What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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?
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.
19. What proportion of Best Start family hubs provide Healthy Babies support.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 14, page 10, line 8, leave out “specify”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. If sponsors believe that their rights can be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of UK-hosted events diminishes. These provisions protect against inventive marketeers seeking to benefit financially from such events without making the necessary commitments. Clause 14 requires regulations for an event to specify the time period when the unauthorised association provisions apply. Opportunities to exploit major sporting events commercially begin as soon as those events are awarded to the UK. We must therefore put these provisions in place as soon as is practicable. However, proportionality is important. The Bill includes protection for business activities that may create an unauthorised association with an event. They would protect the use of a company or domain name provided that the business had used it before the date set in regulations and it continues to be used in the same way. That date could be before the regulations are made, such as when the UK is publicly announced as the host. Regulations must also designate one or more persons to undertake enforcement. There will usually be only one designated enforcer, but the Bill provides flexibility for joint enforcement rights, which might be needed where commercial rights are exercised by an event owner and a local organising committee. Clause 15 requires regulations to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation to associate with an event. In practice, that is likely to be an event owner or organiser. This is how official partners will be able to legally associate with an event. Clause 16 enables regulations to specify further exceptions to the prohibition beyond those already in schedule 4 to ensure proportionality and protect honest business use. Amendment 38 in my name makes it clear that the power to create further exemptions to regulations may be used to exempt small and microbusinesses. This approach maintains flexibility to apply an exemption for small and microbusinesses in regulations, ensuring that we can satisfy individual event requirements. That said, I am clear that local businesses should be able to benefit from these events. Exemption or not, I want event owners to know that I do not consider that a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes during Euro 2028, for example, is likely to suggest to everyday members of the public that the business has an official association with the event. Schedule 4 sets out the scope of the prohibition on unauthorised association, exceptions and remedies and relief available to enforcers. Businesses will be prevented from engaging in the unauthorised use of a representation, such as marketing and selling Euro 2028-themed products in a way likely to suggest to members of the public that there is an official association. If there is a breach, an enforcer can seek remedies through the civil courts. The courts will be able to grant any relief that is available to enforce a property right, including damages or an injunction. They will also be able to make orders related to goods and documents that create an unauthorised association. To protect the use of existing intellectual property rights, there are exceptions for the use of a registered trademark or design, or any other intellectual property right, provided that that right existed before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. That means that anyone who has an existing intellectual property right will be unaffected by these provisions. As I have touched on already, there are also exceptions for continued business activity and providing certain types of factual information when providing goods or services. That would enable a hospitality venue to announce that it was screening an event, for example. There are a number of other exceptions, including reporting on and sharing information about a sporting event. Where there is a breach, a court will have a number of options to make it right. For example, following an application, a court may order that goods are surrendered to an enforcer or that infringing branding is removed. As a last resort, a court could order that goods or documents be destroyed. Amendments 66 to 70, tabled in my name, are technical amendments that clarify when enforcement action can be taken against the use of a trademark or design that someone has submitted for registration. They make it clear that enforcement action can be taken only if the application is subsequently refused, withdrawn or abandoned. For itinerant events, the application must have been submitted before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. Amendment 71 provides clarity and assurance for event organisers, businesses and regulatory authorities about the registration and revocation of trademarks and designs. It ensures that the unauthorised association prohibition does not prevent a person from registering a trademark or design, or provide grounds for declaring a registered trademark or design to be invalid. I now turn to amendments 34 to 37 and 72 to 79, tabled in my name. With the inclusion of recurrent events, we have carefully considered additional proportionate safeguards for businesses in respect of these events, given they may take place year in, year out. First, the amendments establish clear time limits within which provisions can be applied to domestic events: no more than 28 days before a domestic event begins and no more than seven days after it ends. That is the period in which events are most likely to be commercially exploited. Secondly, the amendments introduce blanket protections for the use of intellectual property rights. For example, that means that a business using a registered trademark or design before or after the unauthorised association provisions are applied to a recurrent event will not be captured. Finally, the amendments set out how activity carried out by a business before the unauthorised association provisions begin to apply—and continued in the same way after—will not be affected. That would ensure, for example, that Wimbledon farmers’ market can continue to operate unaffected. These provisions will ensure that recurrent event organisers can take action against what matters: big businesses carrying out marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution. There have been recent examples of activity that, had these powers been in place and applied to recurrent events, would likely not have been permitted. It would, of course, not be appropriate to name those large, well-known companies, because at the time, those marketing stunts and campaigns were not restricted. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those points, and the constructive way in which he made them. Towards the end of my contribution, I outlined why we have taken a different approach for recurrent versus itinerant events. Recurrent events are most likely to be subject to marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement at particular times. I have obviously chosen not to give examples, because it would not be fair on the companies, as it was perfectly legitimate when they did the marketing stunts and campaigns. I will certainly take that request away. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about further guidance, but we are in regular conversation with the sector, and we are always happy to have those conversations. Amendment 34 agreed to. Amendments made: 35, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at beginning insert “specify”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79. Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at beginning insert “in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, specify”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79. Amendment 37, in clause 14, page 10, line 13, at end insert— “(2A) In the case of a domestic sporting event, the period specified in accordance with subsection (2)(a) must— (a) begin no earlier than 28 days before the day on which the sporting event begins, and (b) end no later than 7 days after the day on which the sporting event ends.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would place restrictions on the period during which the unauthorised association provisions may apply to a domestic sporting event. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 Exceptions to the prohibition on unauthorised association Amendment made: 38, in clause 16, page 11, line 14, at end insert “(including, for example, activities carried out by a small or micro business)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would clarify that regulations applying the unauthorised association prohibition to a sporting event may provide for an exception for activities carried out by a small business or micro business. Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 Unauthorised association provisions Amendments made: 66, in schedule 4, page 38, line 39, leave out “was made before the relevant commencement date” and insert “is made”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76. Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, leave out “a” and insert “the”. This amendment makes a drafting clarification. Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, at end insert— “(8A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event, the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (8)(a) must have been made before the relevant commencement date.” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76. Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 39, line 7, leave out “trade mark or design before the determination of” and insert “representation unless”. This amendment and Amendment 70 clarify that in a case where paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 4 applies, the court may not grant relief, or make an order under paragraph 4(4), in relation to a representation that involves the use of a trade mark or design, unless the application for registration of the trade mark or design is refused, withdrawn or abandoned. Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert “is refused, withdrawn or abandoned”. See my explanatory statement to Amendment 69. Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert— “(9A) Nothing in this paragraph prevents, or provides grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of— (a) a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994; (b) a design under the Registered Designs Act 1949.” This amendment would ensure that the prohibition on unauthorised association does not prevent, or provide grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of a trade mark or design. Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 39, line 33, at beginning insert “Subject to sub-paragraph (1A),”. See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 73, in schedule 4, page 39, line 35, leave out “before the relevant commencement date”. See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 74, in schedule 4, page 39, line 38, leave out “before the relevant commencement date”. See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 75, in schedule 4, page 39, line 39, leave out from “right” to end of line 40. See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 76, in schedule 4, page 39, line 40, at end insert— “(1A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event— (a) the trade mark mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be registered before the relevant commencement date; (b) the design mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) must be registered before the relevant commencement date; (c) the intellectual property right mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) must subsist immediately before the relevant commencement date.” This amendment, together with Amendments 72 to 75, would mean that in the case of a domestic sporting event, the prohibition on unauthorised association is not breached by the use of a registered trade mark or design (whenever the trade mark or design is registered), or the exercise of an intellectual property right (whenever the right subsists). Amendment 77, in schedule 4, page 40, line 1, leave out “(1)(a)” and insert “(1A)(a)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76. Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 42, line 23, leave out from “to” to end of line 24 and insert “be read in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A);”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79. Amendment 79, in schedule 4, page 42, line 28, at end insert— “(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), references to the relevant protection date— (a) in the case of a domestic sporting event, are to the day on which the specified period begins; (b) in any other case, are to the date specified in the regulations as required by section 14(2)(b).”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would mean that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the relevant protection date is the first day of the period during which the unauthorised association provisions apply to the event. Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 17 Transport regulations
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling amendment 20, and I recognise the importance of protecting rural communities from avoidable disruption during major sporting events. I echo the shadow Minister’s comments about the terrible situation in which his constituent’s father found himself. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I will outline why. However, I am happy to take some of the points that have been raised across the Committee on this issue and reflect them to the relevant Transport Minister, or perhaps a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Of course, the Bill deals specifically with major events, but I appreciate that lots of sporting events of different levels cause disruption to local areas.
The transport plan is England-only. In our conversations with the devolved nations, they decided that they did not need the power as they were already well equipped. The transport plan is England-only and applies to itinerant events, which are the big major events like Euro 2028. We have chosen to exempt the transport provisions for recurrent events because we believe that, where such events are already established, they have well-established relationships with local authorities and transport authorities. Of course, that does not mean that they go without challenges, as has been outlined by a number of members of the Committee, so I am really happy to reach out to the relevant Transport Minister—I believe it is my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—and reflect some of those points. I have seen those challenges with smaller sporting events in my own constituency, and I recognise that sporting events of every level can cause disruption. I am very happy to take both those points away. I will respond in a little bit more detail to amendment 20, which the hon. Member for West Dorset outlined so thoughtfully. We believe the Bill provides a proportionate framework within which local impacts can be considered, and we want the event to take into account the affected road network and the characteristics of the area. The issues identified in amendment 20 include alternative routes and access for residents, carers, businesses and emergency services. They are—or should be—already considered by local authorities, highways authorities, event organisers and transport planners to establish planning and traffic management arrangements. Where secondary legislation is proposed for a particular event, those impacts would also be considered through the usual policy and regulation-making process. The amendment would duplicate existing arrangements for ensuring that impacts are considered, while adding cost, delay and uncertainty. It would also risk giving an external body a veto, in effect, over the use of transport provisions, even though the Secretary of State, as decision maker, is already accountable to Parliament and subject to the usual public law duties and challenge. The Government’s approach provides flexibility for both rural and urban areas, allowing those closest to the affected communities to shape mitigation. It is quite hard to justify the additional statutory protection for rural communities when this applies to communities of all kinds, although I appreciate that the challenges the hon. Gentleman outlined are often unique to rural areas. For those reasons, we cannot support amendment 20, but I have very much heard the points he has made.
Clause 17 and schedule 5 work together to provide a practical transport framework for major sporting events where extra co-ordination is needed. The basic point is straightforward: major sporting events can place real pressure on local roads and transport networks, and those impacts do not stop at local authority boundaries. Schedule 5 provides the framework for dealing with such impacts, allowing transport plans to be prepared, reviewed and revised, where needed, and it provides for temporary road traffic measures to support the safe and effective operation of an event. That framework is practical and proportionate. It requires consultation with the relevant authorities, including local traffic authorities, local authorities and the police so that local knowledge is built from the start. The powers are also temporary and time-limited. They are there to deal with a specific transport impact of a major sporting event, not to create a permanent change in how local roads are managed. Clause 17 complements that framework; it recognises that some events will affect more than one local traffic authority area, and that effective traffic management may therefore require authorities to work across boundaries. The clause allows regulations applying schedule 5 to designate one or more local traffic authorities for the purpose of paragraph 3. In practice, that ensures that the temporary traffic arrangements can operate in a joined-up way where an event affects more than one area. However, I will be clear about the safeguard: a local traffic authority may be designated only with its consent. This is not about taking powers away from local authorities, or about overriding them; it is about enabling co-operation on an agreed basis, where that is needed to manage the real-world impacts of major sporting events.
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Whenever we plan major sporting events, we want to do it with consultation and in collaboration. We would have that ongoing conversation. I will come on to outline the reserve backstop power if that simply cannot happen. He provided a hypothetical, which is hard to comment on—I can speak to him in slower time outside Committee—but we have a backstop power if we cannot get agreement. Schedule 5 contains a reserve backstop power for the Secretary of State. That exists for a straightforward reason: if essential temporary traffic measures are needed for an event, and a local traffic authority has been asked to act but has failed to do so within the period set out in the schedule, there must be a way to ensure that the measures will still be put in place. The backstop is not the normal way of working; it is a fall-back to protect delivery where necessary. Taken together, schedule 5 provides the framework, and the clause helps that framework work properly across local boundaries. They are practical and proportionate provisions, with consultation, consent and clear limits built in.
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. It is for local authorities to consider how they speak to their local residents. For example, in my area of Barnsley, sadly, we are not hosting any Euro 2028 matches, but I know that my local council has area forums, which divide into much smaller areas than just the borough of Barnsley. They provide a mechanism for residents to meet councillors directly. That is broader consultation. At the very beginning of this morning’s sitting, I listed the host cities for Euro 2028. They will all consider not just the benefits, but how they work with local residents to ensure not only that they can take part fully, but that as much of the disruption as possible is mitigated. I hope and expect that local authorities will talk to residents in a meaningful way. Question put and agreed to. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 agreed to. Clause 18 Enforcement of offences
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 18, page 11, line 35, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(b) a Northern Ireland department;”. This amendment would provide for any Northern Ireland department to be an enforcement authority for the purposes of Part 1.
I have said that offences under the Bill are aimed at deterring action. However, where that is not the case, careful consideration has been given to the manner of enforcement. The clause provides for enforcement of the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences in the Bill. It sets out who can undertake the enforcement action, such as local trading standards authorities in England, Scotland or Wales, the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, or the Competition and Markets Authority in respect of the ticketing offence. Enforcement roles and responsibilities, however, may vary between events and it is appropriate for a Bill of this nature to provide flexibility. That is why regulations can set out additional enforcers on a case-by-case basis, provided that they are public authorities. For events that involve complex operational planning or significant public funding, it may be more appropriate to confer enforcement responsibility on a local organising committee that has been established as a time-limited non-departmental public body to deliver an event. Clause 18 provides for the use of investigatory powers under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is a well-established suite of investigatory powers that trading standards officers in particular will be familiar with. The clause also provides for the use of powers available under part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 in relation to the ticketing offence. The use of enforcement powers should be proportionate and tailored to the local context. That is why regulations can impose additional conditions on their use under the clause—for example, introducing additional safeguards. To support cross-boundary enforcement and mutual aid arrangements, a local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may enforce an offence in a part of England and Wales outside that authority’s area. Similarly, a local weights and measures authority in Scotland may enforce an offence in a part of Scotland outside that authority’s area. I want to say a brief word about funding, because I know how important that is. These are time-limited offences, and enforcement costs are expected to be low. Costs will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and for itinerant events, they may be factored into the event budget, which is typically split between central Government and host city authorities. We addressed the funding position as it applies to recurrent events earlier. Schedule 6 sets out the investigatory and enforcement powers available to enforcement officers in relation to ticketing, advertising and trading offences. Most of the powers are familiar. They are based on powers available under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and are used by enforcement officers in other contexts. A small number of additional powers are drawn from previous sporting events legislation to ensure that enforcement can be timely, proactive and proportionate. Paragraph 2 makes clear when seizure and detention powers may be used in relation to offences under the Bill: to prevent an offence from taking place, to stop it continuing, or to secure goods or documents as evidence. Paragraph 3 provides additional search and seizure powers in public places where an enforcement officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence. It is intended to deal in particular with itinerant traders who are not operating from premises. These are targeted powers. They do not allow an officer to search a person, and items may be seized only when that is reasonably necessary to stop or prevent an offence from being committed or to preserve evidence. Schedule 6 provides for powers to deal with unauthorised advertising where seizure may not be practical or effective. In those cases, there will be temporary powers to conceal, deface or destroy infringing advertisements, so that prompt action can be taken—for example, where a billboard can be covered rather than removed. As under the Consumer Rights Act, it will also be an offence to obstruct or impersonate an enforcement officer. Finally, the schedule provides for compensation where property is damaged as a result of unlawful enforcement action or where unreasonable force is used. Regulations must also provide a mechanism for resolving disputes about entitlement to compensation or the amount payable. It is vital that the Bill works effectively across all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, at the request of officials in Northern Ireland, we have introduced Government amendment 39 to enable enforcement of the ticketing, advertising and trading offences to be undertaken by any Northern Ireland Department, rather than just the Department for the Economy. That simply ensures that the Bill operates effectively in Northern Ireland. Clause 18 maintains flexibility for an enforcement authority to designate other public authorities as enforcers in regulations. That flexibility helps ensure that enforcement arrangements can be tailored appropriately to each jurisdiction and event. Amendment 39 agreed to. Amendment made: 40, in clause 18, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (10).—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on 47. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 19 Exceptions for internet service providers Question proposed, That clause 19 stand part of the Bill.
This group deals with the supplementary and general clauses, which broadly relate to the enforcement of offences under the Bill, as well as two minor and technical Government amendments, which I will turn to first. Amendment 41 has been introduced at the request of the Welsh Government, following our close engagement as the Bill has developed. It ensures that if the Senedd wishes in future to change how the powers operate in Wales, it can do so through its own legislation where the matter is devolved. The amendment simply makes the Bill work properly within the Welsh devolution settlement, and it aligns with several recent Acts that confer concurrent powers. Amendment 44 is a technical amendment to clause 24 that addresses an omission in the Bill by including district councils in the definition of “local authority” in England. The Bill gives all relevant local authorities a voice in shaping the regulations that provide exceptions to the advertising and trading offences. The amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant district councils in England before exception regulations are made. That is important, as those authorities play a role in licensing street traders, providing consent for advertising and engaging with local businesses. Clause 19 provides for the liability of internet service providers in relation to the ticketing, advertising and trading offences and the prohibition on unauthorised association. In line with the UK Government’s existing approach to intermediary liability, it ensures that an internet service provider will not incur liability by storing or hosting user-generated information if, when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it constituted an infringement and, upon finding out, promptly removed it or disabled access to it. Clause 20 provides that where a ticketing, advertising or trading offence under the Bill is committed by a body corporate with the consent of an officer of that body, or is attributable to neglect on their part, both the individual and the company will be liable to have proceedings brought against them.
That is a very good point. If I may write to the hon. Gentleman, I would be very happy to do so. Clause 20 has also been drafted to capture Scottish partners and partnerships. It also clarifies that where a ticketing offence is committed by a body corporate or Scottish partnership outside the part of the UK where the offence applies, an officer or partner can be found guilty only if they are a UK national or habitually resident in the UK. Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State or a devolved Government to increase the maximum level of fixed penalty for the advertising and trading offences up to £1,000. A devolved Government can increase the maximum level in their jurisdiction only, and the Secretary of State may increase the level UK-wide with consent. The Secretary of State will also be able to increase the maximum fixed penalty above £1,000, and the maximum financial penalty for the ticketing offence, to reflect changes in the value of money over time, such as inflation. Regulations under the clause are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clause 22 requires regulations that apply the advertising and trading provisions to make guidance or other information available on the way in which those provisions will be applied to a specific event. That will ensure that those who could be affected understand the impact of the provisions and the potential options available to them. We expect the guidance to be made available no less than six months before an event, with local authorities and other delivery partners playing an important role in ensuring that it reaches those who are most likely to be affected. Clause 22 also provides that regulations that apply the ticketing, unauthorised association and transport provisions may make provision for guidance or other information about their application. Regulations under the clause may specify who is responsible for providing that guidance or information, such as an event organiser or a local authority, and any matters that should be included, such as mitigations available at a local level. Regulations may also require the guidance or other information to be shared with persons of a specified description, such as street traders or advertisers with an existing licence in an affected area. Clause 23 makes consequential amendments to schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and part 1 of schedule 15 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That is to enable enforcement authorities under clause 18 to use the investigatory and enforcement powers in schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act to enforce the ticketing, advertising and trading offences. The clause also amends the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to enable the Competition and Markets Authority, local weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to use the enforcement powers in part 3 of that Act for ticketing offences, as infringements that harm the collective interests of UK consumers. Clause 24 is an interpretation clause: it simply serves to define terms used in this part of the Bill. None of the definitions presented in this clause are unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “local authority”, “advertising” and “trading licences”, and are included simply to provide clarity and precision. Question put and agreed to. Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Consequential amendments Amendment made: 41, in clause 23, page 15, line 36, at end insert— “(A1) In Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru)— (a) in paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities), insert at the appropriate place— ‘the Sporting Events Act 2026;’; (b) in paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown), insert at the appropriate place— ‘the Sporting Events Act 2026;’.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would provide for the restrictions on the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru under paragraphs 8(1)(c) and 11(1)(a) of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be disapplied in relation to the concurrent powers conferred by the Sporting Events Act 2026. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Interpretation Amendments made: 42, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, at end insert— “‘domestic sporting event’ has the meaning given in section 2(7);”. This amendment provides for a definition of “domestic sporting event”. Amendment 43, in clause 24, page 17, line 23, at end insert— “‘the event organiser’, in relation to a sporting event, means the person responsible for organising the event;”. This amendment provides for a definition of “the event organiser”. Amendment 44, in clause 24, page 17, line 29, at end insert— “(ia) a district council;”. This amendment would alter the definition of local authority, in relation to England, so that it covers district councils. Amendment 45, in clause 24, page 17, line 42, at end insert— “‘micro business’ means a business with fewer than 10 staff;”. This amendment provides for a definition of “micro business”. Amendment 46, in clause 24, page 17, line 44, at end insert— “‘non-domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is not a domestic sporting event;”. This amendment provides for a definition of non-domestic sporting event. Amendment 47, in clause 24, page 18, line 10, at end insert— “‘public authority’ means a person who exercises functions of a public nature;”. This amendment provides for a definition of public authority. Amendment 48, in clause 24, page 18, line 10, at end insert— “‘small business’ means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;”.—(Stephanie Peacock.) This provides for a definition of “small business”. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Power to give financial assistance
I will speak to clause 25 and then respond to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Clause 25 introduces a bespoke funding power for sporting events held in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It provides a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning through a single dedicated power to fund an event and its associated activities. It will remove the current piecemeal reliance on powers from multiple other Acts such as the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 or section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It will provide greater clarity and transparency on the legal basis for providing financial assistance, and will ensure that we can support the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events and their associated activities, an objective that has broad cross-party support. In practice, the Secretary of State will have a single, dedicated power for future funding of sporting events in England, while Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments will be able to do the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they do not require an equivalent power. Crucially, we know what it costs to deliver a sporting event from the ground up, and recognise that the magic of such events often goes far beyond the playing field. That is why the clause will enable us to fund not only the operational delivery of sporting events themselves but associated activities, whether they are feasibility assessments, cultural Olympiads or legacy programmes to maximise benefits for local communities. Where appropriate, the clause also enables us to attach conditions to funding, whether by requiring repayment with interest or post-event impact assessments. The Government fully agree that, when it comes to public money, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable, but amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, are unnecessary. Clause 25 is not intended to create a blank cheque. I appreciate his enthusiastic defence of his amendments and the history that he drew upon, but the clause is a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. Robust mechanisms are already in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. That is in addition to scrutiny by parliamentary Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Any such spending is also subject to the usual accounting officer responsibilities. In the case of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport spending, the Department’s permanent secretary is accountable to Parliament and must ensure that spending accords with the “managing public money” principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of Government investment. Requiring such scrutiny, especially without thresholds, could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance where needed. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw the amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling these important amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill’s funding power can be used to deliver lasting benefits to communities affected by one-off sporting events. As I set out in debate on the previous group, that power neither creates additional funding nor establishes a new route for securing public money; it simply provides the legal underpinning for the lawful delivery of funding that has already been agreed through existing processes and against existing criteria. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that funding can be channelled into improving potholes, pavements, footways and road markings, while amendment 19 would ensure that the power may be used to improve mobile communications, infrastructure and network capability. In both cases, the hon. Member’s objective is clear: to secure benefits for local communities that endure beyond the sporting event. The Government fully recognise the importance of that objective. Indeed, that is precisely why we invest in legacy programmes, which may include the types of infrastructure improvements envisioned in the amendments. Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they risk going beyond the intended scope of the funding power. As made clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 25 is intended to support the operational delivery of sporting events and associated activities. Elements of the amendments would push that power beyond its proper limits, as their link to enabling sporting events or related activity is tenuous. However, if any improvements in the areas highlighted in the amendments are necessary for the event to take place, clause 25 is broad enough to allow for that, making the amendments redundant. Given the wide range of issues that sporting events may contend with, we have deliberately not been prescriptive on the specific forms of support that may be provided under the power. The amendments would cut across that principle by singling out particular categories of support without clear evidence for doing so. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 18 and not to press amendment 19 to a vote.