Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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.”?
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Will the Secretary of State give way?
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:<span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span> “(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. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em>
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(f) Schedule 6 (‘the industrial action provisions’)”. <em>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.</em>
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 <span id="16" class="column-number" data-column-number="16"></span>£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.”<span id="vol857_col732" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="732" data-volume-number="857" data-external-id="CD52993B-6C00-42A2-88FA-BA719FC2FAD1">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords,</em> 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.]</span> 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 <em>v.</em> 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.<span id="19" class="column-number" data-column-number="19"></span> 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. <em>Question put</em>, 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 <span id="24" class="column-number" data-column-number="24"></span>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.” <em>This amendment sets the maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.</em>
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 <span id="27" class="column-number" data-column-number="27"></span>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.”<span id="vol857_col490" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="490" data-volume-number="857" data-external-id="AB13ACF7-DD73-4D77-97F7-3A2DFC64E561">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords,</em> 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 490.]</span> 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. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Amendment made: </em>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”.—<em>(Stephanie Peacock.)</em> <em>The amendment defines “domestic sporting event”.</em> <em>Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 3 Framework conditions <em>Amendment made: </em>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).”—<em>(Stephanie Peacock.)</em> <em>This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.</em>
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 <span id="31" class="column-number" data-column-number="31"></span>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 <span id="32" class="column-number" data-column-number="32"></span>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.”<span id="vol857_col476" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="476" data-volume-number="857" data-external-id="15F949C1-BD8B-42B6-B3D4-CD5BF58A5828">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords,</em> 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 476.]</span> 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, <span id="37" class="column-number" data-column-number="37"></span>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.”<span id="vol857_col552" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="552" data-volume-number="857" data-external-id="45557C40-2073-47DA-AB94-121D7F2CADE8">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords,</em> 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 552.]</span> 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. <em>Question put, </em>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.”. <em>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.</em>
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 <span id="39" class="column-number" data-column-number="39"></span>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.<span id="40" class="column-number" data-column-number="40"></span>
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. <em>Question put,</em> 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 <span id="47" class="column-number" data-column-number="47"></span>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<em>—[Interruption.]</em><em> </em>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. <em>Amendment 32 agreed to.</em> <em>Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em><span id="52" class="column-number" data-column-number="52"></span> Clause 12 Persons granting trading authorisations <em>Amendment made: </em>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.”—<em>(Stephanie Peacock.)</em> <em>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.</em> <em>Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> <em>Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Schedule 3 Trading provisions <em>Amendments made: </em>63, in schedule 3, page 35, line 28, leave out paragraph (a). <em>This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.</em> 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.” <em>This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.</em> 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.”—<em>(Stephanie Peacock.)</em> <em>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.</em> <em>Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.</em> <em>Ordered, </em>That further consideration be now adjourned.<em>—(Rachel Hopkins.)</em>
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.
I echo the comments of the Minister, who outlined why the clause and schedule 5 need to work together. As we have heard, it is important that neighbouring authorities seek to work together to ensure that sport and transport regulators and major sporting events are joined up. We have all seen, in various host cities, the new phenomenon of athlete lanes to ensure that participants and spectators can get between venues. That is vital. In 2012, I remember one lane of the Blackwall tunnel was shut. That was quite controversial in the build-up to the games, but in my memory at least, it worked fairly well to allow London 2012 to go ahead in great fashion for the country, as we all know. My only real question for the Minister on this clause is to do with her comments about ensuring that local authorities have their say and are consulted. Does she have any thoughts about how a local authority would then consult local residents? That picks up on the earlier amendment 20 about ensuring that local residents can have their say. We all recognise that if someone lives next to a major sporting stadium, they will get disrupted once or twice a year, or more if there are more fixtures, as with a football club. For the likes of Wimbledon, people have a fortnight of pain. How would that work in terms of consulting residents who are perhaps not used to the more regular disruption during a major championship?
On internet service providers and what the Minister has just said, how does she envisage this working for social media companies? Say that, in the middle of Euro 2028, a load of illegal black-market sites suddenly appeared. How would the Government look to enforce the legislation?
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 25, page 19, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”.
Clause 25 will give the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the power to provide financial assistance for sporting events and connected purposes, such as legacy programmes and social initiatives, in their respective territories. Potential recipients will include public bodies, national governing bodies and organisations established to deliver sporting events. Assistance may take different forms such as grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, and will be provided subject to conditions and contracts. Amendments 4 to 6 would prevent the financial assistance provisions in clause 25 from becoming a blank cheque for successive Governments to fill out as they see fit. It is a well-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Paragraph 33.2 of “Erskine May” says that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that “the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant.” It continues: “In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers, first to authorise the relevant expenditure”. Hon. Members who know their history understand that the role of Parliament developed gradually. Our ancient predecessors in the Saxon Parliament were involved in financial matters such as the setting of Danegeld, and after a rebellion by the barons, Magna Carta was sealed by King John at the beginning of the 13th century. Clauses 12 and 14 of Magna Carta limited the King’s ability to levy certain forms of taxation without first summoning a council, or Parliament, to establish common consent. I will stop the history lesson there, because it will get the deputy leader of the Conservative party quite excited at the thought that I am trying to steal his crown, and I will not detain the Committee with a further elaborate history of Parliament—there are much more eloquent and qualified people to do that. The point I am making, <span id="72" class="column-number" data-column-number="72"></span>which the Government must remember, is that they must come to us in this place with their proposals for the expenditure; it is then up to us, as representatives of those who will be most affected by taxation, to give our collective consent. The provisions of this Bill deliberately circumvent not only that established precedent, but the legitimacy and primacy of this place. We do not know exactly which events the Bill will be applied to in future or how much financial assistance the Government of the day may wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment that potentially spans many decades into the future. It is not unreasonable to imagine a Prime Minister who comes in without standing in a general election, who has no fiscal discipline and who leaves a multibillion-pound black hole that needs filling. Whether that be the current Prime Minister or previous Prime Ministers, we want to make sure that we have future-proofed the Bill for all eventualities and all Governments. Unsurprisingly, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much the Government propose to spend as a result of clause 25. The nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this one means that that is unknowable. If the Government cannot tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term—though we know the estimated cost of the Euros in 2028—it is reasonable and necessary to make sure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, we hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation. All my amendment seeks is to apply a sound and long-standing constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed by the House of Commons, which is elected by our constituents. I hope that the Minister and the Committee agree. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Dr Allin-Khan, I am sure you will be delighted to know that I will not come in with another chapter of Saxon or parliamentary history. However, the Opposition remain concerned about oversight and the role of Parliament in dictating and determining how much money is spent on sporting events. That is not to say we are not in favour of such events; we just believe that Parliament has a role to play in scrutinising any future funding commitments. I will press the amendment to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.<span id="77" class="column-number" data-column-number="77"></span> New clause 4 would ensure that Parliament has a proper say over the scope of restrictions being imposed, rather than leaving too much discretion in the hands of Government. It would provide a specific exemption to the advertising offence for the sale, distribution and provision of current newspapers and periodicals within restricted advertising zones, subject to sensible safeguards against abuse. This measure is not without precedent. It draws on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021, which included exemptions of this kind. We have now also seen the Scottish Parliament take a similar approach in the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2026, which incorporates exemptions into primary legislation instead of relying on secondary legislation and regulations. As the Opposition have argued in this place and the other place throughout its passage, this framework Bill often contains insufficient detail about the circumstances in which exemptions from the advertising offence should apply. As I am sure the Committee would agree, newspapers and periodicals have a significant role, and their ordinary sale and distribution should not inadvertently fall foul of restrictions that are designed to prevent unauthorised commercial advertising around major sporting events. The safeguards in new clause 4 are also important. It would not create a blanket exemption for publications specifically produced to target spectators in restricted advertising zones, nor would it permit promotional inserts designed principally to advertise products or businesses to those attending the event. The new clause seeks therefore to strike a sensible balance between protecting legitimate newspaper distribution and preserving the effectiveness of advertising restrictions. Ultimately, if Parliament is to approve a framework that could be applied to a wide range of major sporting events, it should also have a meaningful role in defining the exemptions to the offences that the framework creates. No Government should be given such broad powers to determine that through secondary legislation later. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, and I hope that the Minister will explain why the exemptions should not be set out clearly in the Bill itself.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 7 Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events “Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”—<em>(Mr French.)</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 7 would require a review of the Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee should be well aware, hosting major sporting events is not simply a question of having world-class venues, passionate supporters and a strong sporting heritage; it is also about whether the country remains an attractive and competitive place to do business. Under this Labour Government, businesses are facing higher employment costs, including an increase in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage. Many venues, hospitality businesses and other organisations involved in delivering major sporting events are also contending with higher business rates, energy bills and wider operating costs. As the Minister will know, major sporting events require significant investment—often years in advance and from successive Governments. Organisers need confidence that the costs of employing staff, operating venues and delivering events will remain manageable. If the United Kingdom continues to become a more expensive place to host these events—as it has done over the past two years under this Government—international organisers may, given the competitive landscape, simply take their business elsewhere. The Government should not underestimate what is at stake. Major sporting events bring visitors to our towns and cities, support jobs across hospitality and tourism, generate income for local businesses and showcase Britain to the world. Like the Olympics, they can also inspire the next generation to participate in sport, leaving a lasting legacy well beyond the final whistle. The Government cannot reasonably claim to want the economic benefits of hosting these events while ignoring the impact that their own decisions and tax policies may have on our ability to secure them. The new clause would not prescribe a particular economic policy or prevent the Government from pursuing their wider objective. It would simply require the Government to assess the consequences of their decisions and consider whether they were making Britain more or <span id="79" class="column-number" data-column-number="79"></span>less competitive as a destination for major sporting events. That should be a matter of basic probity. We should be looking at the cumulative impact of taxation, employment costs, business rates and other economic pressures, rather than considering each in isolation. To do that would be naive and self-defeating, and would undermine the entire purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will recognise the merit of the new clause. If we want Britain to remain a leading destination for major sporting events, we need to understand the barriers that the Government may be creating and take those findings seriously.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. This is probably one of the few occasions we have not agreed today. The broader landscape for businesses that would need to be involved and to host events is extremely challenging—I am sure that her inbox is similar to mine in that regard. The introduction of the hospitality tax, the tourism tax and the like are significant pressures on businesses that would normally be in a position to benefit from hosting such tournaments.<span id="80" class="column-number" data-column-number="80"></span> That does not diminish our brand. As the Minister rightly highlights, we have a successful track record of delivering major events—I am not seeking to talk down the country in that regard—but the Opposition have serious concerns about the economic impact of this Government’s policy on the ability to host events in the future. We will press the new clause to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 8 would require the Government to publish their major sporting events strategy within three months of the passing of the Act. The new clause seeks to answer a fundamental question about why we are here: where does this begin? The Minister will know that her Department promised this House and the sectors it represents a major events strategy. That strategy has yet to appear. How can the Government and this Department establish a cohesive, multi-sector major events strategy if one of those sectors already has a plan in place? I appreciate that this is being rushed through because of Euro 2028, but the sporting sector will now have an advantage over other sectors. Those other sectors will have to circumnavigate the plans already in place for sport. We want all the sectors that DCMS covers to be able to benefit from a major events strategy, but by proceeding in the way they have, the Government are going to make that all the more difficult in agreeing on one, holistic strategy with competing interests. The Government have made their decision, however, and I understand that instead of having a major events strategy or Bill for all the sectors they seek to represent, the Government have taken the legislative slot available to them and have proceeded with this Bill now. They are <span id="81" class="column-number" data-column-number="81"></span>not necessarily wrong to do so, but they could have done so in a more strategic way. Regardless, we are here now, and my new clause is designed to ensure that the Government, who have delayed countless announcements and strategies over the past two years, cannot do so again on this sporting strategy. The Minister in the House of Lords promised that it was “the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.”<span id="vol858_col652" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="652" data-volume-number="858" data-external-id="84DDC8AF-086F-4580-8188-1DEE3A49E33F">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords,</em> 15 July 2026; Vol. 858, c. 652.]</span> Unfortunately, intentions are not good enough for some of the only remaining growth industries after this Government’s hammering of businesses. To ensure that there is no more dither or delay to this long-promised strategy, the new clause would ensure that the Government must bring it forward in accordance with their own timeline. I hope the Minister agrees that it will simply enable her and other Ministers to ensure that the strategy is prioritised within her Department and that it will be published without unnecessary delay.
I have heard the Minister and I take her at her word. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 9 Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042. (2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”—<em>(Anna Sabine.)</em> <em>This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>
I will declare an additional interest, given the nature of the new clause: I am also the shadow gambling Minister, and in that capacity I attend a number of events with the racing community throughout the year. The new clause seeks to prevent gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sports events covered by the Bill. I understand the intention behind it, but we believe that it is short-sighted and would strip sports of vital sponsorship funding. When I think about how the Bill might work in future, I think of the likes of the grand national, which could qualify. Preventing regulated gambling advertising would have a huge impact on the sport of racing, and particularly on the grand national. We have previously had a Westminster Hall debate about gambling advertising, and there are of course legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to it. Responsible gambling must remain a priority, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at major sporting events is the right approach, especially given that the rise of illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses a greater threat to all consumers, and particularly to younger people. As we have heard, sponsorship plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends. Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences not only for major competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting <span id="87" class="column-number" data-column-number="87"></span>economy and broadcasters as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. In recent weeks, Betfred has withdrawn its long-term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in future, especially for the women’s game.
I am sympathetic to the intentions behind new clause 13, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling it. The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that major sporting events receiving Government financial assistance or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport itself. The hon. Gentleman outlined a number of concerns and challenges that grassroots sports clubs face, and we want to increase participation across the country. Major sporting events should be about more than what happens over a few days or weeks of competition. They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure that communities rely on long after the final whistle. As we have heard, that is particularly important for children and young people in deprived communities and for groups with traditionally lower levels of participation. We should be asking how <span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span>the excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities. However, we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges, as we have already discussed today. Any requirement attached to Government support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring organisers from bringing major competitions to this country. Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that those commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply box-ticking exercises. That is why, when in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, from an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport to £300 million in emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme that we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. That was worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and it has totalled almost £3.5 billion paid directly to schools since its introduction in 2013. This Government, on the other hand, have, I am afraid to say, cut funding, with £57 million cut from the opening school facilities fund, £35 million cut from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million cut from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme and £25 million cut in real terms from grassroots sports investment compared with the previous Conservative Government. I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government intend to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events themselves and reach the communities that need them most, given that the Government she serves in continue to cut funding for grassroots sport.