Yes, the Bill caters for the concerns that have been set out, but I will happily discuss that further with the noble Lord if on reflection he disagrees with the reasons I have set out.
I turn now to the noble Lord’s Amendment 31. The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. We acknowledge the interest that fans have in watching the sports teams of our home nations compete. As noble Lords will appreciate, however, sports rights holders use income from the sale of broadcast rights for the benefit of the sporting sector more generally, so it is important that the regime continues to strike the right balance between accessibility and the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues which they can invest in their sports at all levels.
The Government believe that the current list of events works to deliver the best outcome and strikes an appropriate balance. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. I know that will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but it is why I cannot accept his Amendment 31.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me to say a bit more about Amendment 19. We have taken the opportunity, as recommended during the pre-legislative scrutiny process for the Bill, to take steps to ensure that the streamer loophole is closed. This was a major flaw in the current regime which allowed for unregulated online services to acquire listed sports rights, while leaving Ofcom powerless to do anything. The current drafting therefore ensures that all TV-like services providing live content to UK audiences are in scope of the regime. Amendment 19, and Amendments 20 to 22, are technical amendments to future-proof the regime by closing off an opportunity for non-public service broadcaster services to qualify through the
back door. The amendments tie qualification for the listed events regime to the way in which qualification for prominence is decided.
5.15 pm
The noble Lord may find that his Amendment 29 does not do quite what he seeks to do, to be candid. I shall turn to that and Amendment 30 now. The Government recognise the intent behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 29; namely, allowing the Secretary of State to implement the conclusion of the digital rights review in the event that it concludes that the listed events regime should be extended to include digital rights. This is a recommendation made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in another place, and although there is a great deal of support in Parliament for it, it is not a straightforward matter.
Above all, it is important that we maintain the right balance between access for audiences and the commercial freedoms that allow rights-holders to reinvest, as I have set out. The Government’s priority when striking that balance is the impact on the public. It is of course important that audiences are able to watch and celebrate major sporting moments; at the same time, broadcasting rights provide essential income to the national governing bodies, which they reinvest, whether that is at elite level or grass-roots level, through better facilities for spectators, hiring great coaches or distributing new equipment.
Noble Lords have seen how technical the government amendments are in order simply to ensure that the streamer loophole is closed. If we were to add digital rights, that would provide a much bigger challenge, bringing much more complexity. Even an amendment to add a power could have unintended consequences if it were not done carefully.
I reassure noble Lords that this is an issue under careful consideration and that the Government have not made a decision, However, for the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord today.
Linked to that amendment, the approach taken in Amendment 30 seeks to bring digital rights within scope of the regime. Again, it is important that we maintain the right balance between access and allowing rights-holders to reinvest in their sports at all levels. I think it would be more appropriate to allow the Government to evaluate the issue fully, including how it could best be delivered, before we consider legislation that enacts any particular conclusion.