Sporting Events Bill [HL]
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 15 Jul 2026 · 161 speeches · Official Report
Report
Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh l egislative c onsent sought . Relevant documents: 1st and 6th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee .
Clause 1: Sporting events framework
Amendment 1 not moved.
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert- “(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”Member's explanatory statement This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Foster, seeks to create a new “Sports Rights Provision” to the Bill, which relates to the rights of sporting companies with regards to gambling activities.
My Lords, the amendments standing in my name in this group are ones I have tabled before and, in tabling them again, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, showing that I am the chairman of both Peers for Gambling Reform and the charity Action on Gambling. I have brought these two groups of amendments back today because I had a very useful meeting with the Minister, for which I am grateful, and I was able to explain in a little more detail their purpose. This is an opportunity to see if the Minister has decided whether the Government may, in one form or another, be rather more supportive of those amendments. As I say, I have two groups of amendments. One relates to the need, I believe, to ensure that all sporting venues where the activities covered by this Bill take place are clear of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. I will not rehearse all the arguments I have used before; suffice it to say that many major international sporting bodies believe it is the right thing to do. That is what is happening currently with the World Cup, as FIFA does not allow advertising in its stadia. The same is true for the Olympics, the Paralympics and many others. The organisations firmly believe that, among many other reasons, it would be wrong in particular to allow children to grow up believing that the only way you can enjoy a sporting event is by participating in betting on it. I genuinely believe this is something we should be adopting for all sporting...
My Lords, I thought those were very interesting amendments. I am sorry that I had not read them, but they are interesting and worth considering by the Government. I want to speak to Amendment 21. I begin by thanking Freddie Daley, whose work with Cool Down and Badvertising has helped to shape this amendment. His research has highlighted the growing tension between local fossil-fuel advertising bans and major sporting events. I know that the Government are not proposing a national ban on fossil-fuel advertising, even though I think they ought to. However, that argument was rejected in Committee and I am not trying to reopen that debate. This amendment takes a different approach. It is saying that, where a host city or local authority has adopted climate, environmental or advertising policies that restrict fossil-fuel advertising, major sporting events should respect those policies. After all, the Bill is about creating a framework for hosting major sporting events. It should not become a way to bypass decisions that have already been made by local authorities. We have a very useful example. In 2027, Edinburgh will host the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Edinburgh City Council has already voted to ban high-carbon advertising, including fossil-fuel advertising, across council-owned spaces. Sheffield has adopted a similar policy, and other local authorities have done the same or are considering doing so. Athletes should not become moving adverts for fossil-fuel companies as...
My Lords, as this is my first opportunity, I am sure that we all want to send our best wishes for good luck to the England football team in their major sporting event this evening-particularly to the midfielder Elliot Anderson who, like all the best people, comes from Whitley Bay. Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I made clear my views in Committee that the amendments we considered then and have looked at again today do not meet the test of proportionality that is important here. My view remains unchanged on that. I completely understand the concerns the noble Lord set out, but we must of course set that against the fact that many sporting events rely on sponsorship from gambling companies, a perfectly legal activity in this country. We must consider carefully how further restrictions on gambling sponsorship could affect British sport: for instance, the English Football League, whose title partner is SkyBet, or the England and Wales Cricket Board, which has been forced to relax its own restrictions this very month because of a paucity of other commercial sponsors. We need to look at this carefully and with a cool head. In Committee, I expressed my concern, however, at the scale of illegal and unlicensed gambling. This is much more likely to lead to societal problems because the companies involved do not incorporate the necessary protections and safeguards, and have far less care for their consumers. In...
My Lords, recognising the significant national event taking place this evening, I will also endeavour to keep my remarks brief and I have no intention of taking this Report into extra time. However, as we commence today’s debate on the Sporting Events Bill, it is only fitting that we acknowledge this momentous occasion and the commendable efforts of the England team. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and your entire Lordships’ House in wishing our national team the very best of luck this evening, wherever the players might have been born. Amendments 2, 3, 4, 23 to 28, 36, 39 and 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to regulate sports’ rights provisions and gambling advertising. I thank the noble Lord for coming to the department to discuss his position in more detail. While it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements, we will not hesitate to take steps where necessary to ensure that these arrangements are socially responsible. As the noble Lord noted, FIFA and the Olympics and Paralympics have their own restrictions. The Government have already implemented a number of reforms in this space. Just today, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we launched our consultation on banning unlicensed sponsorship within sports and other sectors. This Government are also committed to tackling illegal gambling through the Gambling Commission and our Illegal Gambling Taskforce, with...
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his contribution. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I find it strange, given that the IOC always requires a sustainability requirement in its plans, that this is not included in the Bill before us today. There is no question that I desperately hope the England team will do infinitely better tonight than I have done. Despite all my training and my workup before this performance, the Minister has just provided a stonewall to me, and I have lost at this stage. But there are always other rounds, and I look forward to those. With that, I wish the team the very best of luck. I will enjoy watching it tonight, hopefully in an arena that has no advertisements, no marketing and no advertising. I hope that they do better than I did. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
Clause 2: Application of framework to major sporting events
Amendments 3 to 5 not moved.
Amendment 6
Moved by
6: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert- “(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not apply the advertising provisions and the trading provisions for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must-(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the advertising and trading provisions of the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event. This is consistent with the approach taken in Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020.
My Lords, I have retabled Amendments 6, 8, 9, 41 and 42 to press the Government a little further on how parliamentary accountability will be guaranteed in the application of the new framework. Amendment 6 would introduce a maximum period for which the framework can be applied. Amendments 8 and 9 would ensure that all regulations applying the framework, or modifying the application of it, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I am grateful to the Minister, in tabling her Amendment 7, for taking on board the points that I and others made in Committee, and the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. Amendments 41 and 42 are consequential and would ensure that financial assistance can be provided by an appropriate national authority only if the corresponding legislature has approved that financial assistance by positive resolution. In Committee I cited Erskine May to highlight the importance of this matter, and those words still stand. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments today, this is something the Government should continue to consider when the Bill heads to another place. The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 10 to 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock-a full house of political and non-political Benches. The amendments have...
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for reading out the list of groups that have backed these amendments; I was always terrified that I was going to miss one or two of them. We will take it as read that the noble Lord got it right. I congratulate Ulysse Abbate in my Whips’ Office for helping me with the drafting of these amendments. He helped me to put down the smallest number of words I have ever put in, to the best effect. Basically, the Government have a very good idea here. Expand it to fit in a few more events that are part of our sporting and cultural heritage. They have done something good here. Enjoy it. You do not often get this much support for a government idea to do something. If they cannot embrace this, they should have a little generosity of spirit and say, “Yes, it’s good”. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, has put the cherry on the cake with her amendment, which says that events will be included but only if they ask for it. That is reasonable. One or two may want to stay out; I imagine that most will not, but allowing them that is good. All of us, even those who do not regard the beautiful game as their most beautiful game-I am afraid that is me-wish England well tonight. I could expand on this at considerable length, but I would like to leave this Chamber with as many friends as I came in with, so I will sit down.
My Lords, my Amendment 13 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foulkes. I will also speak in support of Amendments 10 to 12, to which I have added my name. Although it is an unpaid position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation. As we have heard, these amendments have a simple aim: to address what many of us in this House believe is a significant gap in the Bill, which we have covered in our previous debates. Taken together, they seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major established UK sporting events-events woven into the fabric of our national life-are not excluded from the potential benefits that the framework can provide. My amendment seeks to address this gap in a proportionate way by allowing a sporting event organiser to request that the Secretary of State apply provisions-maybe one or maybe a number-from the sporting events framework to their event. This amendment is deliberately modest. It would place no obligation on the Government to extend the framework automatically, and it would create no automatic entitlement. In other words, these amendments would simply create an opportunity, not an obligation. I am grateful for the support of the co-signatories of my amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am afraid I will repeat the list of sporting organisations that supported our amendments, because...
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendments 11 and 13. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests: I am chair of Sport Wales and, with that, I sit on the board for UK Sport. We have a rich history of organising sports events in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, is absolutely right. We do not get much of an opportunity to discuss sport, but what we need with this Bill is some flexibility around what we are trying to do. The world of major sports events bidding has changed quite a lot. For many cycles of bidding for the Olympics and Paralympics, we bid seven years out, but that changed when the international landscape changed, and the IOC has moved to announcing several Games in one go. We can look at what happened with the Commonwealth Games, when Australia pulled out and then Canada ultimately pulled out of one of the Games. We have to be fleet of foot if we want to bid for these events. As someone who has worked in and been in sport for a very long time, I do not think that we should underestimate the power of these governing bodies coming together. They are wide-ranging and work on quite different events, but the fact that they all agree that these amendments are needed is important. We should listen to them. These amendments are important for what we are doing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
My Lords, let me first say that, like all sensible Scotsmen, I will be supporting England tonight. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that soccer is my main interest, as a former chairman of Heart of Midlothian Football Club, so I have a particular interest this evening. I support this amendment for all the reasons I gave at Second Reading and for the excellent reasons put by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, in her speech. However, I have had an opportunity over the last few days to discuss this issue with my noble friend the Minister. She has assured me that this will be looked at over the Recess and sympathetic consideration given to the points in this amendment. Accordingly, I hope that we will not divide the House this evening, because we want to look forward to finishing before the witching hour, as we all know.
I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Evans. She made an eloquent speech but, really, she covered the issue in three words: opportunity, not obligation. “It’s coming home”, my Lords. These events are already here, year in, year out, delivering sporting, economic, social and place-based growth, one might say. The very definition of a framework and enabling legislation is opportunity, not obligation.
My Lords, on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the Bill already goes further than the amendment proposed. Within the provisions in the Bill, advertising and trading provisions can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of an event and no later than five days after the event concludes. I hope that these clear limitations in the Bill will reassure noble Lords. Amendments 7, 50 and 51, tabled in my name, seek to ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in urgent cases in which the “made affirmative” resolution procedure would be used. In bringing forward these government amendments, we have listened to the concerns of the House, noting Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These amendments ensure that Parliament can debate regulations, while preserving flexibility to accommodate unforeseen and last-minute changes. I hope the amendments tabled in my name reassure noble Lords of the importance we place on ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, while providing some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes. Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble...
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the time she has made available to noble Lords from across the House on the other amendments we have discussed, including with many of the sporting bodies that are involved. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans to decide what to do on their amendment. For my part, we would be inclined in normal circumstances to take the Minister’s word for it, for she is a woman of her word who has worked hard on this. However, we find ourselves in unusual circumstances where she, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister in another place may be in different positions by the time the Bill heads to the Commons. So, your Lordships’ House would be well advised to put something in the Bill to reflect the cross-party, cross-House support we have had on this issue and the strength of feeling, and to leave that as a work in progress. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but reiterate that we will support him if he chooses to divide on this important issue. I thank the Minister for her answers to the amendments I moved and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Amendment 6 withdrawn.
My Lords, if Amendment 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 8 or 9 because of pre-emption. Amendment 7
Moved by
7: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert- “(6) Regulations under this section are subject to-(a) the affirmative resolution procedure, or(b) the made affirmative resolution procedure, if the regulations contain a statement by the appropriate national authority making them that the authority considers it necessary for the regulations to be made urgently.” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, together with my amendments to clause 27, provide for regulations under clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure except in urgent cases where such regulations will instead be subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 7 agreed.
Amendments 8 and 9 not moved.
Clause 3: Framework conditions
Amendment 10
Moved by
10: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “two” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has clearly been reading over my shoulder at some point. I am afraid that, if we knew we were dealing with the same team, with the same leadership, maybe we would have considered not voting. I feel a little churlish-but only a little. We have got other amendments here which agree the affirmative procedure, which is welcome-I should have said that earlier. But we need something in the Bill. If something were to come back at Third Reading, I would not be pressing this to a vote. But we have not received that assurance, so I am afraid I must beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
My Lords, I believe Amendments 11 to 13 are consequential amendments. Amendments 11 and 12
Moved by
11: Clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out subsection (3) Member's explanatory statement This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.
12: Clause 3, page 3, line 1, leave out “third” and insert “second” Member's explanatory statement This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.
Amendments 11 and 12 agreed.
Amendment 13
Moved by
13: Clause 3, page 3, line 7, leave out “interest” and insert “or national interest, (aa) that the sporting event organiser has asked for the sporting events framework to be applied,”Member's explanatory statement This amendment and one in the name of Lord Addington change the sporting events framework conditions to include more regularly held events of both national and international interest and to require a request from the sporting event organiser.
Amendment 13 agreed.
Amendment 14
Moved by
14: Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out “or economic” and insert “, economic, environmental and climate”
My Lords, I want first to congratulate the Minister on the speed at which she is going through her responses to us. It is absolutely admirable. I will try to be brief. I have two amendments in this group and have seconded Amendment 48 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I will mention briefly while not trying to upstage him. On Amendment 14, when we debated climate duty amendments in Committee, the Minister said that there was no need to mention the environment or climate in the Bill because those were already captured by the term “social … benefits” in Clause 3. I have to admit that I find this rather difficult to follow. If the Government agree that environmental and climate impacts are important, and the Minister said that they agreed with the spirit of the amendments, I simply do not see why they cannot be named explicitly in the Bill. It seems quite a leap to suggest that climate and environmental considerations are somehow covered by “social”. These are significant issues in their own right. They deserve to be recognised as such and not left to this implication, which even I think is vague. We have heard that sporting events can have a considerable environmental footprint, but they also have the opportunity to leave a positive legacy through cleaner transport, more sustainable infrastructure and better environmental standards. If, as the Minister suggested in Committee, environmental and climate benefits are already intended to form part of these decisions, I...
Noble Lords
Oh!
Was that begging too much? I am trying to get progress here. On Amendment 35, on transport plans, this is from Fran James, founder of the Football and Climate Change Newsletter: I welcome that at Committee stage the Minister was clear that the Government support the principle of sustainable transport and want spectators to reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport. With that agreement, the question before us is whether that principle should be reflected on the face of the Bill. I believe that it should. This amendment recognises that every event, venue and transport network will be different. It ensures that environmental sustainability, climate mitigation and climate resilience are considered when transport plans are drawn up. We know that spectator travel is one of the biggest environmental impacts of major sporting events. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At EURO 2024, fan travel made up an even larger proportion of emissions. But we also know that this can be done successfully. EURO 2024 demonstrated what effective low-carbon transport planning can achieve. Around 81% of fans travelled to venues by public transport, hundreds of thousands of additional rail journeys were made possible through inter-venue travel arrangements, and fewer than 5% of fans travelled by car. Climate change is already affecting transport infrastructure....
My Lords, I agree pretty much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already said. As somebody who was present 60 years ago at every England match in the World Cup, including the final and the somewhat controversial Argentina game, I do not want to hold up the House for very long, but, as she said, I have tabled Amendment 48. I have engaged with the Minister, and I thank her for what she has said and for the meeting that she and her staff held with me yesterday. It was not quite the explicit endorsement of what Amendment 48 requires that I was hoping for, but I think I can reasonably deduce that the Minister is saying that, when the major events strategy emerges, it will be clear that environmental sustainability, including explicitly climate change mitigation and adaptation, will be referred to there, and that the work the Government are already doing will appear in their approach to major sporting events. I do not know why that cannot be made explicit in the Bill and, as one who very much supported the Climate Change Act’s provisions at the time, I am assuming that I can stretch the Minister’s words to say that what they are doing will, in effect, be what is required by the Climate Change Act.
I hope so, and I hope that other departments do the same, because simply saying that we are doing it anyway is not enough to ensure that sporting events, which, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already spelled out, are seen as important parts of our attitude towards climate change, and the major sporting organisations, Sport England and UK Sport, actually reflect that.
I think that is what the Minister is saying to me; I would like her to confirm it. Therefore, I am not going to move my amendment tonight, for obvious reasons. I would have liked the Government to be slightly more explicitly forthcoming, but I thank the Minister for her engagement in any case.
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 47 in my name, which would place a clear time-bound duty on the relevant local authority to keep the areas around a sporting event clean during the event and to clear them within a fixed period afterwards. I will not detain the House with the full catalogue I set out in Committee. Noble Lords will recall my description of the morning after Arsenal’s title parade, with residential streets strewn with broken glass, bottles and cans, and with bins overflowing and left in that state for the best part of two days. The parade itself was a joy; the aftermath was a disgrace and it was avoidable. In Committee, the Minister was courteous and, I think, sympathetic. However, sadly, I did not get any of the follow-up meetings that other noble Lords did. The Minister agreed with me about the rapid clean-up after the Notting Hill Carnival, so these things can be achieved with the right resource and planning, and I am grateful for that. However, when I asked how the Bill would guarantee it, the Minister offered me three existing powers, and I want to explain very briefly why none of them answers the case. The duty in Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act binds only so far as is practicable, and the code beneath it grants authorities a recovery window in which the street may lawfully remain filthy. It is this very regime that allowed my neighbourhood to stay as it was. The Minister pointed next to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and...
I shall be brief. I have signed Amendment 48, which it seems to me should be in the Bill, especially as we are living through what we are living through right now. A UK government report in 2025 exploring the financial implications of climate change on grass-roots sports estimated that climate-related disruptions already cost grass-roots sport in the UK £320 million annually. Some £200 million of that goes in repairs and maintenance, and £120 million goes in lost revenue from cancelled matches. Every age group is affected. On 19 July 2022, when the temperature soared to 37 degrees, a 23 year-old playing cricket in Durham ended up in an ice bath in hospital because he was hit by the heat. We suffer from heat in this country just as much as people in hotter countries because we are not used to it. What is important now is to use sport. The FIFA World Cup is the most watched event in history. At the moment, 14 of the stadiums face climate risks. By 2050, 90% of host stadiums could face dangerous heat and 11 host stadiums could face completely unplayable conditions. It is a real risk, but football itself is starting to adapt. We are seeing cooling breaks, heat protocols and schedule changes. The reality is that this hits the highest levels down to the grass roots. Pitches are damaged, seasons are disrupted, water scarcity affects maintenance and community clubs face rising costs from climate-related damage. This is about the future of the entire football system, not to mention...
My Lords, this is an interesting set of amendments. I think the most appealing one in the context of the Bill is from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. There is a general principle that might be better addressed in other legislation that goes further. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say, but I think this is the start of the process, not the end of it. We shall see.
My Lords, I, too, am very glad that my noble friend Lord Harlech has returned to this issue on Report. He cannot be the only Islington resident who was dismayed by the aftermath of the parade he mentioned, but I am sure he has given it far greater thought from a legal and legislative perspective than any other resident, and I am sure all other residents of the borough will be grateful to him for returning to this in such a dogged and forensic manner. I hope the Minister will take that on board and will be able to give him some further thoughts today and in the meeting that he seeks. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is a question of what is appropriate for this Bill. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, as we heard in Committee, many international federations and event organisers now expect very high environmental commitments from those bidding to host major sporting events. If our national associations want to apply for such events, they will have to comply with these ever more ambitious sustainability and environmental requirements. I am still not convinced that this Bill is the right place to write them in, but I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of public transport from an environmental aspect as well as from an accessibility point of view in making it easier for more people to get to these sporting events.
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 14 and 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be considered at every stage in the planning and delivery of our major sporting events. I note the example shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We genuinely recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and this debate is clearly in the context of an extended heatwave. The Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or to a part of it. Your Lordships’ House may be pleased to know that social benefit here encompasses consideration of environmental and climate impacts where relevant. I will, of course, be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others to discuss this further. I have shared throughout the Bill’s passage the important measures in place to integrate sustainability into our major sporting events from the outset: from the Gold Framework guiding organisers bidding for government funding to non-negotiable requirements in our spending processes. However, I have heard the strong concerns and valuable insights raised across the House and recognise that there is always room to do more, especially on matters as important as our environment. That is why I am pleased to be able to give a firm...
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I accept that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is a very sensible one, and every council ought to think along those lines. However, I am incredibly disappointed at the lack of support for environmental and climate change measures from this side of the Chamber. It is very disturbing, given that we have so many pieces of information that we can slot together now to say that we are in danger. The Government often talk about climate change, but somehow it does not percolate through. It is a sort of amorphous mass that they talk about, but they do not see how it interacts with everyday events. Luckily, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, understand that. I do not understand why the Government do not. I would be very happy to meet with the Minister to discuss this, because I have been ranting this week and last week-stop nodding-on this issue. I cannot see why the Labour Government are so oblivious to the danger we are in. This needs to be in everything; it is not explicit enough to say it is part of social benefits. I absolutely despair, but I do withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 14 withdrawn.
Clause 6: Persons granting ticketing authorisations
Amendment 15
Moved by
15: Clause 6, page 4, line 15, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant ticketing authorisations.
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make it clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both the event owner and the local organising committee to grant authorisations if required. Amendments 16, 37 and 38, also tabled in my name, make it clear that the power to create exceptions to the ticket-touting offence could apply to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes. The amendments also clarify the definition of a charity as applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they provide that charitable purposes are defined in accordance with the relevant legislation. We are listening to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House about the potential impact on charities. However, in our view a blanket exception could undermine the objectives of the framework or create unintended loopholes. These amendments signal our clear intention to make exceptions, in regulations, to the ticket-touting offence for charities, where appropriate. Amendment 32, also in my name, seeks to address concerns about the impact of the trading offence on those with an existing licence to trade in a restricted zone-noting Amendment 31 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We agree that the...
My Lords, I have Amendment 17 in this group, but before I speak to it, I thank the Government for many of their amendments. They have clearly listened to the problems raised. Generally speaking, this has been a Bill of good relationships. We had a meeting on Amendment 17 and the Minister brought officials in, but I made it clear that we think more should be done about ticket touting. Ticket touting is when somebody gets in between the person who provides an event and the person who buys the ticket. They put extra costs in, and they take the money away. The person providing the event does not get anything out of it and the person going to the event gets extra costs. The amendment here is to put limitations on how much you can take out. It may be a difficult thing and there may be big players involved, saying, “But we’re providing a service”. They are not, actually. They are just giving the ticket out, and there are cheaper ways of doing it. I hope the Minister can give us something more here. We have Third Reading, and I hope we can get a little more out of it. I think we should get something more solid in the Bill; it is a major opportunity. Unless we start saying that we are going to do something about ticket touting, we will be involved in consultation for ever. For a long time it has been just a bit more consultation and, oh, they are providing a service. Is it a real service? I am not sure it is. I hope the Minister will have had some damascene conversion and will accept...
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 on ticketing before alighting briefly on Amendment 31 on trading. Previously I have highlighted the iniquity of not being able to trade a ticket with a Facebook friend if you have been jilted by the person you planned to go with or if in the months between buying the tickets for yourself and Grandpa, he has died. It happens. Not only preventing that sale but fining someone £50,000 for trying it is two-tier justice. You get less for burglary. If you have bought half a dozen tickets or fewer for a game, you get to go with your family. It does not make you part of a crime family, yet this is what the Government are saying. The Bill purports to support the fan but it criminalises those whose plans have changed while failing to go after the organisers who could do so much more to sort out ticket abuse. This part of the Bill is stuck in the past in that it fails to consider the modern ways in which fans can be protected from scammers with new techniques such as proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. That prevents ghost ticketing and facilitates a regulated exchange between consenting adults. The organisers of these events have not tried hard enough to stop the bots because it suits them to carry on just as they are. They can sell out and bank the cash on day one. We all want to ensure that the fans get a fair shot at going to the game-that is common ground-but rather than sorting the...
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I think we would all agree that he has brought some of the more colourful illustrations to his amendments during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps, like me, noble Lords are disappointed that the kebab did not make an appearance today, but in the dying moments the cardboard burger did. That is something to reflect upon. I will speak to government Amendment 16 and the related charity amendments that have been brought forward on Report. When we began this process, the Bill was deficient when it came to the operations and thus the impact of charities up and down the country. The charitable sector makes such a contribution-socially, of course; psychologically, certainly; and economically, in so many ways, to the general well-being of this nation. The London Olympics Act of 2006 contained charitable provisions, as did the Commonwealth Games Act of 2020. We have made some good progress. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their detailed discussion between Committee and Report, resulting in these amendments, which set out significant provisions and a real commitment to what could be included in subsequent regulations. It puts charities in a far clearer, far better position. It does not just benefit charities and charitable activity up and down the country; it makes sporting events and this Bill better.
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways. It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate. I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently-to them, at least-how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea...
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both event owner and local organising committee to grant authorisations if needed. I am very grateful to noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Holmes and Lord Addington, among others, for acknowledging the changes we have made to improve the Bill based on direct discussions and discussions during earlier stages of the Bill. On the specific question relating to the Advertising Association raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, officials did speak to it ahead of the Bill’s introduction. I will ask them to engage again with the organisation concerned to make sure we are hearing its concerns directly.
Amendments 16, 37 and 38, also tabled in my name, make it clear that the power to create exceptions to the ticket touting offence could apply to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes. These amendments also clarify the definition of a charity as applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland and provide that “charitable purposes” are defined in accordance with the relevant legislation. We are listening to concerns raised by your Lordships’ House about the potential impact on charities. However, a blanket exception could undermine the objectives of the framework or create unintended loopholes. These amendments signal our clear intention to make exceptions, where appropriate, to the ticket touting offence for charities in regulations.
Amendment 32, also in my name, seeks to address concerns about the impact of the trading offence on those with an existing licence to trade in a restricted zone. I note in particular Amendment 31, tabled in this group by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We agree that the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly street traders holding a licence from the local authority, should be mitigated. Although we need to be able to control trading activity in areas of high spectator footfall, it is right that we introduce additional protections for existing traders in those areas. This amendment means that a designated authorising person, such as an event organiser or local authority, must take into account whether a person has any existing trading licences when determining whether to grant a trading authorisation. If an existing trader cannot be accommodated in their usual spot, we will work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative trading arrangements in that limited period.
Have I read the wrong bit? No?
No.
Okay, I will carry on. With apologies to your Lordships’ House, I just had a moment where I asked myself, “Honestly, am I reading the right bit of paper?” I am pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, confirm, in the spirit of the debate so far, that it appears I am not reading the wrong speech. It is a big group. We must be able both to read our speeches coherently and to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate, in this Government’s view, to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to provide. I hope that he will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised and I commend the amendments in my name to the House. On Amendments 17 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the ticketing offence in the Bill ensures that tickets can be publicly sold or resold only with authorisation from an event owner or organiser. This means that tickets will be available only on official channels. As I noted in Committee, we are determined that major sporting events hosted in the UK are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That includes developing ticketing strategies that put fans, fairness and transparency first. We have worked closely with UEFA to ensure that these principles are at the heart of the approach to Euro 2028. Tickets for the event will go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027. The...
Amendment 15 agreed.
Clause 7: Exceptions to the ticket touting offence
Amendment 16
Moved by
16: Clause 7, page 4, line 34, at end insert “(including, for example, activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes)” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that ticket touting regulations may provide for activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes to be exempt from the ticket touting offence.
Amendment 16 agreed.
Amendment 17
Moved by
17: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause- “Duty to bring forward proposals on unauthorised ticketing activity(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out and lay before Parliament a review on-(a) the operation and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act, in particular the operation of Schedule 1, and(b) the integrity, affordability and availability of ticketing at sporting events to which this Act applies.(2) The review under subsection (1) should in particular consider whether the ticket touting provisions in this Act have prevented persons from-(a) reselling, or offering to resell, an event ticket at a price exceeding its face value amount;(b) reselling, or offering to resell, more event tickets than the person was entitled to purchase in the primary sale;(c) charging, through a ticket resale platform, a buyer a service fee, or a seller a combined commission and service fee, exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(d) charging a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(e) engaging in surge pricing;(f) operating a ticket resale platform that displays incorrect material information about an event ticket, or that fails to take reasonable steps-(i) to verify that a listed ticket exists, (ii) to prevent listings above face value or in excess of a seller’s entitlement, or(iii) to remove non-compliant listings. (3) Within six months of the day on...
My Lords, I appreciate that the Government think that they are doing something, but we have been waiting too long. I think we need something in the Bill to encourage this. I beg to move.
Schedule 1: Ticket touting provisions
Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.
Clause 8: Advertising regulations
Amendments 20 and 21 not moved.
Clause 9: Persons granting advertising authorisations
Amendment 22
Moved by
22: Clause 9, page 6, line 6, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant advertising authorisations.
Amendment 22 agreed.
Schedule 2: Advertising provisions
Amendments 23 to 28 not moved.
Clause 12: Persons granting trading authorisations
Amendment 29
Moved by
29: Clause 12, page 8, line 33, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant trading authorisations.
Amendment 29 agreed.
Amendment 30 not moved.
Schedule 3: Trading provisions
Amendment 31 not moved.
Amendment 32
Moved by
32: Schedule 3, page 34, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert- “(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person-(a) must have regard to any existing trading licences, and(b) may have regard to-(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is to require existing trading licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant a trading authorisation.
Amendment 32 agreed.
Amendment 33 not moved.
Clause 15: Persons granting association authorisations
Amendment 34
Moved by
34: Clause 15, page 10, line 31, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant association authorisations.
Amendment 34 agreed.
Schedule 5: Transport provisions
Amendment 35 not moved.
Amendment 36 not moved.
Clause 24: Interpretation
Amendments 37 and 38
Moved by
37: Clause 24, page 16, line 39, at end insert “(see section 3 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005) (asp 10))” Member’s explanatory statement This is a drafting refinement.
38: Clause 24, page 17, line 3, at end insert “, and includes an institution treated as such a charity for the purposes of that Act by virtue of the Charities Act 2008 (Transitional Provision) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (S.R. (N.I.) 2013 No. 211), and, in relation to such a charity, body or institution, “charitable purpose” has the meaning given in the relevant Act”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment provides that the definition of “charity”, in relation to Northern Ireland, includes an institution treated as a charity by virtue of the Charities Act 2008 (Transitional Provision) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013. It is also defines “charitable purpose” (see the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 7).
Amendments 37 and 38 agreed.
Amendments 39 and 40 not moved.
Clause 25: Power to give financial assistance
Amendments 41 and 42 not moved.
Amendment 43
Moved by
43: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause- “Infrastructure strategy for major sporting events(1) Regulations under section 2 which apply the sporting events framework to a sporting event may require the appropriate national authority to publish, or require another person to publish, an infrastructure strategy for the sporting event. (2) An infrastructure strategy is a document setting out-(a) an assessment of the infrastructure needs of persons attending or participating in the sporting event,(b) the steps to be taken to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is available to meet those needs at a range of price points, and(c) any measures proposed to prevent excessive pricing of infrastructure in connection with the sporting event. (3) In this part, reference to infrastructure includes-(a) accommodation;(b) internet services;(c) energy infrastructure;(d) water infrastructure;(e) waste services;(f) health services.”Member’s explanatory statement This probing amendment seeks to ascertain how the Government will make proper provision of various infrastructure forms when hosting the major sporting event.
My Lords, we come to a little triumvirate of amendments standing in my name. To take them in order, we start with the infrastructure requirements for providing any games or championship. I will not go over old ground, but I would like some assurance from the Minister about what process the Government expect to follow to make sure we get the infrastructure right. There are certain models, such as the London Olympic Games, when a great deal of infrastructure was put in; but then, with the Birmingham and Glasgow Commonwealth Games, we did not have to do much. If building has to be done, what is the process for getting assurances on it? Then we come to what I think is my favourite of the three amendments: on getting some benefit down to grass-roots sports. This is inspired by our experience during the London Olympics, because the one thing we did not do was encourage people to play sport. We learned how to build lovely things and how to watch sport, but we did not get people to play. We thought that just watching and having a good example would be enough-it is not. There are other examples where we have been more successful, such as in championships. There is a great deal of competition between netball and rugby union regarding which has been most successful in encouraging back people who had had some training but fell out of the sport. Basically, it needs a targeted approach. What are we doing to make sure that grass-roots sports benefit directly from this activity? That is the...
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this trio of amendments, which reflect the important discussions we had in Committee on sporting legacy. Those debates were enriched by the considerable number of Olympian and Paralympian Members of your Lordships’ House. Supporting grass-roots sports and sporting legacy is one of the most important lessons from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. My Amendment 49 and the consequential Amendments 52 and 53 in this group attempt to press the Government on when they will publish their major events strategy. Because of the purposes of this Bill, the amendment reflects sporting events, but this is something eagerly awaited by a number of sectors: sports, culture, arts and many more that host, or seek to host, major events. The Government have said that they will publish the strategy but have not given a clear indication of when, which has slightly affected some of our debates. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say any more on this. I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says in Amendment 45. It is a particular shame that the Commonwealth Games to be held soon will not be broadcast and readily available for people on the BBC, for the first time since 1954. I hope the Government will consider how such an impact can be avoided for future sporting events.
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which concerns the infrastructure for major sporting events. As I set out in Committee in more detail, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is exactly the type of technical requirement already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by event owners. As part of the bidding process, prospective hosts will have to provide the necessary assurances to event owners that there will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there were sufficient powers if further infrastructure is required to host an event. In the case of London 2012, a delivery authority was established with significant powers as a result of a very specific set of requirements, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. In the Government’s view, this is not going to be required for every major sporting event. We therefore do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to include prescriptive requirements in relation to infrastructure and accommodation in the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that we will consider event requirements on a case-by-case basis. We recognise that, when the Government are required to make commitments which go beyond the common requirements set out in the Bill, or in circumstances such as the establishment of a delivery authority, it may require further primary legislation to support...
I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment. I should have commented on it, because it is a sensible suggestion. We are at the start of a positive dialogue about building. The Government had a good idea on which they should have been bolder. These are all things that would have strengthened the Bill if there were in it but are probably not essential. Having heard what the Minister said, and liking the thinking if not all the words, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.
Amendment 43 withdrawn.
Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.
Amendment 46
Moved by
46: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause- “Disapplication of guaranteed hours provisions for sporting events(1) This section applies where the appropriate national authority has applied one or more parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.(2) Where this section applies, the provisions mentioned in subsection (3) do not apply in relation to an employer who employs a worker at an event that is to be treated as forming a part of the sporting event.(3) The provisions are- (a) the following provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996-(i) sections 27BA to 27BZ, and(ii) Schedule A1;(b) Schedule 2 to the Employment Rights Act 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment disapplies the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 which require an employee to give a worker on a zero hours contract guaranteed hours when a worker is working at a sporting event to which the sporting events framework has been applied.
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46, which seeks to ensure that the organisers of the big events can be assured of an adequate supply of flexible labour and human capital to make the tournament a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town. As we have seen with the World Cup this week and the Olympics in 2012, a month-long tournament can unite a nation. My grandfather ran in the 1932 Olympics; he was Britain’s fastest man. At that time, the Olympics helped dig America out of its great depression. Sport can do these things; it is why we want these events. In sport, the favourite does not always win. You sort of have to feel sorry for the French. They had booked their tickets all the way through to Sunday and now they are flying home. There are no guarantees.
If the noble Lord’s grandfather was the fastest man, can he speed up his peroration so that we can get to the World Cup match?
Noble Lords
Oh!
I am reminded by the Deputy Speaker on the Bench to the left of me that I have 15 minutes, although I do not intend to take that amount. So there are no guarantees-not in this game. In 2012, there were 70,000 Games makers who contributed 8 million hours. There were many other employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work and selling ice cream, all the way from Stratford to Portland Bill. Let us say it was 150,000 people in total. We celebrate that because, without those 150,000 people, the Games would not have been a celebration at all. The problem is that these are temporary events and mobilising that sort of temporary labour is now illegal. The Employment Rights Act means that the ad hoc work that these tournaments need cannot be offered to people without a guarantee. That is incompatible with a Games of uncertainty, which depends on personal performance, individual events and knockout stages. The only conclusion I can form is that the Government expect the organisers and contractors to underwrite these guarantees to the people selling beer, ice cream, et cetera. But who would sign up to such open-ended liabilities? The Government say they want to sweep away the uncertainty and risk of big events being in this country, but let us be clear: the Employment Rights Act provisions, in so far as labour is concerned, add high costs and regulatory risks that exist nowhere else in the world. My amendment is intended to be...
My Lords, I just inform the House that although I did advise my noble friend that he had 15 minutes, I also advised him that I did not think he would be very popular if he availed himself of the full 15.
And you were right.
And I was right.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his points, which we supported in Committee and support still. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Morris for their refereeing and look forward to the Minister’s response.
My Lords, very briefly, I do not think a worker on a special event should have any fewer rights than a worker on any other occasion.
My Lords, as we reach the final moments of play on Report, I am pleased to turn to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It is clear that, in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts and contracts guaranteeing a minimum number of hours can benefit both employers and workers. However, without the appropriate safeguards, the flexibility they provide can operate disproportionately in favour of employers, leaving workers with greater uncertainty over their working patterns and income. Any exclusions or exemptions introduced at this stage risk pre-empting the outcome of the Government’s ongoing consultation on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. Through this consultation, the Government are seeking evidence and views from stakeholders on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts, including whether any exclusions or exemptions may be appropriate. It is important that the views of all stakeholders are fully considered before any decisions are taken on potential exclusions or exemptions. The Government’s objective is to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, enabling workers to better plan their lives and finances. We encourage stakeholders from the sporting events sector to engage with the consultation and help inform the development of the policy. I also note, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that nobody would have believed she would have encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to...
My Lords, I regret to say that the VAR review has said that we may need to go to extra time on this. This is a serious matter which gets to the heart of how serious we are about hosting these events. We need to encourage participation by individuals and everybody else to give opportunity to millions. I am really sorry, but I am not satisfied with the answers that have been given. I intend to divide the House and then we can all go and watch the game. Come on, England.
Amendments 47 to 49 not moved.
Clause 27: Regulations
Amendments 50 and 51
Moved by
50: Clause 27, page 21, line 24, at end insert- “(7A) Where regulations under this Act are “subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure”-(a) if the regulations are made by the Secretary of State- (i) the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;(b) if the regulations are made by the Welsh Ministers-(i) they are subject to the Senedd confirmation procedure (see section 37D of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019), and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made unless, during that period, the regulations are confirmed by a resolution of the Senedd;(c) if the regulations are made by the Scottish Ministers-(i) section 30 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply to the regulations,(ii) the Scottish statutory instrument containing them must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(iii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of the Scottish...
51: Clause 27, page 21, line 27, at end insert “or the made affirmative resolution procedure” Member's explanatory statement See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 2.
Amendments 50 and 51 agreed.
Clause 29: Commencement
Amendments 52 and 53 not moved.
House adjourned 6.17 pm.