Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening. As was the case before lunch, I am happy to have this debate in Committee. I should not talk about people who are no longer Members of this House; they are private individuals and are no longer linked to the Government, and they are certainly not part of the Independent Football Regulator. I refer the Committee to my comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about why the independence of football is so important.

I will not get into the jurisdiction of Ofcom and what it is looking at with regard to political people on TV networks, because that is not what the Bill is about. My point is that the chair is an independent person who will be appointed to independently regulate football. Should they have a dual role that includes media punditry, commentary or other media work? We believe that the answer is no. Ensuring that they cannot have such a role would ensure that there are no vested interests in the process.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member’s amendment reads:

“No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

It does not state that, if appointed, they could leave that role and take on their role as a regulator, as most people do when they enter a role as a regulator. It says “currently”, so it would essentially prevent anyone who might have that knowledge and understanding from being appointed. His amendment does not say anything about their leaving or resigning; it just says “currently”.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. There is an important reason why it says “currently”. We are not trying to prohibit people who might have the relevant experience. We are trying to prohibit someone from having the dual role of being on the independent regulator while also being in the media world. That is quite clear; she has just read it out.

[Amanda Martin]

It does not say “dual”.

[Mr French]

But that is the point that we are making: we believe that that is a conflict of interest. In our debate on schedule 2, we will come on to the definition of conflicts of interest in relation to the board. We are concerned that what a conflict of interest will look like is very opaque.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the football all-party parliamentary group, made an interesting point about the relevant skills and experience of people we want on the regulator, and earlier I mentioned the difficulty of finding a chair who has those skills and that experience and is seen as non-biased. We will also make a point—I give warning—about some of the other appointments to the board. We desperately need clarification on how conflicts of interest will be managed while appointing people who have the relevant skills and experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

The Liberal Democrats are always looking for an opportunity to bring things back to potentially rejoining the EU. No, I would not read the amendment as either an overt or a subtle message about a campaign to rejoin. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a non-British national might campaign in Europe for a candidate standing for the European Parliament, but I will not get distracted by all the possibilities. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. The point is that, while somebody is chair of this independent board, they should not campaign for political candidates or for someone to attain political office.

I urge the Government to take the amendments on board. All they would do is further embed the idea of independence, which the Government say they support.

[Amanda Martin]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

Taking politics out of this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who said this morning that we should have the best person for the job. I believe we do, and it is not just me. The cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, approved the appointment, because it recognised the strength of the candidate. It could have rejected him, or it could have taken more time and asked for more information—

[The Chair]

Order. I mentioned to the shadow Minister, and I will say it to the hon. Lady, that the debate is not about the individual appointed to the office; it is about the nature of the office, as provided for in the Bill. I invite the hon. Lady to please keep her remarks to that.

[Amanda Martin]

I apologise, Sir Jeremy; my point was about the principles.

On amendment 116 and the other amendments that relate to political party membership, has this type of concern has been raised before regarding appointments to other public bodies? More than one hon. Gentleman has spoken about how this is football and it is really important—almost as if it is more important than anything else. Was party membership taken into account by the Conservative party, who were in government at the time, when other appointments were made, or were concerns raised through a parliamentary question, a Westminster Hall debate or on social media or any other platform? I think particularly about appointments to the Care Quality Commission, Natural England, Monitor/NHS Improvement, the Consumer Council for Water, the Low Pay Commission and Ofsted—it would be remiss of me not to mention Ofsted. I think we can all agree that those appointments are very important.

[The Chair]

Order. I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, but we are not discussing any of those appointments in the Bill—we are discussing this particular appointment to this particular role. I understand her point, but I know she will return quickly to the substance of the amendments that we are discussing.

[Amanda Martin]

I will, Sir Jeremy. It is about precedent. Does the shadow Minister think that this is an issue only for football governance and only for this appointment? As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak noted, current practice for appointments to regulatory bodies and public bodies has been in place a long time. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 strengthens that process and gives clear details of what it looks like. I guess this is a case of “do as I say and not as I did”.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Committee to entertain a semi-hypothetical set of circumstances. I have spent many minutes googling in order to find the only club in the Football League represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—the mighty Bromley, as I am reminded constantly by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I think he said in the Chamber that visiting supporters have started chanting, “You’ve got the only Tory.”

This is a very particular set of circumstances—there is only one. Bromley has done jolly well this season. Let us just hypothetically suggest that they caught the eye of a very wealthy potential new owner, which would bring riches beyond belief. That would come under the strictures of this Bill in terms of change of ownership. Let us suggest that, in carrying out its normal duties, the football regulator questioned, delayed and, finally, denied that change of ownership.

If the football regulator was a paid-up member of another political party and a donor to that other party, does the Committee not understand that the perception would be that part of the reason the regulator had come to the conclusions that it had was political? That is what we are trying to avoid with the amendments. I ask Committee members to reconsider, in order to give the regulator the best possible chance of success.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

No, the hon. Gentleman is embarrassing himself. Sit down, have a period of humility, and learn what is in this Bill.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

We will hear a number of speeches today, and we have a number of football fans in the Chamber, representing many football clubs across many leagues, so I expect that many of us will not be surprised to hear the chant: “Well, it’s all gone quiet over there!” Is the Secretary of State, like me, surprised at the apparent silence from the Opposition Benches, and at Opposition Members’ seeming reluctance to put fans at the heart of our game?

[Lisa Nandy]

Even though we are talking about the Conservatives, I am absolutely gobsmacked. We are talking about millions of football fans around the country. Certainly in recent years, I have never not been of the opinion that Conservative Members do not think about anyone but themselves, but even on that test, I would have thought that they would see that it was in the interests of the Conservative party to back something that means so much to millions of people in every town, village and city across this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

What an honour that is, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start with an apology for my over-zealous intervention earlier and refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and by taking the opportunity to congratulate both Portsmouth’s men’s and women’s teams on securing championship status this season.

As a football fan, and as a Pompey fan in particular, life is a rollercoaster. The men’s team’s history is one of highs and lows. We are one of seven teams in the country to have won all football leagues, but we have also faced relegation—not just because of performance on the pitch, but because of financial instability and docked points. Pompey’s troubles were a combination of ownership that was poor at best and corrupt at worst. With a sell-off of assets and debt, our story is incredibly complex, with a series of owners including some who had international arrest warrants issued for them, others who had their assets frozen by Government, and one who no one could prove actually existed and was never met by the EPL prior to taking over. Club assets were sold off to other companies, but it was not clear if the club ever received those moneys, and items of important historical heritage were just chucked in the skip. The club ran up debts in excess of £100 million, including debts to local businesses and charities, and was basically written off after multiple administrations. This all took people’s love of our club for granted and cost people their livelihoods.

At one point, Pompey was such a toxic club that the only people willing to save and own it were its fans, and we began the rebuild. Fans and communities are the people hit the hardest, and often the people who pick up the pieces and rebuild, which is why they should be central to football regulation.

A new regulator can protect against poor ownership; force clubs to control their finances better, working to prevent the build-up of unsustainable debt; ensure that we have a competitive pyramid and a fairer distribution; prevent the sale of key assets; and ensure that fans are at the centre of the national game. A new regulator can protect clubs like mine, who are the beating heart of my community. Pride is everywhere in football. I am proud of my football club, and I am proud to have been a season ticket holder for more than 30 years at Portsmouth football club. I am proud to be an elected member of Pompey Supporters Trust. I am proud that our football club is now owned by people who genuinely love and are invested in Fratton Park, and I am proud to be in a Government who once again deliver on a manifest commitment.

I am also proud to have written a joint letter with Andy Cullen, Portsmouth’s chief executive, to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, in favour of the Bill and to invite them both to see how our club has risen from the ashes and is truly at the heart of our community. I am proud to back the Bill, and I am proud to be a football fan. For all fans, I am proud of the Bill.