That the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, major sporting events matter. They matter to the fans who fill our stadiums and line our streets; they matter to the athletes who train for years for the chance to compete for our country on the world’s biggest stage; they matter to our communities, our local economies and our national story; and they matter because, at their best, they bring people together in a way that few other things can. These events play a unique role in fostering a shared sense of belonging. They generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and national pride, uniting diverse communities and showcasing the best of our nation on a global stage.

Hosting these events here opens the country as a whole. They serve as a powerful platform to showcase the best of the UK, from sporting prowess to arts and culture, and even the diverse food that defines British cuisine. These world-class occasions become a unique shared celebration of belonging, demonstrating that the UK’s excellence is not confined to sport but encompasses its deep and varied cultural life.

I was privileged enough to be successful in the public ballot to get tickets for a couple of events at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The excitement of my god-daughters and my niece and nephew in seeing elite sport for the first time and their pride in our country was infectious. It remains one of their strongest memories of their childhoods. The whole country embraced the Olympics. The Games lifted the mood of communities up and down the country and provided an economic boost. It remains one of the lasting legacies of my noble friend the late Baroness Jowell and the type of event we would like to see more of in the UK.

The UK’s record of hosting world-class, major sporting events is one we should all be proud of. Last summer alone, we smashed records, delivering the biggest ever Women’s Rugby World Cup, with unprecedented crowd numbers watching on as the Red Roses lifted the trophy as champions.

As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to continuing to deliver international events like these with pride, seeking new opportunities where we can, to create a legacy to inspire the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living. We have already secured a fantastic pipeline of events over the coming years. This summer alone will see the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, the European Athletics Championships and the Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. Next year brings the grand départ for the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes, and then, together with Ireland, we host the UEFA European Championship in 2028. Last month, we announced that we have commissioned our expert arm’s-length body, UK Sport, to carry out an initial assessment to consider the feasibility of hosting a future Olympic and Paralympic Games in the north in the 2040s.

Major sporting events are an economic success story. They drive economic growth and job creation, acting as a catalyst for inward investment, improving transport connections, and playing a key role in the regeneration of world-class facilities for communities up and down the country to enjoy. For example, this Government are investing up to £557 million into hosting Euro 2028. This investment alone is predicted to deliver £3.2 billion of socioeconomic benefits across the UK, which is a nearly sixfold direct return on investment.

Such landmark occasions leave a lasting legacy, creating unparalleled pathways for people to engage in physical activity and find their own place in the sporting life of the UK. Impact ‘25, the Women’s Rugby World Cup legacy programme, has reached 850 clubs up and down the country since its inception in 2024, and 37,000 women and girls in the last year alone. It has trained more than 3,000 new female coaches and match officials.

The purpose of this Bill is therefore simple but important: to better equip the UK to attract and deliver the biggest international sporting events and ensure that we can continue to deliver these benefits in the years to come. The UK already has a global reputation for excellence in hosting major sporting events. This Bill will bolster that reputation and send a clear message: the UK is event-ready.

Global competition to host major sporting events is fierce and increasing. The UK is a strong player in this field but this Bill gives further confidence that we are ready to uphold our commitments and stay competitive. It will set in statute a framework that enables certain sporting events to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset cost to taxpayers. This Bill is built on our foundational principle of a UK-wide approach, co-designed with devolved partners to serve the entire union. Most immediately, these provisions underpin the successful delivery of Euro 2028 and, should the UK’s bid be successful—as I am sure all noble Lords hope it will be—the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035.

At its core, the Bill sets out a framework that allows a standard set of measures to be applied to sporting events that meet certain conditions. Ministers here or in each of the devolved Governments will consider which of the measures set out in the Bill are appropriate for any given qualifying event and apply them through regulations. These regulations will set out event-specific details, such as where and when the measures apply.

For an event to be in scope, it must meet three conditions: first, it must take place, at least in part, in the UK; secondly, it must not regularly be held here; and, thirdly, it must either be an event of significant international interest, with the potential to deliver social or economic benefits, or an event of strategic importance in facilitating other such events being held in the UK in the future. In practice, this means those one-off bids for major sporting events that move from host to host, such as the Euros, world cups or Olympic and Paralympic Games—events where enhanced commercial protections are needed to meet the conditions of hosting and where every effort should unashamedly be made to enhance the UK’s competitive advantage. The Bill provides a framework of time-limited provisions that can be applied by the UK and the devolved Governments to events meeting these criteria.

It will put fans first by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets for qualifying sporting events. This will help ensure that event organisers have greater control over the onward sale of tickets and that more tickets go directly to genuine supporters rather than to touts seeking to profit from events in the UK that are subsidised by the public purse. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government’s commitment and separate plans to introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for live events more generally to prevent fans being ripped off by touts. Those measures will preserve a thriving resale market while cracking down on exploitative touts, so that fans do not feel forced into paying vastly inflated prices. I emphasise that we are fully committed to these wider and separate measures and will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this parliamentary Session.

To ensure that the wider secondary ticketing provisions operate effectively, we want to listen to the live events sector and fans before formally introducing them to Parliament. Doing so will ensure that the legislation is enforceable and future-proof. The tightly drawn ticketing provisions in the Bill are designed to deliver on the specific requirements of major sporting event owners when we are bidding for events that do not normally take place in the UK. These requirements are made clear during bidding processes and involve limiting the sale and resale of tickets to authorised bodies and platforms only.

The Bill also covers powers on advertising and trading. This second aspect will enable the prohibition of unauthorised advertising and trading around event locations by bringing forward time-limited criminal offences. In practice, this means that the Government will be able to put in place restricted advertising and trading zones around places such as competition venues, official fan zones, transport hubs and any areas surrounding them, provided these places are being used for or in connection with the sporting event in question. These provisions are designed to protect commercial investment while minimising the impact on existing businesses. They will also help support the safe movement of spectators.

Thirdly, the Bill will prohibit unauthorised association with a qualifying sporting event through a general prohibition enforceable through the civil courts. Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for event organisers and owners. If sponsors believe their rights can or will be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of sponsoring UK-hosted events diminishes. This provision will help create an attractive offer for sponsors by protecting their investment and commercial rights, helping to shield the taxpayer from increased hosting costs.

Fourthly, the Bill includes provision to manage transport and traffic in relation to a sporting event in England. Effective transport and traffic management is essential to the safe and smooth operation of any major event, and the Bill will ensure that those arrangements can be properly supported.

Separate from these framework powers, the Bill will also create a bespoke funding power to enable the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This means, for the Secretary of State, a single, dedicated power for the future funding of sporting events in England. It will also provide Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments with the power to support sporting events in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Financial assistance provided through this provision will be subject to ministerial discretion, alongside the usual processes to ensure that it aligns with the general principles for managing public money. Sufficient funding powers already exist in Wales, so this provision will not apply there.

Taken together, these provisions will help ensure that the United Kingdom remains an attractive host for major sporting events and continues to build on its world-leading reputation in this field. If we get this right, the benefits will be felt far beyond the field of play. They will be felt not just in host towns and cities but across the country—in the businesses and communities that benefit from them, in the young people inspired by them and in our communities across the UK unified by them. I hope your Lordships’ House will welcome this Bill and I look forward to the debate. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Sporting Events Bill. My noble friend Lord Addington will be leading on this from our Benches and may occasionally hand me the baton. We welcome this Bill, which creates a legislative framework that will attract international sporting events to the UK, as the Minister said. It will provide the opportunity to inspire future generations of athletes, create unforgettable experiences, boost visitor numbers and the economy and exercise our soft power through sports. We on these Benches welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on his role as ministerial adviser on soft power and major events. We look forward to working with him.

The legislative framework is useful and will assist with the organising of those events that we have already secured—the Minister mentioned Euro 2028. It will also help when bidding to host future events, but should there also be a clear bidding framework for putting together such bids, or at least a commitment to increase transparency surrounding bids? That would be a strong sign for the sports industry of more positive intentions from the Government.

This Bill can be useful not just for sporting events; I can also see it being utilised for cultural ones. The Edinburgh Festival could benefit, as well as all-year events such as the City of Culture. It is my understanding that the Government intend to set out a strategy for major events that will include culture. Can the Minister tell us the timeline for this?

As she mentioned, London hosted the wonderful 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and I join her in paying tribute to the great Tessa Jowell. Alongside the Games was the Cultural Olympiad. Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony—a beautiful, brilliant spectacular— was a showcase for our great creative industries and ended memorably with our monarch meeting James Bond and then jumping out of a helicopter. It was not just about the Olympic arena. Across the nation, people got together to engage in cultural activities; in all, 621 productions and projects resulted in 13,000 performances and events at 1,270 venues across the UK. However, the legislation passed for those Games did not include their cultural element. For the sporting events that fall under this legislation, will the Minister consider including affiliated cultural events? There appears to be scope, and I think she was suggesting this in her opening remarks, but we would like to make this clearer in legislation.

Then there is the group A of listed sporting events, the crown jewels protected for free-to-air TV. This Bill has been created with sporting events of significant interest in mind—events that we believe should also be free to air. Group A should be expanded. There was joy, and of course sorrow, for those able to see the UEFA final last weekend. Should it not have been something that everyone could access to watch for free? What about the Glasgow Commonwealth Games happening this July? We on these Benches believe there should be no need for special pleading from the Prime Minister—just add this to the Bill.

Then there are infrastructure, transport and security. Some of these considerations have made it into the Bill, which is a positive step and again welcomed by these Benches. But built environment intervention seems to be missing: athletes’ accommodation, as well as facilities for visitors, restaurants, parks and access to accommodation at an appropriate price range. These would drive opportunities to boost the tourist economy and are needs that we think should be considered within the framework and the Bill.

We are glad to see consideration of advertising and branding. This is important for interconnected reasons: a good legal framework protects sports organisations from unauthorised branding and marketing, but also, as the Minister said, makes deals for official sponsors more appealing. It also limits the unauthorised use of marketing for activities, usually online, that could cause harm. My noble friend Lord Foster will elaborate on this topic and, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, on gambling. There is also the matter of the use of trademarks—more on this from my noble friend Lord Addington.

Finally, and I think this has happened again today, some concern has been expressed in the House about having to wait for a draft ticketing Bill. Does this Bill not provide an opportunity to discuss how we can create a strong anti-touting ticket system across the board, with proper enforcement? Does the Minister not agree that we should seize this opportunity now, rather than have to wait another year for a different Bill? We look forward to working with the Government on this Bill.

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. I made it into the wrong end of the Chamber at the start of the debate and then sprinted around the outside, somewhat slower than I used to be able to.

I declare my interests: I am the chair of Sport Wales, a board member of UK Sport and a trustee of the Foundation of Light, and I sit on His Majesty’s Government’s Soft Power Council, particularly looking at sport. I was part of the bid team for the Manchester Olympic and Paralympic Games when we bid against Sydney. We had 100 years of rain data to show that there is more rain in Sydney at that time of year than Manchester, and they held up a picture of Bondi Beach. We learned from each of those experiences.

My noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I worked on much of the 2012 Games together. It is easy to forget that when we bid for those Games, we were bidding only for the Olympics; for the Paralympics there was a separate negotiation. Thanks to the amazing work of Tessa Jowell, she made that happen. On stage presenting to the IOC, she wanted to stand up and say that we were bidding for the 60 days of the Games. Unfortunately, at that time, we could not risk anything getting in the way of the IOC awarding the Games to us. Those Games raised the bar on the Olympics, the Paralympics and disability sport.

There is a lot to be said for avoiding bespoke legislation every time we want to bid for a Games. I support much of the Bill, but I think we could be just a little bolder. It is potentially a really exciting time to look at a possible bid for a Games in the north. I am Welsh but with a geographical designation of Eaglescliffe in the County of Durham, and there is a lot of local interest. I understand that it is probably too early for the Minister to say, but I would welcome a little more understanding of what the definition of the north is. I would prefer us to say the north of England. A lot of the UK is above where I live. People remember those magical times and understand what major sporting events can do for us.

We are looking for Welsh legislative consent, and the Long Title mentions Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. I wonder whether I am missing something, but I would like to understand why Wales is not there. What conversations and discussions have taken place with the new Government in Wales?

Next year, the Tour de France grand départ will go through Scotland, England and Wales. This is a really exciting time to re-emphasise the power that the UK has in international sport. I wonder what impact the Bill might have where sport is devolved, and where there is a crossover with major events. Will we still be able to use the Bill to bid for events such as that in the future? These are important things. UK Sport and the UK have a great deal of expertise in bidding for events.

It is important to note that our international reputation is also based on holding and hosting much smaller events. That shows our commitment to sport and it is something we are really good at. Recently the UK hosted the world team table tennis event, which was incredible. It also shows the international federations, which have an impact on our bids for major events, that we are committed to a variety of sports.

The Commonwealth Games is an important part of that. We are hugely thankful to Glasgow for stepping in. It is important to Wales and Welsh athletes as a potential stepping stone to GB. It connects local people to the athletes. For all the countries in the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but also the smaller countries—it means an awful lot, and we should be proud of that.

I am very interested in what the major sporting events strategy will look like. One of the things that UK Sport recognises and works very well at promoting when bidding for smaller events is that they sit across the four home countries. In Wales we had the AIG golf in Porthcawl and world para fencing in Cardiff. All those make an impact and do not need primary legislation, but they tie to our global aspiration.

One of the things that arose out of the recent Soft Power Council meeting was that more clarity was required on what is a major or mega sporting event. I wonder whether His Majesty’s Government intend to offer a definition of this, because it would be hugely beneficial for the sector. The sport sector in its entirety is huge and significant, and this would help in some of the future planning. A number of organisations that work with current UK events are asking for this clarity. You could argue that additional help is not needed if they are currently operating and successful, but it is important to understand the jigsaw that needs to exist in what we are trying to aspire to on the world stage.

You should never underestimate the impact that the UK has in promoting disability events, not just in starting the Paralympic Games and 2012 but in our ongoing role. One such example is wheelchair tennis; the LTA is one of the best governing bodies at promoting inclusion and is doing a really good job.

The world is changing, not least due to climate change. By the time we get to Brisbane 2032, there might be a very different Games—not just the type of events that are included, as there is a move to more street and urban games, but the impact on climate change. I would like to understand more about what consideration has been given to environmental sustainability, transport—we know that is going to be an issue in Los Angeles—and how we can further push for decarbonisation. A lot of sports are already looking at this. You could argue that the easiest way to help the environment is to have athletes not travel anywhere. The Games are going to be very different. We need to be fleet of foot in what we do in the UK to understand what bidding for future Games might look like.

The legacy of 2012 was amazing. I am always slightly uncomfortable when people say that the 2012 Paralympics changed the world for disabled people. It was the best eight weeks of my life, but we also have to be careful about overselling what sport can do unless we invest in legacy. Join In, the volunteering charity, was an incredible legacy of the 2012 Games. We need to think about how we build in social and community aspects at bid stage. It is cheaper and easier, and there is more chance of it working. There is always a spike in participation after the Games, but if we think about legacy at the very start, we have a real chance of making a difference.

The cost of bidding was raised. I remember, in 2005, talking to one of the planners for 2012 and them talking about the difficulty of predicting the cost of steel seven years into the future. This is something that other countries will be looking at as well, because you can sometimes spend millions on bidding for a Games. We have to be very smart in what we do.

I know this is outside the remit of the Bill, but this year the UK is hosting the summit for the International Working Group on Women and Sport. This started in 1994 as the Brighton declaration, and it is now the Brighton and Helsinki declaration. It has support from 600 organisations around the world. The summit in July will be an amazing opportunity to network, and I hope there will be a ministerial presence there. This is a situation where the eyes of the world will be on us. We have a chance to influence sport and international federations, but it is not a sporting event as we might think about it.

In Committee we will also need to look at the cost of policing and security. Sadly, it is a necessity. We are seeing that the cost of policing and security is making it unsustainable to hold some of the smaller events in the UK, which are part of the jigsaw for what we want to do in the future.

This is not quite in the Bill, but we have been talking in Grand Committee about the Care Quality Commission and its changing guidance. It would be great if we could join up the different threads of conversation to make sure that we are in the best possible shape to go forward. I thank the Sport and Recreation Alliance for its continued discussion in this space.

I support the Bill. We have an amazing opportunity. We could be a little bit braver. If I can steal a quote from the 2012 Games, we have a chance to inspire a generation.

My Lords, I rise in strong support of the Bill and my noble friend’s excellent introduction to it. It is rather humbling and daunting to follow the legendary noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She is an inspiration to us all, in both what she did as an athlete and what she has done since, and I congratulate her on her speech.

Major global sporting events are utterly transformative —economically, socially, reputationally and inspirationally. Listen to Emil Zátopek, star of London 1948, winner of golds in the 5,000 and 10,000 metres:

“It was a liberation of spirit to be there in London. After those dark days of the war … the revival of the Olympics was as if the sun had come out”.

Sport can do this. Four years later, he won three more gold medals in Helsinki.

As a 10 year-old boy, I saw England beat Mexico on the way to winning the World Cup in 1966. The inspiration has never left me. As a pro bono member of the FA’s performance advisory group since 2016, I declare an interest: I am hoping, as I do every four years, needless to say, that we might win the World Cup again this year. I wish Scotland well as well.

The inspirational Sebastian Coe and the blessed Tessa Jowell—several other noble Lords have referred to how much we miss her—brought us London 2012. Everybody has talked about what wonderful events the Olympics and Paralympics were—Britain at its best. Even the London cab drivers stopped moaning. Since then, in football alone, we have had the Women’s Euros, which transformed the legacy of football for women and girls, as the noble Baroness mentioned just now, and the men’s Euros final. We know that the UK and Ireland will co-host the men’s Euros in 2028, and I hope that in 2035 we will host the Women’s World Cup. Last year the brilliant Women’s Rugby World Cup was here. Each such event creates a massive opportunity for our country to promote our sport, hospitality, values, health and well-being.

As the chair of Somerset County Cricket Club until recently, I should mention too that, starting imminently, this country is hosting the Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. In participation it will be by far the biggest event of its kind, with over a quarter of a million attendances and tickets already sold in 52 countries. More importantly, over 500,000 girls and women from diverse backgrounds will participate in related events; 236,000 schoolchildren already have. This is a huge step towards the ECB’s ambition for cricket to become the most diverse and inclusive sport in the country.

This, by the way, is just one aspect of the transformation of cricket, which may be the fastest-growing sport in the world, driven in part by becoming an Olympic sport in LA 2028. Extraordinary things are happening. Last week Nepal beat China at cricket. Recently, I was talking to a good county cricket bowler who was retiring. I asked, “What next?” He said, “I’ve just been interviewed for the role of fast bowling coach to the German women’s cricket team”. Imagine the headlines if we ever lose to Germany at cricket.

We the UK need to be ready and able to continue hosting these events in an increasingly sport-mad world where the competition to host them is becoming ever fiercer. No other country can boast our history of global sporting leadership—the Paralympics have been mentioned—but winning bids in the future will require many more world-class, accessible, environmentally sustainable venues, brilliant organisation and logistics, top facilities for athletes, fantastic media and sponsorship, outstanding travel and hospitality, socially inclusive promotion, ticketing and pricing—unlike for the forthcoming World Cup—and discreet, effective security for athletes, fans and spectators. If we get even one of these wrong, it will threaten not just that event but our ability to attract future events, which is one of the reasons why the Bill is so important. If we are to assure the owners of these events that we can host them better than anywhere else in the world, it is essential for the UK and its Government to stand four-square behind every single bid to assure it and actively support it in the various ways I have just mentioned.

On 3 September 2018, the cycling Tour of Britain came to my local town, Barnstaple, where I was able to introduce the young cyclists from our North Devon Wheelers club to Geraint Thomas, the brilliant Welsh cyclist and that year’s winner of the Tour de France. He is a wonderful man. Inspired by that moment and by their own talent and hard work, those young cyclists have gone on to cycling success in the years that followed—and the Tour de France is coming. The most profound impact of major sporting events is these moments: the memories made, the ambitions spurred, the potential unlocked, the legacy. This is why I hope we will see overwhelming support for the Bill.

To finish where I started, Emil Zátopek’s most succinct and memorable advice back then to his fellow athletes also applies to Governments when the going gets tough:

“When you can’t keep going, go faster”.

I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

Sport, as the Government rightly recognise, has a unique power. It brings people together in a way that little else can. It inspires, unites and instils pride in our communities. When we host major sporting events, we do not just celebrate sport—we generate real economic benefit, create jobs and, as we have heard, inspire the next generation. The Bill is a step in the right direction, creating a common legislative framework that can be applied to support the successful delivery of future major sporting events. However, many in the sector regard it as a missed opportunity.

The Bill is, by design, narrowly drawn. It applies only to events that are

“of a kind that is not regularly held … in the United Kingdom”

and are

“likely to be of significant international interest”.

In practice, as we have heard, that means it is tailored to one-off international tournaments such as the Euros, the World Cup or the World Athletics Championships. Although the criteria are open to some interpretation and there are certainly questions to be asked about which other events may be included in the future, which I am sure we will discuss in Committee, what is clear—it was reiterated by the Minister in her opening—is that the current definition excludes the very events that define Britain’s global sporting identity: Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix, to name but a few. As we well know, these are not occasional events. They happen year after year, and year after year they deliver precisely the benefits that Ministers rightly want to champion: economic growth, international prestige and community pride.

So for me the main question that arises in relation to the legislation we are discussing today is quite a simple one: why should one-off international events be given protections deemed necessary for their successful delivery, while those same protections are not to be offered to iconic homegrown events that have been a regular part of the UK’s cultural calendar for generations?

Ministers have said that the legislation will help make it easier for the UK to host major sporting events, creating jobs and investment, and that is extremely welcome. Yet the definition of the eligible events in the Bill as currently drafted is very restrictive and denies Ministers the flexibility to support the full breadth of the UK’s world-class sporting calendar. The skeleton nature of the Bill, setting out the framework but naturally leaving much of the detail to secondary legislation, means that regular UK events that are not covered by the provisions could become increasingly at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in relation to securing sponsorship over time, for instance.

These are not just abstract concerns—there will be practical consequences as a result. As Alex Kelham and Freya Davey of Lewis Silkin highlighted in a recent article, the Bill as it stands leaves a clear gap by its exclusion of regularly held UK events. They point out:

“These events collectively bring enormous economic value to the UK”

and are routinely impacted by a number of the challenges that the Bill seeks to address.

Take ambush marketing, for instance. At present, major events organisers are forced to rely on private legal remedies to tackle it—which are costly, complex, and often insufficient. In Schedule 4 the Bill introduces a stronger statutory protection against unauthorised commercial association, and that is very welcome. But why should those provisions and protections be reserved for one-off events? Why should an international tournament benefit from clear statutory rights while a world-renowned, regularly held UK event has to continue to rely on imperfect private law remedies?

The Bill itself already contains a flexible framework, allowing Ministers to decide how protections apply to different events currently within its scope. I do not believe that extending that flexibility to established, regular UK events would be radical—rather, it would be an entirely logical extension of the Bill’s provisions.

At a time when the sector is already under strain due to a variety of challenges, including rising policing costs, the implications of Martyn’s law, increased employment costs, regulatory pressures and higher business rates, the absence of the protections from the proposed sporting framework set out in the Bill to major UK-based events organisers which are excluded feels particularly acute.

We are told that a major events strategy is forthcoming; again, that is very welcome. However, without the legislative ambition to match, there is a risk that it will fall short of what the sector needs and is asking for. If this Bill acknowledges that protections such as those against ambush marketing are insufficient, the answer is surely not to apply them selectively but to strengthen them more widely—not just for the events we hope to host, but for those that already define us. The Government should and I hope will grasp the opportunity to expand the Bill and ensure that regularly held events can be as successful as possible.

I am sure we will discuss this in Committee, but I encourage the Minister to go further and extend the provisions in the Bill to include annual, nationally significant UK-based sporting events. When will the Government publish their major events strategy, and how does the Minister see this legislation fitting within a genuinely comprehensive approach that includes, rather than excludes, the UK’s iconic homegrown events?

Finally, there are powers in the Finance Act 2014 to exempt overseas competitors and officials accredited by the organisers from income tax for the period of major events—such as the upcoming Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, where regulations have recently been passed to do that. Given the desire to bring together the suite of powers to cover the respective events in this legislation, is the Minister confident that those existing provisions are sufficient to ensure a joined-up and responsive approach to major events being hosted in the UK?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her clear and concise introduction to this debate, and I refer the House to my golf interest as listed in the register. It is a pleasure to speak at Second Reading and to welcome the Bill. I support its central purpose: to provide the UK with a clear, consistent and credible legislative framework for hosting major international sporting events. The Bill fulfils a clear manifesto commitment to strengthen Britain’s position as a world-leading host of global sporting events and to remove unnecessary uncertainty and delay. It replaces a piecemeal approach with a toolkit that does not need rebuilding every few years. That clarity matters, and this Bill sends the right signal at home and abroad.

As my noble friend has said, major sporting events are not simply moments of entertainment or national celebration; they are economic catalysts, generators of tourism, drivers of inward investment, and powerful platforms for projecting the UK’s values and reputation on the global stage. Sport brings people together like nothing else can, fostering pride, identity and community. Anyone watching the Arsenal parade in north London at the weekend could see that vividly in action, albeit it through a thick pink haze. Sporting events can also play a crucial role in national cohesion and local regeneration. Host cities and regions experience not only immediate economic uplift but longer-term legacy effects. In that sense, major events are more than spectacle; they leave a lasting mark.

Looking ahead, the UEFA Men’s European Championships in 2028, hosted by the UK and Ireland, and a potential FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035, will again demonstrate what this country has to offer and will be an opportunity to build bonds with other nations by sharing a common human experience. In doing so, they will contribute directly to the UK’s soft power. The ability to convene the world—to host global audiences, athletes and institutions—reinforces our position not merely as a participant in international sport but as a trusted and capable partner. This is not just culturally valuable; it is strategically important. At a time when nations are consciously using sport to project influence and attract investment, the Government have recognised that the UK cannot afford to stand still.

As UK Sport has made clear, certainty and clarity in the legal and regulatory environment are now baseline requirements for international rights holders. The days of relying on ad hoc assurances are long gone. Organisers want to know that a country can move quickly, legislate coherently and deliver reliably. This Bill responds directly to that reality; that is why it has been welcomed by the sector. The British Olympic Association has also endorsed the shift away from bespoke event-by-event legislation, noting that a standing framework strengthens the UK’s competitiveness. I also welcome the Government’s commission of UK Sport to assess the potential for hosting the Olympic or Paralympic Games in the north of England in 2040.

I too welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lord McConnell as a ministerial adviser on soft power and major events; he will bring his long experience and endless enthusiasm to the task. Both are important steps in thinking strategically about the UK’s role as a host nation. That work sits alongside a broader opportunity for the United Kingdom to think more strategically about its events pipeline—how we identify, secure and deliver a balanced portfolio of major events that reflects not only economic opportunity but national priorities such as regional growth, inclusion and sustainability.

The Government are right to build a pipeline of future events that brings growth and inward investment. However, existing excellence should not be overlooked. Our established events are the foundation on which much of our reputation as a host nation rests. They demonstrate year after year that the UK can deliver complex, high-profile international events to the highest standard. It is therefore worth the Government reflecting on whether the framework can evolve, in this Bill or alongside it, to recognise that contribution more explicitly.

I speak with a particular interest as a member of the APPG on golf. Scotland is recognised internationally as the home of golf. In the UK, the Open Championship and the DP World Tour are not peripheral events but among the most economically significant and globally watched sporting occasions. For example, the 2024 Open Championship generated over £300 million in economic benefit, and a UK-hosted Ryder Cup would be comparable to a Rugby World Cup in visitor spend and international profile. While a Solheim Cup, one of the premier competitions in women’s sport, has yet to be hosted in England, that could be a Lioness moment to inspire a new generation of young girls and the entire golf ecosystem. I hope that the forthcoming major events strategy will take note of these opportunities.

Research supported by the R&A illustrates the wider contribution of golf to the UK economy and to society. In 2019, the sport generated over £5 billion in consumer spending, supported more than 60,000 jobs and contributed around £2.6 billion in economic value. Beyond that, golf delivers over £1 billion in social value each year through improvements to physical health, mental well-being and community engagement. That research also highlights health outcomes. Regular participation in golf contributes to the prevention and management of numerous chronic conditions, and golfers live, on average, longer than non-golfers— so get your clubs out. This is a reminder that sport delivers public health benefits as well as economic returns.

I know that the Government will want to reassure the sector that established events will not be inadvertently disadvantaged relative to those brought within the Bill’s framework. The forthcoming cross-sector major events strategy should explicitly address the needs of the regularly staged, nationally significant events.

Turning to enforcement, I welcome the provisions designed to put fans first, particularly those addressing ticket touting. However, given the scale and sophistication of secondary ticketing markets, I do wonder whether the £20,000 cap represents a sufficient deterrent for large-scale operators and whether this will be kept under review as markets evolve. Similarly, the provisions on ambush marketing are essential, given how prevalent this issue is across all sports events; it is not confined to one-off events, and affects commercially significant recurring events. There may therefore be merit in considering whether association rights could, in future, be extended—on a targeted basis or by regulation—to events of genuine national significance. The gap between one-off and recurring events could then be narrowed

I too emphasise the importance of legacy. The true test of this Bill will be not only the events it enables but the impact those events leave behind—in participation, in infrastructure, in economic opportunity and in community well-being. A strong framework is a start, but delivery will decide the outcome.

This is a welcome, timely and necessary Bill. It honours a manifesto commitment, reflects the Government’s ambition for the UK to remain a world-leading host of major sporting events and responds directly to the expectations of international organisers. I welcome the Bill and will support it as it progresses through the House.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate and in doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register—as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava, and Simmons & Simmons.

I congratulate the Minister on the way she introduced the Bill. In its title we already have part of recent sporting heritage. If we always refer to the Sporting Events Bill by its acronym, “SEB”, that will give the right salute and respect to our colleague Lord Coe, who did so much in leading the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

I will focus on inclusion and innovation, which, sadly, the Bill is largely silent on, yet these are the golden threads that enable sporting events of the scale and success that we saw at London 2012. Far too much in this Bill is left to secondary legislation, most of it on the negative procedure.

But to take a step back for a moment, as other noble Lords have said, when we get it right, sport goes much further than the field of play. Think about the mottos for the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, “Amigos para siempre”; the Paralympic Games, “Sport Beyond Limits”; and, as my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson referred to, London 2012, “Inspire a Generation”—that is what sport can do at every level, not least at the major events and mega events.

That is what we looked to do when we started the planning journey for London 2012. We appreciated that the way to make good Games great Games was twofold: first, to have the athletes at the heart of every decision we made; secondly, to have access, diversity and inclusion hardwired into every decision right from the outset. To that end, does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful to have some of those principles set out in the Bill at this stage? It is about principles, which I do not believe would in any sense fetter the flexibility that is required when we come to the secondary legislation that goes into more of the operational detail.

There is much in the Bill on ticketing, but what of inclusive ticketing? At London 2012, we were clear: no free tickets. But we enabled hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren to experience world-class sport, often for the first time, by having the highest-priced tickets include a portion to fund those tickets that went to schoolchildren right across the United Kingdom. What about affordability, and having social and economic inclusion? What about accessibility within the ticket offer? Touting is critically important to address, but anti-touting measures in and of themselves say nothing to affordability and accessibility.

Similarly, when we planned the ticketing offering, we made sure that if you were a wheelchair user you could sit with your friends and family, which had never been possible at a sporting event before that. If you had a hearing impairment, you had a seat with direct line of sight to the video board. If you had a mobility impairment, you had a seat at the end of the row. There was an inclusive ticket offering right through the Games experience. Does the Minister not agree that there were principles there that we could see in the Bill?

On that first touchpoint, often with a major sporting event, when trying to get a ticket in the first place, so many tickets are now available only in digital form. What does the Minister think about the need for non-digital and analogue tickets, and other means for people to access tickets to these major sporting events? Does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful to incorporate all this by having an inclusive-by-design statutory objective right at the top of the Bill?

On innovation, AI and other technologies have the potential to play such a positive role when it comes to the organisation and delivery of these events—think about predictive crowd modelling, the operation of transportation, city operations, the last mile and almost every element of planning these events. Yet there is no overarching AI framework or strategy set out in the Bill. Without addressing this point, it is likely that the approaches to AI will be partial, have gaps and say nothing in terms of bias, transparency, privacy and understandability for those spectators, games organisers and people who will be participating in events that are potentially subject to AI without even knowing that AI is in the mix.

What about digital ID? It could play such an important and positive role for accessing these sporting events safely and securely. The Bill envisages the creation of a whole heap of new data, often of a personal nature. What about provisions around the storage and sharing of that data? What about interoperability provisions being set throughout many of the Bill’s provisions? Would it not make sense to have a technology future-proofing clause within the Bill that could catch all this? At the moment, understandably, the Bill is technology neutral, but it is not technology future-proofed.

Bringing inclusion and innovation together is just one example. Imagine what could be achieved through a truly inclusive personalised accessibility service for disabled people, older people, younger people and all people wanting to access these sporting events, all of whom—including all of us—will have particular needs that could be addressed through that alchemy of inclusion and innovation.

To conclude, sport has such power to inspire change—to change us as individuals, as communities, as cities and as a country. We saw it at London 2012. We see it in sport like in almost no other cultural experience in our human experience. What does that look like? To illustrate it, one example is the late, great Stephen Hawking speaking at the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Paralympics; not just talking about possibilities beyond ourselves but also talking about possibilities beyond our universe. What a way to blast into 11 days of gravity-defying, attitude-altering, opportunity-creating, world-class sport—world-class sport that changes us and that goes way beyond the stadia.

London 2012 changed us. Major events change us as a United Kingdom. Remember how we all felt in that summer of 2012? Do we not need just some of that change right now, today? Let major sporting events of the future across these shores continue to inspire future generations, and let the Sporting Events Bill play such a positive part in that change.

My Lords, I travelled the world from the age of 11, competing or working at all major sporting events, and I was very proud to be part of the 2012 bid team. I am also very proud to say that my dad coached my noble friend Lord Holmes. I have seen the benefits that hosting a major Games brings to a host city and country, and the challenges that it poses. For example, compare the difference between my first Olympic Games in Montreal, which financially shackled the locals for decades, to the amazing success of 2012, which ended up being the exact opposite—uniting our country as I have never witnessed before. I am sure that those who attended the 1966 World Cup will also have that feeling.

Sport can do miraculous things. It can be uplifting, inspiring and hugely beneficial to regeneration and business. It can leave a legacy, raise community and national emotion, and bring cohesiveness. But we must get it right. At the sporting events I have been around within the last century, I have seen sport increasingly relegated to a level sometimes less important than the opening and closing ceremonies or events that take place around it. This can sometimes detract. More importantly, it makes events extremely expensive to host and to organise. There must be a balance. At present, we are getting it wrong, which is so many fewer countries are interested in hosting major events. We need to get back to centring the sport, with sensible budgets. I say this not to be boring and restrictive but to be practical.

It is the sport, with the human stories of triumph over adversity, that people remember, bringing the action into our living rooms, inspiring the champions of tomorrow, and, hopefully, also inspiring a healthier nation as people get back to old habits and try new ones. That is a massive part of hosting any event; it is what brings our communities together, how athletes can be used to bring good by changing behaviours, selling our country to the world, building trade and tourism by providing a shop window with economic benefits to hotels, restaurants, merchandise and transport —all the things that we all know and have talked about already.

Infrastructure and legacy are also extremely important. We built more 50-metre pools in the three years leading up to London 2012 than we built in the previous 30 here in the UK. As a young swimmer, I had to travel from Plymouth to London to be able to swim in an Olympic-sized pool. Australia has a policy of building one if they have a community over a certain size; it has 400 50-metre pools in their country, which has a population of 27 million. I do not know whether noble Lords would like to guess how many we have in the UK. It is not even 30. Australia says that residents should live within a 15-minute drive of a public aquatic centre. At the moment, we are closing pools at an alarming rate, and in the last few weeks we have seen at least 17 people die from drowning.

I have been presenting sport since the late 1980s. The BBC has not missed a major sporting event for decades, but recently there has been a huge decline in coverage. It did not do the world swimming championships last year. It is not doing the home Commonwealth Games this year, gallantly rescued by Glasgow, or the European championships that are on in Paris, not even that far away. Swimming, still one of the UK’s biggest participation sports, has not been on terrestrial television since the Paris Olympic Games. When we hold UK events, we must have them covered on the BBC, not just on the red button, radio or hidden online. If public money is being used to bring these events to our country, the public ought to be able to see them without them being behind a paywall.

I had a recent conversation with the BBC, which is not covering anywhere near the variety of sports that it once did, including swimming, rowing and triathlon this summer. I was informed last week that the BBC does not expect to cover swimming until the next Olympic Games in LA. That is four years in between showing swimming—one of our biggest participation sports and a sport that saves lives, so it is important to inspire people to want to swim—and that is not good enough. Nearly two-thirds of the BBC’s sports budget goes on football, while every other sport has to scrabble around to get any airtime whatever. Surely the job of the BBC is to be a national service doing a national job for the whole community.

Lots of points have been made today, but I have two final points that I would like to make. We must bid for fabulous, inspiring, growth-generating sporting events, but we must centre the sport using existing facilities, including university accommodation, reduce peripheral events, and make them affordable. Multisport events are hugely popular and the public love them. Secondly, our national broadcaster must cover all major international events that come to the UK, showing a broad stretch of sports, so that young people are not limited to just the big three. Certain sports are growing, but a lot of other sports are just disappearing. The disappointment the British swimmer community feels at being abandoned is tangible, and I know that other sports feel the same way. It makes it difficult for our hard-working athletes to get sponsorship to stay in their sport if they get no exposure. This does not happen in other countries. We are one of the worst countries in the world for showing a variety of sports on our terrestrial television. Kids cannot be what they do not see, and we desperately need our kids to be inspired.

My final thought—again, I do not mean to be depressing —is that the Commonwealth Games were rescued from Victoria by Glasgow because of cost. For the next two Olympic Games, there was actually no competition to have them because not enough countries bid. There was only one for each of the Games. So we have to be sensible in the way we place our bids.

My Lords, I hope colleagues will forgive my rustiness today, because this is the first proper speech I have made since my long, enforced absence from the House: that is, apart from jumping up at Question Time, which I am tempted to do perhaps rather too often. I hope I will be able to contribute. I did not expect to be following an Olympic swimmer in this debate. I hope I will do half as well as my noble friend Lord Barber did, following the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I will try my best. I will also avoid saying anything about the nature of Scottish refereeing as a Hearts supporter, but I think all noble Lords know what I mean.

I strongly support this Bill, which was excellently introduced by my noble friend. I think that, together with the draft ticket touts Bill, it will help to protect fans from the exploitation that they have been experiencing. It is estimated that it will save £112 million annually, and that fans will save about £37 on the average ticket in the resale market, so it is a very important issue. It is sensible to legislate for a common set of provisions that can be applied to specific events by secondary legislation, saving time in this Parliament and, in particular, in the devolved Parliaments.

It is urgent because, as we prepare for the 2028 Euros, which, as the Minister said, are going to be held in the UK and Ireland, it is important that we have, as she indicated, a common set of provisions on transport planning, street trading restrictions and commercial exclusion zones. That is a very welcome development, because the Euros are now so much larger than the competition that I attended in Sweden in 1992—supporting Scotland, of course. Then, only eight countries participated, and it was very easy and cheap to get tickets. I found myself sitting next to the then president of the Scottish Football Association. That would not happen these days. It was much easier in those days. Nine stadia are being used in 2028. I fear that Hampden Park is going to be a bit of a letdown for visitors. I think it is one of the worst stadia in this United Kingdom in terms of toilet and catering facilities. It is a disgrace to Scotland that we have not been able to build a world-class stadium when we see them much better in developing countries around the world. I issue a plea today to the SFA to do something about it.

Another issue that has been drawn to my attention is the number of tickets that are allocated to corporate sponsors at these events. Apparently, this happened in Paris with the game between Paris Saint-Germain and Arsenal. Often, those tickets are not used, and fans find it difficult to get tickets. I hope that UEFA and other international organisations will look at that to see that, if tickets are not going to be taken up by corporate sponsors, they are allocated to fans.

Now I am going to agree, and this is most unusual, with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park. I cannot remember the last time, if ever, I agreed with her. That shows what sportsmanship there is here on this Bill. I read the suggestion from Alex Kelham and Freya Davey that these events—not one-off events, but regular events—can be included. I hope the Minister and the Government will look at that. I think, looking across at the noble Baroness, that there will be scope for an all-party amendment when we get to Committee.

I now come to a wider issue. I wrote a report entitled Football Governance—Business and Values for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which it agreed, highlighting that the integrity of the world’s most popular sport is at risk. Since I wrote it a few years ago, the integrity of football has become even more at risk. It is urgent to protect football from rogue actors and commercial exploitation, including agents who are making billions of pounds, many of them based here in London, and from the football establishment itself. As we approach the start of the World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada, it has got worse rather than better. Was not the presentation of the so-called “FIFA Peace Prize” by Gianni Infantino to Donald Trump, of all people, appalling? So was the award of the 2034 competition to Saudi Arabia, without competition, in spite of its appalling human rights record. That shows how bad this has become. Money and greed have taken over. So I say to the Minister that I hope that, beyond what we are discussing today, beyond this Bill, our Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, will take the lead in condemning and counteracting this abuse of football at every opportunity, for the good name of the great game of football.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I agree with his highlighting of concerns about the greed and denial of principles that have been associated with too many major sporting events recently. That is something I will come back to. It is important that this Bill acknowledges those risks and dangers and considers what kind of events we will be hosting.

I start by saying what a pleasure it is to take part in what has already been a very rich and informed debate. Major international sporting events are important to so many individuals: for pure joy, for engagement in social activities, and for—we hope, at least—encouraging physical activity of their own. Of course, they are also important in providing communities with new facilities, infrastructure and opportunities.

However, we know that major events have not always lived up to their promises or the hopes people held. This Bill is a real opportunity to make sure that future events do just that. The Green Party and I broadly welcome the Bill. It is sensible not to have to keep creating a different piece of legislation for each individual event, and this is a practical measure that is clearly heading in broadly the right direction.

I want to associate myself with a number of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, such as culture being included in the Bill—certainly cultural events associated with sporting events—but I think we could also ask broader questions. We have seen so much depletion of the cultural life of this country, driven by austerity, by Brexit, by educational suppression of creative subjects, and in some cases by a desire to discourage individual critical thinking. It is important that we look to international inspiration and international support to grow that.

I also share the noble Baroness’s concern that we are not going far enough on anti-ticket-touting or ensuring that events are protected for free-to-air TV. This is still important to so many people. Even though much of what people watch now is through the internet and social media, there are still a lot of people we cannot leave behind.

I very much agree and associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. An amendment to ensure that we build in “inclusive by design” is something we should see. I would further comment, reflecting on earlier debates in your Lordships’ House, that those who are attacking diversity, equity and inclusion measures for ideological reasons should listen to the noble Lord’s speech to understand how important it is that these measures continue.

I want to pick up on the immensely powerful and important speech—as we all expected—from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and her point about soft power. As she stressed, the nature of the event, how it turns out, and its outcomes for individuals, communities and society are important not only on their own terms but to how Britain is regarded around the world. In that context, the UK Soft Power Council has, unfortunately, not met for seven months. A recent PoliticsHome article described it as “drifting towards oblivion”. That is disturbing, and perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

I come now to some specific points concerning amendments that I may consider tabling to this Bill, depending on the Minister’s response. The first relates to Schedule 2, “Advertising provisions”. We have already ensured that we remove tobacco sponsorship from sport because of its impact on public health. Should we not also consider preventing fossil fuel companies advertising and sponsoring major sporting events? This has been called for by the UN Secretary-General, who has said there should indeed be restrictions similar to those applied to tobacco. Various countries have made progress in this area. France has already banned fossil fuel products advertising from 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces from 2025. Of course, many local communities around these islands—including Edinburgh and Sheffield, to mention two that I know about—have already taken action on this.

We can look back to the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics for lessons that we might learn. Public health in the UK is so poor. Surely, if we are going to put significant public investment into these sporting events, as we inevitably will, we need to make sure they do not do significant damage to public health. There should surely be restrictions on the nature of the products being advertised or, indeed, forcibly sold at these venues.

I note that major sponsors at London 2012 were McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken. That was subject at the time to criticism from a number of senior medical officials; indeed, the London Assembly passed a motion calling for a ban on junk food sponsors. We saw a real problem whereby food sellers were forced to prominently display Coca-Cola advertising and products, with very limited space for alternative products. This, of course, is a product linked to high blood pressure, heart disease and obesity. Surely, the Bill should be looking to address some of those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has already given us a sneak preview, and I will not go on at length as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will be discussing this, but the issue of gambling sponsorship and advertising has to be considered. This is, of course, a huge issue when it comes to football. I am afraid I am not going to celebrate the very modest measure whereby next season, there will be a voluntary ban on advertising on the front of shirts. That is what you might call the minimum possible we think we can get away with. The economic costs of gambling to the country are very well known and I am sure will be rehearsed later. I note that Italy, for example, banned most gambling advertising through a “Dignity Decree” in 2018.

My final point concerns sustainability standards. Again, London 2012 unfortunately did not live up to many of the promises made before the Games on waste reduction targets, resource use and use of renewable energy. Also, they failed to use locally grown food and fair trade products, in part, again, because of the influence of those sponsors and contracted suppliers.

Surely, we should be thinking back to the soft power point. We should be ensuring that we produce genuinely “world-leading” events—a phrase popular on both the Government and Opposition Benches in this place. Paris sought to host the lowest carbon Olympic Games ever; it did not always live up to this. Surely, we can do better than Paris in future events. Yes, international bodies are starting to mandate those standards, but we can surely demand that the events we cover under this Bill go further.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who made lots of very thought-provoking points about wider issues. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate with so many people who have contributed so much to our great sporting legacy.

I too welcome this Bill. It provides an overarching framework, a one-stop shop if you like, for major sporting events. As many Lords have said, it is important because sport is so central to our culture and our economy. To make the point, I will share a couple of statistics, one of which is very strange. We are still among the handful of countries that are always at the top of the Global Sports Index, which measures the scale, reach and impact of sporting events around the world. Here is the strange statistic: just before Covid, the UK had the honour of being the only country in the world whose sporting annual attendance of professional events was greater than its entire population. A recent UK sports survey showed that 83% of the UK population expressed pride in hosting major sporting events. Getting 83% of the country to agree on anything is pretty extraordinary.

Having a framework approach is sensible, to provide efficient delivery, to reduce delay and uncertainty once bids have been successful, and to improve the bidding for events by meeting organising committee requirements in advance. I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said earlier. My understanding is that this is a package to enable bids for international events to be smoother, so I can see some logic in separating out some events from regularly held major events.

In particular, it is good to see action on deterring touts, protecting commercial rights, enabling co-ordinated transport planning and saving admittedly modest amounts of money—but still, saving money—in the legislative and administrative groundhog day that is involved in legislation for each new bid that is made.

It is important to note, as other noble Lords have done, that the Bill is accompanied by other initiatives that, taken together, look suspiciously like a co-ordinated strategy: a new cross-government programme with sporting bodies on priority infrastructure development; a new cross-sector major events strategy, which will be fed into by my noble friend Lord McConnell, as the new adviser on sporting events and soft power; and, as many noble Lords have said, the upcoming ticket touts Bill, more on which later. All this is very welcome.

I want to flag up four areas where I think there will be a lot of interest across the House in probing for more detail. The first is the definition of “events”, which is perhaps not a big issue in policy terms but is a tricky issue from an administrative point of view. Clause 3, as we have heard, specifies that the events within scope are those that are held in or partly in the UK of a kind that are not regularly held in the UK and that are likely to be of significant international interest. It is clear that UEFA and FIFA tournaments, Rugby World Cups and international cricket competitions fall in that scope, but what about events such as high-profile title bouts in boxing that are organised in an ad hoc way? What about the Ryder Cup, even? The Ryder Cup, as my noble friend Lady Nye knows very well, is held in Europe every four years, but it is no longer held in Britain every four years—it is held in different countries. Does that count as qualifying as an event that would be within scope? These are not deal-breaking issues, but it would be worth hearing what further guidance the Secretary of State will rely on when making decisions.

The second area is ticket touting. As many colleagues have said, the stated intent in the Bill is good, but there are three small issues in this area. The first is how exactly the steps on eliminating ticket touting in the Bill will dovetail with the wider treatment of ticket touting that is yet to come. As many have observed, the risk is that measures to deter or prohibit touting for major sporting events now, which take place in primary legislation, will perhaps be in tension with the broader reform of the resale market, which is in draft legislation and will proceed on a slower basis, and itself will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and so may change down the line. There is a question of how we are going to ensure—as a Parliament, let alone as a House—that these two pieces of legislation on such different timescales dovetail, rather than being in tension.

The second issue, and here I am going to join my noble friend Lord Foulkes in having a pop at FIFA, is that it is assumed in the Bill that the international sporting bodies will want reassurance about the host country’s commitment to eliminating ticket touting. However, if you follow what is happening with FIFA at the moment on ticket pricing in the upcoming men’s World Cup in the US, Mexico and Canada, you will know that there is a case of an organising body colluding with ticket resale platforms in its pricing policy. It is keeping its official prices ludicrously high— $11,000 face value for the final and $2,500 dollars for USA v Paraguay—knowing that the market clearing price is actually lower, and shifting unsold inventory of tickets through these third-party resale platforms. So there is a new problem here: legislation to deal not just with ticket touting inflating the price but with an organising committee that may be colluding with resale platforms. That is something that is, unfortunately, worth bearing in mind.

The last issue on ticket touting is that the Bill will have to have due care for official fan-to-fan exchange schemes—and those schemes are going to have to be restructured in response to this and the ticket touting legislation anyway. I have a gentle thought that the Government’s view on the steps needed to control resale mechanisms cannot trample on perfectly legitimate ticket-sharing mechanisms within clubs and within national sports organisations.

The third area is that there are a couple of issues regarding the reliance on secondary legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned earlier. First, the House will want reassurance that if event-specific provisions are being triggered by secondary legislation then there will still be scope for proper scrutiny of issues that arise in the organisation of that event. There is no reason why there should not be. The second issue is that the understandable need for clarity on licensing and commercial association has to strike a balance between, on the one hand, protecting property rights and, on the other, continuing to be community friendly to local businesses, consumers and fans who enjoy and have economic activity around the event.

The fourth area is that, while the Bill covers excellent ground, as many, including the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, have mentioned, there are issues that are at least worth considering to be included in this framework legislation. The noble Lord mentioned inclusion and issues around technology, while the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned environmental sustainability issues. Another is safeguarding provisions. Should there be minimum safeguarding plans, particularly as some of these events may involve under-18 tournaments, and should there be dedicated welfare officers? It should be considered whether that should be baked in as part of the universal set of issues.

I look forward to engaging more in this debate. The Bill is excellent, it fulfils a manifesto commitment and it is going to be of value across our country and across sports. The last thing I urge is that we do not schedule any of the Committee days at times that clash with World Cup matches.

My Lords, like everyone else, I congratulate the Government and the Minister on bringing forward the Bill at this time. It seems extremely apposite, with the World Cup just in play. It is a privilege to take part in a debate that, as others have observed, features some of our Olympian and Paralympian heroes.

I cannot but make reference to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is good to see him back in his usual position, causing his usual amount of trouble. I reassure him that Hearts are now the second favourite team in Brighton.

I pay tribute to all the other speakers. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I see that he is Lord Barber of Chittlehampton. Having heard what he said about cricket, and with my own particular love of the game, I think he should now be known as Lord Barber of Delivery—and I am more than happy to come out of my cricketing retirement to test his outside edge.

This is a simple set of measures, but it will, potentially, be of enormous long-term benefit to UK sport, tourism, hospitality and so on, making life easier for those who plan and manage large sporting events. The UK, as many have said, has an enviable reputation for the way in which it puts on a show whenever we bid and win major international events such as the Olympics, Paralympics and football competitions such as the Euros for both men and women. I am delighted that the Bill begins to address issues such as ticket touting, which many of us in the Chamber have, over the years, raised in different ways and under different guises.

It is right, too, that the Government are tackling unauthorised association issues and that they make transport planning for major events simpler and easier. It has always been a puzzle to me, like many, that, each time we stage something such as the Commonwealth Games, as they have in Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and so on, or the Olympics, new legislation is required, leaving the planners with uncertainties until Parliament is finished with the Bill. It is pleasing to note that the Euro 2028 planning will be made simpler and more straightforward as a consequence of this legislation.

As the Minister set out, the Bill will make it easier to bid for future events, such as the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035. I do not need persuading of the economic benefits that hosting major sporting events can bring. I live in Brighton, and we are familiar with hosting such events. When I was council leader, we took the wise decision to host the Tour de France, and we were the first city to do so. We have since played host to the Rugby World Cup, the Women’s Euros in 2022 and the Women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025.

The boost to the local economy of all those events has been enormous. The single stage of the Tour de France alone was worth a net £10 million in 1994, not to mention the added value that it gave to the profile of the city as a desirable destination, with a value-added spend into local hospitality industries. More recently, it is estimated that the Birmingham Commonwealth Games brought roughly £1.2 billion of additional economic output and £80 million of social value. This, along with the soft power benefits that others have referred to and a sense of social cohesion, better trade, and a health and well-being legacy, brings enormous side benefits.

For that reason, I too welcome the recent announcement by the Government of a scoping and strategic assessment by UK Sport of the potential to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games in the north in the 2040s. As we found in 2012, the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs. The regenerative potential of major sports is enormous, and the Government are to be congratulated on seeing this and putting in place the Bill and other measures to tap into that potential.

Unsurprisingly, for this reason the Bill has been widely welcomed. Its powers seem proportionate and will enable greater flexibility in the planning of major events. This is all a long way from the planning and preparation behind the 1966 World Cup. As I recall, a major competition event of this sort was done on a government grant of some £500,000 that Denis Howell, the Sports Minister, managed to extract from a reluctant Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Howell’s only major obstacle was that games could not be played on Sundays because of the strict Sunday observance laws at the time. Surely Denis Howell would be rubbing his hands now if he had sight of this Bill.

I have a few minor gripes, and I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on some points. Lawyers at Lewis Silkin have questioned why the Bill, while understandably focused on mega events that we compete for internationally, does not also cover large and regular events such as the London Marathon, the Six Nations, the Open and Wimbledon. I might add several other regional marathons, the London to Brighton cycle ride and other cycling competitions. The lawyers argue that it leaves a gap as these events collectively bring in enormous value to the UK and are regularly targeted by ambush marketeers. They have a point. They suggest that there is a case for adding provisions to cover the unauthorised association provisions that impact on regularly held, nationally significant competitions.

I also wonder whether, with a bit of tweaking to the Bill’s Long Title, it could cover music events too. UK Music’s Tom Kiehl has suggested that the ticket touting provisions, for example, could be extended to cover music venues. It does seem a bit odd taking measures to counter ticket touts at football and sporting events while leaving music events entirely unprotected. It is somewhat illogical. Why use a Bill to consult on these provisions for other issues such as music when provisions have already been published in an actual piece of legislation? Perhaps the Minister can explain this. On the face of it, the ticket touting offence seems pretty all-embracing, properly capturing ticket platforms and marketplaces. It also applies to businesses that operate from outside the UK but where the offence relates to people in the UK. These conditions seem entirely replicable to musical events.

I support the advertising, trading and unauthorised association measures in the Bill that target illicit commercial behaviour ripping off the sporting event by association with its brand. My only concern here will be how effectively the relevant offences will be policed, given the resources currently available to weights and measures authorities, the CMA and the other enforcement agencies. Perhaps the Minister can advise us whether additional money will be made available to carry out that work.

Finally, I think the transport measures should work. I presume they draw on the experience of the bespoke legislation that worked well for the Olympics, Paralympics and Commonwealth Games. I must say that such powers would have made Brighton hosting a Tour de France section back in 1994 much easier, the route passing as it did through multiple local authorities from Dover to Brighton. The Bill makes it clear who exactly has responsibility over transport issues, and this is most welcome.

Like others, I celebrate the introduction of this Bill and look forward to further constructive engagement on some of the areas that have been usefully raised this afternoon.

My Lords, nearly 100 years ago my grandfather was an Olympic athlete. In 1932, he asked for time off work to travel to New York and onwards to Los Angeles on the Olympic train alongside all the other European participants. He did not win a medal, but his performance was featured in the cover story of Track Stats magazine last March. Known as “Flying Fuller”, he was Britain’s fastest man. Back then, sport was the amateur game. When he was alive, he told me how Lord Burghley dropped the baton in the 4x100 relay. It was a shame, he told me, because they had practised the handover in the changing rooms beforehand. It was different times—the epoch of the gentleman amateur.

I mention all this because sport is grounded in people, community clubs, the fellowship of teams and the tension of individual competition. It is the great leveller, and we can be proud that Britain has codified many of the great global sports. I know why this Bill is here. It is because the promoters of the truly global events have lobbied for it. I know because I have spoken to some of them. They have their sports rights to defend. They have signed up the big global brands. There are pallet-loads of merchandise to shift. They have told the Government that unless they pass this Bill, we will never get another sporting event in our nation. It is nonsense. That is what I would say if I was them, but we have been suckered by that. Money often follows sport, but sport cannot and should not be only about the money. This Bill makes sport all about the money, by law.

It will be said that we have had similar Bills before for the Olympics. That is right, and a completely bespoke effort was needed and justified. But the Olympics in 2012 were the exception, not the rule, and this Bill will make the exception the rule, in an unwanted, unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into our sporting and cultural life. Because each event is different, we will most likely need special purpose Bills for the crown jewel events anyway.

I am not against these Bills. I welcome the Euro 28 tournament. There will be circumstances and scope that will need to be negotiated, and if this Bill pertained to Euro 28 alone it would have my full support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier in this debate, we do not need legislation for many of these events. In providing an evergreen framework, perversely, all the Bill does is give away any and all negotiating leverage that we may otherwise have. As the noble Baroness, Lady Davies—who is not in her place—observed, we could end up bidding against ourselves. It prompts promoters to ask for even more, and counterintuitively it weakens our ability to land these events, because game theory tells you that.

It has been said that the Bill is just for a one-off such as the World Cup or the Euros, but that is not what the Bill provides for. As other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wood—whose comments I associate myself with—said, it is all a bit woolly. The press notices talk about the big tournaments, but it could end up with international table tennis or where there is a fuzzy boundary between sport and entertainment; wrestling and boxing have been mentioned. These are all less lustrous than the crown jewels. If we pass the Bill unamended, the rugby internationals or the Ryder Cup mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye—who is not in her place either—will all clamour to be included. They are already asking; it is a slippery slope.

That is where I have my problem with this Bill, but also with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, who seeks to expand the scope still further. There is a mission creep here that trespasses on the grittiness, the sweat, the highs and lows, and the visceral untidiness of sport. I am concerned because there are powers to designate zones around stadiums, or other undefined places, where trading will be made illegal. I asked the promoter of one of these events how far that exclusion zone may extend. He said, “Well, certainly between the transport interchanges and the stadium”. That was his minimum expectation.

Consider that 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road in south-west London. Every type of food from around the world is available, from licensed food vans and stalls set up in front gardens where enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There are old boys selling memorabilia and tat, the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club with its pop-up gazebo frying chicken wings for a couple of hours before the game. That is part of the grittiness. It adds to the day’s pleasure. Yet it is going to be made illegal on pain of a £50,000 fine, even if they have a licence—yes, a fine for the burger flippers from the Cubs and Scouts raising money for the jamboree, or for the home owner who is going to be doubly burdened by the mansion tax. Under this legislation, only expensive cardboard burgers, plastic tat and gassy lager sold in soulless, overpriced stadium concourse concessions will be permitted.

There are other provisions in the Bill to prevent online trading by mobile phone or other internet devices at an event. It seems to me that this amounts to a ban on closing out a bet on a game in progress from your seat, in an affront to the fan who likes a flutter. As most apps are based in Gibraltar, I am not quite sure how it would be enforced anyway.

But it gets worse, and I associate my comments with those of the noble Lord, Lord Wood. It will be illegal to pass on a ticket to a friend if your plan changes—say your Mum has fallen over at home or whatever. We all want to avoid the bots but, frankly, the ticket sellers and organisers have not worked hard enough to stop the scammers hoovering up all the tickets. Rather than sorting this omission at source, the Government are going to go after the little guy. If the Bill is passed, where will be the incentive to fix this problem? Instead, the fan is going to be forced to surrender tickets to the organisers, who can then resell them for whatever they like, as we have heard of in the FIFA World Cup, and by outlawing peer-to-peer platforms such as StubHub along the way.

I have been told by an organiser of one of these crown jewels events that fans will be able to surrender their tickets as little as 30 minutes before the game. All that will do is encourage hopefuls to turn up at the turnstiles and then be disappointed when, 10 minutes before the game, there is no ticket to buy. You could not make it up. If organisers and ticket marketers tried harder on the initial ticketing, we would not need these provisions at all. I need to ask the fundamental question: what is so bad about

“exposing for sale an event ticket”,

in the words of the Bill, to your Facebook friends? How is that so bad that it justifies a £50,000 fine?

I also want to know how this legislation will dovetail into the Government’s consultation on banning zero-hours. In Committee, I plan to introduce a carve-out for sporting events, because there are no guaranteed hours in sport; Fergie time tells you that.

I am not going to go on about unauthorised association, but it is so loosely defined that it could affect a bed-and-breakfast operator who simply suggests that they are not far from the event, or the struggling pub running a tournament sweepstake.

This Bill will sanitise sport, restrict choice, increase costs and damage the enjoyment of the day. Why can we not see that this harms, not strengthens, our negotiating power? Why have we got it in for the Scouts and Guides raising money for the jamboree, the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger and the bucket hat rather than the baseball cap, the fan who fancies ale rather than lager, or the geezer who just wants to place an in-game bet from the comfort of his seat in the middle of the game? Why are we on the wrong side of our sporting life?

This Bill is unnecessary. Last week, the Financial Times asserted that the Premier League was a national asset. It was right, and it has become so without the unnecessary provisions in the Bill. It is a sledgehammer to miss a nut and will reduce the simple enjoyment of the small pleasures of going to the game.

Now, I know that part of sport is knowing when you are beaten and I can tell from the House this evening that I am not going to win this one—but I have made my point. We must guide against mission creep. We must get the balance between the private interest and the public good right because, if we fail to do so, the fans at Old Trafford, Anfield and other places will, like the fans of Saudi Arabian golf, tell you the unintended consequences of putting the money first and the fans second.

My Lords, the United Kingdom has a proud record of hosting major international sporting events, from the Olympic and Paralympic Games to European championships and world tournaments. These events have showcased our country on the global stage, inspired future generations and delivered significant economic and social benefits.

This Bill seeks to provide a more efficient and consistent framework for hosting such events in the future. Rather than requiring bespoke legislation each time the UK hosts a major international tournament, it establishes a framework that can be applied where appropriate. That is a sensible approach which should improve certainty for organisers, strengthen our international competitiveness when bidding for events and reduce unnecessary legislative duplication. With UEFA Euro 2028 on the horizon and future opportunities to host global tournaments, now is the right time to put in place a framework that allows the United Kingdom to move quickly and confidently when opportunities arise.

The Bill, at its heart, is a practical piece of legislation. In the past, Parliament has needed bespoke legislation for individual sporting events. By establishing a clear framework for future tournaments, the Bill reduces unnecessary barriers, streamlines the legislative process and provides greater certainty for organisers and host communities.

I welcome the measures to tackle ticket touting, protect commercial rights and support effective transport management. Ticket touting can leave genuine supporters priced out and unable to access events. Measures that help to ensure tickets reach genuine fans are therefore welcome. Sponsors and commercial partners provide significant investment that helps make major events possible, and appropriate protection can help safeguard that investment.

Effective transport management is equally important. The success of major sporting events depends not only on what happens inside the venue but on whether spectators, volunteers, workers and local residents can move around safely and efficiently. For many visitors, the transport network provides their first and last impression of a host city. Yet the value of major sporting events cannot be measured solely in economic terms; they also create memories that last a lifetime. They bring families, friends and communities together in shared experiences that become part of our personal and collective story.

For me, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games remain a powerful example. My son still remembers our trips to watch the volleyball and the women’s football bronze medal match. Those memories remain with us today. The Games also touched my own family in other ways. My mother, who was retired at the time, took part in both the opening and closing ceremonies of the Paralympic Games. Like thousands of volunteers and performers, she became part of something larger than herself and carries those memories long afterwards. In different ways, three generations of my family were able to share in the experience of London 2012. That demonstrates the unique power of major sporting events not only to bring people together but to create memories that are passed from one generation to the next. It also serves as a reminder that major sporting events should be as accessible as possible.

The opportunity to attend, participate in or contribute to such events should be available to as many people as possible and not be limited by circumstances. This is particularly important for young people. For many, attending a major sporting event can be a life-changing experience that sparks a lifelong interest in sport, volunteering or physical activity. We should therefore seek to ensure that opportunities to attend such events are accessible and affordable, so that young people from all backgrounds can share in the inspiration they provide. Whether through fair access to tickets, accessible venues and transport, or opportunities for volunteering and participation, we should seek to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events can be enjoyed by people from all backgrounds and communities.

Seeing athletes perform at the highest level can encourage young people to become more active, participate in sport, volunteer in communities or simply believe that they too can achieve great things. Major international sporting events can generate economic benefits, support local businesses, inspire participation in sport and leave a lasting community legacy. I welcome the ambition of the UEFA Euro 2028 organisers to deliver the largest community programme ever associated with a UEFA European Championship; I believe that this should be an aspiration for all major international sporting events. Success should be measured not only by what happens inside the venue but by the benefits they leave behind for communities long after the event has concluded.

Good legislation should not simply make it easier to host events but make it easier for communities to benefit from them. The Bill will also strengthen the United Kingdom’s position as a destination for major international sporting events. In an increasingly competitive global environment, host nations are expected to provide confidence that the necessary legal and operational frameworks are in place. This legislation helps to provide that assurance.

As the Bill progresses, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on several points. First, the Bill grants significant powers to Ministers through secondary legislation. Can the Minister explain what safeguards will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to maximise the long-term legacy of major sporting events, particularly for young people, including participation in sports, volunteering, skill development and pathways into employment? Finally, how will accessibility be embedded within future events planning to ensure that disabled and neurodivergent people can participate independently and with confidence?

The greatest sporting events are remembered not simply by who won or who lost; they are remembered because of the memories they create, the people they inspire and the legacy they leave behind for communities across our nation. By reducing barriers, streamlining processes and helping the United Kingdom to secure future world-class sporting events, the Bill will help to ensure those benefits are felt for years to come. I am pleased to support this Second Reading.

My Lords, having sat through the entire legislative process, minute by minute, of the Olympic Bill, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—there were not many of us there—I am slightly perplexed. I recall what we had to pass, which was certainly not easily transferable. Whether it was done by primary or secondary legislation, it was, frankly, tedious.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I remind him that, during that long deliberation, I moved an amendment that changed the Title of the Bill to the Olympic and Paralympic Bill.

Which was agreed. The point, however, is this Bill’s purpose. Without amendments, it could end up being rather ineffective. What is a national sporting event? If we have another Olympics, the rules will have changed. In effect, the nation is ceded to the International Olympic Committee for Olympic and Paralympics, and for 60 days they rule. Those rules and the detail will change the next time.

The critical issue with the London Olympics and Paralympics was the location. Everything else needed to be sorted, but without having a location identified, nothing gets off the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was quite right: if Scotland wants to host a major football tournament, whatever else it has to do, one thing is sorting out Hampden Park. The investment and forward planning are critical. That is not a criticism of this Bill but a question about what it is actually for.

It seems to me that the Bill should be not simply for major events but for events that have to be bid for. That is where the competitive advantage would be given. I will give an example: it looks like the Rugby League may be excluded under the definitions, and that is an absurdity. We are successful in winning bids for the Rugby League. But what we are not necessarily successful at, and which this Bill could assist with, is getting the deals with the locations and the venues that would allow an expanded Rugby League using different stadiums. The transport changes, for example, could revolutionise the possibilities of the locations. This would be hugely important for the sport and for the country. There will need to be a lot of detailed scrutiny on this.

I turn to ticket touting. What is ticket touting? Seat Unique uses dynamic pricing. The price for Everton v Leeds United last season was £99, while the price for Bournemouth v Leeds United was £564. It uses dynamic pricing and has a contract—I believe across the whole of the Premier League now, and with Wembley—and it is given large numbers of tickets to sell and it profits on dynamic pricing. What is the difference between ticket touting—for example, if I sell a ticket to a mate and charge him for the fuel to get down there—and what Seat Unique is doing? The danger is that, if we do not get the detail right, we are encouraging legitimised ticket touting. That is how organised crime is involved; it is not buying off individuals on street corners. Organised crime involves buying significant numbers of Premier League tickets internationally and dealing them. If you want to go to certain stadiums in London, it will cost you £800 but you can be guaranteed a ticket to any match, but you are going to be buying those tickets abroad. If you talk to the people who monitor this, including the police, this is serious organised crime. Getting the detail right, therefore, is absolutely essential.

On trading, what will happen to the person who writes the Square Ball fanzine and sells it at my club? It costs £1 or £2, prices vary, and they sell it on the street corner. Are they going to be restricted for certain fixtures? That is the danger of the mission creep that has been referred to. If we take a stadium like the Emirates, the local community makes money by entrepreneurship—by selling or by hiring out facilities to memorabilia salespeople. I know some of them around my club, and they are the real small businesses, the micro-businesses. They are not big commercial concerns; they never will be and they never want to be. Another example is the person making incredible food to sell, rather than the official food. Restricting this in any way would be catastrophic. Some of our big stadiums are located within communities which are not benefiting. We should be doing the opposite and encouraging that kind of sale. As Peter Lowy, who is developing the stadium at Leeds United, said to me when he arrived, “Why can’t you buy a kebab or a samosa outside the stadium?” It is because the small businesses are a slight distance away; they could be brought in. Facilitating this should be part of the Bill. There is a way of doing it by allowing the local communities, the fan groups and others to have a bigger say, if it is done well. That means, however, getting this legislation absolutely right. The restricted trading zones are, therefore, significant.

The transport zones provision, though, is absolutely right in how it is conceived. If there is going to be a major event, planning out in advance the transport system, the infrastructure and what is close by will give a competitive advantage. If we are proposing that we will use XYZ stadiums for some kind of international competition, and we have that in place already, then we have a competitive advantage.

My final point is that the world of sport is changing. I hear on the grapevine that Mr Musk is after buying a Premier League club. That may well change a few things. The World Cup championship may become a lot bigger: it may become annual or move around the world, a bit like the prime boxing bouts that have already been referred to. These are major sporting events. There are one-offs that are significant; we can build into this the planning for them, if we use our ingenuity.

It is a good Bill in principle, but if the detail is wrong it will be a bad Bill, and it is therefore quite an exciting one to be looking at. If we get it right, we build a competitive advantage, but that includes building in the community, building in the fan groups and building in the infrastructure investment demands, so that we begin to win on the big competitions.

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the opportunity to debate this important legislation, which will apply to all four nations of our kingdom. In an era when our country is so divided on so many fronts, sport retains an almost unique ability to bring people together. The most memorable recent example of this was in 2012, when London played host to both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For several weeks, many people, often without even a passing interest in sport in normal times, cheered for those in red, white and blue who made us all so proud.

Sport has always played a huge part in bridging divides in Northern Ireland, as all people from all communities rallied around our sporting heroes. Rory McIlroy, only the sixth man to complete the Grand Slam of all four major golf tournaments, is the current man of the moment and a source of huge cross-community pride. For such a small nation, the list of sporting greats from Northern Ireland over the years is remarkable. They include George Best, Dame Mary Peters, Joey Dunlop, Willie John McBride, Pat Jennings and Alex Higgins. I could go on and on, and I say with confidence that there are lots more to come.

However, Northern Ireland is being held back by a lack of world-class sporting facilities. The Bill before the House today is a sensible measure. As we know, it will create a common legislative framework that can be applied to major sporting events across the United Kingdom. This will include Euro 2028, with games taking place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, but not Northern Ireland. As your Lordships might be aware, Northern Ireland was due to host five games but will no longer do so after His Majesty’s Government announced that they would not be pumping many millions of pounds into the redevelopment of Casement Park, a derelict GAA stadium. I will not go into the details and repeat the arguments around that decision, but I must express my disappointment at the failure of Ministers to advance the case for Northern Ireland’s National Football Stadium at Windsor Park to host these games instead, despite its limited capacity.

A huge opportunity has been wasted. As far as I can tell, those with the power and influence to stand up for Northern Ireland on this issue have swept this under the carpet, as other venues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland gladly accepted the gifts that they were offered. Windsor Park proudly hosted the 2021 UEFA Super Cup. The cup is contested by the winners of the Champions League and the Europa League and is a huge game in the global football calendar. Why therefore is Windsor Park supposedly not capable of hosting games in Euro 2028?

In recent years, Northern Ireland has successfully hosted the start of the Giro d’Italia, one of the three biggest cycle races in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, mentioned golf in Scotland. We in Northern Ireland have some of the best golf courses in the kingdom. We hosted two Open Championships, with record crowds on every single day. We have also recently seen the annual North West 200 motorcycle race take place on the Triangle circuit between the towns of Coleraine, Portrush and Portstewart. Public funding was made available for all these, which was warmly welcomed, given the boost to the local economy that each provided. However, what links these events is that they all took place outdoors and the primary infrastructure around them was temporary, meaning that no legacy sporting facilities are left behind for local communities.

The Bill before us today, if enacted, will provide His Majesty’s Government and the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast with powers to offer financial assistance to support major sporting events and related legacy or social impact initiatives. On the face of it, this is welcome. However, can the Minister elaborate on how the new powers will differ from those that already exist? Further, if additional finance is to be made available by devolved Administrations, is this money expected to come from their existing coffers, or is there potential for extra funding to be allocated from central government?

Last month, His Majesty’s Government committed to introducing a so-called stadium regeneration accelerator, through which they will work with sporting bodies on priority sports infrastructure development projects in England, such as stadiums, that can help deliver local regeneration and commercial growth. Given that the Bill before us today is UK-wide, why can this welcome initiative not also apply to all four nations of the kingdom?

Under the last Government, I did everything I could to support the development of a north-west regional stadium at the Coleraine Showgrounds by backing a deeply impressive application to the levelling up fund. All the indications were that it would be successful, given the absence of a modern stadium in that part of Northern Ireland, the cross-community benefits that the scheme would bring to a major catchment area, and the boost it would deliver to one of the most economically deprived parts of the United Kingdom. Sadly, the application was rejected, with the money instead funnelled off to marginal seats in England. Perhaps that wrong could be righted if Northern Ireland benefits from this new UK-wide legislation.

Finally, as many contributors have already mentioned, I welcome the provision in the Bill relating to ticket touting, which will apply across the United Kingdom—and not before time. This is an area that previous Governments have shied away from, for reasons that I fail to understand. Ticket prices for major sporting events are already bordering on astronomical, which makes it increasingly difficult for individuals and families to afford to attend them. Making sports tickets touting a criminal offence, backed by criminal and civil financial penalties, is certainly the right move. Like the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Mann, I hope that this initiative is swiftly followed by similarly robust provisions to clamp down on ticket touting for music and other live events, as Ministers have promised and the music industry has long called for.

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in today’s Second Reading debate and warmly welcome the Bill for not only its substance but its ambition. As others have noted, at its heart, this legislation gives us the ability to act with pace and confidence when opportunities arise to host the world’s most significant sporting events. It removes the need for repeated event-specific legislation and instead creates a standing framework that allows the United Kingdom to demonstrate bold and timely leadership when required. This may be a small Bill, but boy is it mighty.

I confess that I have not always been a natural sports fan. I am what you might call a fair-weather friend. Growing up in Shepherd’s Bush, I have at various times, and with varying degrees of conviction, claimed allegiance to QPR, Chelsea, Brentford, and Fulham, often depending on who was doing best at that time. But while my loyalties may have been somewhat flexible, my admiration for national sporting events has always been steadfast. T-shirts, bunting, flags— I am all in. I am an enormous believer in the power of such events not just to entertain but to bring people together, to inspire pride and to showcase the very best of our country. I am equally passionate about grass-roots sport, powered mostly by brilliant volunteers, because we all understand the completely symbiotic relationship between global and local sport, and the fact that brilliance at elite level fuels aspiration at community level.

The Bill provides the technical framework to help turn aspiration into delivery, ensuring that national successes translate into local opportunities and investments. Of course, enabling legislation rightly invites scrutiny. The Bill’s flexibility is its strength, but it must also be matched with clarity and appropriate oversight. As we take the Bill through Committee, we may want to consider how delegated powers are framed, how ministerial discretion is balanced with parliamentary accountability, and how commercial arrangements and security are applied proportionately. We must also ensure that local authorities are supported and not stretched by these arrangements, because their capacity will be central to successful delivery. None of these are objections to the Bill; they are questions that will help us to be ready for first-class delivery when we are called upon.

The Bill arrives at exactly the right moment. As many have mentioned, the UK and Ireland will co-host UEFA Euro 2028 and there is clear interest from international bodies in bringing future events, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Tour de France and further cricket world cups, back to this country. These opportunities require Government’s to have the ability to act quickly, and this Bill allows us to do precisely that, strengthening our ability to compete internationally, to put forward credible bids and to ensure that the benefits of hosting are felt across the whole country.

I now turn to those benefits, because this is about not just national and global prestige but local impact. I am proud to live in the London Borough of Merton, which has set out an ambitious vision to become London’s first borough of sport. Merton is, as all noble Lords will know, home to the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon and host to the annual championships, the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament and a truly global event. The championships bring around half a million visitors to the borough in over two weeks and the tournament brings in about a £200 million boost to the London economy, with particularly strong benefits to the local hospitality sector.

Merton’s story is about not just global prestige but what sport can achieve in our communities, and nowhere is that more powerfully demonstrated than in the story of the mighty AFC Wimbledon—a community-based club whose supporters refused to leave the borough when Wimbledon FC was relocated to Milton Keynes in 2002. Instead, fans chose to start again from the very bottom. From borrowed boots and borrowed grounds, this fan-owned club has, in 24 years, risen nine football leagues, currently competing in League One with a continuous ambition to go higher. Its new stadium at Plough Lane is a symbol of community resilience and a driver of local economic activity, with match days bringing hundreds of thousands of pounds into the surrounding area. Its women’s team is one of the fastest-growing parts of the club in bringing in new audiences. I am a strong supporter of AFC Wimbledon— I have found my loyalty. It is deeply encouraging to see not only young girls but young boys supporting women’s sport with equal enthusiasm.

To build on this remarkable legacy, Merton Council has developed a powerful programme of grass-roots activity under the banner of the “Borough of Sport”. It has delivered 45 separate initiatives, open to residents of all ages and abilities, to improve the outcomes of people in their local communities. These events have ranged from a sports day that attracted 20,000 visitors, trying out 70 different sports, all demonstrated by enthusiastic grass-roots organisations, to free swimming every week for over-65s and under 16 year-olds in the school holidays, improved cricket pitches, new basketball courts and outdoor gyms, and a world-class BMX track that boasts an Olympic-standard Prostart gate that will make the track eligible to host national or international competitions—I hope the Minister is listening. There are also 27 sports equipment loan boxes, with footballs, rugby balls and tennis equipment available to borrow for free, as well as exercise classes in parks and libraries, and the incredible and hugely popular parkrun and junior parkrun have been brought to the borough.

These are real achievements and the impact has been tangible. Some 8,000 previously inactive residents are now taking part in sport and physical activity. That is not a statistic; that is a transformation. These people are physically healthier, their mental well-being has been improved and their sense of loneliness has decreased because of this activity. This has not come about by accident; it has come about under the leadership of the Labour leader of the council, Ross Garrod, and his team. On an election day that was quite tough for people on this side of the House, Merton was the only borough in the country where Labour made gains— I wonder whether there is a thread that runs through this. I applaud Merton for its efforts.

That is why the Bill matters. Major sporting events are not just ends in themselves but catalysts: they drive participation, support regeneration and generate economic growth. They inspire young people to get involved, to try something new and to see themselves as something better. They provide moments for national celebration and, sometimes, sadly, for commiseration. When we host well, we leave a legacy that is felt not just in stadiums but in parks, schools, leisure centres and community clubs. The Bill gives us the tools to do that more consistently, more confidently, more economically and more effectively. It ensures that, when the UK hosts world events, the benefits can be felt anywhere, from global centres such as Wimbledon tennis club to the grass-roots initiatives in communities such as mine in Merton. This is a Bill that enables ambition, strengthens capability and unlocks potential. I am very pleased to support it.

My Lords, I too am a supporter of Queens Park Rangers, although perhaps a slightly more steadfast one than the previous speaker.

I want to raise an issue that at first blush does not appear to be within scope of this Bill but, for reasons I will set out, I believe is: namely, the overuse of football banning orders. Football banning orders were originally introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 for the purposes of preventing violence and disorder at football matches. This was a targeted measure intended to be used sparingly, since it imposes such wide-ranging restrictions on a person’s liberty, preventing them, as it does, attending football matches and using public transport on match days, drinking at pubs near football stadiums and even, in certain circumstances, travelling abroad. Breaches of these orders, which can be imposed for as long as 10 years, carry serious consequences, up to and including being sent to prison.

Predictably, subsequent Acts of Parliament have hugely extended the football banning order regime. The Football (Offences) Act 1991, the football spectators Act in 2000 and the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026 have all added numerous offences to Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, which sets out the criminal offences that can result in banning orders, with each edition lowering the threshold.

Recent statistics lay bare the direction of travel. As of 1 June 2025, there were 2,439 football banning orders in force in England and Wales—an increase of 12% on the previous 12 months. Those figures are taken from a recent article in the Law Society Gazette, which raised the alarm about the overuse of these orders:

“Behaviour that is fleeting, non-violent and often part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport—momentary lapses of judgement, reactive shouting or ill-considered gestures—is being treated with a level of seriousness that risks losing all sense of proportion: individuals of good character with no previous convictions suddenly face a criminal record and permanent implications for employment, immigration status, travel and reputation. This trend uncomfortably blurs the line between maintaining public safety and over-policing the ordinary realities of live sport”.

I was the Minister who took the 2000 legislation through your Lordships’ House. That legislation was widely praised at the time as a way of tackling the outrageous behaviour of England fans travelling across Europe during the Euro 2000 competition. It changed for ever the attitude of football fans in this country and it helped to reverse the tide of racism that had been partly engendered by that. The noble Lord should think long and hard before he starts to seek to “liberalise”, as he might put it, that piece of legislation.

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I would not dispute that there were serious problems that football banning orders were originally designed to address. My point is that they are now being used far more extensively than intended in the legislation that the noble Lord took through this House, for much more trivial misdemeanours —nothing like travelling abroad in order to cause violence and disorder at games overseas.

I declare an interest. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, is currently defending a young football fan who is being prosecuted for calling some Chelsea fans “rent boys” at a match earlier this season. This was in the context of an exchange of insults between rival fans, and none of the Chelsea fans complained. It is unlikely, to put it mildly, that any of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress, which is what he has been charged with.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor has informed the court that, if our member is convicted, she will be seeking a banning order. His hearing is not due to take place until September 2027 and, in the meantime, he has been banned from his team’s stadium for the duration of the 2026-27 season and told that, if he wants to keep his season ticket, he has to continue to pay for it, at over £1,000 a year, and cannot resell his seat or pass it on to a friend or family member. The club, meanwhile, which is a Premier League club, is allowed to resell his seat—and, to judge from the fact that it was occupied for the remainder of the last season, is already doing so.

This is a disproportionate punishment for behaviour which, to quote from the Law Gazette, was

“fleeting, non-violent …part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport”,

and a “momentary lapse of judgement”. He has never been in trouble with the police before. Yet, in addition to not being able to watch his beloved team for the whole of next season, he faces the prospect of a five-year banning order if he is convicted. Even the noble Lord would not, I am sure, regard that as a proportionate penalty for a momentary lapse of judgment.

Why do I think that an amendment raising the banning order threshold is within scope of this Bill? For one, it is perfectly possible that the new criminal offences created by the Bill will be added to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Could a street trader selling unauthorised merchandise outside a Wembley match, or a food vendor without a clean-zone licence, end up being banned from attending football matches?

The noble Lord made the point a moment ago that a trader without a licence could be banned. Under this Bill, even if you have a licence, you are still subject to a fine of up to £50,000. Having a licence is of no consequence in this Bill. You can follow all the rules and be licensed by the local council, but it counts for nothing. It is another infringement on trade.

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. He makes the point that I was trying to make even more forcefully. Even those with licences, nevertheless being unauthorised to sell merchandise, food or drink outside a stadium, could find themselves being given football banning orders if they are convicted of one of these new criminal offences. Even if there is nothing in the Bill as drafted before our House today that says these offences could be added to Schedule 1, what guarantee do we have that they will not be added in Committee, which has happened as I have followed the passage of various Bills through this House numerous times before? Bills change a good deal, and I would not be at all surprised if those offences were added to Schedule 1, and anyone convicted of them could be subject to a football banning order.

Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in law to prevent football banning orders being imposed on fans visiting from overseas. The purpose of this Bill, we have been told, is in part to prepare the country for the 2028 UEFA men’s football championship, which, as we have heard, will take place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. An amendment limiting the circumstances in which banning orders can be imposed on fans, including those visiting from the continent, will make Great Britain a more attractive destination in 2028 for lovers of the beautiful game. For those reasons, I hope to table an amendment in Committee reversing the expansion of the authoritarian banning order regime.

My Lords, I broadly welcome this Bill, but I shall focus on the things that particularly interest me. The Government have announced that they have

“commissioned … UK Sport to carry out an initial strategic assessment examining whether the UK could host an Olympic and Paralympic Games”,

and have said that the assessment will look at “potential cost”. The Government have said:

“Funding will not be used for the regeneration of these stadiums but the government will work with sports clubs and leagues to unlock opportunities for large-scale housing delivery, jobs, apprenticeships, transport improvement and community sports facilities”.

Those are really worthwhile objectives, which will benefit young people and communities as a whole.

The Local Government Association has called on the Government to join up their ambitions to be a world-leading host of major sporting events with their ambitions to tackle physical and economic activity, providing more funding for public leisure facilities. It said more investment was needed to develop and refurbish leisure facilities, which it said helped people be physically active, stay in work and contribute to the economy and provided the essential infrastructure for grass-roots sports.

There may be lots of disagreements with many other aspects of this Bill, but I would not have thought that anybody would disagree with those objectives of getting young people off their screens and on to the greens. Some of the things that are contained in this Bill are perhaps not some of the most major things that we have talked about, but I am sure that there is going to be a lot of exchanges and amendments.

The Bill also talks about financial assistance for sporting events. Clause 25 would give the Secretary of State the power to give financial assistance, such as loans, grants, guarantees or indemnities, to support a sporting event taking place in England

“for any other purpose connected to, or arising from, such an event”.

It refers to Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments having the same power for events taking place in Scotland or Northern Ireland respectively.

The Government have stated that allowing financial assistance to be given for purposes connected to the sporting event would ensure that it could be used for things such as legacy programmes and social impact initiatives, in addition to supporting the actual operational delivery of the sporting event. It seemed to me that, whatever else we may argue about in this Bill—and it is quite obvious that there are going to be significant differences of opinion—the Government’s intentions are sound and worthy, and they are obviously going to be developed as the Bill goes along. But for me, anything that gets young people involved in sport is worthy of support.

My Lords, today marks a critical milestone in the preservation and elevation of our country’s status as a leading host of major sporting events. We are embarking on a golden decade of sport, from the roar that will greet the 2028 UEFA European Football Championship to our ambitious bid for the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup, on to a potential 2040 Olympic bid for the north of England. This Government are readying the United Kingdom to show the world that we are the ultimate home of global sport.

For decades, this nation has welcomed global sporting fans with open arms, providing the stage for moments of historic athletic achievement that have inspired generations, promoted healthy living and driven economic growth into our local communities. This Sporting Events Bill also directly delivers on the Government’s manifesto promise to bring these high-profile international events to our shores. By creating a permanent streamlined framework, it signals to international sports bodies that the UK is permanently open for business, operationally secure and ready to build a legacy.

I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill explicitly puts fans first. If I may indulge your Lordships’ House, as I stand in this Chamber today, I am struck by a profound sense of personal history. I rise today, as I rose for the very first time in the European Parliament, back at the turn of the millennium, as a member of the Friends of Football group. More than a quarter of a century ago, I stood up in Brussels to sound the alarm about ordinary football fans losing out from attending matches because of opaque, predatory ticketing practices.

Because of that history, I am heartened to see the mechanisms within this Bill. Under Clause 1, the Secretary of State can designate qualifying events, unlocking the enforcement powers we desperately need. Most crucially, Clause 2 sets up a robust, UK-wide criminal offence targeting the unauthorised resale of tickets. This is an essential step forward. We have all seen the grotesque excesses of the secondary black market. During the 2022 Champions League final, standard category tickets with a face value of £60 were being resold online for over £9,000—a staggering one-hundred and fiftyfold mark-up that completely locks out genuine, ordinary supporters. Even in our domestic game, tickets for regular Premier League final-day fixtures routinely skyrocket by 1,000% on predatory secondary platforms within minutes of selling out. This is not a free market; it is extortion.

However, while I fully support the architecture of the Bill, it is the duty of this House to think creatively. If we are to successfully enforce Clause 2, we must back it up with total market transparency at the primary point of sale. If we truly want to protect fans, they must know exactly what they are paying for. I must therefore press the Minister on some fundamental questions about transparency that this text currently omits. Why does the Bill not explicitly mandate that the original, fixed face-value price be permanently, visibly and immutably displayed on the face of every single digital and physical ticket issued for qualifying events? How can a fan easily spot an illegal secondary mark-up under Clause 2 if the baseline price is obscured behind shifting digital platforms? How can consumers make informed choices when hidden platform fees, processing mark-ups and shifting price points are obscured from view until the very final click? Why have the Government omitted a ban on dynamic pricing—the corporate euphemism for legalised primary touting, as my noble friends Lord Mann and Lord Bassam so eloquently highlighted—whereby prices skyrocket mid-transaction simply because a fan is waiting in an online queue?

That brings me to a significant omission in the scope of this legislation. Although the Bill beautifully safeguards international tournaments, it is a great pity that its protections do not extend to our everyday domestic sporting fixtures or world-renowned live music events. A fan being ripped off for a cup final or a grass-roots local derby deserves the same statutory shield as an executive sitting watching a Euro 2028 match. Similarly, a young music lover trying to buy a ticket to see their favourite band at a local arena faces the exact same automated harvest bots and predatory pricing platforms. Live music and domestic sport are the lifeblood of British culture; leaving them exposed feels like a missed opportunity to create a truly comprehensive consumer protection standard.

Further, while Clause 5 provides necessary enforcement powers to local authorities and police to stamp out illicit trading, we must connect these grand international events back to the communities that host them. A major tournament should not be an island of corporate wealth. The financial success of these global events must directly feed down into our local youth clubs and grass-roots sports facilities, as stressed by my noble friends Lady Paul and Lady Dacres. Our local clubs are where the next generation of athletic talent is discovered. They are where healthy living is fostered and community cohesion is built. I want to ensure that the regulatory framework we are debating today explicitly guarantees that a percentage of tournament revenues is funnelled directly into sustaining these vital community assets.

This Bill has the potential to be historic legislation. It honours a vital commitment, cuts through needless red tape and guarantees our sporting future. I do not wish to delay this legislation, but I do urge the Minister to take another look at some of the specific areas I mentioned earlier. Let us work together to expand our horizons, think outside the box and use this opportunity to shine a light on pricing, protect the wider cultural economy and ensure that local fans and grass-roots communities remain the beating heart of British sport. I commend this Bill to the House.

My Lords, before I comment on the Bill, I will first make one or two observations on earlier speeches. First, I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on behalf of the whole Chamber. We are all very pleased to see him delivering a speech in his normal style—I think that would be the best way to describe it. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, referred to the fact that nothing could make 80% of a nation taking one view or another. I think there are occasions when referees’ decisions could achieve far more than 80%—almost unanimity. I say that for those who are unaware that I was a rugby referee for many years. I also observe that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has probably introduced a new sport into the Olympic world, which is getting from one end of this Chamber to the other via a Division Lobby at a speed she said was nowhere near what she used to achieve. I can assure noble Lords that I was amazed: I watched her leave and, no sooner had she left than she returned almost immediately.

I welcome this Bill enormously because it is intended to enable organisations to come together to make bids for major sporting events. I do not intend to repeat the comments that many other people have made. We are proud of our sporting tradition. My noble friend Lord Young referred to a particular case. I am not in favour of woke policy and restricting people’s observations, but I merely observe that I am wearing this evening the tie of the world’s first gay rugby club. Atmospheres generated in crowds, in one form or another, reflect on a community. I find it completely unsurprising that there is not one professional footballer who is out and gay, because of much of what goes on in football stadiums, credited as general banter. I say that as somebody who is distinctly not woke.

Coming to the Bill in general, I said that I support it—as I think everybody does who has spoken—because it enables sporting organisations to be brought together. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, said that he was present at the England v Mexico match in 1966. I was also present at that game, along with two other young boys and my father. Sport is supposed to bring you together. We three boys persuaded my father to take us to the Mexico game. It achieved a great degree of unanimity among the four males who watched that match. The only problem was that, when we got home, we discovered that my father had forgotten that he was supposed to be hosting a dinner party with my mother. On that occasion, sport certainly did not bring certain parts of my family together.

Sport is an international operation. I recognise people’s loyalties in one form or another. The Bill is intended to clear certain barriers so that we can bid, but there is a serious risk, identified by speakers from different Benches, of overreach in this Bill. Fine, let us make it possible to have international events here, but international events are precisely that—they are international. Trying to set down terminology in this country’s legislation will achieve one thing, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, forcefully said: it will frighten people away and they will host events elsewhere. Do not try to do something such as banning touting because it sounds nice, when, as the noble Lord so ably identified, much of the problem of ticket resale is outside our shores. In the other direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, identified, trying to have blanket bans around stadia is a very risky process, because it has impacts on all sorts of small businesses there that operate very effectively every time there is a major event.

As far as I am concerned, the original objective of the legislation is clear. I support the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others as to why music events are not covered on the same basis as sporting ones; it would make sense, and if it is not done now, I envisage that we will be here debating a piece of legislation that will drag those areas into the same piece of regulation in one form or another. But, please, do not try to overreach the legislation because it sounds good. It will not achieve what people want, because sporting events are international. They cannot be regulated into existence in this country. We need to do what we can to achieve the best in sporting occasions for this country, but not go beyond that and frighten people off—or say, “We’ve done this”, when actually we have not done anything at all because it is outside our capacity to regulate.

One noble Baroness will have identified that I have not gone into a sphere that I have a feeling she is just about to: the bid by Bolton for the Ryder Cup, to which I think there has been no reference whatever during this debate. I welcome the Bill, but there are very grave risks associated with it if we try to overreach in one direction or another.

My Lords, I am tempted to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was saying, but not quite in the way he suggested; I am tempted to follow up what he said about referees, particularly in the Scottish context, not least because my Scottish team of Motherwell bore the brunt of some of the difficult decisions that were made. He also mentioned the difficulty that footballers seem to have in coming out as gay. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that one of the reasons why we need banning orders is that there has been so much homophobia, as well as many other problems, in football in recent years.

Without wanting in any way to defend the remark that our member made, it was made in the heat of the moment and in the context of an exchange of insults with a rival group of fans. None of those other fans complained or said or showed in any way that they were upset or offended. There is also absolutely no evidence that they were gay—they were just Chelsea fans. Does the noble Baroness nevertheless think that, if he is convicted, a five-year banning order involving draconian restrictions on his liberty is an appropriate and proportionate punishment?

My Lords, I know nothing of the detail of what was said, the circumstances or whatever, but, as someone who has attended football matches in many stadia over many years, I know that some very unpleasant things happen and we need the ability to have football banning orders where appropriate.

Virtually all noble Lords have welcomed the Bill, as I do. It is necessary that we have as much power as we can to make sure that events such as Euro 2028 go well. Many people have spoken about the importance of different sports and sport generally to the economy, society and the whole psyche of the country. When I think about sporting events, because of my particular interests I think about football. Noble Lords opposite are smiling, because they have heard me talk about this on many occasions. It is important to my family. During the football season, each of us looks at the football results and knows which of our colleagues will be smiling on Monday morning. It is a very good test. I am still smiling, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for mentioning this, but 10 days ago I was at Wembley with my family when Bolton Wanderers won promotion to the Championship. My noble friend Lady Morris and I were comparing notes on this just a little while ago.

Football is important. The preparations being made for Euro 2028 are important, but there are issues that colleagues have raised on the Bill that are worth emphasising. Although we all more or less support the Bill, it has aspects that could be tightened up or go a little further. Ticket touting has been mentioned by many others. I think there is an impression that it is a series of one-off events; in fact, it is a pretty big industry. My noble friend Lord Mann called it “organised crime”. It is right to take action, but is the Minister sure that the penalties are severe enough, given the nature of the people we are talking about? Like many others, I would like to see this apply to domestic competitions and non-sporting events as well. This Bill, as has been mentioned, applies just to international events, which means we cannot talk to or amend it in ways that we might want to so that it covers domestic situations. However, we can learn from some of the problems we have in domestic sporting events to try to make sure we get some of these things right.

Advertising has been mentioned. It is not a straightforward issue, nor one that is completely in the Government’s control, because there are international contracts. FIFA, UEFA and any other governing body will do its own deals on sponsorship and advertising, and then of course companies will spend a great deal of money and effort circumventing those restrictions. I acknowledge that it is a complex problem, but the Government are thinking along the right lines here. Over recent years, we have had lots of changes and dire warnings about what would happen if we banned certain types of sponsorship. I remember the discussions about football and tobacco, and the threats we were told existed when Formula 1 was forced to give up tobacco advertising. It was supposed to be the end of Formula 1—it was not. However, it is a really difficult issue because this is a changing picture and a very different, challenging situation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned that, next season in the Premier League, betting companies will not be allowed on the front of shirts. It is a welcome, small measure. It is probably because clubs feared something more draconian but, at the same time, some clubs now say that they will have betting companies on the front of their training shirts, which are also very visible and seen by many, and indeed replicas are bought.

I mention this not because it is covered by the Bill but because it illustrates the changing nature of the challenge we are facing. It is a moving target, and it is the same with gambling. We are soon to see prediction markets being regarded as products and the Gambling Commission in the UK has regarded prediction markets as a “betting intermediary”, so they would be covered. However, they are not classified as such in other countries, so, again, there is always going to be a problem with implementation, and a real challenge for the Government and those who monitor sporting events.

The other issue that I want to raise is transport. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to direct someone to prepare a transport plan in connection with a sporting event. This is very sensible and I welcome it, and I wish we had such plans for more sporting events, especially domestically. However, the Bill seems to concentrate on roads. We need plans for roads, but I am old enough to remember when there were “Cup Final Specials”: trains which went from the towns that were playing in the cup final. Now, almost every big event at Wembley is marked by train travel problems. Indeed, at the match that I was at 10 days ago, fans from Bolton had to be advised to make alternative arrangements because of the difficulty of getting to Wembley for 1 pm on that Sunday. The day before, when the Championship play-off was being held, there were no trains whatever from Middlesbrough to London. Again, there was no co-ordination, which made it difficult.

Will the noble Baroness give way? Do I understand that she is advocating, for the events that would fall within the ambit of this Bill, the prevention of strike action? It would be welcomed by many people to save the inconvenience she mentions and would do a lot to level the playing field.

I think the noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree. On this occasion, there were no strikes involved in those disruptions.

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she advocating for Great British Railways to unite the railway companies so that it is all under one umbrella?

I have thought of raising this with our noble friend Lord Hendy, who seems to be on top of all those issues.

I will point out one other anomaly, despite the time. Literally the biggest game in English women’s football—the Women’s Cup Final—was held at Wembley last week and there was no service to Wembley on the Lioness Line. How ironic is that?

I welcome this Bill and its proposals. However, please can we learn some domestic lessons from this and have some domestic improvements, because there are many problems and challenges on the domestic, as well as the international, front?

My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke, I was beginning to feel incredibly isolated as a rugby fan in your Lordships’ Chamber. Only two of us have now mentioned rugby as a major sport.

I thank the Minister for her excellent introduction to this very important Bill and for the praise that she gave the important work of the late Tessa Jowell. It was through her that I was able to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as a member of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic board. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, long before 2012, a great deal of work had to be carried out to provide the necessary legislation. Had the event-agnostic common legislative framework that is proposed in this Bill already been in place, much time would have been saved.

While I want to propose a few additions, I fully support the Bill, as I do the proposal from my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter, that international cultural events be included alongside sporting ones. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, I very much hope that the secondary legislation that will follow will lead to measures that are proportionate, and not to situations such as the one in 2012 when a butcher had to dismantle his window display of strings of sausages in the shape of the Olympic rings.

The 2012 Games also made me realise the importance of tackling ticket touting. It is an issue I have progressed in other places at different times. Notwithstanding the important point about the international aspect of ticket touting, I am genuinely pleased that the Government are taking action on this, including within the Bill.

I want to raise two issues. The first, on gambling advertising, has been foreshadowed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the second is on sports rights. I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and as a member of the all-party group on intellectual property. I believe that we should all be worried about living in a country in which 1.4 million people, including 80,000 children, suffer from gambling disorder, with individual lives destroyed, families and communities impacted and, tragically, far too many gambling-related suicides. The Minister is well aware of my concerns about gambling advertising and its ubiquitous presence within sport.

Time prevents me detailing all my concerns, not least those about the impact on children and young people, who are constantly being led to believe that the enjoyment of sport is closely linked to gambling on outcomes within sporting events. In this country, we have more research on the links between gambling advertising and gambling harm than almost any other country. That research shows that gambling advertising leads people to start gambling, existing gamblers to gamble more and those who have stopped gambling to start again. This is especially relevant during major sporting events, when the volume of gambling advertising, and illegal black market gambling advertising, grows massively, leading to increased gambling harm. On Monday, the Nationwide Building Society published research showing that 83% of 18 to 24-year old existing gamblers expect to gamble more during the World Cup, with a quarter of them saying that they will do so to hopefully get more money to pay essential bills.

What can be done? Section 8 of the Bill, which has already been referred to, enables the establishment of “restricted advertising zones” around designated sports events and the regulation of what advertising activity may take place within those areas. However, these provisions currently appear to be primarily intended to deal with ambush marketing, and to protect official sponsors and commercial rights holders. I believe they should go further. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised a concern about what other international bodies say about this. It is worth reflecting that the IOC has always maintained a strict “clean venue” policy that prohibits sports betting and gambling sponsorship associations with the Olympic and Paralympic Games. FIFA has a similar clean-venue policy for the men’s World Cup. Several other international sporting bodies have rules which allow domestic bans in host countries to supersede their own rules. I hope the Government will consider adopting a similar clean-venue policy in the Bill, so that no gambling advertising is allowed in the restricted advertising zones of the events covered by the Bill.

Additionally, if UK TV and radio coverage of such an event is by a commercial broadcaster, I hope the Government will also consider banning gambling ads during transmissions, or at least until the watershed. Many other countries, including Italy, Belgium and Australia, have adopted far more stringent safeguards where gambling advertising and sport intersect. I believe we should be doing the same.

I turn to the issue of sports rights. In addition to the many other benefits that have already been referred to, the sports sector is now a major economic powerhouse for the UK and, at a time when we need to promote growth, sport can support that in many ways, from tourism to event management, and so on. It is vital that this Bill ensures we have the best framework to support relevant sporting events.

The Bill includes measures to ensure that sports event organisers have the right to ensure that those seeking association with the event must have the correct permissions in place and, in many cases, pay for that association. In most cases, this is easy to arrange and police. For example, spectators, broadcasters and sponsors all have clear conditions and payment arrangements. However, despite the enormous profits that gambling companies make from bets on sporting events, with the exception of horseracing and its horserace betting levy there is no explicit statutory requirement for gambling companies to pay sports organisations for betting rights—an issue that I hope, separately from the Bill, the Government will consider.

To get around that, many sports organisations attempt to assert copyright and database rights over their fixtures and statistics, and gambling operators enter into voluntary commercial data agreements to purchase official data to ensure that they have fast and accurate betting markets. For example—I will use football rather than rugby, since that is what everybody is talking about—data from the English Premier League, the Scottish Premiership and the EFL is licensed through Football DataCo to Genius Sports, which then sells that data to other parties, including gambling companies. But unlike a specific sport’s rights, those are voluntary arrangements and are much less easy to enforce. Indeed, enforcement is even harder when sports data is often scraped by third parties and sold to betting companies without the permission of the sporting event, which has little or no means of redress.

The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, told us that he has been the chairman of Somerset County Cricket Club. Speaking to me on Monday, he told me about the effort the club makes to prevent the activities of in-ground so-called data scouts, who feed micro-level match data, such as ball-by-ball outcomes, to whoever will pay them—whether gambling companies or betting syndicates. More sophisticated operations also exist—especially, as it happens, in horseracing—where people are using drones to capture data, which they then sell without the agreement of the organisers of the event. When this happens there are potential integrity issues, and certainly the sport event loses potential income. In relation to association measures, will the Minister ensure that this is addressed in the Bill by, first, ensuring that there are tough penalties for those who capture data without permission and, secondly, requiring gambling companies to use only data licensed to them by official sources? I hope that can be extended more widely. This is a very welcome Bill. I am delighted to support it.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and to have listened to so many great contributions from noble Lords, including people I consider sporting legends.

I represent and live in Wembley—the home of football and, more recently, rugby, American football and the Olympics. It is a place that has, for over a century, sat at the intersection of sport, culture and community, which in that time has taught us everything we need to know about why legislation such as this matters and why getting it right is so important for the future of major sporting events in this country.

I begin with a confession. When you mention that you represent Wembley or Brent, people assume you spend your time watching England triumph gloriously in the stadium. The reality is somewhat different: you spend time explaining to visitors that the Jubilee line is, in fact, faster than driving and that, no, they cannot park outside your house. The chaos that ensues—the wonderful, maddening, economically significant chaos—is exactly what the Bill is designed to protect and nurture.

Before I turn to the economics and the legislation, I hope the House will permit me a moment of sentiment, because Wembley is not merely a stadium. It is a chapter of our national story, one that belongs proudly to the London Borough of Brent. It is precisely because of what Wembley represents to this country, to sport and to culture that the Bill matters so much. I am sure that noble Lords will have their own Wembley memories, including seeing Bolton elevated to the next league.

In Brent, we know what we have. We hold this treasure with enormous pride. Wembley is not just our local stadium; it is a global icon that happens to be in our neighbourhood. For a venue such as Wembley to continue attracting the events that have made these moments possible, the UK needs to be able to offer international governing bodies something that no amount of good will alone can provide. Legal certainty, commercial protection and a framework that works are what the Bill will deliver. That is why it matters.

In 2018, the Football Association commissioned Deloitte Sports Business Group to assess the economic impact of Wembley Stadium events. Its findings, presented to us at Brent Council, showed that the 58 events staged during the 2017-18 season resulted in a total economic impact to England of over £615 million and a direct economic impact to the borough itself of £150 million. These events supported over 1,800 full-time equivalent jobs in Brent and over 6,000 across England as a whole.

Multiply that across every major international event that the UK could host, and consider what is at stake if we fail to make ourselves competitive. Every event that goes to another country rather than ours is not just a missed occasion; it is missed jobs, investment and opportunities for communities like the one I call home. The Bill directly addresses that risk. For the first time, we will be able to say to FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and many others, “Come here. The framework is already in place. We are ready”.

In Brent, we have always been clear-eyed about this. We value the treasure that Wembley represents and, precisely because we value it, we recognise the responsibilities that come with it. A Bill that protects the commercial interests of major events must also speak to the communities that host them. I am glad that the provisions today create the foundations for exactly that. As a council, we understood from early on that Wembley’s importance demanded not just celebration but active stewardship. Brent developed deliberate, place-specific policy to manage the reality of hosting a global venue in the heart of a residential borough, and central to that was the establishment of an event day zone. The clean zone provisions in the Bill echo that approach at a national level, and that is to be welcomed.

The Bill creates important new tools, but tools require people to wield them. I agree with my noble friend Lady Paul that the provisions on clean zones, trading restrictions and ticketing enforcement all depend on local authorities having the capacity, powers and funding to act.

The benefits of Wembley are counted not only in pounds and jobs but in children lacing up their boots on a Saturday morning because they watched something extraordinary the night before. This is where the Bill’s importance extends beyond commerce, because it is events like these that protect the very events that inspire the next generation. Every major event at Wembley has a ripple effect through grass-roots football and sport in our borough: participation surges, girls’ teams form and schools request coaches. The fundamental aim of Wembley’s regeneration during my tenure as regeneration lead, and continuing today, was to deliver jobs, housing and community schemes, making Wembley a fantastic place to live and work for all its residents and visitors. That vision works only if the stadium and the community genuinely face each other: if outreach is real, if local young people see themselves in the sport that surrounds them, and if the high street on event days is a place of opportunity rather than disorder. In Brent, we worked hard to make that the case. The increased trade on local high streets on event days, when managed well, is meaningful for small businesses.

In July 2022, 87,000 people packed into Wembley to watch England’s Lionesses beat Germany in the Women’s Euros final. The noise that night could, I am reliably informed, be heard in Harrow, and possibly Milton Keynes—maybe even coming from our own household. In that moment they did not just win a trophy but transformed a sport, and the momentum continues to build, in participation, attendance and aspiration. Young girls who had never been offered a football now play in organised leagues across Brent and beyond.

The Women’s Euro 2022 final at Wembley was, by design, an accessible event. According to UEFA’s official ticketing announcement, the maximum face value for a final ticket was £50, with over half a million tickets across the tournament priced at £25 or less, and a family of four was able to attend for as little as £30. That was a deliberate, principled decision to make the Lionesses’ greatest moment reachable for ordinary families.

The UK has an extraordinary offer to make the world of sport: world-class venues, passionate fans, unmatched heritage, and communities such as the one I represented that have demonstrated for over a century what it means to host events of global significance with pride and professionalism. The Bill gives us the legal framework to match that offer. Wembley is many things. It is a global icon and it is a community asset. It is, on certain Saturdays, an extremely good reason to avoid the North Circular. Above all, across 100 years, in its original form and its current one, it is proof of what major sporting events can do for a place—economically, socially, culturally and in shaping aspirations. The Bill creates the framework that Wembley and every future host community deserve. It will help ensure that events of that magnitude keep coming to the UK, and that when they do they are protected and properly managed, and their benefits are truly shared.

For those reasons, and with the experience of Wembley behind me, I invite noble Lords to come and visit Wembley—not just during the championships, because Wembley’s regeneration is fantastic—and I commend the Bill to the House wholeheartedly.

My Lords, when it comes to being part of the wind-up on a Bill like this, you are trying to look at some of the central themes. I think that, maybe with one or two exceptions, noble Lords are in favour of this Bill. Anybody who has done any of the many Acts we have talked about, such as those for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games, will know that a great deal of what happens has to be repeated, at least in principle, every time. It might have been quite exciting to do it once, but that was probably enough for one lifetime. So the Bill is a good thing.

It is such a good thing that most of us are asking why it does not apply to a wee bit more. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, will, undoubtedly, be up for the challenge, but it is quite important that, today, we ask why there is this limitation. Why does it not bring in cultural events? What about the big regular events?

Transport is the one that really gets me. I know the gritty fullness of the experience at Twickenham. Have you ever tried to get a late train out of London from there? I can tell you, some planning is needed there. And that is ignoring the burger I was once foolish enough to try to eat on the way in.

If we are going to look at this properly then we have to look at it in the round. The Bill is definitely written for the current world of big international sporting events. They are funded by big sponsorship deals. There is a little list in Clause 1(2), running from paragraphs (a) to (e). Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are all about the preservation of rights and sponsorship, and what is going on. These are the things around which, when we did the Acts for the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, we got absurdities.

My noble friend Lord Foster did his usual job of picking out a particularly good little absurdity about sausages being arranged in the shape of rings. You could have got quite creative, with the odd black or red pudding in there—you could have done quite a lot with that. I remember that, during the passage of the Olympics Bill, the Olympic kebab shop, operating somewhere down in the East End, objected to being removed. It was serving the staff from three scrapyards that were about to be destroyed, but that does not really matter. There were always these little things going on, and local communities always feel hard done by.

I hope that, at the very least, we can put something into the Bill that says that you have a duty to explain how this happens whenever you get to the affected group, or put greater emphasis on that, because it is an irritation that we can do without having to suffer again and again. If a little bit of compensation is required for one of these big sponsorship deals, then why not? Let us have a look at that.

We are talking about championships here. Championships are different from Games because the teams are not all based in the same place. The teams and the participating athletes for a Games should be, by design, in one place—a village. We do not have anything about infrastructure planning on that scale in the Bill. I say this with a degree of temerity because people who have experienced living in such villages are in this Chamber today. I am still breathing so I cannot have done too much wrong, but how do you put them together?

In this country we have excellent experience. We have a magnificent planning process. With the Olympic Games, half the bid was about getting that structure in place, planning for what might happen and doing it really well. That raised the bar. Disability access was brilliant. It was mainly the Lords which did this. We sat down and made sure that everything was as good as it could be. We had a Minister saying, “I can do no more, I have given you everything that you want”. That was in the Moses Room. I hope that we can look at what is required for that.

The other example was when Birmingham stepped in at the last minute and created a village out of student accommodation. It was refurbed for the Games and then went back to being student accommodation. We have done it both ways. Glasgow has not been involved in that. When you do not have a ready-made village, you cut down on the number of events. Rugby sevens is not in the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this time because they cannot afford to accommodate the teams. Fortunately, they have kept the one team sport that really needs it—it is its big showcase—netball. I hope that we can look at putting in that infrastructure, which can be part of legacy, and ensure that it really does work.

We have had fun today with thorny things such as ticketing and ticket touting. We started at Oral Questions with the problems of America and its models for the current World Cup; it is facing legal challenge from its own internal states over this issue. So I hope that we do not get too enthusiastic about this model and that FIFA does learn. We need a process where people know what they are buying. In the States, what have they got out of this? They have empty hotels, because people cannot afford to get there, meaning that potentially some of the economic benefits will not be available. We must have a good long hard look at this and ensure that people know that when they are buying, they can spend on travel, on nights out, et cetera, and that it is not some sort of “I went there, slept in the airport and got back” hair-shirt event. If we do that, we will not get as many people going and the economic benefits to the community will be far fewer. Let us look at this in the round.

One of the things that we learned from London was that the one thing that we did not do was encourage more people to play sport. It was the big failure, albeit the only real failure. “People will be inspired by watching you”—no, people get used to watching very good sport on TV. You encourage people to play by creating events around it, getting people involved—especially young people. You create the habit of being involved in sport, particularly outside the educational establishment. That is how to keep people involved. We have proved it many times. I hope that we can look at where we can encourage that to happen through local organisations and sports clubs and take those to the events that are taking place and that people are watching. It goes with the education programme. We must involve and encourage. You do not do it just by flicking on a TV screen. We have proven that.

I think everything else has been covered by other noble Lords. There is a tendency when you have a little time left merely to go through all the points that were made and praise everybody, but that is the Minister’s job and not mine.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm for the basic principle, but there are a couple of big questions. The Minister said that this is the start of a process and that other things will happen in respect of culture. If we are not going to do it here, where are we going to do it? What is the framework for this? Let us be brave. Let us ask for a timescale that is not “soon” or “possibly in the near future”. The questions about cultural activity and what we are doing about domestic events—whether we will learn from this and take some of them on—really need to be asked.

Will we get a better definition? The noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised this. What is an international sporting event? Is it something we bid for? Another thing he raised was something I overheard one of his colleagues talking about in the House, and that I thought I should raise: the Rugby League World Cup. It happens fairly frequently here. Surely that is big enough, and with enough nations involved, to qualify. If not, we need to know, because if the benefit is very small and potentially never happening—you can get outbid on anything you bid for; we are in a strong position at the moment, but somebody else might get better at it—the question is, will that apply to everything we are doing here with an international element? We need to know these things.

Very few Bills in which I have been involved in this House have had this degree of a wind behind them. We wish it well, and we wish its aims well. But I hope the Government will be flexible enough and confident enough to accept constructive criticism for what it is. We want this Bill to work; let us see whether we can make it work just that little bit better.

As others have said, it is a pleasure to speak after such an august gathering of former Olympians, sporting legends, relatives and “Flying Fullers”. Of course, it is a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, back and making his points in his inimitable style. This really is the Lords at its best.

While I am talking about the Lords at its best, I have to add that we saw more sporting legend being created last night in the parliamentary tug of war: two noble Baronesses who are in the Chamber—my noble friend Lady Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah —won against the House of Commons MPs. There has been much talk today about other sporting events that should be included. I think we saw another one last night that should be included in this legislation.

As many have said, sport has been central to our national story. Football, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, squash, darts, snooker—the list goes on—were all invented in the UK. We built Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord’s and Wembley: cathedrals of competition; places where the human spirit is tested and celebrated in equal measure. From Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile on a track in Oxford, to the golden summer of 2012 when London showed the world how to host the Games with grace and greatness, this nation has a sporting tradition that is the envy of the world. It is precisely because we cherish that tradition that we must get this legislation right. It is in that spirit that the Opposition will approach the Bill.

Like everyone in the Chamber today, we support the purpose of this Bill. We recognise that many of the provisions stem from requirements put in place by UEFA, FIFA, the IOC and other governing bodies, but while supporting the intention of the Bill, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Hayward, have concerns about the chosen route to get to the final destination. The most fundamental concern is that this is skeleton legislation. I understand the intention behind having such a framework, but there are many things that we do not know.

As others have mentioned, the Bill does not tell us which sporting events will be designated. We have broad criteria, but we do not have the full details. We know the Government have at least two events in mind, the Euros in 2028 and the bid to host the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035, but we do not know which other events might be included in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the men’s Rugby League World Cup. As a rugby supporter, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Hayward that the Rugby League World Cup has been hosted in the UK seven times. The Rugby World Cup has been hosted quite a few times and will be in the future. That is a frequently regularly occurring event that definitionally would be ruled out by this Bill. I think we would all say that we want these major events to be included in the Bill, and we want the UK to be bidding for them.

The Cricket World Cup is another example, even if it does expose us to being beaten by the Germans, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said. As my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, set out, there are also concerns about those sporting sectors and cultural events that will not be covered by the Bill: Wimbledon, the Open and the British Grand Prix, to name just a few. Why do the Government believe that they should not receive the protections that we have seen from ambush marketing, for example?

The Bill states that the event must be of significant international interest and gives a few examples, but it does not set out clearly how these tests will be applied in practice. How large will an event have to be to be considered? How many spectators and visitors will be required? How will the Government determine the scale and reputation of an event? These are all questions that need answering.

Nor do we have an idea about the length of time the regulations could be applied for, the scope and the size of possible event zones or the exceptions to advertising and trading offences. Many of these crucial details will be left entirely to Ministers, despite the concerns set out by many about the impact on local traders, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Young among others.

A future Secretary of State could designate events that Parliament never contemplated when passing this legislation. We are writing a blank cheque and trusting future Governments of whatever complexion to fill in the amount responsibly. That may be an act of faith, but it is not an act of scrutiny, and, as we all know, scrutiny is what we, the Lords, do best.

The current approach is to pass bespoke legislation when needed, such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act 2006, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. There are many benefits to this. It allows for greater specificity, with legislation that mirrors the unique requirements of the event and, crucially, it means that Parliament can better scrutinise the Government’s intentions. There is a risk that this vague framework will not be specific enough for individual events, meaning that additional provisions may very well—almost definitely—be needed to be made for those future events, but, as asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when this happens, what scrutiny will be in place for them?

When it comes to Committee, we will be tabling amendments to probe and clarify the scope and scale of those powers. For example, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 contained a specific exemption from the ticket touting offence for charitable auctions, recognising that legitimate charitable activity is categorically different from commercial touting for profit. Also, as my noble friend Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, set out, there are legitimate fan-to-fan ticket exchanges that should be considered that add to the access available for spectators to go to see the game. This Bill contains no such provisions. Indeed, every exception is left to the Secretary of State to specify in regulations. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Parliament should not leave to regulations what it can and should write into the Bill. We will be pressing for possible exemptions, particularly a charitable exception to be included in the Bill. I was also taken very much by the points made by my noble friend Lady Davies about the importance of free-to-air TV coverage of these events.

There is a notable absence of any time limit on the duration of regulations implementing this framework. Once a designation is made and regulations are laid, Ministers may keep them in place for as long as they see fit. This is novel. Section 16 of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act stated that the trading offences could begin only 21 days before the Games began and must end five days after the Games ended. The Euro 2020 Act stated that the provisions could be in force only from 1 June to 12 July.

We suggest that the Government consider a maximum time limit for the regulations to be in effect, to ensure that the restrictions put in place are not in place unnecessarily. Many noble Lords have mentioned that the richness of the event is about seeing local traders. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, that I had the privilege—Chelsea lost, so the dubious privilege—of going to the FA Cup final the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed drowning my sorrows with my family afterwards in many of the fine establishments around the area. That added to the richness of the experience for me. We need to think carefully about making sure that this richness can be included or, if it is ruled out, that it is for the minimum time necessary to fit the requirements of the IOC or other bodies.

We must be cognisant of the impact of large sporting events on local communities. Of course they bring enormous benefits, but there are also costs. Competition organisers and local authorities should be duty bound to ensure that full clean-up responsibilities are put in place when major sporting events are held. We will explore this when the Bill comes to Committee.

We cannot consider legislation designed to attract and support major international sporting events without addressing the economic backdrop against which it arrives. As set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Government ask us to believe that Britain remains an irresistible destination for the world’s greatest sporting occasions—and so it should be. But the organisers of international events make choices, and they make them based on costs. High levels of taxation, an Employment Rights Act that has imposed new and significant burdens on employers, a national insurance increase that functions as a direct tax on jobs, and a substantial increase in the minimum wage—these are real costs that have to be borne by businesses. These businesses include the events companies, the hospitality sector, the security firms and the thousands of workers in the supply chains that make a major sporting event function. Britain’s attraction as a host depends not only on our sporting heritage and our infrastructure but on the commercial viability of operating here.

The Government cannot simultaneously proclaim this Bill as a statement of ambition for British sport and pursue policies that make Britain a more expensive and more regulated place to do business. The two are in tension, and Ministers have to explain how they intend to resolve it.

Finally, as many noble Lords have mentioned, we must address the question of scrutiny. Regulations implementing this framework will use the affirmative procedure, but only the first time. Any subsequent regulations amending or extending the regime will use the negative procedure. In other words, Parliament will scrutinise the framework once; after that, Ministers can modify it with no requirement for approval. Your Lordships will know that this is a significantly weaker arrangement than that provided for in the Olympic Games Act in 2006, which required the affirmative procedure for all such regulations. There is no principled reason why the standard should be lower for this Bill than it was for that previous legislation. If regulations are significant enough to require parliamentary approval once, they remain significant enough to require it subsequently.

At its heart, the Bill is about protecting fans, maintaining the integrity of access to events and giving our country the best chance of winning the right to hold those competitions. On these aims, the Opposition are united with the Government. But good intentions do not excuse the need for proper scrutiny. We owe it to the fans in the stands, the charities seeking to raise funds and the businesses that make these great occasions possible to get the details right. We will work constructively in Committee to improve the Bill. I look forward to the debates ahead.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for sharing such well-considered views. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield that it is an honour to speak in a debate with so many sporting stars, a point made by several others. Today’s debate has shown the knowledge and passion in your Lordships’ House for hosting major sporting events in the UK and recognising the many benefits they bring, not least including my noble friend Lady Shah, who spoke passionately about Wembley and the benefits it brings to Brent and the surrounding area. These can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barker—sorry, I cannot read my own writing.

Barber.

Yes. Thank you. Huge apologies. They can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barber of Chittlehampton said, although, unlike him, I was not alive to see England in the World Cup in 1966. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned that he was there as well.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, sport can and does bridge divides. As my noble friend Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush said, this is a small but mighty Bill that will establish a framework that enables certain sporting events—I will give a bit more definition on that in due course—to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset costs to taxpayers. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, having a framework is a good thing. As noble Lords will be aware, we have taken a UK-wide approach, working closely with the devolved Governments.

I will respond to as many of the questions and points raised as I can, and, where I cannot, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. I am also happy to meet noble Lords with an interest in the Bill.

Today’s debate has been far wider than the scope of the Bill. I want to recap on the scope of the Bill and remind noble Lords that an event must meet each of the three conditions set out in it. This legislation is designed to enhance our ability to track one-off bids for sporting events that move from host to host, such as the Euros, the Olympics, the Paralympic Games and—to the delight of my noble friend Lady Nye; I think there were other golf fans as well—the Ryder Cup.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about the impact the Bill could have on events, such as the Tour de France, that cross borders. The legislation has been specifically designed to enhance our ability to attract one-off bids for sporting events that move from host to host. That includes those that cross borders as well as those held wholly or partly in the UK.

Without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of the initial assessment being carried out by UK Sport, which is at an early stage of consideration, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on what is meant by “the north”, I reassure her and the House that UK Sport is engaging across the north of England in particular.

A number of the UK’s competitor nations, such as Australia, New Zealand and France, have comparable legislation—I hope that gives some reassurance to noble Lords who doubt the value of a framework such as this—and have seen considerable success in securing hosting rights recently. For example, France secured and hosted the men’s Rugby World Cup in 2023 and the Olympics in 2024.

In defence of the framework approach, which I think was questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we are clear that this is the right approach. It is a forward-looking framework designed to attract the best sporting events for years to come. We do not know in advance the relevant event-specific details such as dates and places, or what exceptions might be proportionate for that event, so those event-specific operational details will be set out in the regulations and provisions relating to the event. Our guiding principle has always been to fix as much policy detail in the Bill as possible and to limit secondary legislation to adding event-specific details.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Bonham-Carter, asked about the definition of major and mega events and bid transparency. On the question of what is a major or mega sporting event, the Gold Framework, which is a joint DCMS and UK Sport document, already sets out how we work jointly to support the feasibility assessment process for the bidding for and staging of major and mega sporting events at a UK level, and it provides definitions of mega and major events. I can make sure that a link to that document is sent through to the relevant noble Lords.

Delegated powers—and how they are going to be applied and whether they are justified and proportionate —were raised by, among others, my noble friends Lady Paul, Lady Dacres and Lord Wood of Anfield. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, also raised concerns. The delegated powers in the Bill are tightly drafted. As I said, we fix as much policy as possible on the face of the Bill. Secondary legislation will be limited to applying the provisions to events and overlaying the event-specific operational details required. The affirmative procedure will apply to the first use of the powers by each Government in relation to an event, providing appropriate opportunity for scrutiny, particularly over the types of events to which the provisions are being applied. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, made a clear point about the role of culture alongside major sporting events. London 2012 clearly showed the UK at its best, both in terms of sporting events and the wider cultural offer. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also highlighted that. I will not go through my detailed glowing comments about the events, because I think those were covered. In relation to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about whether cultural events which are part of a major sporting event, such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad, will be within the scope of the Bill, the Bill does not define a sporting event but does make it clear that this includes any opening or closing ceremony. Regulations applying the Bill’s provisions to a sporting event can specify events which should be treated as forming part of the event where they are held in connection with it. That would bring in scope cultural events officially connected to a sporting event, such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad.

I thank a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their track record over many years of working to support the UK’s efforts to win bids. The noble Baroness raised the important point of legacy programmes. We work closely with our partners to maximise the potential of these sporting events, leaving behind positive legacies, inspiring the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living. I had not noticed the acronym drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I agree that it is probably appropriate.

So many noble Lords mentioned secondary ticketing that I will not list all those concerned, but it is clear that, understandably, this is of great interest to your Lordships’ House. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are fully committed to addressing ticket touting and issues with the secondary ticketing market which prevent so many people attending events. My noble friend Lady Gill said—and I agree—that “predatory” is an appropriate term. My noble friends Lord Mann and Lady Taylor mentioned that this often involves organised crime. However, this is not the right legislative vehicle for all wider secondary ticketing reforms. The time-limited ticketing measures will ensure that tickets can be resold only with authorisation from the event owner or organiser, satisfying the requirements of event owners.

In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, we do not intend for the offences in the Bill to be ones for which football banning orders can be imposed. Our wider plans will preserve a robust ticket resale market by directly targeting the operating model of ticket touts. They will ensure that genuine fans can resell their tickets safely and securely and recoup their costs when they can no longer attend a live event. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is an excellent host and partner. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, portrayed the UK as quite an unattractive destination for sporting events. I do not recognise that. We will meet our commitments while protecting the interests of fans. We are a country that is open for business and for sporting events.

Going back to the point about the transfer of tickets to friends and families, I reassure noble Lords that we are not criminalising the private transfer of tickets between friends, family and associates at face value. I will now—

The Bill as worded does do that, because it requires the permission of the initial seller to do so. If the initial seller refuses to allow that to happen and requires the tickets to be returned to them, which is an increasing trend, then, as currently worded, the Bill does do that. That perhaps should be looked at.

Maybe we can come back to that in Committee, as we do not think it does. It is more like the normal practice of people reselling them through, which I have done. I will not mention the brand of theatre, but I regularly end up not being able to attend theatres—I do not know whether the Chief Whip has anything to do with that. It is possible to resell tickets through a variety of means without being prohibited by that, but we will come back to this.

The topic of recurrent sporting events is also something we are going to need to come back to. I am happy to talk to people about it individually. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised this—like others, I am delighted to see him back in his place—as did my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific, one-off events which require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. We do not think that regular events have the same requirements as events which hold competitive international bid processes. I reassure noble Lords that, as the Bill was developed, we worked with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand whether there was a demand for such provisions, and that included the London Marathon.

There was some interest, understandably, in the advertising and trading provisions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, about some of the issues faced by people on ambush marketing, but we did not find a clear or consistent evidence base for their inclusion, and there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action required of local authorities. We are clear that, if we are establishing criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. However, I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss that further and I will ask my office to sort that out.

We will continue to support our domestic sport sector and the UK sporting calendar, building on pre-existing relationships and frameworks. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, noted the work being done on a UK-wide major events strategy, as I think did a couple of other noble Lords. My department intends to publish it within the next 12 months—apologies, but I am not able to give a more precise timeline for that. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors, including cultural, sporting and business. Like others, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord McConnell will be working with DCMS on this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised a really helpful point on inclusivity. He is absolutely right about the need to ensure that our major events remain inclusive. We intend the major events strategy to support this work but, again, I am happy to talk to the noble Lord in more detail about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, talked about something in his contribution which I find really sad: that gay male footballers do not feel able to be honest and open about that. I also welcome his observation about whether young gay men would feel able to play professional football. We welcome the great strides in the environment on inclusiveness at football matches over many years, but we acknowledge that we cannot be complacent in ensuring that our national game is for everyone.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a point about the Soft Power Council. It has met multiple times, and its working groups have actively contributed to activity across a range of areas. We look forward to this continuing over the years and months to come. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we recognise that the financial landscape for delivering major events across the country can be challenging and we are committed to working with stakeholders from every sector to ensure that events are safe, secure, sustainable and attractive.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is right about our need to ensure that our major events are inclusive and affordable. I have already made that point, but I do not think we have covered affordability, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Davies, and by my noble friend Lady Dacres. We anticipate that this too will be included in the major events strategy. We are not clear, however, that we need legislate on that point in this Bill. I look forward, however, to further discussion as the Bill progresses.

There is clearly a range of views across your Lordships’ House on gambling as it relates to sport. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, we do not think that this will prevent customers cashing out on bets on gambling mobile apps while they are in restricted trading zones. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, raised wider concerns about having a less permissive tone on gambling. Outside this Bill, there are existing measures to limit gambling advertising at sporting venues. We have also announced our intention to consult this year on the banning of sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. I do not share the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the front-of-shirt ban. I think it is significant although, in response to my noble friend Lady Taylor’s point, I do not think it is a panacea. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is already aware, the Government do not intend to ban gambling advertising at this time. As ever, I would be happy to discuss this topic further with the noble Lord and with any other interested noble Lords from across the House.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the issue of how these provisions will affect small businesses and street traders. The Government will always look to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are implemented proportionately, with a view to minimising disruption to existing businesses, in particular street traders. We also fully recognise that people need support in understanding whether they are impacted by the advertising trading provisions and, if that is the case, what options are available to them. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on making sure that people understand the measures, regulations under the Bill must ensure that guidance is made available on the application of the advertising and trading provisions, and we will be able to require that this is shared with those most likely to be affected, such as street traders.

The prohibition on unauthorised associations is not intended to crack down on local businesses—the example of a B&B was given—showing their support for major events. It applies only to activity that is likely to suggest to the public that there is an official association with an event. By this, we mean that there is a realistic chance that everyday members of the public will consider that such an association exists.

I am coming to the end. I want to talk about proportionate enforcement, because noble Lords are concerned about it. The Bill’s focus is on activity that undermines the integrity of a sporting event and the interests of its commercial partners, or that could disrupt the safe movement of spectators. As with the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we will work with event organisers and local authorities to ensure that enforcement action is proportionate. The enforcement powers in the Bill will provide a sufficient deterrent while ensuring that effective action can be taken when needed.

I will write to my noble friend Lady Nye and others on the way in which we could increase the fine, and I will also write to my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the transport plan. I will definitely write to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the Finance Act, because I do not have that detail to hand, and I will need to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her point about sponsorship and fossil fuels.

The provisions in this Bill will further reinforce our world-leading reputation for hosting major sporting events. With it, we are sending a clear message that the UK is not just a home for sport but a prepared, professional and fan-focused host, ready to both host and take on the world. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wood, on Committee timings, such matters are dealt with through the usual channels, but he can always talk to the Chief Whip. I am grateful to all noble Lords for a varied and interesting debate, and I urge them to support the Bill.

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 16, Schedule 4, Clause 17, Schedule 5, Clause 18, Schedule 6, Clauses 19 to 30, Title.