Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Chris Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by declaring an interest: I am the biographer of Don Revie, the former Leeds and England manager, and the author of “The Football Battalions” about the footballers who went to war. I echo the tribute from the Front Bench to Diogo Jota, whose life was lost last week. He lit up the premier league for both Liverpool and Wolves, and we realise how short life is when we think about how he celebrated his wedding just 11 days earlier and about the three children he leaves behind. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for doing so well when he was the right hon. Member for Pudsey in constructing the Bill when in government. It is a shame that he does not agree with his former self.

The Bill was born out of the fan-led review, but when we talk about a Football Governance Bill, footballers need to be at the heart of it. It is players who quicken the pulse and it is they who provide the memories that we cherish forever, from childhood right through to now—the memories that we pass on to our children. I therefore speak in favour of new clause 13, which I have tabled, relating to a neurodegenerative care scheme and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Just as fans are to be at the heart of the review, the game would be nothing without the players. I broadly support the Bill, but it can be made better, and if it can be made better, we should do that.

The discourse surrounding the Bill is often about the independent football regulator being a safeguard for both fans and clubs, but it should also be a safeguard for ex-players and their families if neurological conditions or illnesses are most likely caused by their career in football. Unfortunately, the Bill neglects ex-players and families who are affected by conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease. They must be supported through the creation of the independent football regulator.

It is evident that the effects of a career in football are long-lasting. Footballers are four to five times more likely to die from neurodegenerative conditions, often the result of persistently heading the ball. The independent football regulator must supervise and establish a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care.

Players and their families dedicate themselves to the game and its dangers, and it is only fair that they are looked after in return. It should not be only their burden to bear, especially after contributing so much to our society. As has already been said, football generates £8 billion annually, contributes £4 billion in tax and supports almost 100,000 jobs.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend—we hosted a Football Families for Justice event a few months ago. Most people are not aware that not all footballers make thousands and thousands of pounds a week. This is the least that we can do to ensure that the pleasure that they have given us is responded to when they find themselves afflicted with a neurological condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s. I hope that the Government will listen and support the new clause.

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support. What brought this home to me about how much players were earning was when Johnny Giles, the great Leeds midfielder of the 1960s and ’70s, showed me his first contract from when he was playing for Manchester United: £18 in the winter and £12 in the summer. That sums up how much they were paid. A point that came up at that important meeting, which was attended by luminaries including Kevin Keegan, Chris Sutton, Paul Walsh and Barry Fry, was the complaints about the Professional Footballers Association. When I raised this on Second Reading, I was bombarded with emails from its public affairs arm saying, “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong,” but the question needs to be asked. It is the PFA’s members who are complaining about it and saying that it is not servicing them properly. It should be asking why that is happening. These are PFA members who have paid into its funds over the years, and if they are not being treated well, questions need to be answered.

According to new clause 13, the Secretary of State must set out the minimum requirements for the scheme, a timescale for the scheme’s establishment and arrangements and a timescale for periodic review of the scheme. Furthermore, all specified competition organisers should jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme through the formation of a joint co-ordinating committee. Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer would be eligible for the scheme.

To me, this goes beyond football. If research is discovered that helps dementia, Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease, the rest of society wins. This is something that football can lead and change society with. This scheme will provide crucial care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition that is deemed to have been caused by or contributed to by playing football. A panel of independent experts must be appointed to determine whether a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused by, or contributed to by, playing or training activities within the English football leagues. It will also determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in each case. The independent football regulator must ensure that the joint co-ordinating committee acts on the panel’s determinations, to ensure that ex-players and their families get the support they need.

This is a matter of urgency. Ex-players who have given so much joy should be treated with dignity and respect, and supported when they need to be. This new clause would ensure that. I pay tribute to campaigners including Michael Giles, son of Johnny, and John Stiles, son of Nobby. They have campaigned with dignity and respect and with a quiet determination, and it is time we showed the same respect to them. Denying or ignoring the link between football and neurological conditions is no longer sufficient. Recently we lost Alan Peacock, who starred for Middlesbrough and Leeds in the 1960s. He can be added to the long list of names, including Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton, his brother, who died of dementia; Martin Peters; Ray Wilson; and, of course, Nobby Stiles. The connection between football and neurological conditions acquired later in life must be addressed in this Bill, and if it is not, it must be addressed somewhere else.

This Government, especially a Labour Government, should treat injuries caused by or contributed to by football like any other workplace or industrial injury, and that is what my new clause would ensure. We on this side are the party for workers, and regardless of the industry, it is our job to support and protect them, especially as their union, in their words, lets them down. Since football has contributed so much to our economy and, more personally, to fans’ happiness, it is only common decency to support players when they are in need. This cannot be ignored any longer. Not only must support be provided, but the independent football regulator must be there for them.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Chris Evans

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Small businesses are the powerhouse of the economy, contributing 46% of the UK’s annual income in the private sector. If we are to have a sustained economic recovery, it will be built on the backs of small businesses. I support the principles of the Bill, although it has been late in coming, but I have some concerns about the detail.

I want to refer in particular to the late payments provisions. As has been mentioned, I have had a campaign on this, stemming from a local issue, for the last three years. A local haulier came to me and said his business was going out of business as a result of late payments. That opened a whole can of worms. Small businesses do not want to go public about late payments because of the possibility of retribution. This all culminated in a Radio 5 Live phone-in programme on late payments last November, which had the highest ever recorded response.

That shows the scale of the issue, and it is hardly surprising. We know from BACS—bankers automated clearing services—data that £46.1 billion is currently owed in late payments. That affects not only productivity—158 million hours have been spent chasing overdue bills—but also access to finance and the terms of that finance. The Forum of Private Business estimates that in 2012 it put out of business 124,000 businesses, so it is a huge issue, not just in the private sector, although it is more predominant there, but in the public sector, as was reported on the “File on 4” programme last week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) mentioned the inquiry I held last year, involving people from across the House. Its fundamental finding was that late payments reflect the culture of a company, which is ultimately down to the company’s leadership. Late payments are a form of corporate bullying, because large companies are able to exert their power over small companies.

[Chris Evans]

I am listening to what my hon. Friend has to say, because she speaks from a position of great knowledge. What advice would she give small companies that find themselves in an unequal position where they cannot get the payment out of a larger company, which can bully them? What would she say to them?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I would say that the measures in the Bill are not enough. There is a power imbalance between the large companies and the small companies, and late payment needs to be seen as unacceptable as tax evasion.

The Government’s proposals to remedy the situation are disappointing. They have taken up a number of recommendations from my inquiry, but those have been very watered down. For example, clause 1 fails to describe how the prompt payment code will be updated. As we have heard, the code is already being abused by a number of prominent large companies, so, without that detail, it is legless. Similarly, the Government have reneged on their promise made last December to introduce 30-day payment terms throughout the public procurement supply chain. Instead, clause 3 states that regulations “may” be introduced to require large companies regularly to publish information about their payment practices. That is very disappointing indeed.

Another example is the Government’s failure to reform the pre-qualification procedures for public sector contracts, which have been estimated to cost the construction industry alone more than £1 billion annually. One of my recommendations on the pre-qualification questionnaire was that there should be regular updates on the past payment performance of such companies, but such a provision has been omitted. Article 7 of the EU directive on late payment, which protects small businesses and allows them to maintain their anonymity when challenging grossly unfair practices, has still not been implemented. The mystery shopper scheme in clause 34, which allows small businesses to complain about poor practices, including late payments, does nothing to address the climate of fear in reporting these events. This is not good enough; it really does not go far enough. The fundamental point I made earlier about the bullying culture and the power imbalance has not been addressed at all in the Bill.