-all regime in every case. Clause 2 will enable the framework to be tailored to the circumstances of a particular event, applying only those provisions that are necessary and proportionate. There is no appetite to put measures in place that are not needed. This is a practical approach, but it is also responsible; the power is not open-ended. Regulations may be made only where the conditions in the framework are met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The clause also provides important clarity about the way the Bill operates across the UK, because it has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right that we look to ensure that every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation. Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory. Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate that a UK-wide approach is most desirable; I will say more about that when we come to clause 5. Only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied by the Secretary of State; the Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved Governments were content that they already had adequate provision. Transport co-ordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved Governments and delivery partners, ensuring that arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation while supporting coherent UK-wide delivery of major events. In short, clause 2 will provide the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It will also ensure that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied. Having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each use of the powers in the clause for an event must be subject to debate.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling amendments 15 to 17 and for her thoughtful points. The amendments seek to add a further condition that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments must consider to be met in order for the provisions of the Bill to be applied to a sporting event or an event to rely on the funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of the event must be made available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom-licensed platform accessible without subscription. The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept them. Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of Government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events; indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in detail some of the relevant figures. The amendments would place tighter controls on their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the Bill provides for. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting their exclusive broadcasting without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders of specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport. Clause 3 sets out the conditions that a sporting event must meet before the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied to it. We have had a thorough debate on this matter already, and I hope the Committee agrees that it is not necessary to revisit those points. Clause 4 ensures that the Bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing, advertising and trading to a sporting event in an area of devolved competence without the devolved authority’s consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may exercise these powers only where the matter falls within their legislative competence. Where ticketing provisions are applied, the event in question must take place at least partly within the territory of the devolved authority making the regulations. The clause is an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world-class events throughout the UK.

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Clause 5 deals with the important issue of ticketing. It is integral to the framework provisions in the Bill, and in particular to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners when we seek and secure events hosted in the UK. The ticketing provisions in the Bill are time-limited and designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of an event owner or organiser. Clause 5 provides that any regulations applying the Bill’s ticketing measures must specify the period for which those measures apply. That will ensure that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important, given that these provisions fall within devolved competence. We expect the effectiveness of the provisions to be significantly reduced if there is inconsistency in their application, or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. That is precisely why clause 5 is so important. It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis where the consent of the devolved Governments has been secured. The Government’s strong preference is, of course, for a coherent UK-wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event organisers, stronger protection for fans and a more effective basis for enforcement. Clause 6 is a practical, functional element of the Bill. Regulations applying the ticketing provisions to an event will need to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation for ticketing activity, such as the sale and resale of tickets. Only a person who is suitable can be designated to grant authorisations. In effect, that means someone who has the primary right to sell tickets to an event, which we expect would include only an event owner or organiser. The event owner or organiser could then determine who is authorised, based on commercial arrangements. As unauthorised public resale will be a criminal offence, the Government expect that accessible authorised channels will be made available for the resale of tickets where people can no longer attend an event. Conditions may be imposed on an event owner or organiser who can authorise ticket sales—for example, to require them to maintain a register of platforms that can legally sell tickets. Before I conclude, it is worth touching on our manifesto commitment to ban ticket touting, with a nod to new clauses 10 and 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, which we will consider later. We understand and share the objectives that underpin those new clauses, which is why the Secretary of State affirmed on Second Reading our intention to treat the Bill as a priority and ensure that we get it on the statute book. We will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under the Bill, and there will be strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. That will ensure that, regardless of the event, fans are treated fairly and can have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market. Fans should take further confidence from the fact that UEFA has already confirmed that there will be no dynamic pricing for Euro 2028, and that more than 40% of tickets will be available in the most affordable categories. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Exceptions to the ticket touting offence

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Clause 7 deals with the important issue of exceptions to the ticket touting offence, which ensures that proportionality, where required and appropriate, can be applied to the way the offence operates. It is important to clarify that the offence does not prohibit the transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. Clause 7 enables regulations applying the ticketing provision to specify exceptions to the offence, which may include activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, including the auctioning of tickets to raise money. This ensures that the Secretary of State or a devolved authority can consider what is proportionate and right for each event. Although I note that no exception was provided in the legislation for London 2012 or Birmingham 2022, I have asked my officials to discuss this issue further with UEFA before we bring forward regulations next year. I am confident that we can agree on an approach that supports the work of our fantastic charity sector, particularly local charities in our host cities, which speaks to the points made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. His amendment 11 and new clause 6 would put on the face of the Bill an exception to the ticket touting offence where a ticket is sold by auction and the proceeds go to charity. I fully recognise the spirit of the hon. Member’s amendments, and we listened carefully to the concerns raised in the other place about the potential impact of the legislative framework on charitable fundraising. That is precisely why the Government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through regulations. In relation to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, we believe that what is needed is not a wholesale exception but a proportionate approach. The amendment tabled by the Government in the other place sends a clear signal of intent. Where it is appropriate to do so, exceptions for charities can and will be made in regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 11 and new clause 6.

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I will speak first to schedule 1, and then I will speak to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Schedule 1 sets out the scope and detail of the ticketing offence and the enforcement measures available. Principally, it sets out the criminal ticketing offence, which will apply only in the part or parts of the United Kingdom that have been specified in the regulations. As this is a devolved area of competence, the Secretary of State can apply the ticketing offence to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only with their consent. An event ticket is defined as anything that is or claims to be a ticket to the sporting event in question, including any opening or closing ceremonies or connected events, such as official cultural programmes, where those events are specified in regulations.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    We will set it out in regulations. It depends on what event it is. I anticipate that those examples would be included, but it will be for this House to decide when it debates the regulations for each event. It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase in certain circumstances. That includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace, whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away of such a ticket to someone who pays, or agrees to pay, for other goods or services. That includes event tickets included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods or services. The penalty levels are designed to ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine; in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than £50,000; and in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding £20,000. On conviction on indictment in Scotland, they would be subject to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect differences in the judicial systems and legal frameworks across the UK. As an alternative to prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts. As ticketing offences are not confined to the UK, we must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside our borders. That is why a UK national, an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK, or a part of the UK where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out ticketing activity in the course of business outside of the UK, or in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided that the UK connection condition is met. That is crucial to ensure we can take action against activity that affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carry out business in the UK, or if they direct their activity to people in the UK. Enforcement authorities will have the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £20,000 as an alternative to prosecution. While the level of penalties is at the discretion of the enforcement authority, they can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out: there will be the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal, and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures. Government amendment 56 addresses a drafting omission by providing that the Bill’s reference to the sale of an event ticket also includes reference to giving an event ticket as a prize, which is the long-standing intention of the provision and ensures that we can satisfy our hosting commitments. It prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so—for example, they could be an official sponsor. Ultimately, the amendment will ensure that large businesses cannot exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution. Government amendments 57 to 60 ensure that, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court. This provides flexibility to accommodate different arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and it makes it clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under an order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act 2025, and reduces the potential administrative burden for the enforcement authorities associated with the recovery of unpaid financial penalties. Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence for the ticket touting offence that mirrors the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. However, the position in this Bill is different, and that matters. Under the 2020 Act, someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided that they were not acting as a business. As a result, to avoid committing an offence, someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of business. A person could avoid liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew, or ought to have known, that it was being sold commercially or for profit. That introduced uncertainty, complexity and a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this Bill, the rule is clear. It applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser. Amendment 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform, so the Bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome that the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers at the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend can resell tickets legally and safely. I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform. Regardless, the Bill ensures that fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value, or advertise them through private social media channels. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 56 to 60 to the Committee, and I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 3 and 12 to a vote.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. Clause 8 protects these commercial rights by preventing advertisers from ambushing an event to compete for brand exposure against official sponsors. Advertising activity as defined in schedule 2 is: “anything done wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting a product, service or business specifically to members of the public…who are in a restricted advertising zone, or…who are watching or listening to a broadcast of the sporting event.” The clause ensures that advertising restrictions are applied flexibly and proportionately, reflecting operational requirements. Regulations must make clear the places and periods to which the restrictions apply. A place may be specified only if it is being used for the sporting event itself, is used in connection with it—such as a fanzone or transport hub—and is in the vicinity of those locations, such as key spectator routes. Proportionality is the underlying principle here, as it is across the Bill. The clause limits restrictions to no earlier than 10 days before or later than five days after the event, restricting advertising zones and covering activity in the airspace above it and on waterways close enough to the zone to be seen from within it. This ensures that the provisions are effective in practice. The Government will work closely with local authorities, event organisers, businesses and community groups to minimise the impact on existing businesses and local communities where these regulations are applied. Clause 9 deals with advertising authorisations. The clause provides a clear mechanism to allow advertisers—for example, a media owner operating in a restricted advertising zone—to apply for permission to continue advertising activity while the restrictions are in place. We have made it clear in the Bill that the power to grant authorisations should be exercised only by a suitable body. In practice, that means a public body or a time-limited private body, such as a local organising committee, set up to deliver a major sporting event. Clause 10 enables exceptions to the advertising offence to be set out in event-specific regulations. Among other things, exceptions may apply to activities carried out for a specified purpose, which could mean selling or distributing a newspaper, or by a specified description of a person such as an event organiser or sponsor, or in connection with existing advertising law. We will come back to that point later in Committee.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that point, or perhaps come back to him later in Committee. The ambition of the Bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for sporting events held in the UK, but as I said on Second Reading, I am equally clear that we must protect small businesses. Government amendments 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone. That means that authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise. That is an important safeguard. We are acutely aware of the practical effect that these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small business or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than 10 staff, and a small business as one with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I will speak briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point about unauthorised associations and restrictions. An unauthorised association will apply only to commercial activity likely to suggest to the public that a person has an official connection with an event, such as an official sponsor rather than a competing team or athlete. It is for the event owners to determine and enforce their own policies and procedures regarding athlete sponsorship and associated promotional activity. I am happy to write to the Committee to clarify that point if that would be helpful. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.  Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  Schedule 2 Advertising provisions Amendments made: 61, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert— “(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person— (a) must have regard to any existing advertising licences, and (b) may have regard to— (i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and (ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.” This amendment would require existing advertising licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. Amendment 62, in schedule 2, page 31, line 29, at end insert— “(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in respect of a person or description of person, a designated authorising person must also have regard to whether the person is, or the description of person includes, a small or micro business.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would require a designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business in determining whether or not to grant an advertising authorisation. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11 Trading regulations

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, at end insert— “(7A) Subsection (7B) applies where, in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, persons are prevented from carrying out a trading activity that they would otherwise be entitled to carry out in accordance with a licence granted by a local authority were it not for the trading provisions being applied by the regulations. (7B) Where this subsection applies, the regulations must include provision requiring specified public authorities to take whatever steps the public authority considers reasonable for mitigating any adverse impacts caused to such persons as a result of their being prevented from carrying out the trading activity.” This amendment would mean that, where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, then in certain circumstances the regulations must require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts that applying the trading provisions to the event will have on licensed traders.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    This group deals with restrictions to trading, which the Bill defines as selling, offering or exposing an item for sale, providing or offering to provide a service for gain or reward, providing public entertainment for gain or reward, and appealing for money or other property. Such restrictions are required to protect commercial rights when enabling the safe and easy flow of spectators in and around event locations. Clause 11 mirrors much of clause 8, which deals with advertising restrictions in respect of trading. It requires regulations applying trading restrictions to specify where they apply and for how long. A place may be included in a restricted trading zone only if it is used for, or in connection with, a sporting event or if it is in the vicinity of such a place. Again, that limits restrictions only to locations where they are needed. The clause sets the same limits on timing as those that apply to advertising—no earlier than 10 days before an event and no later than five days after. In most cases, it is more likely that restrictions apply from the day before a venue is in use to the day the activity concludes. The clause also enables regulations to clarify when a person is to be treated as doing something in, or being in part of, a restricted trading zone. That means, for example, that the trading offence may be applied to waterways or airspace, helping to ensure that event-specific requirements and local circumstances can be properly taken into account. Regulations may provide further detail about giving fixed penalty notices, such as their form, payment and fine levels, while also allowing that approach to be disapplied where appropriate. Importantly, trading restrictions must be underpinned by proportionality, and there are distinctions between how that is applied in relation to one-off events and recurrent events, as I will discuss. However, in common, they ensure that trading provisions meet the needs of sporting events while minimising disruption to those living and working nearby. Government amendments 32, 40, 46 and 47 do just that. For itinerant events, where traders with an existing licence granted by a local authority are unable to trade as usual, due to the application of the regulations, those regulations must confer a duty on specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on such traders. In practice, that would establish a clear expectation that options are proactively explored, such as alternative trading arrangements, for those unable to continue trading inside a restricted zone. Government amendment 33 introduces further safeguards. It makes clear that a condition imposed on a designated authorising person in regulations, such as a local authority or event organiser, may include a requirement to put in place a review process. That would allow an applicant dissatisfied with a trading authorisation decision to request a review. Clause 12 provides the mechanism to authorise trading activity that would otherwise be an offence under the Bill. Regulations may designate one or more suitable persons, such as a local authority or non-departmental public body, to grant authorisations for trading activity. However, only a public body would be suitable for that role. Those with an existing trading licence may be able to apply for authorisation. For itinerant events, it is right that the authorising person must continue to take into account whether somebody has an existing trading licence when determining an application to trade. The important matter of exceptions to the trading offence is dealt with in schedule 3, covering premises adjoining a highway and included on the face of the Bill to ensure that deliveries and services provided to local residents and businesses are unaffected by the restrictions. Clause 13 enables further exceptions to the trading offence to be set out in regulations and tailored to the needs of each event. There is precedent for that. The Bill sets out that such exceptions may include providing a public service, facility or amenity, such as a public toilet or ATM; providing a transport service, such as taxis and private hire services; and providing services relating to motor vehicles, such as a petrol station. The Bill also provides for the necessary safeguards to ensure that exceptions take account of local circumstances and event-specific needs. The Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted trading zone, along with any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, such as event organisers and local businesses. Government amendments 63 to 65 ensure that there will be no disproportionate impact from trading restrictions arising from recurrent events. It is right that we take a different approach here and go as far as possible to protect existing traders who operate in their vicinity. For recurrent events, the Bill will now provide a blanket exception to the trading offence for traders in a restricted zone who already hold a licence granted by the local authority. That is an important protection. It means that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as a long-standing independent food seller, will have greater certainty and a fair opportunity to continue to benefit from the economic activity that domestic sporting events can bring. As there is no such exception for itinerant events, Government amendment 64 makes it clear that, for those events, existing trading licences must be taken into account when applications for authorisation are determined. That is an important safeguard designed to help ensure that existing traders, especially those licensed by the local authority, can continue to operate at itinerant events wherever possible. Schedule 3 accompanies clauses 11 to 13 and sets out the detailed framework for the trading offence, along with provision for authorised trading and the issuing of fixed penalty notices. Those measures will help ensure that major sporting events can be delivered safely and smoothly, while protecting spectators and supporting a consistent, well-managed event environment. The schedule creates a time-limited criminal offence of carrying out trading activity or arranging for, or permitting, such activity in a relevant public part of a restricted trading zone, unless it is authorised or an exception applies. To ensure proportionality, the trading restrictions apply only in what the Bill defines as a “relevant public part”. That includes highways, publicly accessible buildings used for sporting events, buildings generally used as carparks or transport hubs, or any place other than a building that is accessible to the public.

    Hansard source