5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I recently visited Newmedica in my constituency to see the vital role that independent providers have in offering NHS-funded eye surgery and care. With the Health Bill progressing, what assurances can the Minister provide that it will strengthen the right to choose across all providers and ensure that ICBs make full use of all the choices, which my ICB is not?
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Instead, please use our names—Ms Ghani—or “Madam Chair”, which is also acceptable. Clause 72 The Independent Commission on Information Retrieval Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 73 to 76 stand part. Government amendment 232. Clause 77 stand part. Clauses 78 to 81 stand part. Amendment 74, in clause 82, page 64, line 39, after “ICIR” insert “, and (h) analysis of the ICIR’s engagement with non-state actors”. Clause 82 stand part. Government amendments 233 to 235. Clause 83 stand part. Amendment 51, in clause 84, page 66, line 6, at end insert— “(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.” Amendment 109, page 66, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(ab) for subsection (2) substitute— ‘(2) The Presiding coroner has the power to allocate a coroner to resume and conduct such inquests.’ (ac) Omit subsection (3).’” This amendment would require all inquests arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles to be subject to a coroner-led process. Government amendments 236 and 237. Amendment 20, page 67, line 3, at end insert— “(5) If during the course of an inquest it appears to the coroner that the death may have resulted from a criminal offence, he shall stop the inquest and refer the matter of potential criminality to the Director of Public Prosecutions.” Amendment 111, page 67, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 11 on page 68. Amendment 113, page 67, line 10, leave out from “must” to end of line 12. This amendment along with Amendments 114 and 115 would require all inquests that were initiated before 1 May 2024, but had not yet been allocated to a coroner, to be directed to the Legacy Commission’s senior judicial panel member for allocation as inquisitorial proceedings. Government amendment 238. Amendment 114, page 67, leave out lines 17 to line 6 on page 68. This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113. Government amendment 239. Amendment 115, page 68, leave out line 16. This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113. Amendment 129, page 68, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(3) A coroner conducting a resumed inquest must not do anything which duplicates anything previously done in connection with the inquest unless— (a) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and, (b) in their view, the duplication is essential.” This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before resumed inquests may duplicate previous investigative steps. Amendment 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert “, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Amendment 33, page 69, line 2, after “A person” insert “who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is”. Government amendment 240. Amendment 112, page 69, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 16 on page 70. Government amendments 241 to 243. Clause 84 stand part. Amendment 142, in clause 85, page 70, line 39, at end insert— “(5) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.” Clauses 85 to 87 stand part. Government amendment 244. Clause 88 stand part. Amendment 105, in clause 89, page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (4). This amendment would remove the retrospective effect of the interim custody order provisions. Clause 89 stand part. Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 73, line 7, leave out “does not affect the quashing of the conviction, but” and insert “shall not be applied retrospectively, and”. This amendment and Amendment 107 clarify that the quashing of previous convictions on the grounds that the Secretary of State had not personally signed an interim custody order should not be disregarded for the purposes of securing compensation for miscarriages of justice. Amendment 107, page 73, line 8, after “is” insert “not”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 106. Clause 90 stand part. Government new clause 49—Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland and England and Wales. Government new clause 50—Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences. Government new clause 51—On the run letters. Government new clause 52—Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles. Government new clause 53—Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces. New clause 7—Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”). (2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must— (a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom; (b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom; (c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom; (d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service; (e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces. (3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. (4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State. (5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces. (6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings. (7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.” New clause 12—Duty to promote reconciliation— “(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act. (2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to— (a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future; (b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and (c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors. (3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Legacy Commission; (b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons; (c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force. (5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.” This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act. New clause 22—Restriction on repeated investigations without new and compelling evidence— “(1) The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“the ICRIR”) must not begin, continue, or reopen any review or investigation of conduct forming part of the Troubles where— (a) that conduct has previously been the subject of an investigation, inquest or other legal proceedings, and (b) no new and compelling evidence has become available. (2) For the purposes of this section, “new and compelling evidence” means evidence which— (a) was not available to any previous investigation, inquest or proceedings, and (b) is reliable, substantial and highly probative such that it gives rise to a realistic prospect of a different outcome. (3) No review or investigation may be begun, continued or reopened by virtue of subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has certified that— (a) the test in subsection (2) is met, and (b) it is in the interests of justice to proceed. (4) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to— (a) the public interest in finality of investigations, (b) the age, health and welfare of the person concerned, and (c) the need to ensure fair and proportionate treatment. (5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for an independent review of decisions made under subsection (3).” This new clause would prevent the reopening or continuation of Troubles-related investigations or reviews where there is no new and compelling evidence, and introduces a certification requirement whereby the public interest, age and health of persons concerned, and the need for fair and proportionate treatment are considered before a review or investigation may be begun, continued, or re-opened. New clause 30—Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate— “(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required, or has been requested, to give evidence in connection with— (a) an investigation under Part 3; (b) inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4; or (c) a resumed inquest under Part 7. (2) Where P has provided a certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner stating that P is unfit to give oral evidence, the relevant decision-maker must not require P to give oral evidence unless subsection (3) applies. (3) Where there are substantial grounds to believe that a medical certificate produced by P has been procured by fraud, or in any other way dishonestly, the relevant decision-maker may require P to disclose their full medical records for the purposes of determining P’s fitness to give evidence. (4) Where medical records have been requested under subsection (3), P is under no obligation to supply those records to any person other than the relevant decision maker and such records shall not be supplied by the decision maker to any other individual. (5) Save where the circumstances described in subsection (3) apply, and the decision-maker determines that P is in fact fit to give evidence, no adverse inference may be drawn from any person’s reliance on medical unfitness certification. (6) For the purpose of this section, “the relevant decision-maker” means— (a) the relevant Director of Investigations; (b) the relevant judicial panel member; or (c) the coroner conducting the resumed inquest (as the case may be).” New clause 31—Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans— “(1) This section applies where a decision is made under— (a) section 28(11) (requests for investigations by certain persons); (b) section 43 (referral to prosecutors: investigations); (c) section 61 (referral to prosecutors: inquisitorial proceedings); or (d) any provision of Part 7 (inquests). (2) A person to whom the decision relates may, within such period as may be prescribed by regulations made under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure by the Secretary of State, request that the decision be reviewed in accordance with this section. (3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the decision must be referred to— (a) the Attorney General for England and Wales; (b) a person appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales who— (i) holds or has held high judicial office in the courts of England and Wales; and (ii) does not hold office in Northern Ireland. (4) A reviewer under subsection (3) may— (a) confirm the decision; (b) quash the decision; (c) remit the decision to the original decision maker for reconsideration, together with directions as to the matters to which regard must be had in reconsidering the decision.” This new clause provides for the review of certain decisions by the Attorney General, or a serving or former Judge from outside Northern Ireland. New clause 54—Reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the Troubles— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on the implementation of Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”). (2) The statement made by the Secretary of State must include, but be not limited to— (a) details on how the implementation of Part 4 of the 2023 Act will occur in relation to the entry into force of this Act. (b) a proposed appointment process for selecting “designated persons”, for the purposes of Part 4 of the 2023 Act, that is transparent and guarantees the independence of those persons appointed. (c) provisions detailing the reconciliation projects that will receive funding from His Majesty’s Government.” This new clause would require the Government to make a statement on progress in implementing Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, reflecting recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024–26. Government amendment 245. Clause 91 stand part. Government amendments 267 to 275. Schedule 6 stand part. Clause 92 stand part. Amendment 277, in clause 93, page 76, line 10, leave out “, or” and insert “, (ea) F is a grandparent of D, (eb) F is an aunt or uncle of D, (ec) F is a niece or nephew of D, (ed) F is a grandchild of D, or”. This amendment would extend the definition of a close family member of a deceased person, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26. Government amendments 246 to 248. Clause 93 stand part. Government amendments 249 and 250. Clause 94 stand part. Clauses 95 and 96 stand part. Amendment 45, in clause 97, page 78, line 35, after “(2)” insert “and subject to the provisions of subsections (3A) and (3B)”. This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 46. Government amendment 251. Amendment 46, page 78, line 36, at end insert— “(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) unless the condition in subsection (3B) is met. (3B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement which outlines the steps undertaken by both the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland to implement the undertakings made in “The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland” (“the Joint Framework”), including, but not limited to, a report of the Secretary of State’s understanding of progress on— (a) a cross-border body on information retrieval, (b) the establishment of a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to be a central point of contact for cross-border cooperation on Troubles-related cases and Troubles-related investigations being undertaken by An Garda Síochána, (c) the investigation by An Garda Síochána of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction.” Clauses 97 and 98 stand part.
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but it is not “you” and not “your”.
Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.
Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.
Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development. That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking “that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.] However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.
I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.
No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers. I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time. The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund: “The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”. This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence. Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads? I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.
Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis. What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated: “The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter” That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.” There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well. Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.
Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project? From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.
On the DCO process for surface access targets, could the Minister address the point about drop-off charges? That is important for the surface access proposals being put forward by the Government.
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recognition of polygamous marriages, marriages within prohibited degrees, and certain other marriages between close relatives, in the social security system. I have brought the Bill to the House to correct an extraordinary fault in our welfare system—one so bizarre and indefensible that I can scarcely believe that we need legislation to address it. We do not yet know what the Government wish to do in this area, but I hope that if the Bill passes today, they will not oppose it on Friday 13 November. We should begin with a simple question: what is welfare for? Beveridge understood the principles of making a contribution, of responsibility, and of providing security for hard times. You pay into a system and help sustain it, and it is there for you when you need it. Alongside that, help is there for those most in need—those who simply cannot or will never be able to look after themselves. That is the essence of a system that Members on all sides of this House could agree to—a system that is contributory and compassionate. How far have we drifted when our rules make special provision for polygamy or incest to be recognised in the benefit system? Can Government Members—or any other Members—point to where in the Beveridge report it is envisaged that a man’s third or fourth wife be supported? Where was any of that when Beveridge laid the foundations of our modern welfare system? Some Members take a different view on Beveridge. They have never seen a benefit of any kind, for anyone, that they did not want preserved at any cost. They are unable or unwilling to say no. Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes. I hope that when they see a system that gives special treatment to men with multiple wives, and potentially to incestuous marriages, their inner conservativism will break out. We are talking about provisions that recognise overseas polygamous marriages and make allowance for additional spouses—a second or third wife and onwards. We are talking about a man rinsing the taxpayer for social security benefits under unbelievable provisions in law that recognise polygamous marriages, which are illegal in the UK. We chuck around welfare payments to such people with abandon. Taxpayers are entitled to ask what on earth we are doing. The Bill is about polygamy, but it is also about overseas marriages between close relatives. To one of my written parliamentary questions, which I know Ministers appreciate dearly, I received an extraordinary answer. What did a Minister say about overseas marriages between an uncle and his niece, or an aunt and her nephew—marriages that are illegal in the UK—being recognised in our welfare budget? They said it was “unlikely”. Frankly, “unlikely” is not good enough, especially when Ministers cannot give me an answer on how many polygamous or incestuous marriages are being supported by our welfare system. The standards at issue here are hardly novel. Bigamy has been a statutory criminal offence in the UK since 1604, more than four centuries ago. Marriages within prohibited degrees, including incestuous ones between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, were made automatically void by the Marriage Act 1835, nearly two centuries ago. Our modern legislation explicitly outlaws incestuous sexual activity between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. When Parliament has rightly drawn those boundaries, surely it is right that our welfare system should uphold them. I have brought to the House this Bill, backed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to end recognition of polygamous marriages and put it beyond doubt that overseas incestuous marriages cannot and should not be recognised in our welfare system for social security purposes. How did we get here, when such marriages are illegal in our country? How did it come about that we recognise them if they were conducted overseas? The situation developed as a result of common-law rules and decisions made by courts. As in so many other areas, these decisions were probably well meaning, but this situation is completely inimical to a cohesive society and a coherent polity, and anathema to the values of our country. The beautiful thing about our country and Parliament is that we are sovereign; Parliament can legislate to remove uncertainty and revoke common law where it is wrong. Parliament must take responsibility. We decide what our welfare system recognises, and that is the signal that this House should send, clearly and explicitly, through the law of this country. Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention? Instead, we are bundling cash, first class, to men with multiple wives, and to those who made an uncle-niece marriage overseas. Let us take a sensible step to address the issue in a way that recognises the values behind our benefit system, which is rooted in compassion and the principle of contribution, and in the values of our country. It is not there to pay for cultural practices that are illegal here. Surely it is insane that our welfare rules make special provision for men with many wives. I believe that Parliament should put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that the House supports the Bill, and that the Government do not back away from it, but instead support it on its Second Reading on Friday 13 November. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Richard Holden, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Helen Whateley, Claire Coutinho, Laura Trott, Tom Tugendhat, Katie Lam, Dame Rebecca Harris, Joy Morrissey, Andrew Griffith, Nick Timothy and Neil O’Brien present the Bill. Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 163).
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said: “Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?
Because you know you are wrong. I am the shadow Veterans Minister.
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”
I am pleased to open the first day of the Committee on the Sporting Events Bill for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the widespread engagement I have undertaken with stakeholders, including at events, while shadowing the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I appreciate that some of these amendments were moved in the other place and defeated, but we remain of the view that there is a need for a mechanism to enable the creation of a delivery authority for major events such as the world cup or the Olympics, with a northern bid mooted. In a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, included in his final King’s Speech a commitment to introducing a sporting events Bill. Luckily for us, even stopped clocks are right twice a day. As hon. Members will know, in years gone by His Majesty’s Government have introduced event-specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. We agree that this Bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK’s best exports to be even better. However, it was the Government’s intention that this framework should be used only for sporting events that do not regularly take place and that are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, the Government were defeated in the other place, and we will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British grand prix at Silverstone or golf’s original championship, the Open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so. Hon. Members will know that primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and it was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting venues, and the infrastructure and transport planning. That required, as indeed will many of these events, significant cross-sector efforts bringing together national governing and representative bodies such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association, local government, including the host cities, and central Government Departments. There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land and improve transport links so that spectators can get there. As it stands, new primary legislation would be required if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event. That undermines the aim of the Bill, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events to ensure their most efficient delivery. These amendments, new clauses and new schedule would create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. They would not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority, but they would give the Secretary of State the ability to do so without undertaking the whole process that this Bill aims to avoid. Under new clause 1, a delivery authority would: “(a) prepare for the sporting event, (b) make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management before, during or after the sporting events of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event, (c) ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and (d) ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the sporting event.” Moreover, our proposals would set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. That includes a membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 2 of the new schedule would provide procedural rules for delegation by such authorities, and it would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the authority’s progress. Finally, part 3 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, by resolution of the House. I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments. If she believes that, once enacted, the Bill will negate the need for any further primary legislation, surely it must try to cover the likely requirements of future events. Some of these events, particularly the largest irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country. That is why I commend these amendments to the Committee.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The Opposition have set out our position and our concerns. We absolutely understand the Minister’s point regarding Euro 2028. The amendment was primarily aimed at the likes of the Olympics. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(f) Schedule 6 (‘the industrial action provisions’)”. This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
The amendments, new clause and new schedule in this group are designed to make sure that maliciously timed strikes do not undermine the entirety of a major sporting event, as defined by the Bill. Any event covered by the framework established by the Bill is, by the definitions in clause 3, likely to be of “significant international or national interest” or “likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it.” Industrial action during such an event would wholly undermine the objectives of the Bill. Amendment 7 would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the framework is applied to a sporting event. Amendment 8 would require the “appropriate national authority” to apply the industrial action provisions when it applies one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause 5 defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions. New schedule 2 sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendments 7 and 8 and new clause 5, and sets out the penalties for breaching those provisions. Taken together, the amendments seek to establish provisions related to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework established by the Bill. I am sure that Labour Members may sit upright a little when they hear these amendments, but I assure them that the amendments have been tabled in the spirit of the Bill and its intended outcome. They would apply only to sporting events operating under the framework. However, in the mind of the Opposition, the amendments are not optional extras or measures to be applied to some events and not others. They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. Through the Bill, the Government seek to establish a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new primary legislation every time we host a major event and welcome people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights, under the provisions on unauthorised association. Crucially, the Bill does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by strikes. Hon. Members will know the damage that such actions cause. Last September’s tube strikes caused near-total shutdown, costing Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fare revenue alone, and imposing an estimated £230 million of direct cost to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. Those impacts included workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that affecting the United Kingdom’s ability to host a major sporting event such as the world cup or the Olympics. Even the Foreign Secretary, the then leader of the Labour party, said ahead of the 2012 Olympic games, “This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted.” I am sure hon. Members will also remember the 2022 Commonwealth games, when ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. More recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth games in an effort to force a new pay deal. As the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operational and commercial viability of those games. Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks. They are a recurring and increasing phenomenon under Governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure it cannot be left to chance. The punishments for breaches would be comparable to those the Government have drafted for the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that any conduct that threatens the integrity of major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised, and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, that threatens to close down events entirely any less seriously. There are, of course, limits to the provisions I seek to include in the Bill. The ability to prevent strikes would apply only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework in relation to a particular sporting event, on which I have also tabled amendment 9. It would apply to transport workers nationally, since they are mobile by definition, but also to local authority workers only in the area where an event is being held. It would apply only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework. New schedule 2 would provide for a full enforcement code, notices of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of that mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill. The Committee will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just to the economy but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and grassroots sports. We cannot let that be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the Government to ransom over pay deals. When we have secured a major event, we owe it to the athletes, the spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”.
Clause 1 will introduce a common legislative framework for major sporting events held in the UK. The framework covers five aspects of sporting events: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport. The legislative provisions for those five aspects are set out in schedules 1 to 5. Amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, all of which are in my name, would add single sex protection provisions to the framework. They propose establishing a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities for major sporting events taking place under the framework established by the Bill. They also set out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex. The noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to argue that these amendments were not necessary when they were tabled in the other place because “events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.] Unfortunately, although the law has been clear for some time, there are still organisations, including those the Minister has responsibility for—thankfully only a few—that are not complying with the law as clarified by the April 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers. We have all heard of the inspirational case of the eight female nurses who successfully appealed against the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust’s policy and management’s dismissal of their concerns. An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurses’ dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment, and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination. That was almost a year after the law had been clarified. These cases continue to arise despite the law being clear. If the noble Minister was right, they no longer would and the law would be sufficient. Even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision in the For Women Scotland case was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect women’s and girls’ spaces, particularly in a sporting context. Across the world, sports governing bodies are coming around to biological reality. In March 2026, the International Olympic Committee banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 summer Olympics and future Olympic games. The IOC president stated that the new policy was “based on science” and made because “it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.” However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by the Government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Minister for Women told the EHRC that it must “tone down” its guidance, which is designed to protect women and girls and single-sex spaces. That is why my amendments are essential. Any organiser of a major sporting event would have it before them as part of the framework that all competitors in a sporting event must compete against those of the same biological sex, where designated, in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event must be able to use single-sex accommodation, single-sex changing and washing facilities and single-sex toilets based on their biological sex. The amendments would also mean that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event, could use single-sex toilets based on their biological sex and single-sex changing and washing facilities, where necessary, based on their biological sex. That is necessary because neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are able to commit to protecting single-sex spaces for women and girls. We know that girls already spend an average of 90 minutes less per week than boys playing sport and that the drop-out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys. Respondents to the 2024 BBC elite British sportswomen study who were not comfortable with transgender participation in elite women’s categories outnumbered those who were by 10 to one. Comments included: “It makes it too much of an unfair playing field, regardless of what sport you are competing in” and “Putting them in women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild women back up again.” That is why the Conservative party is fully committed to ensuring that women and girls have safe single-sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age and throughout their lives. We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes. In doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them. Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment. My amendments would make sure that that would be the case.
As I outlined, respectfully, the Government have lost trust on this issue. That is why we want to see it included in the Bill, so I will push this to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
This group of Government amendments is part of the changes the Government seek to make in relation to the application of the sporting events framework. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these, and her thinking behind them, last week. As we have heard, they include changes that define a domestic sporting event; mean that the sporting events framework could be applied to a sporting event only if it is likely to be of significant international interest; provide for an additional condition that must be met in the case of domestic sporting events; provide that regulations under clause 2 that relate to a domestic sporting event cease to have effect after a certain period of time; and mean that transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event. The Minister has assured me that there is broad support among stakeholders for these tweaks that the Government are seeking to make. But they also include new clause 14, which “would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.” The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance wrote in last night—I suspect to a number of MPs on this Committee—because it is concerned that that sets a precedent where the victim of an offence will be required to pay for the enforcement of that offence. The Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world for major events around the Home Office’s ongoing engagement with the police—for example, about how costs are split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. We are concerned about that. I am particularly keen to hear what reassurance the Minister can provide the Committee that that precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major and domestic events. More broadly, I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place. However, I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset; I am keen to hear the Minister’s response and what assurance she can provide the Committee.
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert— “(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than 50 days.” This amendment sets the maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.
I will start with what clause 2 seeks to achieve, which is the application of the framework to major sporting events. The clause establishes how the sporting events framework can be applied to individual sporting events. It will give the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved Governments powers to apply ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions, while the Secretary of State can also apply unauthorised association and transport provisions. However, those powers can be used only where the event meets the conditions set out in clause 3. Regulations made under the clause can also cover connected events, such as cultural events, that are held in connection with the main sporting event; the clause also establishes the scrutiny procedures for such regulations. Amendment 9, which is in my name, would set a “maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.” As it stands, there is no limit to the time for which regulations made under the Bill can be in effect. We think that that is a clear omission. As designed, the framework applies to specific and time-limited events. It therefore seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate. Amendment 9 proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit for the powers. As hon. Members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic games spanned 45 days, the UEFA European championship runs for approximately one month and the FIFA world cup takes about 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. Our amendment’s balanced approach gives organisers a generous margin within which to operate, while also giving Parliament and the public reassurance that those powers will not accidentally remain in place beyond the event’s needs. I am sure that the Minister will echo the comments of the Minister in the other place and say that they understand the need for flexibility. However, further to the question that my noble Friend Lord Parkinson asked the Lords Minister, I would be interested to know what event the Minister has in mind that may require a longer period, particularly as she has now tabled Government amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the Committee why one event would need a time limit but the others would not, given that they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework? If flexibility is key, I hope that my amendment will help to provide the solution. I hope the Committee agrees that it would help to dovetail the intentions of the Bill and the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished. Amendment 10, which is in my name, would ensure that all regulations applying to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses. As drafted, the Bill stipulates that the affirmative procedure applies only to the first set of regulations establishing the framework for a particular event; any subsequent regulations that amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure. My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause 2 are subject to affirmative procedures. The principle is straightforward; we are talking about a framework that could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events. As my noble Friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These matters warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. I hope the Committee agrees that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under the clause, not just the first set. I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said: “I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 490.] That was such an eloquent comment—I should be clear that it was his, not mine. In its delegated powers memorandum, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport argues that the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event. However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to arrangements already in place. It is difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes, to proceed without the same level of scrutiny, or indeed any scrutiny. If the Government’s argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest to the Minister and the Committee that that is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far-reaching consequences. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and particularly her reference to the amendments tabled since the debate in the other place. We will take the Government’s words in good faith and will not seek a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 25, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert— “‘domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.—(Stephanie Peacock.) The amendment defines “domestic sporting event”. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Framework conditions Amendment made: 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section 2(3).”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and must meet either the significance or the strategic priorities. To meet the significance priorities, the sporting event must be likely to be of significant international or national interest, the sporting event organiser must have asked for the framework to be applied and the event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK. This clause sets out the criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. They include the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected outside the UK. To meet the strategic priority, it must be proven that hosting the sporting event will improve the UK’s chance of securing hosting rights for events that meet the significance priorities. I think all Members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events. That is something that goes across parties and will often involve successive Governments, with one Government starting the bid and then another Government hosting the event. Clause 4, which is entitled “Restrictions on application of framework”, sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities. Before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility of a devolved authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority’s consent. At the same time, the clause sets out that devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where ticket touting provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly within the relevant devolved territory. Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require all sporting events hosted under the Bill to be made free to air. Understandably, that has raised a number of concerns among sporting bodies. Before I get into the details of why the amendments would not just upset the apple cart but risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I will start by disagreeing with the terminology “free to air”. As my noble Friend Lord Hayward pointed out in Committee in the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence. These events are therefore never free to air. Secondly, a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieve the expansion of sports coverage—I do agree with the intentions of the proposal—than a blanket ban, which would be likely to have unintended consequences because of the complexities of global broadcast deals. At a glance, it may well look like an attractive proposition, designed to appeal to Liberal Democrats across the home counties. However, although we all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy. These amendments would risk doing real damage to the very sports that they are meant to support. Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation of—we hope—world-beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League’s current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT Sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over four years, and the English Football League’s deal with Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. Those agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it. The question for the Liberal Democrats is simple: if their amendments put that income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I appreciate that their amendments start with major events hosted under the framework for which the Bill provides, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA cannot sell their broadcast rights at market value, the effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens? I can answer for them: it will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made free to air. That is popular—I understand it—but someone still has to pay for the rights to broadcast them. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport; they will be felt throughout sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment. The Liberal Democrats should recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK sports invested a record £213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary code of conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested £1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment in sport, not introducing blanket restrictions that risk undermining it at any level. That is particularly important when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this Government. The Liberal Democrats should not seek to add further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport through amendments that could jeopardise the broadcasting revenue upon which it depends. Let me be clear once again: I want more people watching major sporting events—I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes, families to enjoy the biggest occasions and British sport to reach the widest possible audience—but we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports. The answer is to review the listed events regime, make the most of the commercial broadcasting agreements, encourage investment in grassroots sports and ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which it would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular, without adequately addressing the clear consequences.
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 7, page 5, line 1, at end insert— “(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”.
As we are debating ticket touting regulations, particularly in relation to football, it is probably right that I disclose that I attended the FIFA world cup in a private capacity and bought my own ticket, just in case we get a mention of FIFA. Clause 7 allows regulations to specify activities that are exempt from the ticket touting offence. In doing so, it gives the appropriate national authority the flexibility to accommodate legitimate activities that should not be prohibited. My amendment 11 and new clause 6 are relatively small changes that would enable the charitable resale of tickets. I am sure the Committee will agree that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises that fact, but she has asserted that “it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket exception as this could undermine the Bill’s objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 476.] I am not sure which objective my amendments would undermine. One of the premises under which the Government have brought forward the Bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and a social good for the United Kingdom. Charities are key vessels for delivering social good, so why are the Government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities, and why are they prioritising FIFA’s ability to resell tickets at a hugely inflated price, instead of the money going towards a good cause or charity? The problem is that there is confusion among the Government. In one part of the Bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and that ticket resale sites such as Viagogo and StubHub should not be able to make significant profits from the services that they offer—in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, the Bill as it stands eliminates the ability of charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for a good cause. Instead, the noble Minister has said that “charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 552.] How impractical! Do the Government really expect a local charity or a good cause to be able to navigate an as-yet-undefined application process, and to compete against the likes of UEFA or FIFA and their international infrastructure, simply to auction a ticket to a sporting event in aid of a chosen charitable cause? It is ridiculous to expect the vast majority of charities, which are often small, to be able to do that. In practice, it creates a ban on auctions taking place, which will be to the detriment of charities. That is why I have tabled amendment 11 and new clause 6.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. However, we remain concerned that the measure is far too complicated for small charities to navigate and therefore I wish to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 24, line 20, at end insert— “(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (‘A’) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (‘B’) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”. This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
Amendment 12 mirrors one of the defences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020, which ensures that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability. That means that it would not be an offence under the Bill for a person to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from somebody else, unless that first person already knows, or would be reasonably expected to know, that the second person is in fact touting a ticket to an event. This is a rather small and simple change that would improve the protections for those who would, under the current drafting, be inadvertently guilty of committing a crime. It is unreasonable to expect everybody in the first person’s shoes to know the entirety of the story of the second person and how they came about the ticket. If somebody is knowingly advertising a touted ticket, of course they should face the full and proper penalties provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree that the amendment would make a small and simple change to avoid trapping unsuspecting persons in a legal mess because they have been misled or did not know about somebody else’s actions. Amendment 3 would add a requirement for any person granted a ticketing authorisation under the relevant paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person. The principle behind the amendment is straightforward: people who purchase tickets to major sporting events should not be left out of pocket if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to attend. Life happens. As MPs, we all know that. People fall ill, family commitments change and work or travel arrangements can fall through. It cannot be right that a fan who has paid good money for a ticket should have no reasonable means of transferring it to somebody else. We of course recognise the importance of protecting fans from ticket touting, excessive resale prices and fraudulent activity. Those are legitimate concerns. However, there is a clear distinction between organised touting for profit and an ordinary supporter who simply wishes to recover the cost of a ticket they can no longer use. As Lord Fuller said in the other place, not only does the Bill as drafted prevent the honest sale or transfer of a ticket, but it fines someone £50,000 “for trying it”. In my view, that is unacceptable. Under this Government, a person might get less of a punishment for burglary. A properly managed transfer or resale mechanism can help to protect consumers, give organisers greater oversight of who holds a ticket, and reduce the incentive for fans to turn to unofficial platforms or the black market, where the risk of fraud may be considerably greater. This part of the Bill is seemingly stuck in the past as it fails to consider the ways fans can be protected from scammers with modern techniques, including proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. It is my understanding that the resale sector is calling for that, but the ticket sales and distribution companies are refusing to engage with it. Will the Minister speak to her ministerial colleagues in her Department and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and update me on discussions that the Government are having with the sector about introducing interoperability between ticket distribution companies and resale sites? That would hopefully allow resale companies to prevent ghost ticketing, and would facilitate a regular exchange between consenting adults—no more fake tickets sold and no more disappointed fans. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that her colleagues do that, and will she write to me after the Committee? If the Government’s aim is to protect consumers—I am sure it is—fans who no longer need their ticket must be able either to resell it or transfer it with little difficulty. The Bill currently allows fans only to sell their tickets back to the organisers, and there is then no cap on the resale value.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. As I say, we were hoping to stop a situation in which an innocent member of the public shares a Facebook post that says, “X person has a ticket for sale for this game. Are you interested?”, but is then accidentally caught up in the Bill’s provisions and faces significant penalties. I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but the Opposition still have concerns, so I will look to press amendment 12 to a vote. Likewise, on amendment 3, we want fans to have the opportunity to resell tickets if they are no longer attending. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the amendment, and I appreciate them, but our overall concern is that we will end up with a structure where the event organiser effectively has a monopoly that removes fans’ ability to transfer tickets easily. We are slightly concerned about what that could mean for ticket resale prices, if there is not a cap on the likes of FIFA being able to push up prices on fans, so we will also push amendment 3 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 8 requires regulations to identify the restricted advertising zones and the periods during which advertising restrictions apply. These zones must relate to event venues, locations used in connection with the event or their surrounding areas. For events involving devolved authorities, these zones must remain in their jurisdictions. The clause sets out that restrictions may begin no earlier than 10 days before the event and must end no later than five days afterwards. It allows regulations to address fixed penalty notices for offences and how advertising restrictions apply to locations such as airspace and waterways. Clause 9 allows regulations to designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designated person may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable representative appointed by the authority. That enables legitimate advertising by sponsors and other approved parties within restricted advertising zones. We all understand why that is so important when bidding for major international tournaments. It is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have for those international competitions. Designations of a representative may include conditions such as maintaining a register of granted advertising authorisations and making that available to the public, or reporting back to the appropriate national authority. Clause 10 allows regulations to exempt specified types of advertising from the advertising offence. Exceptions may relate to the purpose, location, person or method of advertising, and may cover cases of charity promotion, event-authorised advertising and certain electronic communications. Existing lawful advertising arrangements may also be taken into account. Before creating exceptions, the relevant authority must consult the local authorities in which the restricted advertising zone would be and any other appropriate persons, which is appropriate given the impact that major events have on local communities. I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, because I had also written it down. What does the Minister think the relationship will be like for existing sponsorships, particularly of athletes? In football and athletics, it is often shoe sponsorship—Nike, Adidas and so on. How will those existing sponsorships or advertising deals, which are a key source of revenue for all athletes, be impacted by the regulations? I am happy to have the answer in writing if the Minister does not have it with her. The group of Government amendments to clauses 8 to 10 and schedule 2 relating to advertising at sporting events requires the designated authorising person to take into account existing advertising licences when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. The amendments also require the designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. Government amendments 45 and 48 define a small business as having between 10 and 50 members of staff, and a micro business as having fewer than 10. The amendments seem entirely sensible to us. I appreciate that there were concerns shared from across the House, but the Minister and I had a conversation last week in private and the amendments appear sensible.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments today, and when we discussed the issue last week during the pre-Committee briefing. The Government are rightly seeking to balance the commitments required to host major international sporting events with the rights of existing local traders. Those are not easy to balance, and unfortunately, I am sure that there will be disputes when we get to such events in the future. However, even though I have concerns about what enforcement may look like, I appreciate what the Government seek to do. The Government amendments define a non-domestic sporting event, and mean that where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, they must, in certain circumstances, require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on already licensed traders. Once amended, the Bill will also provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority. Moreover, the amendments provide that the conditions that may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring them to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed and to define a public authority for the framework. Following my discussions with the Minister last week, I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled. They will affect locally based traders that operate from the same location throughout the year, such as the long-standing independent food seller and, as the Minister said, burger vans—saying this might get me cancelled by the Conservative party, but I am more of a hot dog guy—[Interruption.] Yes, I should resign; I am sorry! It also means that alternatives are proactively explored to help traders who cannot remain in situ because of the legal commitments required to host the likes of the European championship or the world cup. On the face of it, the amendments are sensible, particularly given the Government’s concession in allowing domestic but recurring events to apply to use the framework. Amendment 32 agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 Persons granting trading authorisations Amendment made: 33, in clause 12, page 9, line 10, at end insert— “(d) arrange for a decision to grant, or to refuse to grant, a trading authorisation to be reviewed.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would provide that the conditions which may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring the person to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Trading provisions Amendments made: 63, in schedule 3, page 35, line 28, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65. Amendment 64, in schedule 3, page 35, line 33, at end insert— “(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in relation to a non-domestic sporting event, a designated authorising person must have regard to any existing trading licences.” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65. Amendment 65, in schedule 3, page 36, line 9, at end insert— “(3) In the case of a domestic sporting event, paragraph 1(1) does not apply in relation to a trading activity which is carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Rachel Hopkins.)
Welcome back, everyone. Clauses 14 to 16 and schedule 4, as the Minister outlined, incorporate issues around unauthorised association regulations. Again, I think that most of the amendments the Government have tabled are about trying to ensure that there is a proportionate approach to the regulations and how they will impact other traders and different communities. That is a principle that the Opposition will not necessarily oppose. The Minister may be aware, however, that representations were made last night by the Sport and Recreation Alliance raising concerns about amendment 76 in particular and what it sees as an unlevel playing field between domestic events and international events. The domestic events that we are talking about today clearly make a significant economic contribution, and there are significant concerns around unauthorised association with their brands and trademarks. The request—and I think it is a fair one—from the sports bodies, as part of the briefing paper, is for the Government to publish guidance alongside the Bill. Will the Minister consider publishing such additional guidance to reassure the sports bodies that they can mitigate some of the concerns in the briefing paper?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling amendment 20, which raises an important point about the impact that major sporting events can have on our rural communities. I am very sorry to hear about his constituent’s issues. Major sporting events can bring significant benefits to local economies, supporting businesses, creating jobs and attracting visitors to areas that might not otherwise receive that level of attention. However, we must also recognise that in rural areas, the transport arrangements needed to accommodate an event can have a disproportionate impact on those who live and work nearby. Where there are few alternative routes, road closures and traffic restrictions can make it difficult for residents to go about their daily lives; for carers, as we have heard, to reach those who depend on them; and for local businesses and essential services to operate normally. It is right that those impacts are properly considered when transport regulations are being developed in consultation with local people. Organisers and the relevant authorities should seek to minimise disruption whenever possible, while recognising that some restrictions may be necessary to ensure the safe and successful delivery of a major event. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that the genuine concerns of rural communities are taken into account when these arrangements are made. Does she believe that existing processes are sufficient to achieve this, or that the Bill already provides sufficient safeguards in this respect? Ultimately, we all want to see major sporting events succeed, but that success should not come at the unnecessary expense or suffering of the communities that host them.