Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2026.

(Morning)

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. A Member who has put their name on the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. They will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, that is at the Chair’s discretion. I remind Members that the selection list shows how amendments and new clauses have been grouped for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses take place in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.

Clause 1 - Sporting events framework

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) the delivery authority provisions.”

“Part 1 - Constitutions

Part 2 - Proceedings

Part 3 - Money

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am pleased to open the first day of the Committee on the Sporting Events Bill for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the widespread engagement I have undertaken with stakeholders, including at events, while shadowing the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

I appreciate that some of these amendments were moved in the other place and defeated, but we remain of the view that there is a need for a mechanism to enable the creation of a delivery authority for major events such as the world cup or the Olympics, with a northern bid mooted. In a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, included in his final King’s Speech a commitment to introducing a sporting events Bill. Luckily for us, even stopped clocks are right twice a day. As hon. Members will know, in years gone by His Majesty’s Government have introduced event-specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020.

We agree that this Bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK’s best exports to be even better. However, it was the Government’s intention that this framework should be used only for sporting events that do not regularly take place and that are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, the Government were defeated in the other place, and we will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British grand prix at Silverstone or golf’s original championship, the Open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so.

Hon. Members will know that primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and it was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting venues, and the infrastructure and transport planning. That required, as indeed will many of these events, significant cross-sector efforts bringing together national governing and representative bodies such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association, local government, including the host cities, and central Government Departments. There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land and improve transport links so that spectators can get there. As it stands, new primary legislation would be required if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event. That undermines the aim of the Bill, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events to ensure their most efficient delivery.

These amendments, new clauses and new schedule would create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. They would not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority, but they would give the Secretary of State the ability to do so without undertaking the whole process that this Bill aims to avoid.

Under new clause 1, a delivery authority would:

“(a) prepare for the sporting event,

(b) make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management before, during or after the sporting events of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event,

(c) ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and

(d) ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the sporting event.”

Moreover, our proposals would set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. That includes a membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 2 of the new schedule would provide procedural rules for delegation by such authorities, and it would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the authority’s progress. Finally, part 3 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, by resolution of the House.

I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments. If she believes that, once enacted, the Bill will negate the need for any further primary legislation, surely it must try to cover the likely requirements of future events. Some of these events, particularly the largest irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country. That is why I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part.

The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the economic and social benefits of these occasions are felt across the country. This framework Bill has a range of powers, including on ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. This will help to improve our competitiveness when bidding for major sporting events, helping to bring more iconic sporting moments to the UK. The Bill will enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event-ready.

The Government amendments seek to refine the Bill following its amendment in the other place to ensure that, where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can also be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events, as we will discuss later in Committee.

The 2028 UEFA European championship will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this Bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin. The tournament is projected to bring a sixfold return on public investment. Forty per cent of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the Government-backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. The tournament shows that major sporting events do far more than entertain; they drive economic growth, foster national pride and inspire young people. The Bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come.

The shadow Minister’s amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill a model for a dedicated delivery body. While the Government recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed. First, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up on a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement.

Conversely, a special-purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football authorities to deliver Euro 2028. That is an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament overwhelmingly relies on existing stadia and infrastructure, without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion that a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must similarly be determined by what is targeted and proportionate for the specific needs and requirements of an event in order to maximise effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. As such, although many of the shadow Minister’s recommendations are eminently sensible, the amendments would unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, and particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted in every scenario. Where greater oversight is required, the Government already have the requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body that is subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny—the Olympic Delivery Authority was regularly subject to such scrutiny.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The Opposition have set out our position and our concerns. We absolutely understand the Minister’s point regarding Euro 2028. The amendment was primarily aimed at the likes of the Olympics. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule 6 (‘the industrial action provisions’)”.

This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”

This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.

“Part 1 - Offences

Part 2 - Enforcement

Part 3 - Interpretation

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

The amendments, new clause and new schedule in this group are designed to make sure that maliciously timed strikes do not undermine the entirety of a major sporting event, as defined by the Bill. Any event covered by the framework established by the Bill is, by the definitions in clause 3, likely to be of

“significant international or national interest”

or

“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it.”

Industrial action during such an event would wholly undermine the objectives of the Bill.

Amendment 7 would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the framework is applied to a sporting event. Amendment 8 would require the “appropriate national authority” to apply the industrial action provisions when it applies one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause 5 defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions. New schedule 2 sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendments 7 and 8 and new clause 5, and sets out the penalties for breaching those provisions.

Taken together, the amendments seek to establish provisions related to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework established by the Bill. I am sure that Labour Members may sit upright a little when they hear these amendments, but I assure them that the amendments have been tabled in the spirit of the Bill and its intended outcome. They would apply only to sporting events operating under the framework.

However, in the mind of the Opposition, the amendments are not optional extras or measures to be applied to some events and not others. They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. Through the Bill, the Government seek to establish a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new primary legislation every time we host a major event and welcome people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights, under the provisions on unauthorised association. Crucially, the Bill does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by strikes.

Hon. Members will know the damage that such actions cause. Last September’s tube strikes caused near-total shutdown, costing Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fare revenue alone, and imposing an estimated £230 million of direct cost to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. Those impacts included workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that affecting the United Kingdom’s ability to host a major sporting event such as the world cup or the Olympics.

Even the Foreign Secretary, the then leader of the Labour party, said ahead of the 2012 Olympic games,

“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted.”

I am sure hon. Members will also remember the 2022 Commonwealth games, when ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. More recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth games in an effort to force a new pay deal. As the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operational and commercial viability of those games. Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks. They are a recurring and increasing phenomenon under Governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure it cannot be left to chance.

The punishments for breaches would be comparable to those the Government have drafted for the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that any conduct that threatens the integrity of major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised, and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, that threatens to close down events entirely any less seriously.

There are, of course, limits to the provisions I seek to include in the Bill. The ability to prevent strikes would apply only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework in relation to a particular sporting event, on which I have also tabled amendment 9. It would apply to transport workers nationally, since they are mobile by definition, but also to local authority workers only in the area where an event is being held. It would apply only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework. New schedule 2 would provide for a full enforcement code, notices of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of that mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.

The Committee will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just to the economy but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and grassroots sports. We cannot let that be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the Government to ransom over pay deals. When we have secured a major event, we owe it to the athletes, the spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Amendments 7 and 8, new clause 5 and new schedule 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, would prevent transport and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action linked to sporting events during specified periods. That includes creating offences relating to participation in and organisation or inducement of such action.

As the Committee will be aware, the Government repealed the minimum service legislation and a number of other restrictions on the right to strike via the Employment Rights Act 2025. The amendments would reintroduce a significant restriction on the ability of workers to take industrial action, and the Government have been clear that we will not support such restrictions. The Government do not consider it right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation and must not seek to carve out core components of employment rights.

We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations that is fit for the 21st century, and that includes a new industrial relations framework that establishes expectations for how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. On the basis of the points I have made, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 7.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Clause 1 will introduce a common legislative framework for major sporting events held in the UK. The framework covers five aspects of sporting events: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport. The legislative provisions for those five aspects are set out in schedules 1 to 5.

Amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, all of which are in my name, would add single sex protection provisions to the framework. They propose establishing a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities for major sporting events taking place under the framework established by the Bill. They also set out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex.

The noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to argue that these amendments were not necessary when they were tabled in the other place because

“events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.]

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Clause 1 introduces the framework provisions in the Bill, designed to help the UK deliver its commitments to event owners and ensure that we remain a credible and competitive host of major sporting events. Delivering such commitments usually requires time-consuming, event-specific legislation. This Bill changes the game: any of the framework provisions can be applied, as needed, to any qualifying sporting event through secondary legislation.

The framework provisions will help to protect commercial rights and the experience of fans by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets and by preventing unauthorised advertising and trading around sporting events. The provisions will ensure that we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK’s position as an attractive host of the biggest events. Finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure that fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably. Taken together, those provisions signal the UK’s commitment to hosting excellence, and ensure that we are ready to welcome the world.

I now turn to amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, tabled by the shadow Minister. I understand that his intent is to ensure that the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied only when major sporting events ensure single-sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex, and the provision of facilities and sport are included in that.

Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets, and accommodation to biological sex, where proportionate, to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear: to ensure fairness or safety in sport competitions designated as women’s competitions, participation is determined based on biological sex. That would apply to all events in scope of the Bill as they are all competitive sporting events. An explicit statutory duty in the Bill is therefore unnecessary.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

As I outlined, respectfully, the Government have lost trust on this issue. That is why we want to see it included in the Bill, so I will push this to a vote.

Clause 2 - Application of framework to major sporting events

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 21, 23 to 31, 42 and 43.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

As the Bill passed through the other place, we heard a strong case from peers and sporting bodies alike that a small number of our world-class recurrent events could face the same delivery, commercial protection and hosting challenges as itinerant events in the future. The Government have heard and agree with the intent.

Domestic sporting events, as referred to in the Bill, contribute significant economic and social value to the UK. However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope, with “domestic appeal” potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar. Without safeguards to ensure that the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks giving eligibility for protections to an extremely large pool of events and having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities.

Even restricting the scope of “domestic sporting event” rightly requires clarity on how the Government will extend the provisions to events that currently operate independently of our operational support. That is why we have brought forward this package of Government amendments. Amendment 28 removes the addition of “national” interest; as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There are already two framework conditions. The first is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The second is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK—or the event must be of “strategic value”, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria.

Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events, referred to in the Bill as “domestic sporting events”. Those are defined under Government amendment 25 as

“a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.

The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority requesting that the framework be applied. The event organiser must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to its event. The Secretary of State or devolved Governments may then consider such events on a case-by-case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events. That is a necessary distinction for a cohort of domestic sporting events that currently are both numerous and run independently of Government.

The independent events are not routinely subject to Government evaluation that could otherwise inform a decision to extend the provisions. The amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. That allows the Government to ensure that they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.

James Naish (Labour, Rushcliffe)

The Minister well knows that Trent Bridge is in my constituency of Rushcliffe. What category would an event such as the Ashes fall into? It is an internationally significant event, but it is a roaming event that goes to different locations. Would it fall into a different category?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Any sporting event can apply and must meet the evidence-based threshold. On Royal Assent, we will publish the application process. I am happy to follow up in writing with my hon. Friend, but the event will be able to apply and make a case. That will then be on a case-by-case basis.

A further safeguard to ensure the proportionality of applying these measures is set out in amendment 31, which adds a sunset provision that ensures that regulations applying provisions to recurrent events may not run past five years. That will ensure that no event should benefit from these provisions in perpetuity without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. That does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but it does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in group 12, I will set out additional safeguards that the Government consider necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate.

I turn to Government amendment 24. After extensive exploration, the Government believe that the Bill’s transport provisions do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events. They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time-limited events, with powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of the provision would not materially add to the Government’s support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we will not pursue legislation that we believe is not materially useful.

Finally, I turn to new clause 14. As the Committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure that the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable. In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry out enforcement of the advertising and trading offences under the Bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point; that is why new clause 14 introduces a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers the additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events.

Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that it has incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events. That includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the costs of administering an authorisation process and engagement with local businesses.

It is fair and proportionate that financial beneficiaries of the provisions should pay for additional burdens of enforcement, rather than British taxpayers. That provision is deliberately broad: it will allow enforcement authorities and event organisers to agree the details, such as how and when payments are made, on a case-by-case basis. Guidance to the sector will, however, emphasise that that applies only to additional unfunded burdens and does not replace existing regulatory and enforcement arrangements; neither should enforcement authorities use this provision for an event, as a wronged party, to cover prosecution costs. This new clause will provide the mechanism for local authorities and other enforcement authorities to recover the costs of the regulatory services they provide for recurrent events.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I intend to press to a vote all the amendments relating to the additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events set out by Government amendment 30. I also want to speak to Government amendment 28 and press that to a vote.

In the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the Bill’s scope to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. That amendment received great support from the industry, with bodies including the England and Wales Cricket Board, Formula 1, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football Association, the London Marathon and the Rugby Football Union signing our letter to push for this amendment, which was voted through.

I was pleased that the Minister accepted that amended scope on Second Reading. However, I am concerned that these Government amendments will not deliver it. I understand the Government’s intention—not every premier league match should receive the specific benefit of this Bill—but Government amendment 28 will remove “national interest” from the sporting events framework. That will significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters in particular for women’s sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention. I am seeking clarification: can the Minister confirm that major national events such as Wimbledon will remain covered by the provisions in this Bill?

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

This group of Government amendments is part of the changes the Government seek to make in relation to the application of the sporting events framework. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these, and her thinking behind them, last week. As we have heard, they include changes that define a domestic sporting event; mean that the sporting events framework could be applied to a sporting event only if it is likely to be of significant international interest; provide for an additional condition that must be met in the case of domestic sporting events; provide that regulations under clause 2 that relate to a domestic sporting event cease to have effect after a certain period of time; and mean that transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.

The Minister has assured me that there is broad support among stakeholders for these tweaks that the Government are seeking to make. But they also include new clause 14, which

“would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”

The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance wrote in last night—I suspect to a number of MPs on this Committee—because it is concerned that that sets a precedent where the victim of an offence will be required to pay for the enforcement of that offence.

The Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world for major events around the Home Office’s ongoing engagement with the police—for example, about how costs are split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. We are concerned about that. I am particularly keen to hear what reassurance the Minister can provide the Committee that that precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major and domestic events. More broadly, I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place. However, I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset; I am keen to hear the Minister’s response and what assurance she can provide the Committee.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

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

Andrew Lewin (Labour, Welwyn Hatfield)

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson referred to Wimbledon, an event that attracts clear international interest. I have been watching the tournament for 30 years, and there are players from all across the world. I hope the Minister can reassure us that that is precisely the type of event that will be protected under the Bill.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

My hon. Friend has done my job for me: I was just coming on to that point. The event must also be of strategic value to help us secure other events, but, to answer his specific question: yes, we would anticipate Wimbledon, the Open, Silverstone and the London marathon being the sorts of events that would be protected. I discussed this matter with the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset last week, and as I outlined in answer to an earlier intervention, a wide range of events can apply, but they must meet an evidential threshold to receive those powers. It is worth noting that they may not want all of the powers in the Bill; they may simply want some of them.

In answer to the shadow Minister’s point about new clause 14, I have outlined the reasons why we included it. There is a balance to be struck, but we do not believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers.

James Naish (Labour, Rushcliffe)

I have a small point that I do not think is covered in this clause, but maybe the Minister can confirm that. For people in my constituency, which has three international venues close by, parking and the cost of parking enforcement are very important. Will the Minister consider support for local authorities that take on that extra burden when major events come to town?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

For those itinerant events, there are transport provisions in the Bill, but this group of amendments relates to recurrent events. We have exempted them from the transport provisions, having been in consultation and conversation with both the event organisers and local authorities, because they already have transport plans in place. I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level can cause challenges, particularly with transport—I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley—so perhaps I can pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Transport Minister. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ points.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than 50 days.”

This amendment sets the maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (b).

This amendment would ensure that all regulations applying the sporting events framework are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause stand part.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I will start with what clause 2 seeks to achieve, which is the application of the framework to major sporting events. The clause establishes how the sporting events framework can be applied to individual sporting events. It will give the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved Governments powers to apply ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions, while the Secretary of State can also apply unauthorised association and transport provisions. However, those powers can be used only where the event meets the conditions set out in clause 3. Regulations made under the clause can also cover connected events, such as cultural events, that are held in connection with the main sporting event; the clause also establishes the scrutiny procedures for such regulations.

Amendment 9, which is in my name, would set a

“maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.”

As it stands, there is no limit to the time for which regulations made under the Bill can be in effect. We think that that is a clear omission. As designed, the framework applies to specific and time-limited events. It therefore seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate.

Amendment 9 proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit for the powers. As hon. Members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic games spanned 45 days, the UEFA European championship runs for approximately one month and the FIFA world cup takes about 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. Our amendment’s balanced approach gives organisers a generous margin within which to operate, while also giving Parliament and the public reassurance that those powers will not accidentally remain in place beyond the event’s needs.

I am sure that the Minister will echo the comments of the Minister in the other place and say that they understand the need for flexibility. However, further to the question that my noble Friend Lord Parkinson asked the Lords Minister, I would be interested to know what event the Minister has in mind that may require a longer period, particularly as she has now tabled Government amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the Committee why one event would need a time limit but the others would not, given that they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework? If flexibility is key, I hope that my amendment will help to provide the solution. I hope the Committee agrees that it would help to dovetail the intentions of the Bill and the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished.

Amendment 10, which is in my name, would ensure that all regulations applying to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses. As drafted, the Bill stipulates that the affirmative procedure applies only to the first set of regulations establishing the framework for a particular event; any subsequent regulations that amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure.

My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause 2 are subject to affirmative procedures. The principle is straightforward; we are talking about a framework that could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events.

As my noble Friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These matters warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. I hope the Committee agrees that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under the clause, not just the first set.

I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said:

“I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 490.]

That was such an eloquent comment—I should be clear that it was his, not mine.

In its delegated powers memorandum, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport argues that the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event.

However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to arrangements already in place.

It is difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes, to proceed without the same level of scrutiny, or indeed any scrutiny. If the Government’s argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest to the Minister and the Committee that that is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far-reaching consequences.

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Clause 2 provides the mechanism by which the framework established in the Bill can be applied to individual events. Major sporting events differ in scale, in geography and in the specific operational challenges they present. It is therefore right that the Bill does not seek to impose a one-size-fits-all regime in every case.

Clause 2 will enable the framework to be tailored to the circumstances of a particular event, applying only those provisions that are necessary and proportionate. There is no appetite to put measures in place that are not needed. This is a practical approach, but it is also responsible; the power is not open-ended. Regulations may be made only where the conditions in the framework are met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The clause also provides important clarity about the way the Bill operates across the UK, because it has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right that we look to ensure that every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation. Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory.

Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate that a UK-wide approach is most desirable; I will say more about that when we come to clause 5. Only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied by the Secretary of State; the Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved Governments were content that they already had adequate provision. Transport co-ordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved Governments and delivery partners, ensuring that arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation while supporting coherent UK-wide delivery of major events.

In short, clause 2 will provide the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It will also ensure that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied. Having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each use of the powers in the clause for an event must be subject to debate.

I turn to amendment 9, tabled by the shadow Minister. The Bill needs flexibility to apply provisions on a case-by-case basis, according to the needs of each event. Where it is sensible to set clear limits, the Bill already does so. The advertising and trading offences can apply for no more than 10 days before an event begins and must end no later than five days after it concludes. In practice, for most locations they will be enforced for a far shorter period. A blanket 50-day cap would undermine other provisions in the Bill. Ticketing protections, for example, will need to be in place before tickets for an event go on sale, which for many major sporting events is more than a year in advance. The unauthorised association provision should last only as long as is needed to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event. For itinerant events, that will typically reflect the period between awarding the hosting rights and the delivery of the event itself. For recurrent events, we have tabled an amendment limiting their application to no more than 28 days before an event begins and seven days after it ends. Our approach is simple: powers should last no longer than necessary, but they must remain available for as long as genuinely required. The shadow Minister asked why the periods are different; we have focused on proportionality for recurrent events, as they obviously happen every year.

Amendment 10 would ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions were subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. In the other place, we tabled amendments to ensure that all regulations applying the provisions will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In other words, they will come before Parliament for a full debate and scrutiny. There is only one exception, which is where urgency demands it. In such exceptional circumstances, such as last-minute changes to the competition schedule, we would use the made affirmative resolution procedure, meaning that regulations would come into force before being debated in Parliament. That will allow us to act quickly if needed while also enabling parliamentary oversight.

We introduced these amendments having listened to the concerns raised in the other place and having reflected closely on the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope that these changes reassure the hon. Member that we are committed both to parliamentary oversight and to practical delivery.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and particularly her reference to the amendments tabled since the debate in the other place. We will take the Government’s words in good faith and will not seek a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3 - Framework conditions

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) The third condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—

(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or

(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.

Amendment 17, in clause 25, page 19, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert—

“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and

(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—

(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or

(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.

Clause stand part.

Clause 4 stand part.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

Any sporting event falling under this Bill, and especially any sporting event receiving financial support from the Government, should be free to air. Sport is a huge part of our culture. We will get to the topic of tickets later in this debate, but the reality is that it is expensive to see sport live. We can all agree that being able to watch England play football at the world cup should be free for everyone to watch on TV. Our amendments would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under the Bill and that, especially when Government funding is going towards that event, it is free to do so.

Public service broadcasters have pioneered free-to-air coverage and have demonstrated that it has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls, who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV. Research by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free-to-air has a direct impact on how many people are watching women’s sports. These amendments would ensure not only that every fan can watch their team play, but that emerging sports funded by the Government or provided for through the Bill are accessible for all to see.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and must meet either the significance or the strategic priorities.

To meet the significance priorities, the sporting event must be likely to be of significant international or national interest, the sporting event organiser must have asked for the framework to be applied and the event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK. This clause sets out the criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. They include the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected outside the UK.

To meet the strategic priority, it must be proven that hosting the sporting event will improve the UK’s chance of securing hosting rights for events that meet the significance priorities. I think all Members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events. That is something that goes across parties and will often involve successive Governments, with one Government starting the bid and then another Government hosting the event.

Clause 4, which is entitled “Restrictions on application of framework”, sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities. Before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility of a devolved authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority’s consent. At the same time, the clause sets out that devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where ticket touting provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly within the relevant devolved territory.

Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require all sporting events hosted under the Bill to be made free to air. Understandably, that has raised a number of concerns among sporting bodies. Before I get into the details of why the amendments would not just upset the apple cart but risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I will start by disagreeing with the terminology “free to air”. As my noble Friend Lord Hayward pointed out in Committee in the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence. These events are therefore never free to air.

Secondly, a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieve the expansion of sports coverage—I do agree with the intentions of the proposal—than a blanket ban, which would be likely to have unintended consequences because of the complexities of global broadcast deals. At a glance, it may well look like an attractive proposition, designed to appeal to Liberal Democrats across the home counties. However, although we all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy. These amendments would risk doing real damage to the very sports that they are meant to support.

Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation of—we hope—world-beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League’s current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT Sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over four years, and the English Football League’s deal with Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. Those agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it.

The question for the Liberal Democrats is simple: if their amendments put that income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I appreciate that their amendments start with major events hosted under the framework for which the Bill provides, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA cannot sell their broadcast rights at market value, the effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens? I can answer for them: it will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made free to air. That is popular—I understand it—but someone still has to pay for the rights to broadcast them. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport; they will be felt throughout sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment.

The Liberal Democrats should recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK sports invested a record £213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary code of conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested £1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment in sport, not introducing blanket restrictions that risk undermining it at any level. That is particularly important when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this Government. The Liberal Democrats should not seek to add further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport through amendments that could jeopardise the broadcasting revenue upon which it depends.

Let me be clear once again: I want more people watching major sporting events—I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes, families to enjoy the biggest occasions and British sport to reach the widest possible audience—but we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports.

The answer is to review the listed events regime, make the most of the commercial broadcasting agreements, encourage investment in grassroots sports and ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which it would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular, without adequately addressing the clear consequences.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling amendments 15 to 17 and for her thoughtful points. The amendments seek to add a further condition that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments must consider to be met in order for the provisions of the Bill to be applied to a sporting event or an event to rely on the funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of the event must be made available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom-licensed platform accessible without subscription.

The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept them. Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of Government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events; indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in detail some of the relevant figures. The amendments would place tighter controls on their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the Bill provides for.

The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting their exclusive broadcasting without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders of specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Clause 3 sets out the conditions that a sporting event must meet before the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied to it. We have had a thorough debate on this matter already, and I hope the Committee agrees that it is not necessary to revisit those points.

Clause 4 ensures that the Bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing, advertising and trading to a sporting event in an area of devolved competence without the devolved authority’s consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may exercise these powers only where the matter falls within their legislative competence. Where ticketing provisions are applied, the event in question must take place at least partly within the territory of the devolved authority making the regulations. The clause is an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world-class events throughout the UK.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I do not represent a home county, and I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Clause 4 - Restrictions on application of framework

Clause 5 - Ticket touting regulations

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 6 stand part.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Clause 5 deals with the important issue of ticketing. It is integral to the framework provisions in the Bill, and in particular to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners when we seek and secure events hosted in the UK. The ticketing provisions in the Bill are time-limited and designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of an event owner or organiser.

Clause 5 provides that any regulations applying the Bill’s ticketing measures must specify the period for which those measures apply. That will ensure that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important, given that these provisions fall within devolved competence.

We expect the effectiveness of the provisions to be significantly reduced if there is inconsistency in their application, or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. That is precisely why clause 5 is so important. It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis where the consent of the devolved Governments has been secured. The Government’s strong preference is, of course, for a coherent UK-wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event organisers, stronger protection for fans and a more effective basis for enforcement.

Clause 6 is a practical, functional element of the Bill. Regulations applying the ticketing provisions to an event will need to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation for ticketing activity, such as the sale and resale of tickets. Only a person who is suitable can be designated to grant authorisations. In effect, that means someone who has the primary right to sell tickets to an event, which we expect would include only an event owner or organiser. The event owner or organiser could then determine who is authorised, based on commercial arrangements.

As unauthorised public resale will be a criminal offence, the Government expect that accessible authorised channels will be made available for the resale of tickets where people can no longer attend an event. Conditions may be imposed on an event owner or organiser who can authorise ticket sales—for example, to require them to maintain a register of platforms that can legally sell tickets.

Before I conclude, it is worth touching on our manifesto commitment to ban ticket touting, with a nod to new clauses 10 and 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, which we will consider later. We understand and share the objectives that underpin those new clauses, which is why the Secretary of State affirmed on Second Reading our intention to treat the Bill as a priority and ensure that we get it on the statute book.

We will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under the Bill, and there will be strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. That will ensure that, regardless of the event, fans are treated fairly and can have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market. Fans should take further confidence from the fact that UEFA has already confirmed that there will be no dynamic pricing for Euro 2028, and that more than 40% of tickets will be available in the most affordable categories.

Clause 7 - Exceptions to the ticket touting offence

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 7, page 5, line 1, at end insert—

“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

As we are debating ticket touting regulations, particularly in relation to football, it is probably right that I disclose that I attended the FIFA world cup in a private capacity and bought my own ticket, just in case we get a mention of FIFA.

Clause 7 allows regulations to specify activities that are exempt from the ticket touting offence. In doing so, it gives the appropriate national authority the flexibility to accommodate legitimate activities that should not be prohibited. My amendment 11 and new clause 6 are relatively small changes that would enable the charitable resale of tickets.

I am sure the Committee will agree that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises that fact, but she has asserted that

“it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket exception as this could undermine the Bill’s objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 476.]

I am not sure which objective my amendments would undermine. One of the premises under which the Government have brought forward the Bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and a social good for the United Kingdom. Charities are key vessels for delivering social good, so why are the Government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities, and why are they prioritising FIFA’s ability to resell tickets at a hugely inflated price, instead of the money going towards a good cause or charity?

The problem is that there is confusion among the Government. In one part of the Bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and that ticket resale sites such as Viagogo and StubHub should not be able to make significant profits from the services that they offer—in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, the Bill as it stands eliminates the ability of charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for a good cause. Instead, the noble Minister has said that

“charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 552.]

How impractical! Do the Government really expect a local charity or a good cause to be able to navigate an as-yet-undefined application process, and to compete against the likes of UEFA or FIFA and their international infrastructure, simply to auction a ticket to a sporting event in aid of a chosen charitable cause? It is ridiculous to expect the vast majority of charities, which are often small, to be able to do that. In practice, it creates a ban on auctions taking place, which will be to the detriment of charities. That is why I have tabled amendment 11 and new clause 6.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Clause 7 deals with the important issue of exceptions to the ticket touting offence, which ensures that proportionality, where required and appropriate, can be applied to the way the offence operates. It is important to clarify that the offence does not prohibit the transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. Clause 7 enables regulations applying the ticketing provision to specify exceptions to the offence, which may include activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, including the auctioning of tickets to raise money. This ensures that the Secretary of State or a devolved authority can consider what is proportionate and right for each event.

Although I note that no exception was provided in the legislation for London 2012 or Birmingham 2022, I have asked my officials to discuss this issue further with UEFA before we bring forward regulations next year. I am confident that we can agree on an approach that supports the work of our fantastic charity sector, particularly local charities in our host cities, which speaks to the points made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. His amendment 11 and new clause 6 would put on the face of the Bill an exception to the ticket touting offence where a ticket is sold by auction and the proceeds go to charity.

I fully recognise the spirit of the hon. Member’s amendments, and we listened carefully to the concerns raised in the other place about the potential impact of the legislative framework on charitable fundraising. That is precisely why the Government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through regulations. In relation to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, we believe that what is needed is not a wholesale exception but a proportionate approach. The amendment tabled by the Government in the other place sends a clear signal of intent. Where it is appropriate to do so, exceptions for charities can and will be made in regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 11 and new clause 6.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. However, we remain concerned that the measure is far too complicated for small charities to navigate and therefore I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Schedule 1 - Ticket touting provisions

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 24, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (‘A’) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (‘B’) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”.

This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 56.

Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.

(2B) A ‘secondary ticketing condition’ is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”.

Government amendments 57 to 60.

Schedule 1.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Amendment 12 mirrors one of the defences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020, which ensures that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability. That means that it would not be an offence under the Bill for a person to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from somebody else, unless that first person already knows, or would be reasonably expected to know, that the second person is in fact touting a ticket to an event. This is a rather small and simple change that would improve the protections for those who would, under the current drafting, be inadvertently guilty of committing a crime.

It is unreasonable to expect everybody in the first person’s shoes to know the entirety of the story of the second person and how they came about the ticket. If somebody is knowingly advertising a touted ticket, of course they should face the full and proper penalties provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree that the amendment would make a small and simple change to avoid trapping unsuspecting persons in a legal mess because they have been misled or did not know about somebody else’s actions.

Amendment 3 would add a requirement for any person granted a ticketing authorisation under the relevant paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person. The principle behind the amendment is straightforward: people who purchase tickets to major sporting events should not be left out of pocket if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to attend.

Life happens. As MPs, we all know that. People fall ill, family commitments change and work or travel arrangements can fall through. It cannot be right that a fan who has paid good money for a ticket should have no reasonable means of transferring it to somebody else. We of course recognise the importance of protecting fans from ticket touting, excessive resale prices and fraudulent activity. Those are legitimate concerns. However, there is a clear distinction between organised touting for profit and an ordinary supporter who simply wishes to recover the cost of a ticket they can no longer use.

As Lord Fuller said in the other place, not only does the Bill as drafted prevent the honest sale or transfer of a ticket, but it fines someone £50,000 “for trying it”. In my view, that is unacceptable. Under this Government, a person might get less of a punishment for burglary. A properly managed transfer or resale mechanism can help to protect consumers, give organisers greater oversight of who holds a ticket, and reduce the incentive for fans to turn to unofficial platforms or the black market, where the risk of fraud may be considerably greater.

This part of the Bill is seemingly stuck in the past as it fails to consider the ways fans can be protected from scammers with modern techniques, including proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. It is my understanding that the resale sector is calling for that, but the ticket sales and distribution companies are refusing to engage with it. Will the Minister speak to her ministerial colleagues in her Department and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and update me on discussions that the Government are having with the sector about introducing interoperability between ticket distribution companies and resale sites? That would hopefully allow resale companies to prevent ghost ticketing, and would facilitate a regular exchange between consenting adults—no more fake tickets sold and no more disappointed fans. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that her colleagues do that, and will she write to me after the Committee? If the Government’s aim is to protect consumers—I am sure it is—fans who no longer need their ticket must be able either to resell it or transfer it with little difficulty. The Bill currently allows fans only to sell their tickets back to the organisers, and there is then no cap on the resale value.

In the other place, the noble Lord Fuller gave the good example of the world cup—we are coming back to it again, Dr Allin-Khan. He said that we saw “outrageous prices”—I felt it myself—

“ghost ticketing, the 15% resale fees from a monopoly supplier and no regulated secondary market. It encourages fans to hang around the turnstiles, which is a recipe for disaster and not in the best interests of fans. If the Bill is enacted, it would aid and abet these activities and prevent the Government intervening. We would be giving FIFA the legal right to do what it wants.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2026; Vol. 858, c. 666.]

We would also be giving FIFA the right to charge fans as much as it wants.

Major sporting events should be accessible to genuine supporters, and their ticketing arrangements should reflect the realities of everyday life. We should not create a system in which tickets become worthless to the person who purchased them simply because they can no longer attend. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government intend to ensure that ticketholders have a practical and secure means of transferring or reselling tickets, while maintaining appropriate safeguards against exploitation and excessive fees.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I will speak first to schedule 1, and then I will speak to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Schedule 1 sets out the scope and detail of the ticketing offence and the enforcement measures available. Principally, it sets out the criminal ticketing offence, which will apply only in the part or parts of the United Kingdom that have been specified in the regulations. As this is a devolved area of competence, the Secretary of State can apply the ticketing offence to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only with their consent.

An event ticket is defined as anything that is or claims to be a ticket to the sporting event in question, including any opening or closing ceremonies or connected events, such as official cultural programmes, where those events are specified in regulations.

James Naish (Labour, Rushcliffe)

During the 2012 games, there were a considerable number of test events, and also dress rehearsals for the opening and closing ceremonies and warm-up events. Would they be covered by the schedule?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

We will set it out in regulations. It depends on what event it is. I anticipate that those examples would be included, but it will be for this House to decide when it debates the regulations for each event.

It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase in certain circumstances. That includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace, whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away of such a ticket to someone who pays, or agrees to pay, for other goods or services. That includes event tickets included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods or services.

The penalty levels are designed to ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine; in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than £50,000; and in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding £20,000. On conviction on indictment in Scotland, they would be subject to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect differences in the judicial systems and legal frameworks across the UK. As an alternative to prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts.

As ticketing offences are not confined to the UK, we must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside our borders. That is why a UK national, an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK, or a part of the UK where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out ticketing activity in the course of business outside of the UK, or in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided that the UK connection condition is met. That is crucial to ensure we can take action against activity that affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carry out business in the UK, or if they direct their activity to people in the UK. Enforcement authorities will have the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £20,000 as an alternative to prosecution. While the level of penalties is at the discretion of the enforcement authority, they can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out: there will be the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal, and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures.

Government amendment 56 addresses a drafting omission by providing that the Bill’s reference to the sale of an event ticket also includes reference to giving an event ticket as a prize, which is the long-standing intention of the provision and ensures that we can satisfy our hosting commitments. It prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so—for example, they could be an official sponsor. Ultimately, the amendment will ensure that large businesses cannot exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution.

Government amendments 57 to 60 ensure that, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court. This provides flexibility to accommodate different arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and it makes it clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under an order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act 2025, and reduces the potential administrative burden for the enforcement authorities associated with the recovery of unpaid financial penalties.

Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence for the ticket touting offence that mirrors the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. However, the position in this Bill is different, and that matters. Under the 2020 Act, someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided that they were not acting as a business. As a result, to avoid committing an offence, someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of business. A person could avoid liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit.

That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew, or ought to have known, that it was being sold commercially or for profit. That introduced uncertainty, complexity and a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this Bill, the rule is clear. It applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser.

Amendment 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform, so the Bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome that the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers at the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend can resell tickets legally and safely.

I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform. Regardless, the Bill ensures that fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value, or advertise them through private social media channels. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 56 to 60 to the Committee, and I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 3 and 12 to a vote.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. As I say, we were hoping to stop a situation in which an innocent member of the public shares a Facebook post that says, “X person has a ticket for sale for this game. Are you interested?”, but is then accidentally caught up in the Bill’s provisions and faces significant penalties. I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but the Opposition still have concerns, so I will look to press amendment 12 to a vote.

Likewise, on amendment 3, we want fans to have the opportunity to resell tickets if they are no longer attending. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the amendment, and I appreciate them, but our overall concern is that we will end up with a structure where the event organiser effectively has a monopoly that removes fans’ ability to transfer tickets easily. We are slightly concerned about what that could mean for ticket resale prices, if there is not a cap on the likes of FIFA being able to push up prices on fans, so we will also push amendment 3 to a vote.

Clause 8 - Advertising regulations

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.

Government amendments 61 and 62.

Schedule 2.

Government amendments 45 and 48.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. Clause 8 protects these commercial rights by preventing advertisers from ambushing an event to compete for brand exposure against official sponsors. Advertising activity as defined in schedule 2 is:

“anything done wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting a product, service or business specifically to members of the public…who are in a restricted advertising zone, or…who are watching or listening to a broadcast of the sporting event.”

The clause ensures that advertising restrictions are applied flexibly and proportionately, reflecting operational requirements. Regulations must make clear the places and periods to which the restrictions apply. A place may be specified only if it is being used for the sporting event itself, is used in connection with it—such as a fanzone or transport hub—and is in the vicinity of those locations, such as key spectator routes.

Proportionality is the underlying principle here, as it is across the Bill. The clause limits restrictions to no earlier than 10 days before or later than five days after the event, restricting advertising zones and covering activity in the airspace above it and on waterways close enough to the zone to be seen from within it. This ensures that the provisions are effective in practice. The Government will work closely with local authorities, event organisers, businesses and community groups to minimise the impact on existing businesses and local communities where these regulations are applied.

Clause 9 deals with advertising authorisations. The clause provides a clear mechanism to allow advertisers—for example, a media owner operating in a restricted advertising zone—to apply for permission to continue advertising activity while the restrictions are in place. We have made it clear in the Bill that the power to grant authorisations should be exercised only by a suitable body. In practice, that means a public body or a time-limited private body, such as a local organising committee, set up to deliver a major sporting event.

Clause 10 enables exceptions to the advertising offence to be set out in event-specific regulations. Among other things, exceptions may apply to activities carried out for a specified purpose, which could mean selling or distributing a newspaper, or by a specified description of a person such as an event organiser or sponsor, or in connection with existing advertising law. We will come back to that point later in Committee.

There was understandable interest in the House of Lords in protections for charities. In response, we made it clear that exceptions may include advertising carried out to promote charities or services provided by charities. Where an exception is provided, it means that a charity that has purchased and secured advertising space in a restricted zone would not require extra permission to advertise. We do not want vital public interest services such as suicide prevention helplines or food banks to be inadvertently caught by the offence.

Importantly, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted advertising zone, along with any other person considered appropriate. That will include, for example, event organisers and representatives of the advertising industry. I am happy to set this intention on the record and am grateful for the engagement of industry bodies, including the Advertising Association.

Schedule 2 sets out the detailed framework for the advertising offence, authorised advertising and fixed penalty notices. The schedule creates a time-limited criminal offence. In England and Wales, an offender may face an unlimited fine on summary conviction; in Northern Ireland, a fine of up to £50,000; and in Scotland, a fine of up to £20,000, or a fine on conviction on indictment. That is to accommodate the different forms of trial procedures and respective penalties across the different UK legal jurisdictions.

Advertising activity will not be an offence where it has been authorised under the Bill or where an exception applies. The schedule also enables enforcement authorities to issue fixed penalty notices where they have reason to believe that an advertising offence has been committed. That provides a proportionate and effective alternative to prosecution. The fixed penalty will be set by the enforcement authority, up to a maximum of £300, with a default amount of £200 where no amount is specified. A person will have 14 days to pay and avoid prosecution.

James Naish (Labour, Rushcliffe)

The Minister will be acutely aware that for a lot of athletes, sponsorship is a key form of income. How will that type of sponsorship be covered in the regulations?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that point, or perhaps come back to him later in Committee.

The ambition of the Bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for sporting events held in the UK, but as I said on Second Reading, I am equally clear that we must protect small businesses. Government amendments 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone. That means that authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise. That is an important safeguard.

We are acutely aware of the practical effect that these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small business or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than 10 staff, and a small business as one with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Clause 8 requires regulations to identify the restricted advertising zones and the periods during which advertising restrictions apply. These zones must relate to event venues, locations used in connection with the event or their surrounding areas. For events involving devolved authorities, these zones must remain in their jurisdictions. The clause sets out that restrictions may begin no earlier than 10 days before the event and must end no later than five days afterwards. It allows regulations to address fixed penalty notices for offences and how advertising restrictions apply to locations such as airspace and waterways.

Clause 9 allows regulations to designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designated person may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable representative appointed by the authority. That enables legitimate advertising by sponsors and other approved parties within restricted advertising zones. We all understand why that is so important when bidding for major international tournaments. It is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have for those international competitions. Designations of a representative may include conditions such as maintaining a register of granted advertising authorisations and making that available to the public, or reporting back to the appropriate national authority.

Clause 10 allows regulations to exempt specified types of advertising from the advertising offence. Exceptions may relate to the purpose, location, person or method of advertising, and may cover cases of charity promotion, event-authorised advertising and certain electronic communications. Existing lawful advertising arrangements may also be taken into account. Before creating exceptions, the relevant authority must consult the local authorities in which the restricted advertising zone would be and any other appropriate persons, which is appropriate given the impact that major events have on local communities.

I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, because I had also written it down. What does the Minister think the relationship will be like for existing sponsorships, particularly of athletes? In football and athletics, it is often shoe sponsorship—Nike, Adidas and so on. How will those existing sponsorships or advertising deals, which are a key source of revenue for all athletes, be impacted by the regulations? I am happy to have the answer in writing if the Minister does not have it with her.

The group of Government amendments to clauses 8 to 10 and schedule 2 relating to advertising at sporting events requires the designated authorising person to take into account existing advertising licences when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. The amendments also require the designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. Government amendments 45 and 48 define a small business as having between 10 and 50 members of staff, and a micro business as having fewer than 10. The amendments seem entirely sensible to us. I appreciate that there were concerns shared from across the House, but the Minister and I had a conversation last week in private and the amendments appear sensible.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I will speak briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point about unauthorised associations and restrictions. An unauthorised association will apply only to commercial activity likely to suggest to the public that a person has an official connection with an event, such as an official sponsor rather than a competing team or athlete. It is for the event owners to determine and enforce their own policies and procedures regarding athlete sponsorship and associated promotional activity. I am happy to write to the Committee to clarify that point if that would be helpful.

Schedule 2 - Advertising provisions

Clause 11 - Trading regulations

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, at end insert—

“(7A) Subsection (7B) applies where, in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, persons are prevented from carrying out a trading activity that they would otherwise be entitled to carry out in accordance with a licence granted by a local authority were it not for the trading provisions being applied by the regulations.

(7B) Where this subsection applies, the regulations must include provision requiring specified public authorities to take whatever steps the public authority considers reasonable for mitigating any adverse impacts caused to such persons as a result of their being prevented from carrying out the trading activity.”

This amendment would mean that, where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, then in certain circumstances the regulations must require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts that applying the trading provisions to the event will have on licensed traders.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 33, 40, 46 and 47.

Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.

Government amendments 63 to 65.

Schedule 3.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

This group deals with restrictions to trading, which the Bill defines as selling, offering or exposing an item for sale, providing or offering to provide a service for gain or reward, providing public entertainment for gain or reward, and appealing for money or other property. Such restrictions are required to protect commercial rights when enabling the safe and easy flow of spectators in and around event locations.

Clause 11 mirrors much of clause 8, which deals with advertising restrictions in respect of trading. It requires regulations applying trading restrictions to specify where they apply and for how long. A place may be included in a restricted trading zone only if it is used for, or in connection with, a sporting event or if it is in the vicinity of such a place. Again, that limits restrictions only to locations where they are needed. The clause sets the same limits on timing as those that apply to advertising—no earlier than 10 days before an event and no later than five days after. In most cases, it is more likely that restrictions apply from the day before a venue is in use to the day the activity concludes.

The clause also enables regulations to clarify when a person is to be treated as doing something in, or being in part of, a restricted trading zone. That means, for example, that the trading offence may be applied to waterways or airspace, helping to ensure that event-specific requirements and local circumstances can be properly taken into account. Regulations may provide further detail about giving fixed penalty notices, such as their form, payment and fine levels, while also allowing that approach to be disapplied where appropriate. Importantly, trading restrictions must be underpinned by proportionality, and there are distinctions between how that is applied in relation to one-off events and recurrent events, as I will discuss. However, in common, they ensure that trading provisions meet the needs of sporting events while minimising disruption to those living and working nearby.

Government amendments 32, 40, 46 and 47 do just that. For itinerant events, where traders with an existing licence granted by a local authority are unable to trade as usual, due to the application of the regulations, those regulations must confer a duty on specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on such traders. In practice, that would establish a clear expectation that options are proactively explored, such as alternative trading arrangements, for those unable to continue trading inside a restricted zone.

Government amendment 33 introduces further safeguards. It makes clear that a condition imposed on a designated authorising person in regulations, such as a local authority or event organiser, may include a requirement to put in place a review process. That would allow an applicant dissatisfied with a trading authorisation decision to request a review.

Clause 12 provides the mechanism to authorise trading activity that would otherwise be an offence under the Bill. Regulations may designate one or more suitable persons, such as a local authority or non-departmental public body, to grant authorisations for trading activity. However, only a public body would be suitable for that role. Those with an existing trading licence may be able to apply for authorisation. For itinerant events, it is right that the authorising person must continue to take into account whether somebody has an existing trading licence when determining an application to trade. The important matter of exceptions to the trading offence is dealt with in schedule 3, covering premises adjoining a highway and included on the face of the Bill to ensure that deliveries and services provided to local residents and businesses are unaffected by the restrictions.

Clause 13 enables further exceptions to the trading offence to be set out in regulations and tailored to the needs of each event. There is precedent for that. The Bill sets out that such exceptions may include providing a public service, facility or amenity, such as a public toilet or ATM; providing a transport service, such as taxis and private hire services; and providing services relating to motor vehicles, such as a petrol station.

The Bill also provides for the necessary safeguards to ensure that exceptions take account of local circumstances and event-specific needs. The Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted trading zone, along with any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, such as event organisers and local businesses.

Government amendments 63 to 65 ensure that there will be no disproportionate impact from trading restrictions arising from recurrent events. It is right that we take a different approach here and go as far as possible to protect existing traders who operate in their vicinity. For recurrent events, the Bill will now provide a blanket exception to the trading offence for traders in a restricted zone who already hold a licence granted by the local authority. That is an important protection. It means that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as a long-standing independent food seller, will have greater certainty and a fair opportunity to continue to benefit from the economic activity that domestic sporting events can bring.

As there is no such exception for itinerant events, Government amendment 64 makes it clear that, for those events, existing trading licences must be taken into account when applications for authorisation are determined. That is an important safeguard designed to help ensure that existing traders, especially those licensed by the local authority, can continue to operate at itinerant events wherever possible.

Schedule 3 accompanies clauses 11 to 13 and sets out the detailed framework for the trading offence, along with provision for authorised trading and the issuing of fixed penalty notices. Those measures will help ensure that major sporting events can be delivered safely and smoothly, while protecting spectators and supporting a consistent, well-managed event environment. The schedule creates a time-limited criminal offence of carrying out trading activity or arranging for, or permitting, such activity in a relevant public part of a restricted trading zone, unless it is authorised or an exception applies.

To ensure proportionality, the trading restrictions apply only in what the Bill defines as a “relevant public part”. That includes highways, publicly accessible buildings used for sporting events, buildings generally used as carparks or transport hubs, or any place other than a building that is accessible to the public.

Even if a person is not physically within the restricted trading zone, they may still commit the offence if their activity is directed at someone within it; for example, pedlars trading just outside a restricted zone. Unless regulations provide otherwise, the trading offence does not apply to existing business premises adjoining a highway, provided that those premises are usually used for that activity. That means that goods can be displayed outside shops and businesses can serve customers on the highway. It is not a defence if the activity is carried out under a street trading or pedlars licence.

Penalties have been carefully determined to provide an effective deterrent. On summary conviction of an offence, a person will be liable for an unlimited fine in England and Wales, and for a fine of up to £50,000 in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, on summary conviction, a person will be liable for a fine of up to £20,000, and on conviction on indictment, they will be liable for a fine. In reality, we expect punitive measures to be used as a last resort. We are not aware of any court case having been brought for advertising and trading activity under previous legislation.

The schedule also includes exceptions for premises adjoining a highway. That ensures that deliveries and business activity such as window cleaning can still take place within a restricted trading zone. Part 2 of the schedule also provides for a fixed penalty notice of no more than £300 to be given where an enforcement authority has reason to believe that a trading offence has been committed. That is an alternative to prosecution and builds on the lessons learned from enforcement authorities during the Birmingham Commonwealth games.

Taken together, the amendments, clauses and schedule provide a clear and proportionate framework that protects event operations and public safety while recognising the interests of existing traders and local businesses, and I commend them to the Committee.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments today, and when we discussed the issue last week during the pre-Committee briefing. The Government are rightly seeking to balance the commitments required to host major international sporting events with the rights of existing local traders. Those are not easy to balance, and unfortunately, I am sure that there will be disputes when we get to such events in the future. However, even though I have concerns about what enforcement may look like, I appreciate what the Government seek to do.

The Government amendments define a non-domestic sporting event, and mean that where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, they must, in certain circumstances, require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on already licensed traders. Once amended, the Bill will also provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority. Moreover, the amendments provide that the conditions that may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring them to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed and to define a public authority for the framework.

Clause 12 - Persons granting trading authorisations

Schedule 3 - Trading provisions

(Afternoon)

Clause 14 - Unauthorised association regulations

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 14, page 10, line 8, leave out “specify”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 35 to 37.

Clause stand part.

Clause 15 stand part.

Government amendment 38.

Clause 16 stand part.

Government amendments 66 to 79.

Schedule 4.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. If sponsors believe that their rights can be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of UK-hosted events diminishes. These provisions protect against inventive marketeers seeking to benefit financially from such events without making the necessary commitments. Clause 14 requires regulations for an event to specify the time period when the unauthorised association provisions apply. Opportunities to exploit major sporting events commercially begin as soon as those events are awarded to the UK. We must therefore put these provisions in place as soon as is practicable.

However, proportionality is important. The Bill includes protection for business activities that may create an unauthorised association with an event. They would protect the use of a company or domain name provided that the business had used it before the date set in regulations and it continues to be used in the same way. That date could be before the regulations are made, such as when the UK is publicly announced as the host. Regulations must also designate one or more persons to undertake enforcement. There will usually be only one designated enforcer, but the Bill provides flexibility for joint enforcement rights, which might be needed where commercial rights are exercised by an event owner and a local organising committee.

Clause 15 requires regulations to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation to associate with an event. In practice, that is likely to be an event owner or organiser. This is how official partners will be able to legally associate with an event. Clause 16 enables regulations to specify further exceptions to the prohibition beyond those already in schedule 4 to ensure proportionality and protect honest business use.

Amendment 38 in my name makes it clear that the power to create further exemptions to regulations may be used to exempt small and microbusinesses. This approach maintains flexibility to apply an exemption for small and microbusinesses in regulations, ensuring that we can satisfy individual event requirements. That said, I am clear that local businesses should be able to benefit from these events. Exemption or not, I want event owners to know that I do not consider that a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes during Euro 2028, for example, is likely to suggest to everyday members of the public that the business has an official association with the event.

Schedule 4 sets out the scope of the prohibition on unauthorised association, exceptions and remedies and relief available to enforcers. Businesses will be prevented from engaging in the unauthorised use of a representation, such as marketing and selling Euro 2028-themed products in a way likely to suggest to members of the public that there is an official association. If there is a breach, an enforcer can seek remedies through the civil courts. The courts will be able to grant any relief that is available to enforce a property right, including damages or an injunction. They will also be able to make orders related to goods and documents that create an unauthorised association.

To protect the use of existing intellectual property rights, there are exceptions for the use of a registered trademark or design, or any other intellectual property right, provided that that right existed before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. That means that anyone who has an existing intellectual property right will be unaffected by these provisions.

As I have touched on already, there are also exceptions for continued business activity and providing certain types of factual information when providing goods or services. That would enable a hospitality venue to announce that it was screening an event, for example. There are a number of other exceptions, including reporting on and sharing information about a sporting event. Where there is a breach, a court will have a number of options to make it right. For example, following an application, a court may order that goods are surrendered to an enforcer or that infringing branding is removed. As a last resort, a court could order that goods or documents be destroyed.

Amendments 66 to 70, tabled in my name, are technical amendments that clarify when enforcement action can be taken against the use of a trademark or design that someone has submitted for registration. They make it clear that enforcement action can be taken only if the application is subsequently refused, withdrawn or abandoned. For itinerant events, the application must have been submitted before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. Amendment 71 provides clarity and assurance for event organisers, businesses and regulatory authorities about the registration and revocation of trademarks and designs. It ensures that the unauthorised association prohibition does not prevent a person from registering a trademark or design, or provide grounds for declaring a registered trademark or design to be invalid.

I now turn to amendments 34 to 37 and 72 to 79, tabled in my name. With the inclusion of recurrent events, we have carefully considered additional proportionate safeguards for businesses in respect of these events, given they may take place year in, year out. First, the amendments establish clear time limits within which provisions can be applied to domestic events: no more than 28 days before a domestic event begins and no more than seven days after it ends. That is the period in which events are most likely to be commercially exploited. Secondly, the amendments introduce blanket protections for the use of intellectual property rights. For example, that means that a business using a registered trademark or design before or after the unauthorised association provisions are applied to a recurrent event will not be captured.

Finally, the amendments set out how activity carried out by a business before the unauthorised association provisions begin to apply—and continued in the same way after—will not be affected. That would ensure, for example, that Wimbledon farmers’ market can continue to operate unaffected. These provisions will ensure that recurrent event organisers can take action against what matters: big businesses carrying out marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution. There have been recent examples of activity that, had these powers been in place and applied to recurrent events, would likely not have been permitted. It would, of course, not be appropriate to name those large, well-known companies, because at the time, those marketing stunts and campaigns were not restricted. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Welcome back, everyone. Clauses 14 to 16 and schedule 4, as the Minister outlined, incorporate issues around unauthorised association regulations. Again, I think that most of the amendments the Government have tabled are about trying to ensure that there is a proportionate approach to the regulations and how they will impact other traders and different communities. That is a principle that the Opposition will not necessarily oppose.

The Minister may be aware, however, that representations were made last night by the Sport and Recreation Alliance raising concerns about amendment 76 in particular and what it sees as an unlevel playing field between domestic events and international events. The domestic events that we are talking about today clearly make a significant economic contribution, and there are significant concerns around unauthorised association with their brands and trademarks. The request—and I think it is a fair one—from the sports bodies, as part of the briefing paper, is for the Government to publish guidance alongside the Bill. Will the Minister consider publishing such additional guidance to reassure the sports bodies that they can mitigate some of the concerns in the briefing paper?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those points, and the constructive way in which he made them. Towards the end of my contribution, I outlined why we have taken a different approach for recurrent versus itinerant events. Recurrent events are most likely to be subject to marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement at particular times. I have obviously chosen not to give examples, because it would not be fair on the companies, as it was perfectly legitimate when they did the marketing stunts and campaigns. I will certainly take that request away. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about further guidance, but we are in regular conversation with the sector, and we are always happy to have those conversations.

Clause 16 - Exceptions to the prohibition on unauthorised association

Schedule 4 - Unauthorised association provisions

Clause 17 - Transport regulations

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, at end insert—

“17A Rural event impact assessments

(1) Before making regulations under section 2(2) which apply the transport provisions to a sporting event, the Secretary of State must ensure that a rural event impact assessment has been carried out where the event is to take place wholly or partly in a rural area.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an event is to be treated as taking place in a rural area where the Secretary of State considers that—

(a) the event takes place in an area in which there are limited alternative routes for road users;

(b) the closure, restriction or diversion of roads in connection with the event is likely to result in materially longer journeys for persons living, working or carrying on a business in the area; or

(c) such other criteria as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State are met.

(3) A rural event impact assessment must assess the likely effect of the sporting event, including any proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions, on—

(a) the availability of alternative routes;

(b) the length and accessibility of alternative routes;

(c) access for carers;

(d) persons who require access to employment and who may suffer financial loss as a result of being unable to arrive at their place of employment;

(e) local businesses, including small and micro-businesses;

(f) residents and persons who ordinarily travel through or within the affected area; and

(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The assessment must identify and consider measures for mitigating any adverse effects identified under subsection (3), including measures designed to—

(a) maintain reasonable access for residents and businesses,

(b) prioritise access for carers and persons providing essential care,

(c) minimise disruption to persons travelling to or from employment,

(d) minimise disruption to small and micro-businesses,

(e) take account of the absence or limited availability of alternative routes in rural areas, or

(f) provide reasonable access for emergency and essential services.

(5) The Secretary of State must not make regulations under section 2(2) applying the transport provisions to a sporting event to which this section applies unless the rural event impact assessment has been considered and determined to be acceptable by an independent person or body appointed or designated by the Secretary of State.

(6) The person or body appointed or designated under subsection (5) must be independent of the sporting event organiser.

(7) Before an assessment is determined to be acceptable under subsection (5), the independent person or body must have regard to representations from—

(a) each local authority whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event,

(b) any mayor of a combined authority or other directly elected mayor whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event, where the Secretary of State considers that consultation with that mayor is appropriate, and

(c) such other persons or bodies as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe criteria for determining—

(a) which local authorities and mayors are to be consulted for the purposes of subsection (7),

(b) the matters to be considered by an independent person or body in determining whether an assessment is acceptable,

(c) the form and content of a rural event impact assessment, and

(d) the measures which may be regarded as appropriate mitigation measures for the purposes of subsection (4).

(9) Where a local authority or other relevant public authority has already put in place measures which address the matters required to be considered under this section, the rural event impact assessment may take those measures into account and need not require equivalent measures to be put in place again, provided that the independent person or body is satisfied that those measures are adequate having regard to the likely impact of the event.

(10) Where a sporting event is recurring, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a rural event impact assessment to cover more than one occurrence of the event, provided that the assessment is reviewed where there is a material change in—

(a) the scale or nature of the event,

(b) the proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions,

(c) the affected road network, or

(d) the circumstances of the affected communities.

(11) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require a rural event impact assessment before transport regulations apply to sporting events in rural areas likely to cause significant disruption due to limited alternative routes. The assessment would consider impacts on residents, carers, workers, small businesses and essential services, with mitigation measures approved by an independent person or body.

It is wonderful to have an opportunity to say something other than “abstain”. Amendment 20 would require a rural event impact assessment before transport restrictions are put in place for a major sporting event. While this might seem niche, it is a direct result of something that recently happened in Dorset.

Road closures for sporting events can cause disruption anywhere, but in rural areas the consequence can be very serious. There is often no alternative route, and a diversion that may add 20 minutes in a city can add hours in the countryside. I have received several examples from constituents who struggled with road closures during a recent sporting event in Dorset. In one case, carers were repeatedly given conflicting instructions about how to reach a vulnerable resident. Despite assurances that they would be allowed through, they were stopped and diverted several times. As a result, my constituent’s father was left in bed in his own faeces for several hours.

This amendment would simply require organisers and the Government to consider those impacts before transport restrictions are imposed. It would look at access for carers and emergency services, and the effect on local businesses and workers, ensure that arrangements for access to affected areas are effective, and allow essential carers and emergency services to reach those they support, whether realistic alternatives exist or not. It should also require independent scrutiny and consultation with affected local authorities.

This is not about preventing events from happening—far from it. Major sporting events bring real benefits to rural areas. It is about ensuring that proper planning prevents unnecessary disruption. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling amendment 20, which raises an important point about the impact that major sporting events can have on our rural communities. I am very sorry to hear about his constituent’s issues.

Major sporting events can bring significant benefits to local economies, supporting businesses, creating jobs and attracting visitors to areas that might not otherwise receive that level of attention. However, we must also recognise that in rural areas, the transport arrangements needed to accommodate an event can have a disproportionate impact on those who live and work nearby. Where there are few alternative routes, road closures and traffic restrictions can make it difficult for residents to go about their daily lives; for carers, as we have heard, to reach those who depend on them; and for local businesses and essential services to operate normally. It is right that those impacts are properly considered when transport regulations are being developed in consultation with local people.

Organisers and the relevant authorities should seek to minimise disruption whenever possible, while recognising that some restrictions may be necessary to ensure the safe and successful delivery of a major event. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that the genuine concerns of rural communities are taken into account when these arrangements are made. Does she believe that existing processes are sufficient to achieve this, or that the Bill already provides sufficient safeguards in this respect? Ultimately, we all want to see major sporting events succeed, but that success should not come at the unnecessary expense or suffering of the communities that host them.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling amendment 20, and I recognise the importance of protecting rural communities from avoidable disruption during major sporting events. I echo the shadow Minister’s comments about the terrible situation in which his constituent’s father found himself.

I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I will outline why. However, I am happy to take some of the points that have been raised across the Committee on this issue and reflect them to the relevant Transport Minister, or perhaps a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Of course, the Bill deals specifically with major events, but I appreciate that lots of sporting events of different levels cause disruption to local areas.

Matt Turmaine (Labour, Watford)

Will the Minister outline the type and scale of events that are likely to meet the threshold for implementing a transport plan, or for organisation or local authority applications to apply?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

The transport plan is England-only. In our conversations with the devolved nations, they decided that they did not need the power as they were already well equipped. The transport plan is England-only and applies to itinerant events, which are the big major events like Euro 2028. We have chosen to exempt the transport provisions for recurrent events because we believe that, where such events are already established, they have well-established relationships with local authorities and transport authorities.

Of course, that does not mean that they go without challenges, as has been outlined by a number of members of the Committee, so I am really happy to reach out to the relevant Transport Minister—I believe it is my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—and reflect some of those points. I have seen those challenges with smaller sporting events in my own constituency, and I recognise that sporting events of every level can cause disruption. I am very happy to take both those points away.

I will respond in a little bit more detail to amendment 20, which the hon. Member for West Dorset outlined so thoughtfully. We believe the Bill provides a proportionate framework within which local impacts can be considered, and we want the event to take into account the affected road network and the characteristics of the area. The issues identified in amendment 20 include alternative routes and access for residents, carers, businesses and emergency services. They are—or should be—already considered by local authorities, highways authorities, event organisers and transport planners to establish planning and traffic management arrangements.

Where secondary legislation is proposed for a particular event, those impacts would also be considered through the usual policy and regulation-making process. The amendment would duplicate existing arrangements for ensuring that impacts are considered, while adding cost, delay and uncertainty. It would also risk giving an external body a veto, in effect, over the use of transport provisions, even though the Secretary of State, as decision maker, is already accountable to Parliament and subject to the usual public law duties and challenge.

The Government’s approach provides flexibility for both rural and urban areas, allowing those closest to the affected communities to shape mitigation. It is quite hard to justify the additional statutory protection for rural communities when this applies to communities of all kinds, although I appreciate that the challenges the hon. Gentleman outlined are often unique to rural areas. For those reasons, we cannot support amendment 20, but I have very much heard the points he has made.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and for her commitment to write to her colleagues in the Department for Transport. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 5.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

Clause 17 and schedule 5 work together to provide a practical transport framework for major sporting events where extra co-ordination is needed. The basic point is straightforward: major sporting events can place real pressure on local roads and transport networks, and those impacts do not stop at local authority boundaries.

Schedule 5 provides the framework for dealing with such impacts, allowing transport plans to be prepared, reviewed and revised, where needed, and it provides for temporary road traffic measures to support the safe and effective operation of an event. That framework is practical and proportionate. It requires consultation with the relevant authorities, including local traffic authorities, local authorities and the police so that local knowledge is built from the start. The powers are also temporary and time-limited. They are there to deal with a specific transport impact of a major sporting event, not to create a permanent change in how local roads are managed.

Clause 17 complements that framework; it recognises that some events will affect more than one local traffic authority area, and that effective traffic management may therefore require authorities to work across boundaries. The clause allows regulations applying schedule 5 to designate one or more local traffic authorities for the purpose of paragraph 3. In practice, that ensures that the temporary traffic arrangements can operate in a joined-up way where an event affects more than one area. However, I will be clear about the safeguard: a local traffic authority may be designated only with its consent. This is not about taking powers away from local authorities, or about overriding them; it is about enabling co-operation on an agreed basis, where that is needed to manage the real-world impacts of major sporting events.

James Naish (Labour, Rushcliffe)

When one authority consents, but a neighbouring authority does not—I have the River Trent as a genuine administrative boundary between Nottingham city and Nottinghamshire county council—what are the provisions? In that scenario, the county might say yes, but the city no. If that is not clear, will the Minister consider the matter further?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Whenever we plan major sporting events, we want to do it with consultation and in collaboration. We would have that ongoing conversation. I will come on to outline the reserve backstop power if that simply cannot happen. He provided a hypothetical, which is hard to comment on—I can speak to him in slower time outside Committee—but we have a backstop power if we cannot get agreement.

Schedule 5 contains a reserve backstop power for the Secretary of State. That exists for a straightforward reason: if essential temporary traffic measures are needed for an event, and a local traffic authority has been asked to act but has failed to do so within the period set out in the schedule, there must be a way to ensure that the measures will still be put in place. The backstop is not the normal way of working; it is a fall-back to protect delivery where necessary. Taken together, schedule 5 provides the framework, and the clause helps that framework work properly across local boundaries. They are practical and proportionate provisions, with consultation, consent and clear limits built in.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I echo the comments of the Minister, who outlined why the clause and schedule 5 need to work together. As we have heard, it is important that neighbouring authorities seek to work together to ensure that sport and transport regulators and major sporting events are joined up.

We have all seen, in various host cities, the new phenomenon of athlete lanes to ensure that participants and spectators can get between venues. That is vital. In 2012, I remember one lane of the Blackwall tunnel was shut. That was quite controversial in the build-up to the games, but in my memory at least, it worked fairly well to allow London 2012 to go ahead in great fashion for the country, as we all know.

My only real question for the Minister on this clause is to do with her comments about ensuring that local authorities have their say and are consulted. Does she have any thoughts about how a local authority would then consult local residents? That picks up on the earlier amendment 20 about ensuring that local residents can have their say. We all recognise that if someone lives next to a major sporting stadium, they will get disrupted once or twice a year, or more if there are more fixtures, as with a football club. For the likes of Wimbledon, people have a fortnight of pain. How would that work in terms of consulting residents who are perhaps not used to the more regular disruption during a major championship?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. It is for local authorities to consider how they speak to their local residents. For example, in my area of Barnsley, sadly, we are not hosting any Euro 2028 matches, but I know that my local council has area forums, which divide into much smaller areas than just the borough of Barnsley. They provide a mechanism for residents to meet councillors directly. That is broader consultation.

At the very beginning of this morning’s sitting, I listed the host cities for Euro 2028. They will all consider not just the benefits, but how they work with local residents to ensure not only that they can take part fully, but that as much of the disruption as possible is mitigated. I hope and expect that local authorities will talk to residents in a meaningful way.

Clause 18 - Enforcement of offences

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 18, page 11, line 35, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) a Northern Ireland department;”.

This amendment would provide for any Northern Ireland department to be an enforcement authority for the purposes of Part 1.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Schedule 6.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I have said that offences under the Bill are aimed at deterring action. However, where that is not the case, careful consideration has been given to the manner of enforcement. The clause provides for enforcement of the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences in the Bill. It sets out who can undertake the enforcement action, such as local trading standards authorities in England, Scotland or Wales, the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, or the Competition and Markets Authority in respect of the ticketing offence.

Enforcement roles and responsibilities, however, may vary between events and it is appropriate for a Bill of this nature to provide flexibility. That is why regulations can set out additional enforcers on a case-by-case basis, provided that they are public authorities. For events that involve complex operational planning or significant public funding, it may be more appropriate to confer enforcement responsibility on a local organising committee that has been established as a time-limited non-departmental public body to deliver an event.

Clause 18 provides for the use of investigatory powers under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is a well-established suite of investigatory powers that trading standards officers in particular will be familiar with. The clause also provides for the use of powers available under part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 in relation to the ticketing offence. The use of enforcement powers should be proportionate and tailored to the local context. That is why regulations can impose additional conditions on their use under the clause—for example, introducing additional safeguards. To support cross-boundary enforcement and mutual aid arrangements, a local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may enforce an offence in a part of England and Wales outside that authority’s area. Similarly, a local weights and measures authority in Scotland may enforce an offence in a part of Scotland outside that authority’s area.

I want to say a brief word about funding, because I know how important that is. These are time-limited offences, and enforcement costs are expected to be low. Costs will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and for itinerant events, they may be factored into the event budget, which is typically split between central Government and host city authorities. We addressed the funding position as it applies to recurrent events earlier.

Schedule 6 sets out the investigatory and enforcement powers available to enforcement officers in relation to ticketing, advertising and trading offences. Most of the powers are familiar. They are based on powers available under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and are used by enforcement officers in other contexts. A small number of additional powers are drawn from previous sporting events legislation to ensure that enforcement can be timely, proactive and proportionate.

Paragraph 2 makes clear when seizure and detention powers may be used in relation to offences under the Bill: to prevent an offence from taking place, to stop it continuing, or to secure goods or documents as evidence. Paragraph 3 provides additional search and seizure powers in public places where an enforcement officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence. It is intended to deal in particular with itinerant traders who are not operating from premises. These are targeted powers. They do not allow an officer to search a person, and items may be seized only when that is reasonably necessary to stop or prevent an offence from being committed or to preserve evidence.

Schedule 6 provides for powers to deal with unauthorised advertising where seizure may not be practical or effective. In those cases, there will be temporary powers to conceal, deface or destroy infringing advertisements, so that prompt action can be taken—for example, where a billboard can be covered rather than removed. As under the Consumer Rights Act, it will also be an offence to obstruct or impersonate an enforcement officer. Finally, the schedule provides for compensation where property is damaged as a result of unlawful enforcement action or where unreasonable force is used. Regulations must also provide a mechanism for resolving disputes about entitlement to compensation or the amount payable.

It is vital that the Bill works effectively across all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, at the request of officials in Northern Ireland, we have introduced Government amendment 39 to enable enforcement of the ticketing, advertising and trading offences to be undertaken by any Northern Ireland Department, rather than just the Department for the Economy. That simply ensures that the Bill operates effectively in Northern Ireland.

Clause 18 maintains flexibility for an enforcement authority to designate other public authorities as enforcers in regulations. That flexibility helps ensure that enforcement arrangements can be tailored appropriately to each jurisdiction and event.

Clause 19 - Exceptions for internet service providers

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 20 to 22 stand part.

Government amendment 41.

Clause 23 stand part.

Government amendment 44.

Clause 24 stand part.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

This group deals with the supplementary and general clauses, which broadly relate to the enforcement of offences under the Bill, as well as two minor and technical Government amendments, which I will turn to first.

Amendment 41 has been introduced at the request of the Welsh Government, following our close engagement as the Bill has developed. It ensures that if the Senedd wishes in future to change how the powers operate in Wales, it can do so through its own legislation where the matter is devolved. The amendment simply makes the Bill work properly within the Welsh devolution settlement, and it aligns with several recent Acts that confer concurrent powers.

Amendment 44 is a technical amendment to clause 24 that addresses an omission in the Bill by including district councils in the definition of “local authority” in England. The Bill gives all relevant local authorities a voice in shaping the regulations that provide exceptions to the advertising and trading offences. The amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant district councils in England before exception regulations are made. That is important, as those authorities play a role in licensing street traders, providing consent for advertising and engaging with local businesses.

Clause 19 provides for the liability of internet service providers in relation to the ticketing, advertising and trading offences and the prohibition on unauthorised association. In line with the UK Government’s existing approach to intermediary liability, it ensures that an internet service provider will not incur liability by storing or hosting user-generated information if, when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it constituted an infringement and, upon finding out, promptly removed it or disabled access to it.

Clause 20 provides that where a ticketing, advertising or trading offence under the Bill is committed by a body corporate with the consent of an officer of that body, or is attributable to neglect on their part, both the individual and the company will be liable to have proceedings brought against them.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

On internet service providers and what the Minister has just said, how does she envisage this working for social media companies? Say that, in the middle of Euro 2028, a load of illegal black-market sites suddenly appeared. How would the Government look to enforce the legislation?

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

That is a very good point. If I may write to the hon. Gentleman, I would be very happy to do so.

Clause 20 has also been drafted to capture Scottish partners and partnerships. It also clarifies that where a ticketing offence is committed by a body corporate or Scottish partnership outside the part of the UK where the offence applies, an officer or partner can be found guilty only if they are a UK national or habitually resident in the UK.

Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State or a devolved Government to increase the maximum level of fixed penalty for the advertising and trading offences up to £1,000. A devolved Government can increase the maximum level in their jurisdiction only, and the Secretary of State may increase the level UK-wide with consent. The Secretary of State will also be able to increase the maximum fixed penalty above £1,000, and the maximum financial penalty for the ticketing offence, to reflect changes in the value of money over time, such as inflation. Regulations under the clause are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Clause 22 requires regulations that apply the advertising and trading provisions to make guidance or other information available on the way in which those provisions will be applied to a specific event. That will ensure that those who could be affected understand the impact of the provisions and the potential options available to them. We expect the guidance to be made available no less than six months before an event, with local authorities and other delivery partners playing an important role in ensuring that it reaches those who are most likely to be affected.

Clause 22 also provides that regulations that apply the ticketing, unauthorised association and transport provisions may make provision for guidance or other information about their application. Regulations under the clause may specify who is responsible for providing that guidance or information, such as an event organiser or a local authority, and any matters that should be included, such as mitigations available at a local level. Regulations may also require the guidance or other information to be shared with persons of a specified description, such as street traders or advertisers with an existing licence in an affected area.

Clause 23 makes consequential amendments to schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and part 1 of schedule 15 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That is to enable enforcement authorities under clause 18 to use the investigatory and enforcement powers in schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act to enforce the ticketing, advertising and trading offences. The clause also amends the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to enable the Competition and Markets Authority, local weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to use the enforcement powers in part 3 of that Act for ticketing offences, as infringements that harm the collective interests of UK consumers.

Clause 24 is an interpretation clause: it simply serves to define terms used in this part of the Bill. None of the definitions presented in this clause are unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “local authority”, “advertising” and “trading licences”, and are included simply to provide clarity and precision.

Clause 23 - Consequential amendments

Clause 24 - Interpretation

Clause 25 - Power to give financial assistance

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 25, page 19, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, in clause 25, page 19, line 36, at end insert—

“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”

Amendment 6, in clause 25, page 19, line 41, at end insert—

“‘the appropriate national legislature’ means—

(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”

Clause stand part.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Clause 25 will give the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the power to provide financial assistance for sporting events and connected purposes, such as legacy programmes and social initiatives, in their respective territories. Potential recipients will include public bodies, national governing bodies and organisations established to deliver sporting events. Assistance may take different forms such as grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, and will be provided subject to conditions and contracts.

Amendments 4 to 6 would prevent the financial assistance provisions in clause 25 from becoming a blank cheque for successive Governments to fill out as they see fit. It is a well-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Paragraph 33.2 of “Erskine May” says that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that

“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant.”

It continues:

“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers, first to authorise the relevant expenditure”.

Hon. Members who know their history understand that the role of Parliament developed gradually. Our ancient predecessors in the Saxon Parliament were involved in financial matters such as the setting of Danegeld, and after a rebellion by the barons, Magna Carta was sealed by King John at the beginning of the 13th century. Clauses 12 and 14 of Magna Carta limited the King’s ability to levy certain forms of taxation without first summoning a council, or Parliament, to establish common consent.

I will stop the history lesson there, because it will get the deputy leader of the Conservative party quite excited at the thought that I am trying to steal his crown, and I will not detain the Committee with a further elaborate history of Parliament—there are much more eloquent and qualified people to do that. The point I am making, which the Government must remember, is that they must come to us in this place with their proposals for the expenditure; it is then up to us, as representatives of those who will be most affected by taxation, to give our collective consent.

The provisions of this Bill deliberately circumvent not only that established precedent, but the legitimacy and primacy of this place. We do not know exactly which events the Bill will be applied to in future or how much financial assistance the Government of the day may wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment that potentially spans many decades into the future. It is not unreasonable to imagine a Prime Minister who comes in without standing in a general election, who has no fiscal discipline and who leaves a multibillion-pound black hole that needs filling. Whether that be the current Prime Minister or previous Prime Ministers, we want to make sure that we have future-proofed the Bill for all eventualities and all Governments.

Unsurprisingly, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much the Government propose to spend as a result of clause 25. The nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this one means that that is unknowable. If the Government cannot tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term—though we know the estimated cost of the Euros in 2028—it is reasonable and necessary to make sure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, we hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation. All my amendment seeks is to apply a sound and long-standing constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed by the House of Commons, which is elected by our constituents. I hope that the Minister and the Committee agree. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I will speak to clause 25 and then respond to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

Clause 25 introduces a bespoke funding power for sporting events held in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It provides a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning through a single dedicated power to fund an event and its associated activities. It will remove the current piecemeal reliance on powers from multiple other Acts such as the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 or section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It will provide greater clarity and transparency on the legal basis for providing financial assistance, and will ensure that we can support the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events and their associated activities, an objective that has broad cross-party support.

In practice, the Secretary of State will have a single, dedicated power for future funding of sporting events in England, while Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments will be able to do the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they do not require an equivalent power. Crucially, we know what it costs to deliver a sporting event from the ground up, and recognise that the magic of such events often goes far beyond the playing field. That is why the clause will enable us to fund not only the operational delivery of sporting events themselves but associated activities, whether they are feasibility assessments, cultural Olympiads or legacy programmes to maximise benefits for local communities. Where appropriate, the clause also enables us to attach conditions to funding, whether by requiring repayment with interest or post-event impact assessments.

The Government fully agree that, when it comes to public money, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable, but amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, are unnecessary. Clause 25 is not intended to create a blank cheque. I appreciate his enthusiastic defence of his amendments and the history that he drew upon, but the clause is a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. Robust mechanisms are already in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. That is in addition to scrutiny by parliamentary Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Any such spending is also subject to the usual accounting officer responsibilities. In the case of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport spending, the Department’s permanent secretary is accountable to Parliament and must ensure that spending accords with the “managing public money” principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of Government investment. Requiring such scrutiny, especially without thresholds, could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance where needed. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw the amendment.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Dr Allin-Khan, I am sure you will be delighted to know that I will not come in with another chapter of Saxon or parliamentary history. However, the Opposition remain concerned about oversight and the role of Parliament in dictating and determining how much money is spent on sporting events. That is not to say we are not in favour of such events; we just believe that Parliament has a role to play in scrutinising any future funding commitments. I will press the amendment to a vote.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 25, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) In the case of a sporting event that is a one-off sporting event of significant international or national interest, the power under subsection (1) may be exercised for the purpose of securing community benefit in areas hosting the sporting event.

(2B) Community benefit under subsection (2A) may include—

(a) the repair of potholes and other defects in roads;

(b) the repair, maintenance or improvement of pavements and footways; and

(c) the renewal, repair or improvement of road markings.

(2C) The provision made under subsection (2A) must, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed towards improvements which provide a lasting benefit to the community and remain available for use after the sporting event has ended.

(2D) In determining the amount and conditions of financial assistance under subsection (2A), the appropriate national authority must engage with affected local authorities including on the condition of roads, pavements, footways and road markings in areas materially affected by the hosting of the sporting event.

(2E) In this section ‘one-off sporting event’ means a sporting event which is held in the United Kingdom on a non-recurring basis, including the Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Rugby World Cup or FIFA World Cup.”

This amendment would enable Government financial assistance for major one-off sporting events to support improvements to potholes, pavements, footways and road markings in communities hosting the event.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 19, in clause 25, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) In the case of a sporting event that is a one-off sporting event of significant international or national interest, the power under subsection (1) may be given for the purpose of securing improved mobile electronic communications coverage and capacity in areas hosting, or materially affected by, the sporting event.

(2B) Financial assistance under subsection (2A) may be used for—

(a) the installation, improvement or upgrading of mobile communications infrastructure;

(b) the installation or upgrading of mobile phone masts, small cells and associated equipment;

(c) the provision of additional network capacity to address increased demand arising from the sporting event; and

(d) associated works necessary to provide or improve mobile electronic communications coverage for residents, businesses, visitors and emergency services.

(2C) The provision made under subsection (2A) must, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed towards improvements which provide a lasting benefit to the community and remain available for use after the sporting event has ended.

(2D) In determining the amount and conditions of financial assistance under subsection (2A), the appropriate national authority must have regard to

This amendment would enable Government financial assistance for major one-off sporting events to support improvements to mobile communications infrastructure and network capacity in communities hosting the event.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

These amendments are about ensuring lasting benefits for communities hosting major sporting events. Events such as the London 2012 Olympics have shown the potential for sporting events to bring investment and improve local infrastructure. We should ensure that communities hosting future events have the same opportunity.

Amendment 18 would allow the use of Government funding to improve local roads, repair potholes, maintain pavements and renew road markings in areas affected by major sporting events. Amendment 19 focuses on mobile phone coverage and capacity. Large events put enormous pressure on local networks, leaving residents and businesses struggling to get signal when demand increases. The amendments would ensure that public and private investment in major sporting events benefits the wider area, not just the venue itself. Better roads and more reliable mobile coverage can improve daily life, support local businesses and help communities to prepare to host future events.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling these important amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill’s funding power can be used to deliver lasting benefits to communities affected by one-off sporting events.

As I set out in debate on the previous group, that power neither creates additional funding nor establishes a new route for securing public money; it simply provides the legal underpinning for the lawful delivery of funding that has already been agreed through existing processes and against existing criteria. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that funding can be channelled into improving potholes, pavements, footways and road markings, while amendment 19 would ensure that the power may be used to improve mobile communications, infrastructure and network capability.

In both cases, the hon. Member’s objective is clear: to secure benefits for local communities that endure beyond the sporting event. The Government fully recognise the importance of that objective. Indeed, that is precisely why we invest in legacy programmes, which may include the types of infrastructure improvements envisioned in the amendments. Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they risk going beyond the intended scope of the funding power. As made clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 25 is intended to support the operational delivery of sporting events and associated activities. Elements of the amendments would push that power beyond its proper limits, as their link to enabling sporting events or related activity is tenuous.

However, if any improvements in the areas highlighted in the amendments are necessary for the event to take place, clause 25 is broad enough to allow for that, making the amendments redundant. Given the wide range of issues that sporting events may contend with, we have deliberately not been prescriptive on the specific forms of support that may be provided under the power. The amendments would cut across that principle by singling out particular categories of support without clear evidence for doing so. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 18 and not to press amendment 19 to a vote.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 14 - Fees

New Clause 4 - Advertising offence: exceptions for newspapers and periodicals

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 4 would ensure that Parliament has a proper say over the scope of restrictions being imposed, rather than leaving too much discretion in the hands of Government. It would provide a specific exemption to the advertising offence for the sale, distribution and provision of current newspapers and periodicals within restricted advertising zones, subject to sensible safeguards against abuse.

This measure is not without precedent. It draws on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021, which included exemptions of this kind. We have now also seen the Scottish Parliament take a similar approach in the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2026, which incorporates exemptions into primary legislation instead of relying on secondary legislation and regulations. As the Opposition have argued in this place and the other place throughout its passage, this framework Bill often contains insufficient detail about the circumstances in which exemptions from the advertising offence should apply.

As I am sure the Committee would agree, newspapers and periodicals have a significant role, and their ordinary sale and distribution should not inadvertently fall foul of restrictions that are designed to prevent unauthorised commercial advertising around major sporting events. The safeguards in new clause 4 are also important. It would not create a blanket exemption for publications specifically produced to target spectators in restricted advertising zones, nor would it permit promotional inserts designed principally to advertise products or businesses to those attending the event. The new clause seeks therefore to strike a sensible balance between protecting legitimate newspaper distribution and preserving the effectiveness of advertising restrictions.

Ultimately, if Parliament is to approve a framework that could be applied to a wide range of major sporting events, it should also have a meaningful role in defining the exemptions to the offences that the framework creates. No Government should be given such broad powers to determine that through secondary legislation later. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, and I hope that the Minister will explain why the exemptions should not be set out clearly in the Bill itself.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

The shadow Minister raises an important point about the proportionality of advertising measures when it comes to the sale of newspapers and periodicals in a restricted zone. I reassure him that the Bill already provides a broad power to narrow the scope of the advertising offence through regulations.

In keeping with precedent, our intention is to bring forward an exemption in regulations for newspapers, magazines and periodicals, as was the case for London 2012 and the Birmingham Commonwealth games. We believe that regulations are the best place for that, as we must make sure that the Bill works in tandem with existing laws across the UK. That approach ensures that all exemptions are relevant, proportionate and applied in a way that reflects specific event requirements, local circumstances and consultation with affected stakeholders.

On that basis, and as we are aligned in all but the mechanics by which the outcome is secured, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the motion. As we discussed in our conversation last week, it is a balance between having too much in the Bill and it being a framework Bill allowing powers to be switched on and off depending on the event. It is about being event-ready when we are bidding for events, but not being too prescriptive. I totally hear the shadow Minister’s points—we intend to do just that through regulations.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 7 - Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 7 would require a review of the Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee should be well aware, hosting major sporting events is not simply a question of having world-class venues, passionate supporters and a strong sporting heritage; it is also about whether the country remains an attractive and competitive place to do business.

Under this Labour Government, businesses are facing higher employment costs, including an increase in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage. Many venues, hospitality businesses and other organisations involved in delivering major sporting events are also contending with higher business rates, energy bills and wider operating costs.

As the Minister will know, major sporting events require significant investment—often years in advance and from successive Governments. Organisers need confidence that the costs of employing staff, operating venues and delivering events will remain manageable. If the United Kingdom continues to become a more expensive place to host these events—as it has done over the past two years under this Government—international organisers may, given the competitive landscape, simply take their business elsewhere.

The Government should not underestimate what is at stake. Major sporting events bring visitors to our towns and cities, support jobs across hospitality and tourism, generate income for local businesses and showcase Britain to the world. Like the Olympics, they can also inspire the next generation to participate in sport, leaving a lasting legacy well beyond the final whistle. The Government cannot reasonably claim to want the economic benefits of hosting these events while ignoring the impact that their own decisions and tax policies may have on our ability to secure them.

The new clause would not prescribe a particular economic policy or prevent the Government from pursuing their wider objective. It would simply require the Government to assess the consequences of their decisions and consider whether they were making Britain more or less competitive as a destination for major sporting events. That should be a matter of basic probity. We should be looking at the cumulative impact of taxation, employment costs, business rates and other economic pressures, rather than considering each in isolation. To do that would be naive and self-defeating, and would undermine the entire purpose of the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will recognise the merit of the new clause. If we want Britain to remain a leading destination for major sporting events, we need to understand the barriers that the Government may be creating and take those findings seriously.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Government’s economic policies on the United Kingdom’s ability to attract and host major sporting events. The UK is a trusted, innovative and highly experienced host nation, offering a stable and trusted environment, strong delivery partners, leading experts, world-class facilities and an economy that is showing strong international resilience in the face of global challenges—that matters. It is one reason why the UK continues to be such an attractive place to host major events. We have a world-leading reputation not just for excellence in event delivery, with a proven track record of staging complex events to the highest standard, but for our economic stability. The Chancellor’s approach to the public finances—delivering good growth in every postcode, underpinned by stable public finances and fiscal discipline—has been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and is already yielding results.

Our future pipeline of sporting events is clear evidence of that global reputation. Despite growing international competition, we have continued to secure major events: the grand départ of the Tour de France and the Tour de France Femmes in 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028. We have submitted competitive bids for the World Para Athletics in 2029 and of course the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup, and the feedback from event owners continues to highlight their strong desire to host here.

I have heard at first hand about the challenges facing the sector—especially rising costs and high consumer expectations—and I am committed to tackling them. I reassure the Committee that the Government are working closely with the sector, not just in sport but across the major events industry, to understand how best we can support their growth, respond to shared challenges and encourage greater collaboration across sectors. We know that the UK’s competitive advantage does not rest solely on the levels of funding that it provides or the wider economic landscape, but on the strength of our overall offer.

I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will withdraw his new clause.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. This is probably one of the few occasions we have not agreed today. The broader landscape for businesses that would need to be involved and to host events is extremely challenging—I am sure that her inbox is similar to mine in that regard. The introduction of the hospitality tax, the tourism tax and the like are significant pressures on businesses that would normally be in a position to benefit from hosting such tournaments.

That does not diminish our brand. As the Minister rightly highlights, we have a successful track record of delivering major events—I am not seeking to talk down the country in that regard—but the Opposition have serious concerns about the economic impact of this Government’s policy on the ability to host events in the future. We will press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 8 - Major sporting events strategy

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 8 would require the Government to publish their major sporting events strategy within three months of the passing of the Act. The new clause seeks to answer a fundamental question about why we are here: where does this begin? The Minister will know that her Department promised this House and the sectors it represents a major events strategy. That strategy has yet to appear.

How can the Government and this Department establish a cohesive, multi-sector major events strategy if one of those sectors already has a plan in place? I appreciate that this is being rushed through because of Euro 2028, but the sporting sector will now have an advantage over other sectors. Those other sectors will have to circumnavigate the plans already in place for sport. We want all the sectors that DCMS covers to be able to benefit from a major events strategy, but by proceeding in the way they have, the Government are going to make that all the more difficult in agreeing on one, holistic strategy with competing interests.

The Government have made their decision, however, and I understand that instead of having a major events strategy or Bill for all the sectors they seek to represent, the Government have taken the legislative slot available to them and have proceeded with this Bill now. They are not necessarily wrong to do so, but they could have done so in a more strategic way. Regardless, we are here now, and my new clause is designed to ensure that the Government, who have delayed countless announcements and strategies over the past two years, cannot do so again on this sporting strategy.

The Minister in the House of Lords promised that it was

“the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2026; Vol. 858, c. 652.]

Unfortunately, intentions are not good enough for some of the only remaining growth industries after this Government’s hammering of businesses. To ensure that there is no more dither or delay to this long-promised strategy, the new clause would ensure that the Government must bring it forward in accordance with their own timeline. I hope the Minister agrees that it will simply enable her and other Ministers to ensure that the strategy is prioritised within her Department and that it will be published without unnecessary delay.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for tabling the new clause and for recognising the importance of the upcoming UK national events strategy. We have committed to publishing the strategy by spring 2027, as he outlined. As a Government, we are committed to supporting the whole events ecosystem, from community events to major events, spanning culture, sport, live music, ceremonial and business events. The strategy will recognise the importance of events in driving economic growth, telling our national story and projecting the best of the UK across the world. Events connect communities, bring people together and create a unique sense of pride in place. The strategy must be created in partnership with our world-leading events industry, the devolved Administrations and local government to consider how we can work collaboratively to capitalise on these opportunities. I am happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail if he would like to arrange a time for us to discuss it.

I welcome the important work of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to shine a light on issues impacting the major events sector. From its evidence, I heard at first hand the importance of a more joined-up approach across Government and working collaboratively with industry on the implementation of different regulations and laws. The evidence that the Committee heard, however, did not include a universal call for more legislative powers to support the safe and successful delivery of events.

Over the summer, I convened two roundtables with the events industry and ministerial colleagues from the Home Office, the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which reflects the commitment of the Government to working collaboratively with the events sector. My officials convened more than 60 stakeholders from across industry in Sheffield last month to seek further feedback on their priorities for the strategy. It is vital that we do this collaboratively and in partnership with industry and national and local government partners.

I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that the timing of this Bill is driven by the need to respond to time-critical legal and commercial guarantees required to host major sporting events such as Euro 2028. It would not be right to limit the level of engagement with industry to tie the timing of the strategy to the Bill. We look to the business managers in the Commons as to when the Bill will proceed to Report, but it is eminently possible that we will have Royal Assent by the end of this year or early next year. I know that the hon. Member’s new clause seeks the publication of a major sporting events strategy within three months of Royal Assent. Given that I have committed to spring 2027, I hope that we will be aligned on that. I therefore respectfully ask that he withdraw the new clause.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I have heard the Minister and I take her at her word. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 9 - Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We all know what happened the last time England hosted the world cup. Not only does hosting the world cup appear to result in English victory, but it boosts the economy, brings fans together and inspires people around the country. We see the framework in the Bill as an opportunity to give fans what they want: the world cup hosted right here in the UK in 2042. To make that a reality, we need a proactive strategy, and that is what the new clause would provide: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a feasibility study and a bidding plan.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for the United Kingdom hosting the FIFA world cup in 2042. As we have not hosted the tournament since 1966, this Government are absolutely keen to see it return here one day.

We know that major sporting events, especially world cups, have a unique power to foster social cohesion, spark regional pride and unite divided communities. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to hosting major international and cultural events with pride. It is why this Government have backed the bid for the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup to be hosted in the UK. Hosting on home turf would be a monumental moment in our sporting history, driving growth and leaving a lasting legacy for women’s sport and football more broadly.

However, it is important that we follow appropriate processes to select which events we back. The new clause would effectively legislate for preferential treatment and an expectation of public expenditure on one particular event. As much as I would love to commit today to launching that bid, we will perhaps save it for another day. I cannot accept the new clause, but I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and the sentiment behind it.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

On that basis, and with much enthusiasm in return, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 10 - Prohibition of ticket touting and regulation of resale platforms

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—

“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—

(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(c) engage in surge pricing.

(2) In this section—

‘primary market’ refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and

‘surge pricing’ means when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”

This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

No fan should miss out on watching their favourite team play, but at the moment that is the reality every single time tickets come on sale. I am sure many of us know the heartbreak of waiting in an online queue for hours with no luck, only to see tickets pop up minutes later on resale sites at extortionate prices because bots and serial bulk buyers got there first.

Every year, fans lose £145 million to greedy touts. It is clear that the system is broken and is not working for the everyday fan. Labour promised in its manifesto and in the King’s Speech to tackle ticket touting, which we welcome—and yet here is a Bill with the framework to deliver that, and the Government are choosing to kick the can down the road.

Fans should not have to wait for change. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to make it illegal to resell tickets above face value. We want to ban surge pricing and cap resale platform fees at 10%. The Sporting Events Bill is the perfect vehicle to make those changes, and that is what new clauses 10 and 11 would do. I urge the Government to back them.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

When I addressed clause 5, I noted our commitment to specific ticket touting legislation that will go further than the amendments tabled by the hon. Member. We know that for too long the joy of attending live events has been marred by unfair practices in the secondary ticketing market, most notably the systematic activities of ticket touts.

The Government are fully committed to tackling industrial-scale touting once and for all, improving transparency around pricing practices and putting more money into fans’ pockets through the ticket tout banning Bill. That Bill will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under this Bill, to ensure that genuine fans can recoup their costs when they can no longer attend an event. It will also provide strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance.

The time-limited ticket provisions in this Bill are designed to satisfy event owner requirements. The Bill is therefore not an appropriate vehicle for wider reform of the secondary ticketing market. These are significant issues and are best addressed through the planned dedicated legislation. When it comes to surge pricing, businesses are already required by law to provide fans with clear and accurate pricing information before purchase and to ensure that fans are free to make decisions without undue pressure or manipulative practices that might distort their choices. I know that hon. Members will have heard the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading about how committed this Government are to introducing the legislation.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I thank the Minister for her comments and I hear what she says, but in the absence of planned, timed legislation to take the matter forward, we would like to press the new clauses to a vote, starting with new clause 10.

New Clause 11 - Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing

New Clause 12 - Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Some 30% of children aged 11 to 17 spend their own money on gambling, and up to 2.7% of adults could be considered problem gamblers. Behind those figures are real people whose mental health, finances, family life and relationships are being harmed. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms, and we believe that the events covered by the Bill should be free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. This new clause is the right thing to do, as it will help prevent the harms that gambling is causing by keeping adverts out of major events hosted in the UK.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I will declare an additional interest, given the nature of the new clause: I am also the shadow gambling Minister, and in that capacity I attend a number of events with the racing community throughout the year.

The new clause seeks to prevent gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sports events covered by the Bill. I understand the intention behind it, but we believe that it is short-sighted and would strip sports of vital sponsorship funding. When I think about how the Bill might work in future, I think of the likes of the grand national, which could qualify. Preventing regulated gambling advertising would have a huge impact on the sport of racing, and particularly on the grand national.

We have previously had a Westminster Hall debate about gambling advertising, and there are of course legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to it. Responsible gambling must remain a priority, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at major sporting events is the right approach, especially given that the rise of illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses a greater threat to all consumers, and particularly to younger people.

As we have heard, sponsorship plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends.

Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences not only for major competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting economy and broadcasters as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. In recent weeks, Betfred has withdrawn its long-term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in future, especially for the women’s game.

We should all recognise that major sporting events operate in a competitive international market. If we want this country to attract the biggest competitions, we must ensure that our regulatory framework remains proportionate and that we do not place unnecessary restrictions on the commercial arrangements that make those sporting events viable.

That does not mean that there should not be safeguards. Gambling advertising must operate within the rules designed to protect consumers and there should be appropriate protections against irresponsible marketing, as provided for in law and by the Gambling Commission itself, but those safeguards should be targeted and proportionate rather than a blanket ban imposed on an entire category of sponsorship. Ultimately, we need to strike the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving the commercial revenues that help to fund British sport.

For those reasons, we cannot support new clause 12. As I said earlier, the rise of the illegal black market and advertising to young people are the greatest concerns to the Conservative party.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling the new clause, which would prohibit gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at major sporting events. The Government support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms and right to enter into sponsorship arrangements. The licensed gambling sector has provided vital financial support to sports through these arrangements, which are constructed within a robust regulatory framework that ensures that advertising is socially responsible and does not promote excessive or harmful gambling.

In 2024, we welcomed the introduction of the sponsorship codes of conduct across all major sports, which promote social responsibility, support reinvestment in the sports and strengthen safeguards for children. Sporting bodies have reviewed how the codes are working in practice, and the Government welcome their ongoing commitment to reviewing and strengthening the codes. We also welcomed the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship, which will help to reduce the prominence of gambling advertising in football. Advertising remains one of the clearest ways in which licensed operators can distinguish themselves from the illegal providers that pose a threat to British consumers, which is why the Government recently consulted on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and physical advertising within sports and other sectors.

The Government recognise that the relationship between sport and gambling must be handled with care, particularly because of the impact it can have on children, young people and vulnerable people. We will consider the fullest possible range of evidence before taking any further policy steps. Any additional restrictions must be thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. We continue to support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms while working with the Advertising Standards Authority, the Gambling Commission, the Betting and Gaming Council and sporting bodies to further raise standards. Let me be clear: the purpose of the Bill is neither to alter the regulation of gambling advertising nor to limit the benefits sponsorship arrangements can bring to the sector. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments, but we respectfully disagree. The Liberal Democrats would like to press our new clause to a vote.

New Clause 13 - Community sport benefit in relation to major sporting events

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 13 would ensure that major sporting events that receive Government funding or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport. If public money is being used to support a major sporting event, some of that benefit should reach local schools, grassroots clubs and community facilities. In West Dorset, that could mean better facilities, more opportunities for children to play a sport and more support for local clubs.

We have seen this model work through the legacy funding for women’s rugby following the women’s rugby world cup. After the Red Roses’ historic world cup win, £14.55 million was allocated to support the legacy of women’s rugby. The number of girls playing age-grade rugby has increased by 35%. That funding has also helped clubs improve their changing facilities, many of which were built when rugby was predominantly played by men and do not provide the facilities that women and girls need. Improving those facilities can make a real difference to whether people feel able to take part.

The same approach could help to support other groups who face barriers to sport, including disabled people, children in deprived areas and young people who lack access to equipment or local facilities. The new clause would make sure that major sporting events leave a lasting benefit to local communities. I hope that the Government will support it.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am sympathetic to the intentions behind new clause 13, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling it. The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that major sporting events receiving Government financial assistance or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport itself. The hon. Gentleman outlined a number of concerns and challenges that grassroots sports clubs face, and we want to increase participation across the country.

Major sporting events should be about more than what happens over a few days or weeks of competition. They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure that communities rely on long after the final whistle. As we have heard, that is particularly important for children and young people in deprived communities and for groups with traditionally lower levels of participation. We should be asking how the excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities.

However, we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges, as we have already discussed today. Any requirement attached to Government support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring organisers from bringing major competitions to this country.

Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that those commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply box-ticking exercises.

That is why, when in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, from an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport to £300 million in emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme that we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. That was worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and it has totalled almost £3.5 billion paid directly to schools since its introduction in 2013.

This Government, on the other hand, have, I am afraid to say, cut funding, with £57 million cut from the opening school facilities fund, £35 million cut from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million cut from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme and £25 million cut in real terms from grassroots sports investment compared with the previous Conservative Government.

I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government intend to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events themselves and reach the communities that need them most, given that the Government she serves in continue to cut funding for grassroots sport.

Anna Sabine (Liberal Democrat, Frome and East Somerset)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for tabling new clause 13. In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, we have loads of fantastic community sporting groups. I recently visited the Frome Flyers and the Somer Valley Strikers, two women’s walking football clubs in my constituency that represent everything that is great about local community sport.

Community groups could benefit enormously from increased funding, and that is exactly what the new clause would deliver. As my hon. Friend said, there are clear examples of major international events leaving lasting community benefits when local funding is built in, particularly for women and girls and disadvantaged groups in sport. This Bill is our chance to make sure that international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area; they should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. The new clause simply makes sense, and I hope that the Government will support it.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling this important amendment. I fully recognise the issue that he raises, and the Government share his commitment to maximising the positive legacy of the major sporting events that we support. However, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as the Bill already provides for the outcomes that he seeks to achieve while retaining the flexibility to adapt our approach to the specific event in question. I will outline some of the reasons why.

First, the likelihood of bringing social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it is already one of the criteria for consideration when considering whether the framework can be applied to a major sporting event. That would encompass the sort of community participation and wider local benefit that the hon. Member is seeking to secure. Secondly, clause 25 of the Bill is also clear that funding can be given subject to conditions, which could include requirements relating to these important issues, where appropriate.

More broadly, the vast majority of major sporting events that could fall within the scope of the Bill would already have social impact embedded within them from the outset. In the case of itinerant events, the gold framework is clear that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact for communities around the country, including to drive up levels of physical activity and participation.

Also, many recurring events already support significant community engagement. To give just a few examples, Wimbledon annually contributes nearly £50 million to the work of the Lawn Tennis Association, the London Marathon Foundation has distributed over £120 million in grant funding since its inception in 1981, and the British grand prix generates more than £100 million annually for the local economy.

Critically, the evidence is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities they are meant to support, enabling us to target support and funding where they are truly needed. That is why we think the current system works; it recognises that one size does not fit all and provides flexibility that the new clause would reduce.

Helen Grant (Conservative, Maidstone and Malling)

I welcome the Bill’s focus on legacy and, of course, the Minister’s genuine enthusiasm for women participating in sport. As a former Minister for Sport, I know how great major sporting events can be for people and for our country. However, they do not automatically ensure more female participation, more women coaches and more women on boards. A good example is that a football competition might result in five new 5G pitches, but if subsequently those pitches are booked out for 90% of the time by boys and men, that will not move the diversity and inclusion dial or do anything about the gender gap. Therefore, it would be very good to hear how the Minister will actually address those issues. If she does not feel that it is appropriate to respond in complete detail today, I would be more than happy to have a chat with her later, or of course she could write to me.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful to the former Minister for her contribution; she makes a really important point. That is why, as the Minister for Sport, I set up the women’s sport taskforce, and I am happy to invite her to attend one of the taskforce’s meetings. It would be very useful if she could share the expertise that she obviously gathered when she did the job that I currently do.

Through that taskforce, we are looking at practical ways to support women in sport. I will give just one example from our grassroots funding; we want to double priority slots. The hon. Member for West Dorset also gave some really good examples from the women’s rugby world cup. I was delighted to attend four matches at that tournament, but I also visited a grassroots rugby event just up the road from me in West Yorkshire. I did so with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), who was then the Foreign Secretary and is now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as the event was in her constituency. We went to see at first hand the effect that the women’s rugby world cup was having on getting girls into rugby.

Consequently, I totally take the point that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling made, and I appreciate that we want to see the dial on diversity and inclusion move more quickly, which is why we are doing things in that regard through our allocation of money for grassroots funding. However, I am happy to write to her and indeed to continue the conversation.

I will bring my comments to a conclusion by addressing some of the other points that the hon. Member for West Dorset made. As I have said, we welcome the intention behind the new clause. However, we respectfully suggest that the Bill already provides the right framework to secure the benefits he seeks to achieve without imposing additional statutory tests that might reduce flexibility. Of course, the first major sporting event that we hope to use this Bill for is Euro 2028. We have already established that there will be £45 million of social impact, with £23 million being given by the UK Government.

I do not recognise the picture that the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—painted of our approach to grassroots sport. We have put £400 million into grassroots sport and £500 million into major sporting events, with £250 million going in through Sport England.

On the PE premium, there are certainly examples of where it works well, but sadly too many kids are not active. Indeed, 50% are not meeting the chief medical officer’s guidelines. That is why we make no apologies for taking a different view. Of course, however, that issue falls outside the scope of the debate that we are having today.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I thank the Minister for her comments, and the shadow Minister and all other Members who contributed. Given the perilous state of community sports in my constituency and across the UK, it is incumbent upon us to drive as much money as possible down to those grassroots clubs and community centres, so the Liberal Democrats would like to divide the Committee on new clause 13.

Clause 26 - Power to make consequential provision

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 26, page 20, line 11, after “State” insert “or a devolved authority”.

This amendment and Amendments 50 to 53 enable the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland department to by regulations make provision that is consequential on this Act. Such regulations may only contain provision which is “within devolved competence” (see clause 24(3)).

Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour, Tooting)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 50 to 53.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 54.

Clauses 27 to 29 stand part.

Government amendment 55.

Clause 30 stand part.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

These Government amendments and the final clauses provide the practical provisions needed to ensure the Bill is implemented effectively and operates as intended. Amendments 49 to 53 have been developed following engagement with the devolved Governments and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that this UK-wide framework operates effectively while respecting the responsibilities of the devolved institutions. It is right that where consequential changes are needed within devolved competence, the relevant devolved Government should be able to make those changes directly.

Without these amendments, the UK Government could be required to make consequential regulations on behalf of a devolved Government, even where the use of the framework otherwise engages only devolved matters. The powers are therefore practical, proportionate and consistent with the devolution settlements. They will allow each Government to take responsibility for the operation of the framework within its own area of competence. A devolved authority may make only provision that is within its devolved competence, and the power may be used where the change is consequential on the Bill. Where regulations amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the relevant legislature.

Government amendment 54 is a consequential drafting change that ensures that the de-hybridising provision captures regulations made via the affirmative procedure. Government amendment 55 seeks to remove the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords. Parliamentary procedure requires such an amendment where a Bill originating in the Lords has financial implications, to recognise the Commons’ primacy in matters relating to taxation and charges on public funds.

Turning to the final provisions, clause 26 gives the Secretary of State a standard power to make consequential changes to existing legislation where necessary as a result of the Bill, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny attached. Clause 27 sets out the general provisions that apply to the Bill’s regulation-making powers, including providing detail on the procedures that will govern regulations made under the Act. Clause 28 provides that the Bill extends across the United Kingdom, reflecting its purpose of supporting the delivery of major sporting events in all four nations. Clause 29 provides for commencement two months after Royal Assent. Finally, clause 30 gives the Act its short title: the Sporting Events Act 2026. These are sensible and necessary amendments and provisions.

Louie French (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I will be very brief because I appreciate that this is the last part of the Bill. I recognise the points that the Minister made, and working together and ensuring the accountability of the devolved Administrations is vital for all major sporting events, not least the 2028 UEFA European championship. They are going to be across a number of the British Isles, which is a great thing for the whole of the United Kingdom to hopefully partake in and benefit from. Going forward, we would like to see some detail on some of the queries we have raised today. I appreciate the Minister’s offer to follow up with a meeting to talk through some of the various aspects within the Bill that we have discussed. His Majesty’s official Opposition have tried to approach the Bill in a manner that I hope is respected and understood by the Government. We have tried to improve it rather than delay or stop it for the sake of it. We think that the Bill can help deliver major sporting events for the country and the whole UK to benefit from going into the future.

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I am grateful for the way in which His Majesty’s Opposition have approached the Bill and the Bill Committee. I am happy to continue the conversation with the shadow Minister if he would like. I made an offer to talk about the event strategy, but I am indeed happy to talk about the broader major events and, indeed, the roll-out of the Euros. There were some specific questions put to me about unofficial resale and how the Competition and Markets Authority will enforce that, but I am happy to write to him on some of those specific points. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has approached this.

Clause 27 - Regulations

Clause 30 - Short title

Stephanie Peacock (Labour, Barnsley South)

I would like to conclude the Committee by putting some thanks on the record. Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for your chairship and for taking the whole Bill through Committee today. I thank all Committee members for their contributions to the Bill and for giving up their time to serve on the Committee. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with us along the way. We look forward to continuing to work with them as we implement the Bill. Their views have been vital in shaping the Bill before us today.

I thank the DCMS officials who have worked incredibly hard on the Bill, and the civil servants and officials from across the Government. I thank Thomas Williams from my private office, who has supported the Bill, and I am ever grateful to my head of office, Sam, and my parliamentary team. I thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Whips. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through Parliament, and I appreciate the constructive debate that we have had today.

Written evidence reported to the House