Mr Louie French
MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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 kn…”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,474 held · 721 searchable for Mr Louie French. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“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”).””
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The Opposition have set out our position and our concerns. We absolutely understand the Minister’s point regarding Euro 2028. The amendment was primarily aimed at the likes of the Olympics. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment. My amendments would make sure that that would be the case.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Comments included: “It makes it too much of an unfair playing field, regardless of what sport you are competing in” and “Putting them in women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild women back up again.” That is why the Conservative party is fully committed to ensuring that women and girls have safe single-sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age and throughout their lives. We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes. In doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We know that girls already spend an average of 90 minutes less per week than boys playing sport and that the drop-out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys. Respondents to the 2024 BBC elite British sportswomen study who were not comfortable with transgender participation in elite women’s categories outnumbered those who were by 10 to one.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Any organiser of a major sporting event would have it before them as part of the framework that all competitors in a sporting event must compete against those of the same biological sex, where designated, in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event must be able to use single-sex accommodation, single-sex changing and washing facilities and single-sex toilets based on their biological sex. The amendments would also mean that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event, could use single-sex toilets based on their biological sex and single-sex changing and washing facilities, where necessary, based on their biological sex. That is necessary because neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are able to commit to protecting single-sex spaces for women and girls.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In March 2026, the International Olympic Committee banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 summer Olympics and future Olympic games. The IOC president stated that the new policy was “based on science” and made because “it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.” However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by the Government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Minister for Women told the EHRC that it must “tone down” its guidance, which is designed to protect women and girls and single-sex spaces. That is why my amendments are essential.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurses’ dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment, and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination. That was almost a year after the law had been clarified. These cases continue to arise despite the law being clear. If the noble Minister was right, they no longer would and the law would be sufficient. Even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision in the For Women Scotland case was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect women’s and girls’ spaces, particularly in a sporting context. Across the world, sports governing bodies are coming around to biological reality.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to argue that these amendments were not necessary when they were tabled in the other place because “events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.] Unfortunately, although the law has been clear for some time, there are still organisations, including those the Minister has responsibility for—thankfully only a few—that are not complying with the law as clarified by the April 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers. We have all heard of the inspirational case of the eight female nurses who successfully appealed against the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust’s policy and management’s dismissal of their concerns.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I outlined, respectfully, the Government have lost trust on this issue. That is why we want to see it included in the Bill, so I will push this to a vote. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 3 Framework conditions Amendment made: 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section 2(3).”— (Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and particularly her reference to the amendments tabled since the debate in the other place. We will take the Government’s words in good faith and will not seek a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 25, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert— “‘domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.— (Stephanie Peacock.) The amendment defines “domestic sporting event”. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗