Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I want to start by saying happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the staff, to all in this House and to the residents of Portsmouth.

I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill and for highlighting some of the major concerns that cyber-insecurity has caused and continues to cause for this country. I welcome the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill because it reflects a clear change of direction under a Labour Government, moving from a fragmented and often reactive approach to a cyber-security approach that is strategic, cross-Government, resilient and focused on national capability and everyday solutions. We have heard it said many times in this House that the first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and in the modern world that duty must extend to the digital systems we all rely on.

Cyber-attacks now pose a daily threat, not just to Government systems but to the livelihoods and security of people in Portsmouth, where major employers, manufacturers, ports and supply chains are attacked and the consequences are immediate and personal. Production can stop overnight, wages can be put at risk and sensitive personal data can be exposed. Constituents in my city who work for, supply or depend on companies such as Jaguar Land Rover have seen this reality at first hand. When large engineering, retail and manufacturing firms are targeted, the impact ripples far beyond their head offices, reaching workers on the shop floor, contractors, small local suppliers and customers whose orders are delayed or cancelled.

For a city like Portsmouth, which is built on defence, maritime work, engineering skills and complex supply chains, cyber-resilience is not an abstract policy or a technical exercise; it is about protecting jobs, safeguarding family incomes, maintaining confidence in the systems that keep our city working, ensuring the security of the public services people depend on every day, and ensuring that our city’s residents are kept safe. Portsmouth city council has been a target. In late 2024, its website was hit by a cyber-attack called a distributed denial of service—DDOS—attack by a pro-Russian hacking group. The attack made it difficult for residents to access council services online for a period of time. Fortunately, no personal or council services were compromised, but the attack demonstrated that even local public infrastructure in places such as Portsmouth is a target for cyber-actors. This is not just an abstract risk.

Local crime statistics show that cyber-crime is a lived experience for Portsmouth residents. About 16% of residents reported experiencing cyber-crime in a 12-month period, including phishing attempts, online fraud and accounts being hacked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) noted, not all these crimes are reported as people feel embarrassed, alone or foolish. That is how these crimes continue to proliferate through our society. Local police crime figures also show significant levels of harassment, malicious communications and other online offences that are often instigated through cyber-attacks. These are not just techie problems; they translate into financial losses, practical inconveniences and, most alarmingly, psychological harms and in some cases people attempting to take their own lives because of the damage that has been caused.

Yes, there is an economic cost to cyber-crime, but there is also a human cost, and that is why this Bill matters. It modernises the UK cyber-security framework by strengthening baseline requirements, improving instant reporting and extending protections to a wider range of essential services and supply chains. Its three pillars are welcome. It recognises that weaknesses in one organisation can rapidly cascade across the entire economy, whether it is through the actions of cyber-criminals or hostile foreign actors. It recognises that cyber-crime is real and its effects devastating.

This is not just about big business; as we have heard, cyber-attacks disrupt NHS appointments, threaten energy and water supplies, and prevent people from living their daily lives. Last year alone, 11,000 NHS appointments were lost due to cyber-attacks, and since 2024 at least five direct cyber-attacks have been targeted at UK water supplies—one of them targeted at Southern Water. In 2025, it was reported that 62% of UK energy organisations experience cyber-attacks.

Crucially, Labour recognises that cyber-security is not only a technical issue, but a workforce and economic one. Clearer standards and stronger oversight give businesses the confidence to invest, raise resilience across the economy and ensure that organisations are not left to face increasingly sophisticated threats alone. The Bill rightly ensures that breaches are reported swiftly within 24 hours, because pace and speed are vital if we are to minimise the domino effect of cyber-crime.

The Bill rightly gives regulators the flexibility and powers they need to act as new threats emerge. That comes with the assurance of resources and transparency, as well as a more consistent strategy, evidence and wider clarity. That is particularly important for Portsmouth. Our city is home to the Royal Navy, with one of Europe’s most significant naval bases sitting alongside a major commercial port, advanced engineering and manufacturing activity and a university that recognises expertise in cyber-crime and digital security. When our city was blitzed in the second world war, we could see it and act on it. Cyber-crime needs to be brought into the light in the same way, so that we can all act on the attacks that are happening and create a different culture in which people do not hide and are not embarrassed to say what has happened to them, their businesses or their community.

Portsmouth already plays a vital role in our national security and industrial base. It is not just a target, but a part of the solution. I am proud that the University of Portsmouth is recognised as a centre of cyber-expertise, with leading research and collaboration on cyber-crime, digital security and economic crime. Its centre for cyber-crime and economic crime brings together multidisciplinary experts studying cyber-crime courses, prevention and resilience, and it works with community groups, schools and local businesses to raise awareness and protect people from cyber-crime. The university also conducts advanced research into cyber-security systems and threat detection through computing and behavioural science, helping to develop real-world solutions that improve organisation and national resilience. These efforts not only support local households and employees, but grow the skilled cyber workforce that the UK needs, which links directly to the economic and security objectives of the Bill.

The Bill lays the foundations for a more secure and resilient Britain, and I am pleased to support its Second Reading. In doing so, I seek reassurances and clarity from the Minister on four key points. First, how will the whole of Government work together to ensure that Portsmouth, with its defence, maritime and manufacturing base alongside thousands of small businesses, local services and the public sector, is supported to benefit fully from the Bill? Secondly, how will the Government work with and reach all employers to strengthen knowledge and skills, long-term economic resilience, accountability and responsibility? Thirdly, how will the Bill be linked to investment in cyber-skills and training, so that we are not left without the people needed to make the changing world an easier place to live?

Finally, how can we ensure that this is just the start of the conversation? How can we use the Bill to help change the culture around cyber-attacks so that individuals and organisations can, yes, take responsibility and ownership, but in a supportive environment, rather than one that lays blame? How can we as MPs across the House encourage openness among our constituents, small businesses, large employers and the public sector alike, so that together we can carry out the Government’s first duty, which is to protect their citizens in a modern, ever-changing world?

Independent Football Regulator

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I think I have answered that question. I have been absolutely crystal clear: it is my Department that appoints the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. I was responsible for this process, and I take full responsibility for it. Just to be absolutely crystal clear, because hon. Members do not seem to be listening and seem to be all asking the same thing, I recused myself from the process, so it was the Minister for Sport who ultimately made the appointment decision, but I am the Secretary of State responsible for the process as a whole.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While this Government are focused on finally delivering for fans and securing the future of our national game, the record of the party opposite tells a very different story. We have for years seen Conservative donors and insiders appointed to organisations across the board—to the NHS, to the UK Health Security Agency, and to the British Museum. We have also seen major donors becoming peers, and the Conservatives opening covid VIP lanes for their pals. It is the same old question—the one that Margaret Thatcher famously asked—“Is he one of ours?” Football fans do not care who is one of “theirs”; they care about saving their clubs and having a regulator who will do that. Does the Secretary of State agree that David Kogan, as chair of the Independent Football Regulator—chosen for his experience and merit, not for party loyalty—is finally putting fans first and protecting our beautiful game?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for all the work she has done to support football fans for many years, even before being elected to this place. I completely accept that appointments will be made, under any Government, involving people who have made political donations—by definition, those people want to be involved in public life—and I have never criticised the Conservatives for making appointments on that basis. When I have criticised them, it has been when there was a strong dispute about whether the candidate had any qualifications for the job. There is no such dispute in the case of David Kogan.

When I have particularly criticised the Conservatives, it has been for not being prepared to comply with and respect independent processes. That is the difference between us and them. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments decided to open an inquiry on what happened during this process. I complied with it fully throughout, and I have accepted the consequences.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I ask Members to temper their language and not accuse each other of being disingenuous.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Ensuring that all fans can attend sporting events in safety and without fear must always be our first priority, and we must fully respect the operational independence of the police. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that this Government will provide the necessary resources to support local policing in this case, particularly in the light of the heightened and very deep concerns around antisemitism, to ensure that resourcing is not the reason given for the block banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am really happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service on the Bill Committee. He is right that we had a very good debate, and the impact assessment was of course approved by the previous Minister for Sport.

On amendment 18, the governance code on appointments is clear that political activity is not a bar to appointment. David Kogan has been found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and has now been endorsed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, adding a further layer of robustness. We will not set a new precedent with the football regulator by going further than the governance code on appointments, as the amendment proposes. More broadly, on amendments 19 and 20 on conflicts of interest, if the interests of a board or expert panel member might prejudice their ability to carry out their functions, the Bill already captures that as a conflict of interest.

On the owners and directors test, membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Such offences would already be considered when testing an individual’s fitness, so amendment 15 is not required.

On amendment 17 on the corporate governance code, reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. Clubs will simply have to state what they are doing on the issue.

On amendment 27 on club charities, I know from my area of Barnsley the brilliant work that the Barnsley FC Community Trust does. Through changes made in the other place, the corporate governance code gives a club the flexibility to detail what action it is taking to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community. That can include the work of the club’s official charity or wider work in the community, so the amendment is not needed.

New clause 1 calls for a consultation on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch. That is outside the scope of the Bill, which focuses on the sustainability of clubs and the game overall. I have raised the issue with the Home Office, which is the policy lead, as I committed to doing in Committee.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) that we do need to look at alcohol sales, but that we need to do it with all stakeholders in the round—not just throw it in as a gimmick to this Bill, which is about finance and governance?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have reflected those comments to the relevant Home Office Minister, as I said.

I will turn to the amendments in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I thank him for his constructive approach to the scrutiny of the legislation and for his party’s support. Several of his amendments are outside the scope of the regulator, but I am sure that he will put on record some important and valid points.

On free-to-air TV in new clause 3, the Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between giving access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against investment, and not risk it.

On new clause 4 on the golden share, we expect that the regulator will welcome clubs taking any measure to improve fan engagement and protect club heritage, including a golden share, but it will not mandate them to do so. That brings me on to the issue of fan engagement, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in their amendments. Let me be really clear: the Government have strengthened fan engagement. The previous Government’s Bill required clubs to have a framework in place to ensure that they regularly meet and consult with a representative group of fans on key strategic matters at the club and other issues of importance to supporters. We have improved that by requiring fan engagement to continue even if a club enters into insolvency, and by introducing a requirement for consultation on ticket prices. We have not prescribed a fixed, one-size-fits-all approach to fan engagement. We of course expect the regulator to consult the Football Supporters’ Association where appropriate on fan issues, and I know the shadow regulator is already engaging with it. We do not want to place an unmanageable burden on clubs unnecessarily, which is why new clause 4 is not needed.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham has also tabled amendments on protections for home grounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has also raised and we have recently discussed. Home grounds are vital assets for clubs, which is why the Bill introduces protections to prevent inappropriate stadium sales and relocations. Clauses 46 and 48 require a club to get approval from the regulator before they sell or relocate their stadium.

On the sale of a home ground, let me first clarify that the legislation uses the term “disposal” rather than “sale” for technical legal reasons. For example, a club might sell a portion of the stadium, rather than the whole stadium. That is because a club might divest a shareholding, or transfer interest, in the stadium without it amounting to a full sale. Under clause 46, the regulator’s approval is needed in all instances for the sale of a stadium by a club. A sale can be approved only if it would not undermine the sustainability of the club. If a sale might mean that the club will have nowhere to play a few years down the line, that means the club may not be sustainable and the regulator is unlikely to approve the sale.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I make my usual declaration of interest, which is that I am a member and former chair of the RamsTrust. I rise to speak in support of amendment 141, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East.

The purpose of the Bill is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Parachute payments are arguably the greatest source of systemic unsustainability within the game at the moment, and must therefore be addressed as urgently as possible. I have made this point on a number of occasions, because it is incredibly personal to me and other Derby County fans: parachute payments nearly cost Derby its football club. We came within hours of disappearing completely, because we had an owner trying to compete with clubs that had parachute payments, and that became entirely unsustainable.

Championship clubs are currently relying on owners, on average, for about £16 million a year. That means that the Championship is unsustainable, because it is trying to compete with the Premier League and parachute payments. We either accept that the game is for the whole country, all 92 league clubs and all the non-league clubs, or we think it should be run in the interests of the Premier League. I fundamentally think that our game is a national game and is far too important for us to sit back and allow a small number of elite clubs to decide its future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made a really strong case for his amendment. The timescales will mean that we could well be looking at the next Parliament. This is the Premier League trying to kick the can down the road in the hope that they never have to comply with it. I fear the unsustainability of the game will mean that in that period, we could lose other clubs. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s amendment.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, be that as a season ticket holder at Portsmouth football club or, as of this morning, a newly re-elected member of the Pompey Supporters Trust board.

In the Bill under the previous Government, as we have heard, parachute payments were ruled out. I welcome, along with many fans, the change brought by the Minister to allow the regulator to look at those payments. Because of that, I know that Labour has strengthened the backstop, and, importantly, now puts it within the scope of the Bill. The change comes in part 6, where the critical issue of financial distribution is discussed. That is a key element of the Bill for my football club, Portsmouth, and other English Football League clubs, as it is impossible for club sustainability to be achieved unless there is a change to how money is distributed across the game.

However, like other Committee members, I have one area of concern that I would like to seek clarification on, and it is linked to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s amendment 141. The Bill proposes a two-year period during which parachute payments cannot be reduced at all following a distribution order taking effect. Clubs such as Portsmouth believe that that should be halved to 12 months; a two-year window, as we have already heard, could result in the issue of parachute payments not even being addressed during this term of Parliament.

Can my hon. Friend the Minister give details of this timeframe, and of the possibility of the IFR having the ability to determine for itself the right approach to payments to regulated clubs, rather than having a set timeframe? Could she also comment on the role that reports such as the state of the game report may play in financial regulation?

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wanted to take this opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s amendment 141. It speaks directly to the principle at the heart of this Bill: ensuring a sustainable and fair future for football clubs throughout the pyramid, including those at the very heart of our communities.

The current structure of parachute payments, where clubs relegated from the Premier League receive tens of millions more than their counterparts, is a major contributor to systemic unsustainability. Those payments—£48.9 million in year one and £40.1 million in year two—create a gulf that clubs in the Championship must try to bridge, not with balanced support but with risky financial manoeuvres. The result is dependency on volatile owner funding, something that we have seen tragically unravel at clubs such as Bury, Wigan, and, of course, Derby County.

The backstop mechanism that the Government are introducing in the Bill is absolutely the right approach, providing a necessary and independent means for resolving disputes in financial distribution. But the two-year protected period on parachute payments really does risk hampering the ability of the new independent football regulator to respond with the urgency that is often required.

When the Bill was first published back in October, the understanding among many clubs, including my own local club of Grimsby Town—I declare no official interests, although it is important to our local community and is one of the teams in the lower leagues that really feels the financial strain from unfair distribution—was that the protected period would be set at 12 months rather than two years. Amendment 141, as I read it, simply seeks to reflect that original expectation.

Allowing for a one-season window still gives the regulator the discretion to proceed carefully, while also preserving the flexibility to act more swiftly should the need arise. This is about fairness, and also about credibility, because, if we are to empower the regulator, we should not be artificially constraining it before it begins its work.

I am grateful for the Minister’s attention to detail and her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s contributions so far. I really think that the spirit of amendment 141 aligns with all our shared ambitions to build a financially sustainable game. It is a constructive proposal, and I hope that the Minister gives it serious consideration.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

This is a difficult issue. None of us wants fan behaviour to get worse, given that it has largely stabilised at most grounds. Such behaviour happens not just before the game but at half-time: fans rush down and get at least two or three pints in during the quarter-of-an-hour break.

I ask the Minister reflect on this proposal; I am not asking her to agree with it. She might talk to colleagues in Europe through UEFA. I have been to a Bundesliga game in Berlin. They serve beer there—in quite large quantities—but it is 2%, so it is weaker. That is one way to do it. It seems to be a regulation, and it seems to work.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should explore what is happening in Europe. Alcohol is sold in lower rates, and only in certain areas of the stadium and only at certain games. I, for one, would be willing to welcome alcohol, but there would have to be a really good review, involving the police, that looks at what is done elsewhere. As a Portsmouth fan, let me say that there is absolutely no way that it should be served at a Portsmouth versus Southampton game.

[Mr Betts]

I would have thought that if my hon. Friend was going to watch Portsmouth play Southampton, she would want to be well inebriated before she had to watch Southampton win—[Interruption.] I am sorry to upset her.

I say to the Minister that we do not have to make the decision now—this is not the Bill to do it—but we should at least reflect on it with the FSA.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member believe that this would include involving fans in political-financial decisions like that made by West Ham United, who donated to the Conservative party? Should fans be involved in that type of decision, or is it a decision that the board should just be able to make?

[Mr French]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am not aware of the financial example that she gives—genuinely I am not—so it would not be appropriate for me to comment, but the crossover between politics and football is one that we have to acknowledge, regardless of party allegiance. The vast majority of fans, when they go to the football at the weekend or midweek, go to watch football and in many ways to switch off from the harsher realities of life. I am personally a big believer in politics staying out of sport, as I have said on a number of occasions.

[Amanda Martin]

Just for the record on those donations, in 2016 the club contributed £12,500 to the Conservative party, and in 2022, it contributed £9,000.

[Mr French]

The hon. Lady’s comments are on the record, and I will have a look—I was not aware of those.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

No. The football regulator is not set up—unless the Government view otherwise—to decide what symbols the England national team wear on their arms. It is set up for all sorts of things such as financial viability and ownership models of teams within the English leagues. My point is about how FIFA views political interference and political symbols. It is clearly very sensitive to them and has a very high bar. I am concerned that, if the football regulator breaches that bar, England will be restricted from entering international tournaments. The Government will not be able to do anything about it at that point, but they can deal with it now by mandating the football regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules. The football regulator will not be responsible for symbols on football shirts.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Turner. The hon. Gentleman is talking about political statements, and my understanding is that FIFA’s rulings are on political statements made on players’ kits. It did not make a ruling on players taking the knee and did not impose sanctions on them for doing so. That was seen as a political stance by some, but FIFA ruled that it was not a political stance because it was not on their kit.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Lady and I can debate all day what we think is political and our recollection of what FIFA has ruled or not ruled in the past. However, that is not relevant, because she and I will have no decision-making authority over the football regulator once the Bill is passed. It would be much better that we build into the system a requirement for the regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules, whatever they may be, to secure the future of our domestic football teams in international tournaments.

Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I take that point, but both the hon. Gentlemen stood on a manifesto that committed to introducing the Bill.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I believe that the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who previously represented Dudley South, while highlighting the Bill’s alignment with Conservatives prior to the last election, said he believed that this is a Bill that every single Conservative Member stood on at the last election in their manifesto, which was a ringing endorsement of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Indeed, a number of Conservative Members are on record as supporting this policy; it is just sad that the ones sitting opposite seem to have forgotten the manifesto they stood on.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

--- Later in debate ---

We do have more of a varied approach to the kind of support base that local clubs have in their communities, but I know that sort of split loyalty is quite common in many of our big cities as we go around the country. It is very rare that we have what we would describe as a one-club city—Newcastle probably being a big example. [Interruption.] Southampton? That is a bit controversial. I will let the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East argue about which clubs are more important in that part—

[Amanda Martin]

Portsmouth.

[Mr French]

Yes, we also have Portsmouth.

This rivalry—the kind of blend I mentioned—is obviously true of my own family: half blue, half red. To be clear, that is only in football terms, especially as the current Government continue to use the famous Millwall “No one likes us, we don’t care” chant as political inspiration. That rivalry will be reignited next season, as the mighty Addicks have been promoted back to the Championship, where they will play Millwall twice. Hopefully, both will be battling it out for promotion to the Premier League—Millwall, of course, just missed out on the play-offs.

On a more serious note of regulation, it has not only been on the pitch where the fortunes of both clubs have differed significantly in recent years. So I was not just rambling on about fans for no reason; there is a clear point about ownership linked to all this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a Pompey fan and season ticket holder, and as an elected member of Portsmouth supporters trust board, ownership is a very painful subject in my city, because bad ownership has almost cost us our club on more than one occasion. I welcome the definitions in schedule 1, because there has been a series of owners—some have been the subject of international arrest warrants, some have had their assets frozen by the Government, some have been imprisoned, and no one could prove that one of them even existed, as I have said before in the House. That string of horrendous owners had a devastating impact not just on the football club, but on the community. Assets were sold off to areas of the owners’ other companies, and local businesses and employees lost thousands of pounds. The Bill and the regulator, and clause 1 and schedule 1, can protect clubs from poor ownership and will therefore mean that football clubs up and down England will never have to experience what Pompey fans had to experience.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will attempt to respond to the various questions from the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North and for High Peak, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The Opposition spokesperson broadly welcomed the provisions, but he asked some specific questions. He made points on financial regulation, and I think he used the word “banking-style”. The Bill draws on precedent from a range of previous regulation. Some elements are from financial regulation. A previous amendment of his dealt with financial sustainability, and the Bill, as drafted, is all about that. We would not term it as “banking-style”, but it does draw on previous legislation and existing regulation.

The hon. Gentleman broadly welcomed the provisions on owners and directors. He mentioned that it has been four years since he was elected to this place, and in 2023, he asked the then Sport Minister to strengthen the ownership test, so I am really pleased that he welcomed the changes that we have made. He also said that he would prefer this to have been implemented without legislation. Of course, we all would, but we are where we are, and that is why both parties stood on a manifesto to introduce a football regulator Bill.

The Opposition spokesperson made some broad points on the owners and directors test, and we will have a further debate on that when we come to part 4. ODTs have to be applied clearly and consistently. If the owner has appropriate financial resources and meets other aspects of the test, our ODT would not prevent multi-club ownership. Concerns around multi-club ownership are to do with conflicts of interest and competition, which is why the leagues and UEFA have rules around multi-club ownership. Clubs competing in those competitions will be required to abide by any applicable rules, but we can come back to that point on part 4 when we will debate this issue at length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Ofqual. I will stick to football.

I will reiterate what we are trying to do with the amendment: any political interests and political donations made by the prospective chair of the board must all be declared as part of the appointment process and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That is important because, if we are to value the role of this House in making informed decisions, we must have the appropriate information. I do not believe that asking for political donations to be registered and declared transparently is unfair—it is not. It is to do with decision making by this House.

I have already put on the record that I believe that what has happened in recent months has been a great discourtesy not only to all Members of this House, but specifically to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That Committee sat to make its decision on the nomination of Mr Kogan by the Secretary of State yet, at that point, at the time of the meeting, my understanding is—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—that the Committee did not know of the donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, not until they were disclosed in the live Committee hearing. Regardless of the political arguments that people might want to make, and of the whatabouteries again, that is not fair on right hon. and hon. Members of this House. They were not provided with that information to do their work, which is the valuable work of Select Committees of this House.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Member cast his mind back to when the Education Committee rejected the person proposed to be put in charge of Ofsted, and the Government went against the Committee’s opinion. Sometimes Select Committees are not given all the information, and sometimes a Committee’s decision or recommendation is not followed by the Government. We can surmise why that might have been when we look at that person and her links with the Conservative party at the time.