UK Steel Strategy

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions Thatcher. I lost my father not so long ago, and have been going through his belongings. I found a letter that my father wrote to Mrs Thatcher when she was the Leader of Opposition in the ’70s. The reply, which came from a private secretary on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, was signed by one Edward Leigh. I understand his insight into that particular moment in our country’s history, and I am grateful to have this exchange with him over the Dispatch Box. I wish my father was here to see it.

On Scunthorpe and other steel communities, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has the time to read the strategy. When he has done so, I will make time to sit with him and work through it. He will see that it contains the intent to create sustainable steel production. Our belief and intention is that we will have the domestic capability to produce all grades of steel needed by our economy, in an economically and financially sustainable way. Those are the things that workers in the steel sector, in Scunthorpe and right around the country, need the most.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the strategy. Sheffield’s history is inextricably linked to steel, and we want our future to be linked to steel as well. My right hon. Friend mentioned the excellent work that Forgemasters is doing to provide steel for our nuclear reactors, our nuclear submarines and, hopefully, our civil nuclear program, through small modular reactors. The strategy mentions the procurement of British steel. Will the Secretary of State set out how the Government will ensure that public bodies do procure British steel rather than just saying that they will?

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) has fought so hard for the future of Liberty in the past few months. What would the Secretary of State say to her about Stocksbridge steelworks? Will this deal ensure that the steelworks has a viable future and that jobs are retained for the whole of Sheffield?

[Peter Kyle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on these issues over many years. Forgemasters is, of course, important to our defence sector. His constituency also has the capacity to make stainless steel. He gives great voice to those two assets in his community. I hope that he sees much of his campaigning reflected in the strategy, which will give a sustainable long-term future to the industries that he represents and speaks for in the House.

Post Office Green Paper

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I think that if I am praised much more from the Opposition Benches, I will be drummed out of the Brownies.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s response to my statement. I believe that there is consensus across the House on the important role that post offices play in our communities, and particularly in our high streets and remote villages. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the campaigning of Mail and Express readers, who have voiced very clearly the importance of post offices to their communities. In my capacity as both postal services Minister and small business Minister, I also echo her words about the essential function of post offices in providing a place for small businesses to drop off their takings.

The hon. Lady referred to the costs faced by the Post Office, which is a point well taken. The Government are putting £483 million into the transformation of the Post Office to ensure that it has a financially sustainable future as a business on our high streets and in our villages. She asked specifically about support for the IT transformation. Of the more than £500 million that the Government have committed to transformation, including the money already spent before the Green Paper, £136 million is committed to technology and to replacing the Horizon system, which is a major priority for us. However, that transformation investment—beyond what we are putting into IT—will also enable the Post Office to do new things. The debate about the Post Office often concentrates on the idea of its being the last place to do things, but, having talked to the management of Post Office Ltd, I am greatly encouraged by their wish for it to be the first place that people think of in connection with cash and other high street services.

The hon. Lady asked about the additional 50% trigger, and, entirely fairly, raised the question of what it would mean for rural areas. The criteria for access to the full set of services that a branch provides are being maintained, so those protections are still there. This is very much an additional protection, rather than an alternative to the protections that were already there for rural post offices. For example, “drop and collect branches” that do not offer the full service are included in the 11,500 criterion, but are not included in the access criteria. This is about protecting access to as full a range of services as possible.

Finally, let me respond to the hon. Lady’s question about Fujitsu. When I met Fujitsu representatives shortly before the end of last year, I made very clear our belief that—as they have said themselves—they have a moral responsibility to contribute substantially to the costs of redress. They have said that they wish to wait until Sir Wyn’s inquiry before making a decision on that, but we will continue to have those discussions.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. May I raise two specific issues relating to post offices in my constituency?

First, Mosborough post office, a fairly small but growing business, is on the margins of viability. Will the Minister think again about how small post offices in communities that rely on them can be supported? Secondly, the Lloyds bank branch in Woodhouse—the last bank there—has closed. Woodhouse is an old mining community. We thought it was an ideal place for a banking hub, and we had someone willing to run it: Richard Trinder, the sub-postmaster at Handsworth post office. However, the plan was turned down because the banks were not prepared to fund it The Minister mentioned discussions with the banks and the Post Office about a voluntary agreement. Will he have a look at what he might do to enforce such agreements, and change the criteria for banking hubs when they could be vital to local communities?

Hydrogen Supply Chains

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Six Members are indicating that they want to speak. We have about 45 minutes, so that means a maximum seven minutes for each speech from Back Benchers. I call Wera Hobhouse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

The range for hydrogen is excellent, but when drivers get to the end of that range, they need somewhere to refuel it readily. The refuelling is quick: a hydrogen bus can be refuelled in 10 minutes. It is not a lengthy process, as it sometimes can be for electric buses. The technology for hydrogen is good and is developing at pace, but the infrastructure is the drawback. That is what is holding us back.

I say to the Government: let us do it in tandem. Let us of course continue to develop the excellent technology that we have, and the world leaders that we have in it, but let us synchronise that with ensuring that the infrastructure is there to match it.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Back-Bench speeches must finish in time for the Front-Bench speeches to begin by 10.28 am. Thank you everyone so far for your co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation. I said to one hon. Member, quite rightly, that if you come late to the debate, you do not really expect to get called. Equally, if hon. Members speak in the debate, I expect them to stay and listen to other Members’ contributions. I shall be making that point to at least one hon. Member at the end of the debate. We shall move on to the Front Benchers. You can probably each have 12 minutes or so, but please make sure a bit of time is allowed at the end for the mover of the debate to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am grateful for the support of the wider south-west mafia.

Hydrogen UK has reported that unlocking storage infrastructure investment is urgently needed as the sector could require 3.4 TWh of large-scale hydrogen storage by 2030, which could increase to 9.8 TWh by 2035. Projects in the UK are currently smaller and lack visibility so project developers and off-takers stick with their international suppliers, and there is the ever-present problem for all small businesses of navigating the so-called valley of death as they grow.

The Liberal Democrats want to see investment in research and development of new green energy sources, which will be vital for developing new green hydrogen technologies and breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. We support a transition to clean, home-grown renewable energy sources to reinstate the UK as a world leader in renewable energy, to improve energy security and to bring down consumer energy bills: the importance of long-term storage to achieve that was highlighted in the introduction. Disappointingly, the previous Conservative Government failed to act with anything close to the speed or ambition that this challenge demands, and Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine has exposed the risks of relying on countries that may seek to exploit dependence on fossil fuels and use it to their advantage.

Britan can lead the way on hydrogen innovation with our history of expertise, pioneering businesses and research institutions, but the Government have been criticised for failing to invest comparable amounts of capital funding in hydrogen to the level that other regions do. Hydrogen UK has called on the Government to support business-led innovation programmes, which would anchor supply chain growth into the UK and support collaboration with private business investment into key areas of the hydrogen supply chain. It has also called for a nationwide supply chain programme to leverage private investment into UK supply chains and key supply chain technologies, and to support both existing companies to pivot and new companies to enter the hydrogen market.

We want the Government to commit to winding down the oil and gas industry, but that must come hand in hand with a detailed plan for the redeployment of skills and local jobs. The economic impact assessment done by Hydrogen UK estimates that hydrogen can deliver significant economic benefits, including 30,000 jobs annually and £7 billion of gross value added by 2030. Trade unions in the industry are united in calling for substantial funding to build domestic renewable manufacturing but, disappointingly, the Chancellor did not commit to that in her most recent spending review. We urge the Government to invest in upskilling the existing workforce in adjacent sectors such as oil and gas, and to secure the investment that is needed to realise the job-creating potential of the green just transition.

Another key mechanism would be to link the UK emissions trading scheme with the EU’s, implementing a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, making the business case stronger for low-carbon hydrogen in domestic supply chains, and adopt green procurement policies that support clean supply chain development. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has repeatedly called for a sovereign green wealth fund to reinvest wind-generated revenues into green industries including hydrogen, promoting decarbonisation and manufacturing job creation across the UK.

To conclude, we urge the Government to put in place a comprehensive plan to support low-carbon technology for industries and homes, in particular to make the UK a world leader in hydrogen.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I have had a note from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) explaining why he had to leave the debate. I fully accept his explanation and apology, and thank him for giving it to me.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of our defence industry and the need for us to support it. Of course, the industrial strategy outlined eight growth-driving sectors that we believe can be turbocharged with Government support—defence was one of them. We have published those sector plans, apart from the defence one, which will come shortly—he should look out for it. We have significantly increased funding for defence, which will lead to thousands of jobs across the UK. I will work closely with my colleagues in defence, particularly the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, to ensure that we procure UK jobs where we can and support our industry to grow.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

First, I thank the Minister for her action—after 14 years of inaction by the Conservative party, it is a welcome change. Sheffield is synonymous with steel, particularly special steels, after Harry Brearley invented stainless steel in the city over 100 years ago. The Minister mentioned public procurement, and consideration being given—I think those were the words she used—to the purchase of British steel. May I ask her to be clearer about what “consideration” means? I hope that it means looking not simply at the narrow issue of costs for a product, but at the wider benefits of purchasing UK steel—benefits to the steel and engineering sectors, as well as to the broader economy. Will she assure us that when public procurement takes place, those wider considerations will come into effect?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, within the parameters of what we can do legally, in terms of subsidies. We are ensuring, and the Cabinet Office is keen to ensure, that when we spend public money, we buy British. The value of that, and of British jobs around the country, is recognised in the contracts that we pursue. My hon. Friend talks about the importance of steel in his area. I have talked with colleagues about developing a steel corridor, which I think is important. We are pursuing that through the steel strategy.

Space Industry

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Five people want to speak and we have about 40 minutes before the wind-ups, so you can work out between yourselves roughly how long you have to make your contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. When we think about space, it is a natural instinct to look towards the skies, but actually someone wanting to find out a lot about what is happening up there could do much worse than dive one mile underneath the North York Moors—something I did a number of years ago when I went underground at the Boulby potash mine in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer).

I had never been down a mine before, and this was the second deepest mine in Europe. In the cage, we were swallowed into the darkness and down this incredibly deep lift shaft, then travelled miles underground, bumping around in a beat-up old Land Rover to get to the face of the mine. We then came to a state-of-the-art facility: an underground dark matter laboratory operated by the Science and Technology Facilities Council. It is positioned there because it is safe from atmospheric radiation. Part of what the laboratory does is enable research into dark matter, which will help us to understand how to survive in hostile environments—on Earth and beyond it, in space—and contributes to technologies such as quantum computing. That is just one of the facilities that forms the cornerstone of the north-east of England space community. I want to talk a bit about that today. I must also declare that a close relative of mine is employed adjacent to that sector.

When NASA decided to build the James Webb space telescope, that was of course a great national effort for the USA, but it came to Durham for the development and engineering of the telescope. It was Durham University’s centre for advanced instrumentation that constructed the infrared spectrograph integral field unit— I am sure that everyone here knows what those five words mean individually, although when taken together they might be a little more confusing.

We heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—I congratulate him on securing this debate—about the defence applications for such sensing technology, and there can be that crossover with different industries. But that centre at Durham University had the ability to develop and manufacture those components. We should be proud, as a nation, that NASA comes to the UK to obtain such components.

Space is happening in the north-east, particularly at NETPark, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), but also quite close to my constituency; many of my constituents work there, too. It is home to three of our catapults: the Satellite Applications Catapult, the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, and the Compound Semiconductors Applications Catapult. It also houses a number of companies. Filtronic makes mission-critical electronic components in the satellite supply chain; Lockheed Martin is working with Northumbria University on the North East Space Skills and Technology Centre; and Octric at Newton Aycliffe is the Government owned semiconductor manufacturing facility.

Interestingly, Durham University business school is also working on the legal and ethical aspects of space exploitation, as we put a framework around how we can globally work together in space. There are wider economic benefits in our region. Currently, the sector contributes £130 million to our local economy; 1,300 people are employed in about 48 businesses. But the north-east of England space cluster hopes to grow to 10,000 employees over the next few years.

Our regional strengths are in space manufacturing, earth observance, climate intelligence and connectivity. Having listened to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I think there are great similarities between the strengths in the north-east of England and in Northern Ireland—clearly, the satellite communications and technologies are similar; perhaps our shared history in the aerospace and defence sectors has enabled us to develop those.

However, there are gaps in this growing cluster and things we could do to enhance it. I have spoken a bit about the strength in our local universities, which provide early-stage research, and in the businesses. But there is a gap in the middle—there always is. Our catapult centres can help with that, but in the UK many sectors have suffered from having developed technologies but then not progressed them through the so-called valley of death, so that they are then exploited elsewhere. If we want to take advantage of our great opportunity for financial investment, identified by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—it could be the engine that really drives the growth of the 48 primarily smaller businesses in the north-east of England—then we need the Government to work with industry to de-risk and accelerate those technology investments. I hope that the Government will invest, particularly in those catapult centres at NETPark, while supporting small businesses as they develop those technologies as well.

Space is happening in the north-east of England. It is one part of the UK’s space economy. It will certainly be important for the future of the economy of north-east England and vital for our defence and aerospace industries, too.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front-Bench speakers. I call Victoria Collins, for the Liberal Democrats.

British Steel

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

As the Secretary of State made clear during the debate of Saturday before last, the capacity for primary steelmaking production is important, and the steel strategy will look at exactly how we deliver that. There are new ways of delivering primary steel—using hydrogen, for example—that other European countries are now using and developing. We will ensure that, whatever the future brings, we have the right level of production in this country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Government have my full-hearted support for the action they have taken with regard to Scunthorpe, which is important for not merely Scunthorpe itself and the workers there but the supply chain as well. In that regard, I want to raise an issue of concern that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will look into. I have had a letter from Ian Walker, who is the chairman of Rotary Engineering, a long-established, highly regarded specialist engineering firm in my constituency. It provided services to British Steel last November, and it is still waiting for payment for those services, despite regular correspondence that has been ignored. If Rotary Engineering is having this difficulty with British Steel, many other small and medium-sized enterprises could as well. Will my hon. Friend look into this as a matter of urgency, find out what British Steel has been doing and try to ensure that these important companies—important for not merely British Steel but our whole engineering industry—are paid and able to survive?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The supply chain of these big steel production companies, whether Tata, British Steel or others, is really important. I do not have an answer for him now, but I will look into the issue he raises about Rotary Engineering and ensure the right thing is being done.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Clive Betts Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for that, because it allows me to say something that I had not been planning to say: we sit on an island of gas, so why, for goodness’ sake, are we not drilling for it? We need it, and we will need it strategically. There is a need for strategic industry, and I agree with the Secretary of State on that. However, the issue does not stop there; it stops elsewhere, in the production of energy. I simply leave that point for him, and he can argue it with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

I want to say one final thing. In the course of this Chinese company’s operations, I have talked to a number of people involved in the business, and its record on health and safety and on the abuse of the workers in the blast furnace area has been shocking. We should look into that much more carefully. The company has brought in cheap Chinese workers and pays them nothing like what it pays the British workers. Many of those workers have ended up burned and in great difficulty. I simply say that this is not a company we should be doing business with right now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Clive Betts)]

We will go to the Front Benchers at 1.40 pm, so if Members who are called could be as brief as possible, that would be appreciated.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his speech and his decisive action. This will be a meaningful day for the people of Scunthorpe. I know how important jobs in the steel industry are. Davy Roll, otherwise known as Union Electric Steel, has stood at the heart of Gateshead, in our town centre, for over 150 years. It is the only cast steel roll maker left in the country and it is at risk of closure. Steel is incredibly important for our future, and the Government are taking decisive action.

I am reminded today of a place close to my constituency. Ten years ago, the people of Redcar were let down. I pay tribute to Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), for their campaigning. At the time, Redcar had the second most efficient blast furnace in Europe, and yet it was abandoned, along with 2,300 jobs. A proud town was let down. Today, Scunthorpe and Redcar have learned the difference a Labour Government make and the difference decisiveness makes: they save jobs and change lives.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you for that. If Members can keep contributions to around three minutes, that will be helpful. I call Liz Saville Roberts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind Members that each contribution should take no more than two to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am glad to be called in this debate. I declare an interest: the GMB—one of the steelworkers’ unions, whose parliamentary group I chair—has donated to my constituency party.

Twenty years ago, the MG Rover car plant in my constituency collapsed, with devastating consequences that are felt to this day. Today, all our thoughts are with the steelworkers and their families at Scunthorpe and Teesside, and I hope that we can do something to avoid such a future for them.

I do not want to speak for too long, but I would like to make a few points. First, today’s decisive action is welcome. I think all our constituents would rather have a Government who acted at great speed than a Government who acted too late. Secondly, I echo the point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) about the importance of steelworkers’ participation in the days ahead. If the Government could also clarify any changes in plans for the UK Steel Council, that would be appreciated. Thirdly, what role will Jingye now have in the running of British Steel on a day-to-day basis? It is clear that workers have lost confidence in the management—as shown by reports this morning that management from Jingye were refused entry to the plant—and that a change in that day-to-day management is needed.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made in the debate. The last time that this House carried legislation that had the effect of nationalising steel, that legislation was 108 pages long. Nationalisation is clearly outside the scope of the urgent emergency legislation that we are debating today. We have also heard much about costs, including energy costs. I do not wish to add to the informed comments made earlier, but the OECD has also said that the root cause of the industry’s current problems is “global excess capacity”. In other words, the UK has been left at the mercy of over-production and the dumping of artificially subsidised goods. The Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance has long called for our trade defences to be strengthened, and I hope that those calls will be listened to in a way that they were not under the last Government.

I would like to end on a personal note, because I have thought about one person in particular today: a family member, my aunt’s father, who began his career at the Ravenscraig steelworks in Motherwell. He rose to become a branch officer, national executive member and later a salaried official of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the forerunner of today’s Community union. In the peripatetic life of a trade union official, he later worked in the west midlands, Corby and Scunthorpe. He was fierce in the defence of his members, and the gentlest and most modest of men in private. I understand that he is still remembered on the executive of Community, and if he could be here today to witness this most difficult chapter in the steel industry’s history, I am sure that he would offer valuable perspective and wise counsel. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to enter his name in the record of this place: Dick Knox.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank all Members for their help in being brief for the last few contributions, but unfortunately we have time only for a final Back-Bench contribution. I call Sir Jeremy Wright.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I can accept that there is broad agreement in this place that we should take action to preserve virgin steelmaking capability in the UK, but quite frankly, it is not enough for this House just to agree that we should do something. It is our responsibility to look at the detail of what the Government are proposing and to decide whether it is properly targeted and appropriate for the task. There is not going to be a Committee stage or a Report stage in this Bill; that is what the clock tells us. This is our only opportunity to look at the detail of the Bill, and I am afraid that precious little of that has been done today.

Let us have a look at what powers the Secretary of State is going to be given—by the end of today, as things will probably unfold. The Secretary of State will have powers that apply to all steel manufacturers in England and Wales, not just to the particular company over which he has specific concern. There will no doubt be shivers running down the spine at Tata Steel as well, because the Bill applies to that company too. The Secretary of State can act, according to this Bill, in order to instruct those companies to deal in specific ways with what are described as “specified assets”. As I mentioned to him earlier, that does not limit the measure to blast furnaces or to anything else that is specifically required to generate virgin steel. The Secretary of State can give directions to ask and require a company to do pretty much anything that company could otherwise do, and if the company refuses to do it, the Government have powers to take control of assets, including powers to enter premises by force if necessary, and criminal penalties that can lead to imprisonment. These are very serious powers indeed, and I am afraid that this House is simply not being given the opportunity to scrutinise them as they require. They also look suspiciously, by the way, like nationalisation—so perhaps it would be easier to call this thing what it really is.

Let me address one or two specifics before I finish. I hope that the Secretary of State, for whom I have huge respect, will think about—I think he has and will—some of the problems that this legislation will throw up. First, there is highly likely to be considerable controversy over whether a company in question is complying with a Government instruction. A company is likely to argue that point. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in respect of his particular concern we are dealing with a company that he does not trust and that he believes has acted in bad faith thus far. I have no reason to think, nor does the Secretary of State, that the company might not continue to do so.

Secondly, the Secretary of State is making himself responsible for claims against the company that arise from specific instructions given to it by the Government. That is what the indemnity clause means. In those circumstances, there will be a further dispute about whether the relevant problem has arisen because of what the Government have told the company to do or because of something it has control over. As I said, the Secretary of State is enabling there to be two hands on the tiller, and that will store up headaches for the Government. I urge him, despite the fact that we have not had the chance to explore the matter today, to think very carefully about how the Government will protect themselves and the taxpayer from the oncoming complexities.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Dame Harriett Baldwin for the official Opposition.

Non-disclosure Agreements

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Speeches should be about seven minutes; that is guidance, not an absolute limit. I remind Members not to refer to any cases that are active before the courts, because they are sub judice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

I fully agree. Absolutely—people do not know what they can do.

Will the Minister investigate how widespread the use of NDAs is in the NHS? Given that it is probably in the Government’s power to ban it in the NHS without primary legislation, will he take steps immediately to have it stopped and seek what recompense is required for those who have suffered it?

I agree absolutely that this practice must be stopped entirely. It is just one of many poor practices that are carried out by some businesses—not all, but some—often unwittingly. That is why I introduced my Company Directors (Duties) Bill, which will have its Second Reading debate on 4 July. Right now, the company directors’ duties say that they must put shareholder interests first and might have regard to other things. My Bill—I hope the Minister will consider working with me on making it happen—would change company law so that directors have a duty to balance the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment. I seek the support of Members present to make the Bill law; I hope that we can have further discussions to see what we can do to get it into the Government’s schedule. Until we put that balance at the foundation of the company directors’ duties, it will be impossible to get rid of circumstances, such as those the hon. Member for Congleton described, where company directors behave badly.

I fully support the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on all the issues that she identified and will happily engage and do whatever I can to advance work on them.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The Front-Bench speeches will need to start by 10.28 am. I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I certainly will not take that long—that would not make me very popular at all.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Betts, and to follow such informative and heartfelt speeches. I wish that there were more people here, because I have learned something new from every single speaker—those who spoke because this issue matters to them and those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell), who have huge experience in this area. It is well worth sharing the information that we have heard with colleagues, so that it does not stay within these four walls.

There will probably be some bad-faith actors out there who will want to read what we say as a desire to ban NDAs altogether and not protect commercially sensitive information. That is absolutely not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), or any of the other campaigners who have worked hard on this issue, have laid out. Our intention is purely to stop the abuse, discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment that we have heard about. I praise my right hon. Friend for seeking to include a measure on this subject in the Employment Rights Bill, and the Minister for saying that they will work on an issue on which we have not seen progress, despite the existence of quite a lot of cross-party consensus.

We have heard about the high-profile cases, and we know that women are five times more likely to have signed an NDA than men, but the problem is not just the scale; it is that victims of discrimination or sexual harassment are asked to sign NDAs at their most vulnerable moment. Pregnant Then Screwed estimated that around 435,000 pregnant women and mothers in the UK have signed NDAs, and 80% of those felt they had to either leave their job or cut their hours as a result of the NDA. Those are shocking statistics. Surely, that goes against the Government’s aim to ensure that people get work, get the jobs they want, and stay in work and progress. This is not just about injustice; it is also about the growth agenda.

We do not know the true scale of the issue. I am grateful that Can’t Buy My Silence, Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations are working on estimates, but we should not be working on estimates; we should know the full scale of what is happening throughout our economy. I do not know how many people are subjected to NDAs in Luton North. I really should. We all should, and we should know which employers are abusing the system.

Why do people sign NDAs, and why are they predominantly women? It is because of the huge power imbalance. We have heard about the low pay, and the lack of justice and of access to justice. They often feel that it is their only option and their only way out. They think, “If I don’t take this, what else am I going to get?” The big CEO of a corporation is not going to get taken down by the cleaner. That just does not happen; it only happens in films. That is because our justice system is not balanced or fair, and people feel that the oppression of workers is just part of the cost of doing business.

An NDA not only leaves the victim without a sense of justice, but protects a culture of wrongdoing. Not only does it protect the wrongdoer every step of the way, but, a large chunk of the time, they actually fail up. I have heard about instances of sexual harassment in the workplace in which the woman has to sign an NDA and leave, while the man gets to stay—in fact, not only does he stay, but he is either moved aside to a different department or promoted to gain more power and access. That is happening in all parts of our economy, in every workplace. We saw it at Harrods, and we have just seen it at Primark. It is really downplayed. I think that NDAs are used to downplay the severity of what they are truly hiding. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people hide disgusting behaviour behind NDAs.

The boss of Primark has just resigned for what he called an “error of judgment” with regard to his behaviour towards a woman. An “error of judgment” is when I decide to dress for winter but it is really hot outside; it is not something that a CEO has to resign for because of his behaviour towards a woman. It is not just about protecting the victim; it is also about how we improve the culture in business and in our economy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, this does not just happen in one sector; it happens in charities, in finance and, unfortunately, in trade unions. We have heard about it at the Women and Equalities Committee.

I plead with the Minister to not forget self-employed workers. Whatever changes we make—and I hope that we make progress—we must consider the vulnerability of self-employed workers. The Committee heard that loud and clear in the evidence we received on our misogyny in music inquiry. We heard from brave witnesses, including Charisse Beaumont, Lucy Cox and Celeste. Dr Beaumont, who is the CEO of Black Lives in Music, said:

“We have hundreds of stories from women of being harassed including sexually assaulted by male artists as well as promoters, people assaulting women in music education, participating in almost naked casting videos, young women pressured to drink and take drugs, who are then assaulted, male producers grooming young female vocalists.”

She added:

“It’s rife in all genres, particularly classical music.”

I want to pay tribute to one of the very brave female artists who did speak out. She came from the classical music industry, and she spoke at our Select Committee. I really do recommend reading her testimony. She spoke about the horrendous behaviour of some of the conductors towards female classical musicians, the sexual favours that those women were asked for in order to get the first positions, and the fact that one conductor had said, “Well, if you want to be in the first chair, you’re going to have to wait until someone dies or gets pregnant.” In the classical music industry, they equated pregnancy with death. I want to say how difficult it was, and how hard my Clerks had to work, to find women who were prepared to speak out against the misogyny and sexual harassment that they had faced in the music industry.

The last Tory Government agreed that there was a problem with misogyny in music but rejected every one of the Committee’s recommendations. I ask this Government to do better. One of those recommendations was about banning NDAs. The general secretary of the Musicians’ Union, Naomi Pohl, has called for a ban on NDAs that prohibit the disclosure of sexual harassment, discrimination or bullying. Some 51% of women report experiencing gender discrimination in music, and 32% of them have been sexually harassed while working as a musician. That proportion increases if the woman is from a global majority—black, Asian or minority ethnic—background, disabled or LGBT+.

Lawyers are probably getting quite excited by the thought of what alternatives there might be to NDAs, so I say to the Minister that we need to be innovative. We need to be ahead of the curve and of all the bad-faith actors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley is right: we should not be falling behind as a country; we should be leading the way. Minister, the evidence is there—let us get to it.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank everyone for their co-operation. We now move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople, each of whom has, as a guide, around 10 minutes, but we clearly have more time than that if people want to take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I would love to study that particular dimension. We must defend the rights of pregnant women and new mums, who have been so let down by our legislative framework, including the individual I am asking hon. Members to imagine. She went through mediation, where it was agreed that she would receive a severance payment in exchange for signing an agreement that included a gagging clause. She said:

“The net effect was that I was unemployed and, whilst I was financially compensated, I was unable to explain to future employers why I had left that employment and why it wasn’t my choice to do so.”

That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) made. By the way, I really feel that her contribution to this debate has been kick-ass—I am not sure that that that is a parliamentary term, but I am sure that hon. Members agree. Further, this new mum said:

“I felt I was the party in the right and yet I was the one who had the uncertainty and stress of being unemployed and having to job hunt with a 9 month old baby.”

There is no need to imagine such a scenario because it is a true story. The only reason I cannot name the individual or the employer is that, although we might be protected by parliamentary privilege in this place, the lady whose circumstances I just described is not.

This is the reality faced by countless individuals across the country, right under our noses, and it is an injustice that cannot be tolerated. We as Members of Parliament have to act decisively to end this moral and regulatory failing. First, and no two ways about it, NDAs should be outlawed in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying, to ensure that no victim is silenced, no victim is prevented from seeking justice and no police or regulatory investigation is obstructed. We have already seen encouraging steps in the legal and academic sectors to ban the use of NDAs in such cases. We heard a bit about those from the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley, but these piecemeal efforts are not enough.

We need comprehensive legislation, and there is precedent for that in other jurisdictions, as has been touched on already. In Prince Edward Island in Canada, new legislation restricts the use and content of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment and discrimination in all out-of-court settlements where a survivor does not want it. In the USA, the Speak Out Act was passed in 2022 prohibiting non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses agreed to before a dispute that involves sexual misconduct. Last month, Ireland became the first jurisdiction in the world to legislate country-wide against the misuse of NDAs. In the light of that, the efforts of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley in her amendment are extremely laudable, as are the similar efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). That is the first thing we must do: outlaw NDAs in such circumstances.

Secondly, we must ensure that individuals who sign NDAs outside those circumstances but under duress or intimidation have a clear and legal route to challenge them. Too often, victims sign these agreements without fully understanding their rights or the full extent of the implications. They end up, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, tied up in knots in their endeavour. I have heard from a man in this scenario who said,

“I had no resilience left to fight an investigation nor a tribunal so I accepted.”

On the powerful point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), we must guarantee that legal advice is readily available, independent and free from conflicts of interest for people in these scenarios, so that no one feels coerced into silence by a document they barely understand.

Thirdly, we must foster a cultural shift in public and private organisations so that they no longer view NDAs as a convenient tool to shield themselves from scrutiny, and we can move away from the culture of fear, which the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place, referred to. Employers must be held accountable not only for misconduct that occurs on their watch, but for any attempt to cover it up. Transparency should be the norm, not the exception.

Finally, we must support victims and survivors in speaking out. That means strengthening whistleblower protections, including through establishing a dedicated office of the whistleblower, which the Liberal Democrats advocated for in our manifesto, alongside organisations such as WhistleblowersUK. There is a particular whistle- blower in my constituency who I will not name, but she knows who she is. She is campaigning hard on this front as well.

Silence benefits only those who perpetrate harm. Our role must be to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced for too long. This debate, while ostensibly technical and legalistic, gets to the core of what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society in which institutions prioritise their reputations over human dignity, and victims are forced into silence while abusers continue unchecked, or do we want a society in which justice prevails, transparency is valued and every individual regardless of their status or power can be held accountable for their actions? I know which society I want to live in, and I think that all of us in this Chamber today are on the same page—in fact, I am confident of that. Liberal Democrats look forward to working with the Government on a cross-party basis to stamp out this insidious practice once and for all. We look forward also to hearing what steps the Minister will take to make that a reality.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I now call the spokesman for the official Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I do not particularly want to relitigate our debate in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. It is the job of the Opposition to kick the tyres on legislation that the Government put forward, and that is what did in that debate. I hope the hon. Lady turns out to be right, but the Employment Rights Bill is still a Bill, and when it undoubtedly becomes an Act due to the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment, we will be able to fully test that and see who is right.

I want to focus on the importance of the issue before us today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition echo the question that Members have asked the Minister this morning: when can we expect legislation to be brought forward to tackle this issue? Will it be stand-alone, or will the Government amend the existing vehicle available to them in the House of Lords?

We also need to ensure that the Government’s own house is in order on this front. I gently ask the Minister for transparency on the Government’s own use of NDAs. How many non-disclosure agreements have been used across the civil service since the Government took office last July? Do the Government rely on these agreements to settle disputes within their own Departments? If the Government believe, as I hope they do, that NDAs should not be misused—and misused is a light term for this—they must lead by example.

I do not believe that this is about party politics; it is about ensuring fairness and justice in our workplaces. We must end the practice of silencing victims and start fostering a culture where wrongdoing is exposed and addressed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, more importantly, seeing the meaningful action that every Member who has spoken in this debate this morning wants to see come to pass.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. I would appreciate it if he could leave two minutes at the end for the mover to wind up.

Future of the Post Office

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

As I have already made clear, no decisions have been taken to close any directly managed branch. There is a need to look at the costs that the Post Office incurs going forward, in order to make it fit for purpose over the next five to 10 years. As a result, we will need to look at the future of directly managed branches, but only once Post Office managers have talked seriously with sub-postmasters, trade unions and other key stakeholders, as we have made clear to the Post Office. That is the right way to proceed. We have also made clear we will not change the commitment to provide 11,500 branches, which will ensure everybody continues to have good access to a Post Office branch in every part of the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

During the last Parliament, some time before the Liberal Democrats took up the issue, I met with my constituent, Richard Trinder, the sub-postmaster at Handsworth post office, and, online, with some of his colleagues from across the country. They raised the issue of mutualisation. I brought that up with the previous Post Office Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who gave the matter positive consideration and said he would support it. I note that my hon. Friend the Minister has said exactly the same today. I know it will be some time before we get the fundamentals of the Post Office sorted out, but will the Minister say how he will engage with sub-postmasters? They are key to the issue. We need to work and look with them at how mutualisation might work, and what sort of structures they would like to see created that can make it work positively, going forward.

[Gareth Thomas]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We need to take a number of steps in order to see mutualisation as a realistic way forward. In the first instance, there has to be a sustained change in Post Office culture about how sub-postmasters are treated. On that, the establishment of the postmaster panel and a consultative council, announced by the chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, are significant steps forward. I hope the sub-postmasters in my hon. Friend’s constituency will genuinely engage with those bodies. I do not think we can impose mutualisation; it must come up from the grassroots, with the Government being willing to look at that option. The changes that Post Office senior management is looking to make are a good first step in their own right, and have the potential for future positive governance change in the long run. I genuinely encourage my hon. Friend and his sub-postmasters to engage in the Green Paper process.

Football Governance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Sharma. I am pleased to have reached the part of the Bill where we can discuss the content of the operating licences that will make up the regulator’s regime. As the Minister has said, clauses 15 to 19 set out the process for applying and granting both provisional and full operating licences. I would like to welcome a few things about these clauses.

First, I welcome the ability for clubs to gain a provisional licence first, with the conditions in this licence providing the building blocks for the full-time licence. This process recognises the importance of the transition period, allowing clubs to take the necessary time to understand the new requirements and get themselves in order to meet them if needed.

I also welcome that clause 16 clarifies that any club can apply for a provisional licence, allowing those expecting promotion to the National League to be proactive. Further, I am pleased that the process will require a personnel statement to be provided. That will be crucial in ensuring that the regulator is able to hold the right people accountable for the proper fulfilment of the licence at any given club.

The clauses allow for an advocacy first approach, where the regulator will provide an encouraging and flexible pathway for clubs to gain their licences. Coupled with the enforcement power in clause 19 to ensure that the regulator has the teeth it needs in the event of non-compliance, the process in this part of the Bill seems to offer a fair and supportive approach to getting clubs up to speed with the full requirements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is right to highlight in new clause 8 that clubs should be supported in their transition to becoming fully regulated. That is especially important for those clubs in the National League and the lower tiers of the English Football League. In his evidence to this Committee, Steve Thompson, the managing director of Dagenham & Redbridge told us he was

“really worried that the extra reporting…will be more than a lot of them can manage without taking on extra staff.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 39, Q61.]

He also highlighted that most clubs at National League level operate on one or two full-time staff, with some working on volunteers alone.

I think the Bill has done a good job of ensuring regulation will be proportionate. Further, I believe reporting requirements have been minimised wherever possible and should in any case be balanced out by the benefits of good financial planning and governance. However, given the concerns of clubs, I understand why some may feel it is better to make it explicit that the regulator will support clubs that are or will be licensed.

I hope the Minister can use this as an opportunity to highlight some of the ways in which the Bill as it stands will adopt an advocacy first approach and offer clubs the assistance they need to keep up with the regime. I do not believe it is anyone’s intention for the regulator to have to use its enforcement powers on well-intentioned clubs that are genuinely struggling to comply.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Sharma. I thank the Minister for his positive comments on new clause 8, which are very much in line with what it is trying to achieve. I think the Minister said that the new clause is unnecessary because the essence and intention of it is already contained in other clauses, and the regulator would be expected to operate in providing assistance to clubs in line with the way described in new clause 8. I think I have got that right.

[Stuart Andrew]

indicated assent.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister is nodding on that point. On that basis, I will not push the new clause, because the Minister’s explanation, and the evidence we have heard, reassures me that clubs that are coming up from the National League and want that assistance will be helped in precisely the way the new clause would require of the regulator.

[Stuart Andrew]

I welcome the positive comments from the hon. Member for Barnsley East. She is right that we are trying to have a fair and supportive approach here and that clubs should be supported.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we have tried to design the Bill so that it recognises that the level of activity at the top of the Premiership, for example, will be vastly different, and that, as we heard in the evidence sessions, many of the club officers in the National League will be volunteers and we would not want to overburden them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I am sure that the Minister was listening. I will come to the issue of playing games abroad in future Committee sittings, but I hope that the deterrent of the regulator’s enforcement, as well as the fact that the prohibition will apply whether or not a club is licensed, will be enough to dissuade clubs from making such plans anyway. A club that is willing to participate in a prohibited competition is a club that is willing to risk losing its licence, which would release it from the fan consultation requirements anyway.

The amendment is right to highlight that fans are not currently given a say in the Bill on changes to where their home matches are played. We will come to that point later, when we look at further amendments that give fans a say on stadiums.

[Mr Betts]

On the point about playing games abroad, which we will come back to later, it is interesting that although clubs will have to consult their fans, if the competition organiser decides to move games abroad and requires the clubs to do so as part of the competition requirements, there is no requirement for the competition organiser to consult fans. That seems to be a hole in the provisions that we will have to address at some point.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which I will talk about later. I am sure that the Minister also heard it and will respond if he feels able to. For now, I ask the Minister to set out his thinking on why fans are not consulted on the heritage implications of moving a home ground. Overall, I welcome schedule 4 but would welcome a strengthening of the fan engagement provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Requiring clubs to have consulted fans on home matches being played elsewhere, prior to notifying the regulator, would mean that the consultation would need to occur before there is a reasonable prospect of the club entering into arrangements. That is unnecessary and may mean that clubs are overly delayed in notifying the regulator. The amendment would also require a club to consult its fans before it proposes to play matches in any specified competition, and that would mean that every licensed club would be required to consult its fans on playing its first match of a league season, which is unnecessary and disproportionate. Competition organisers are already required to consult the regulator on relevant material changes to competition rules, as established in clause 54.

[Mr Betts]

Is the Minister saying that, if a competition organiser such as the Premier League, UEFA or FIFA suddenly required clubs to play their games away from home in another country, it would be covered by the regulator’s powers at present to stop that?

[Stuart Andrew]

The leagues will have to report to the regulator if they are making changes to any of the competition rules—that is a requirement within the legislation. If changes to competition rules were to impact any of the “relevant matters” in the Bill regarding fan consultation, the club will be required to consult the fans on the related club decisions. However, where changes to competition rules do not have such an impact, it does not seem appropriate to mandate that consultation. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be moved.

[Mr Betts]

Is the Minister saying that if there is a requirement by FIFA, UEFA, the Premier League or any other league for clubs to play their home matches away in another country, the clubs would have to consult the fans about that issue and the regulator would take account of that consultation, even if it was a requirement on the club by the competition organiser? Could the regulator overrule the requirement of the competition organiser in line with the fan consultation that a club would have to engage in?

[Stuart Andrew]

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question, but my understanding is that that will be looked at on case-by-case basis. I want to ensure that I have exactly the right line for him and I would not want to give any misinformation, so I will write to him, if he will allow it.

On amendment 5, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is correct that fan engagement in football clubs is an integral part of football and capturing that in the Bill is essential. Regarding the specific amendment, I assure him that the fan engagement threshold requirement and the wider licensing regime already captures what the amendment is describing. As the Bill is drafted, before a club receives a full operating licence, the regulator—which is independent—will assess if the club has adequate means to consult fans and to take their views into account on a range of issues in the Bill. The test for a full licence, which is set out in clause 18, is such that a full licence cannot be granted unless the club meets the threshold requirements, including those on fan engagement.

Once a licence is granted, the regulator will continue to monitor the club’s adherence to all the threshold requirements, including on fan engagement. For the avoidance of any doubt, the regulator’s general duties in clause 7(4) explicitly require that. If the regulator identifies that a club is no longer meeting the fan engagement threshold requirement, the regulator can take relevant action to bring the club back to meeting that threshold requirement. Given that those elements are already a feature of the licensing regime, I hope the hon. Member will not move his amendment.

On amendment 17, the FSA has been extensively consulted from the fan-led review until now. I am incredibly grateful to Kevin Miles and all those at the FSA for their support—the amount of help and support that they have given to this process has been extraordinary. The Government expect that the regulator will continue that engagement with the FSA, and it is often likely to be a relevant stakeholder on fan engagement. It is therefore not appropriate for the legislation to bind the regulator unnecessarily, but I hope that that makes it clear that we expect the FSA to be consulted where relevant.

As currently drafted, the Bill is future-proofed so that the regulator may always consult the most appropriate stakeholders in relation to and at the time of a particular decision. The regulator will be best placed to establish what adequate fan consultation looks like in practical detail, given its position of oversight and understanding of each club’s fan base. Adequate fan engagement is not a one-size-fits-all, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East mentioned, and limiting it to a strict definition would water down the intention for clubs to be able to take a bespoke approach. The legislation has deliberate, in-built flexibility so that fan engagement expectations can be tailored to a club’s size, fan base and individual circumstances.

On the topic of guidance on fan consultation, it will be for the regulator to determine the most effective course of action in relation to producing and publishing any formal guidance, the contents of guidance and the timing of publication. As we heard on Tuesday, this is a key area for the FSA, and the Government expect that the regulator will work at pace on any required formal guidance, working throughout with appropriate stakeholders, including the FSA. Setting a legislative requirement for that may risk rushing the regulator’s work in the space without sufficient time for necessary consultation with those stakeholders, or force the premature publication of guidance to the detriment of its quality. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will withdraw her Bill—sorry, her amendment. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

The threshold requirement then empowers the regulator to go further on fan engagement if needed. It allows the regulator to impose discretionary licence conditions on clubs relating to fan consultation in order to meet the fan engagement threshold requirement. The annual declaration condition requires a club to submit an annual declaration to the regulator that sets out all the notifications that the club has made or should have made to the regulator in the preceding 12 months. Broadly speaking, the notifications relate to changes in circumstances affecting the club that the regulator needs to know about in order to regulate effectively. That includes any non-compliance relating to the club. That will create a formal touchpoint each year in lieu of any licence renewal. The emphasis is put on clubs to declare all relevant changes of circumstances and compliance against which they can be held accountable.

[Mr Betts]

On corporate governance, I do not want to name names, but this relates to a club not too far from me. Is the Minister saying that in the future it will not be appropriate to regulate the corporate governance of a club if it merely has an owner who is the chairman, and no board of directors to run the club?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, which is why one of the mandatory conditions is good corporate governance. Some clubs do that extremely well, and he gives an example of one that may not be doing so well. For it to get a licence, the regulator would expect a minimum level of corporate governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

I rise to speak briefly about this particular part of the Bill, because although the fan-led review—and indeed the Bill, the explanatory notes and the evidence that we have heard from fans—have of course referred to some poor owners in the Football League over many years, it is really important that we also recognise that there are a large number of very good owners in football. I do not think that they necessarily get the credit they deserve, because we so often focus on those who have not done the game any favours.

Personally, I often think that, despite my love of football, I would not dream of wanting to be an owner, because at the end of the day someone can be a fantastic owner who cares passionately about the long-term financial stability of their club, but if they do not actually buy that left back during the summer transfer window and ultimately the club does not do as well as fans expect it to—I speak as a lifelong Spurs fan—expectations and reality are very different.

Being a club owner can really be very stressful. I do not think that running a football club, wherever that club is in the football pyramid, is a particularly easy thing to do. I also think that most people purchase a football club with the right intention for the club, its fans and the local community, but we have seen some poor examples of ownership in the past and that has really driven the Bill. I just wanted to place on the record my sincere thanks to all those custodians of football clubs who have not driven away their fans, who engage with others regularly, who do their very best to support the local community and who very much have the best intentions of their football club at heart.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right—there are many good owners of clubs in football. I refer immediately to Milan Mandarić, who came into Sheffield Wednesday when we were virtually bust, put the club on a sound financial footing, wrote the debts off, took the club forward and got it promoted, with Paul Aldridge as chief executive. They worked together. Mandarić then sold the club on, because he believed that he could not take it any further at that time.

There are other owners who do not necessarily have bad intentions—I think the Bill exists to stop those who have bad intentions—but just make mistakes. This Bill will not make every club successful and it will not make every owner make the right decisions, and we should always remember that. The Bill is to stop people from deliberately doing things that undermine the future of their club.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. During the fan-led review, Mel Morris gave evidence to us. His is an example that illustrates the point that the hon. Gentleman just made. As a panel, we asked Mel Morris whether, if the Bill and the regulator had existed with real-time financial monitoring, he thought the same mistakes would have been made. He said that fundamentally he thought that if these interventions had been in place, Derby would never have got itself into the situation that it did.

[Mr Betts]

That is a really helpful point. The Bill is about stopping people from doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, as opposed to stopping people from making mistakes because they are trying to do the right thing but get things wrong. We will never be able to stop that completely.

[Damian Collins]

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said. Part of the problem with the lack of oversight of spending, particularly in the Championship, is that club owners who go in with the best of intentions find themselves competing against other clubs that are spending over 100% of their annual revenue on salaries. They therefore make mistakes in trying to compete with someone else who is already trading in breach of the league’s rules.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. Trying to keep clubs in line with the league’s rules, so that others do not over-compete to match them, is vital. We will come on to parachute payments later, including how they can drive these processes.

We cannot go back and undo all the problems of the past. My concern about new clause 3 is about owners who, for whatever reason, have decided to separate the ownership of the club from that of the ground. I know that in future that will require proper consultation and approval from the regulator, but this is being done in some clubs. My own club, Sheffield Wednesday, is one. Derby County has done it, and I think Aston Villa and Charlton have as well—it has happened at quite a few clubs, for various reasons. For Sheffield Wednesday and Derby, it was a way to try to get round the financial restrictions on clubs. Wednesday just made a mess of theirs and got the timing wrong, so they got a points deduction anyway.

New clause 3 is an attempt to say that although we cannot go back and reverse that decision—we cannot force the owners to sell back the grounds to the same organisation that owns the club—we can say that if the club is to be sustainable, the owner has to demonstrate that the ground will be available. A club cannot play without a ground; if it does not have a ground, it is not sustainable. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously. If he cannot accept the new clause, because there is some—

[The Chair]

Order. We are discussing clause 26.

[Mr Betts]

Sorry. When we come to the new clause, I will say that I have already said what I will say.

[Anna Firth]

I am very pleased that we have got to this important part of the Bill, which deals with owners and directors tests. I am conscious that we may be about to come on to the provisions that I am about to support. I would be grateful if I could say my piece now, and then not come back to it. Perhaps you could guide me, Mr Sharma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Well, the Bill identifies an individual as the owner, not a state, but we will come on to some of those points. I have heard some of these representations as we have been preparing the Bill. It would not be right for the regulator to be getting into foreign policy—I do not think any party would want a regulator of any sort to be setting the nation’s foreign policy—but I get that it is an area of interest, and we will come on to it later in our proceedings.

Football clubs hold unique importance to their fans and local communities, who are the ones who lose out when clubs are exploited or mismanaged by unsuitable officers. Clause 29 will prohibit individuals from becoming a new officer of a regulated club unless the regulator has determined beforehand that they are suitable to be an officer.

Once the prospective officer has provided a complete application to the regulator, it will assess them to ensure that they meet the individual officer fitness criteria, as defined in clause 26. They must possess the requisite honesty and integrity and the requisite competence and must be financially sound. If the regulator is satisfied that the individual meets these requirements, it must find them suitable to be an officer of the club; otherwise, it must find them unsuitable. When the regulator is making this determination, it will take into account the matters listed in clause 37. By requiring new officers to undergo the regulator’s tests, the clause will better mitigate harm to clubs by stopping unsuitable individuals from becoming officers.

The Bill requires prospective new owners and officers to pass the regulator’s owners and directors test before they join or buy a club. However, it is possible that someone might take up a position at a club without first having undergone those tests. This may be a blatant and deliberate breach of the requirement to undergo tests before joining the club. A prospective owner may act in bad faith, hoping that once they are in, the regulator will be more hesitant to fail them, but in some circumstances a person may fall into the definition inadvertently or have some other relatively innocent reason for the breach. This may occur, for example, if a person inherits significant equity in a football club or if a person disputes in good faith whether or not their actions bring them within the Bill’s definition of an owner.

Clause 30 will therefore provide the regulator with the powers that it needs to respond decisively but flexibly when a person has become a new owner or officer of a club without the regulator having first determined whether that person is suitable. When the regulator becomes aware that this has happened, it must either notify the new owner or officer that they are being treated as unsuitable automatically or require them to provide an application, treating them as though they were a prospective applicant. When deciding which option to take, we expect the regulator to assess the circumstances of each case carefully and consider whether the new owner or officer has an innocent explanation or whether they have deliberately breached the regime.

The regime cannot be allowed to be abused. The regulator must have the discretion and the teeth that it needs to address harm to the sector. Clause 30 is an important step towards achieving that aim.

When the regulator is minded to fail a new or prospective owner or officer, clause 31 will require the regulator to give that person and the relevant club an opportunity to make representations before the regulator makes its final decision. Affected persons can also require an internal review of the regulator’s decision and then can appeal the outcome of that review to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The purpose of clause 31 is to allow a new owner or officer, or the relevant club, an opportunity to argue their case before the regulator finds them unsuitable, which will ensure that the regulator has all relevant information available to it, allowing it to make better decisions and ensuring the regime is more effective.

The Government recognise the intent behind new clause 3, which is to ensure that football continues to be played in a club’s home ground. The Bill takes account of a variety of ownership structures relating to home grounds that exist across the football pyramid. The new clause would capture only one type of ownership structure. Owners may not necessarily directly own the rights to the club’s ground; in fact, only about 40% of clubs own their stadium outright. The new clause would require owners to make a commitment about something over which they do not necessarily have complete control or influence.

Let me be clear: the intent of the new clause will already largely be achieved by the Bill as drafted. The Bill places duties on the club itself regarding selling the club’s home ground or relocating from it; clauses 46 and 48 will require clubs to obtain approval from the regulator before a home ground is sold or relocated. If that requirement is breached, the regulator can exercise its enforcement powers.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister refers to what the Bill will do in regard to future sale, but the new clause does not deal with future sale; it deals with something that has already happened. The Minister says that it does not cover all eventualities, which may be true, but surely there are eventualities that need to be covered. If the Minister does not think that the new clause goes far enough, is he prepared to table another new clause that goes further to ensure a sustainable future for a club with a ground to play on?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will not commit to introducing a new clause, but I will commit to going away and having another look at the points that he has raised, if that will satisfy him.

The Bill also allows for senior managers to be held accountable if they are responsible for the club breaching the requirements. That means that enforcement action could be taken against an owner of a club who was also a senior manager of the club and responsible for the club failing to comply with clauses 46 and 48.