Gambling Harms: Children and Young People

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend—and fellow Kent MP—the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) on securing the debate and on his extremely insightful speech. He showed his background as a clinician, but also his concern for his constituents.

As others have said, this is indeed a very timely debate. The latest figures on young people and gambling, published in November by the Gambling Commission, should be a concern to us all. Some 49% of 11 to 17-year-olds had experienced gambling in the previous 12 months. Even more worryingly, 30% of 11 to 17-year-olds had spent their own money on gambling in the previous 12 months. I understand from GamCare, the charity that runs the national gambling helpline, that in the last year callers to that helpline from my constituency of Dartford identified all sorts of problems—including financial difficulties, anxiety, stress and depression—as the personal impacts of their gambling.

GamCare also highlighted to me that among parents who are already gamblers at risk of harm, almost half have bet with their children and 38% have, for example, bought them a scratchcard. That might be innocent enough in itself, but it is a gateway activity likely to lead to problem gambling as those young people move into gaming and sports. Half of these parents report that they think their children are likely to gamble in the future, including by betting on sports and playing casino games when they are old enough. That is concerning when up to 2.2 million children are growing up in households where an adult is experiencing gambling harms.

I am, however, heartened by some of the steps the Government are taking across the piece, such as ensuring that the gambling levy money is spent on research and treatment and targets the communities and people most at risk, and the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that we are seeking to raise taxes on the most harmful forms of gambling. I am proud to be a member of the Treasury Committee, which wrote a report recommending that to the Chancellor prior to the Budget.

One area the Government should look at—the Minister might address this when he sums up—is how we reduce the exposure of young people to gambling-related advertising. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), who has done so much work in this area. Four in five young people have seen or heard adverts or promotions for gambling through online or offline sources.

As a football fan, I see the level of gambling marketing in sport all the time. I welcome the voluntary front-of-shirt ban the Premier League is bringing in from the start of next season. My club, Crystal Palace, is in need of a new sponsor, not just because of the disaster of last Saturday, but because its current sponsor is a gambling company.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. It is vital that gambling companies come off football shirts, and I am so pleased that that is happening. I have a constituent, Chloe Long, who tragically lost her brother Ollie to gambling-related suicide. He was a big football fan, and she has spoken so powerfully about how ubiquitous the problem is, as my hon. Friend has said. She worries about young people growing up exposed to so much gambling advertising as a result of watching sport. My concern is that just asking clubs to look at this on a voluntary basis will not be enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we may need to look at tougher action and clamp down on this link between gambling companies and sport on more than just a voluntary basis?

[Jim Dickson]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely tragic case, which I will deal with later in my speech. She also makes that link between sport, gambling and addiction, which is so pernicious, and which we need to see action on to ensure that we create an environment in which people are prevented from becoming addicted, rather than being encouraged.

As my hon. Friend rightly says, the front-of-shirt ban will not be nearly enough on its own; it is far from the end of the story. Gambling advertising, including perimeter TV and social media, continues to proliferate in sport. There are also the other parts of the shirt; this is a front-of-shirt ban on advertising, so stand by for lots more gambling company adverts on sleeves and other parts of the shirt from next season.

I have spoken before of my concerns about how the coroner service responds to gambling-related suicides. I remain of the view that the Government should ensure that the causes of preventable deaths, including ones related to gambling, are properly examined and addressed to prevent future deaths, with the evidence submitted by families properly considered.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) mentioned, just this week the inquest concluded into the death of Ollie Long, a football fan who took his own life after struggling with addiction for eight years, starting as a young person in his 20s. In his tragic case, there was a particular concern that, despite being registered with GamStop, which locked him out of the mainstream gambling industry, he was—likely through online advertising—able to place bets via online casinos based abroad. Although the coroner would not, as the family wished, include gambling as a cause of death, she has written to the Government to raise her concerns about the risks posed by illegal gambling sites, which is an issue Ministers are familiar with.

As we support and treat adults who suffer from gambling harms and we try to reduce the incentives in our wider environment to gamble, we have an opportunity to ensure that we do not allow this generation of young people to turn into the next generation of gambling addicts, with disastrous consequences for their life chances. Let us take that opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question and assure her that there will be no musical instruments collecting dust in storage cupboards. As well as announcing a broader, richer curriculum alongside the Education Secretary at the end of last year, which will put music education once again at the heart of the offer for young people, we are rebuilding access to it in communities. I will have something more to say about the programme she describes very shortly, but as a Government we are determined to ensure that every child has the chance to find their spark and develop their interest, not just children whose parents can pay.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to improve access to youth activities for young people.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

14. What steps her Department is taking to improve access to youth activities for young people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

Our national youth strategy was co-produced with young people and has committed to investing over £500 million to ensure young people have somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. Access to youth activities is a key part of that.

[Jim Dickson]

In Swanscombe and in much of my constituency, less than 50% of young people are physically active. That is only slightly lower than the national average, which is highly alarming. Under the previous Government, community sports facilities such as Swanscombe Pavilion in my constituency crumbled, with no resources to bring them back to life, reducing the available space for young people to be active. That is why I am particularly pleased to hear about the £400 million, which has been mentioned today, that the Government committed to grassroots sport facilities last June. Will the Minister provide an update on how that vital funding will be allocated, and will she agree to meet me to discuss this further?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The Government recognise that grassroots facilities are at the heart of communities up and down the country, which is why we have committed £400 million to transform grassroots facilities across the UK. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we will be rolling that out. We recognise that too many children and young people are less active than they should be, which is why we have campaigns such as “Let’s Move!”, which aims to support children to enjoy being active in sport, play and everyday movement. I was pleased to see one of those sessions in action myself before Christmas.

Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Cooper]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Gambling has become ubiquitous in our society. It is endemic. We watch the television; we have online roulette in our pockets—it is everywhere. We must also be mindful of the black market as well as the legal gambling companies, and go after both with ferocity to make sure the harms are reduced.

Having established the need to recognise the public health costs of the most dangerous gambling products, we should review the taxation of other harmful forms of gambling, particularly the most dangerous category—the B3 machines in adult gaming centres. It is right that the duty paid by those machines is set at a higher rate. The Gambling Commission, which we have already heard about, must do more to ensure that licence conditions are followed by adult gaming centres. There are widespread reports of breaches of the rules, notably the 80/20 rule relating to the most harmful category of machine, and games that facilitate much higher stakes than is permitted in the licensing codes.

Let us be clear; gambling is highly profitable, and that profit cannot be separated from the harm inflicted. We have already heard this, but it is worth stating again: 60% of the industry’s profits come from 5% of customers who are either addicted or at risk.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the excellent and knowledgeable speech she is making. One other important piece of context in all this is the men’s health strategy, which I know was widely welcomed across the House and was published two weeks ago, and which identified gambling harms as a key element that it needed to tackle. Most of us have welcomed the introduction of the remote gambling tax; that fits very well within the men’s health strategy, because it seeks to disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. Does she agree that, while the tax was very welcome, we need to make sure that the money coming in via the levy is as well spent as possible to tackle the harms caused by gambling?

[Dr Cooper]

Those are points very well made. Tackling gambling harms should be at the top of our public health priorities—I make a declaration of interest: I am a public health consultant—to ensure our country thrives economically as well as in health terms. The two are intertwined; we cannot separate them.

Gambling profit cannot be separated from the harm inflicted. In online gambling, 86% of profits come from the top 5% of customers. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Witney and others about the ubiquity of advertising. A recent report showed that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising—an astronomical sum that is fuelling a public health crisis in this country. Targeted digital marketing means that someone with a gambling problem is nine times more likely to be offered a so-called free bet, according to the Gambling Commission.

We need regulatory and legislative tools to tackle industry marketing practices, and we must make sure that children are protected from the proliferation of gambling ads, sponsorship and influencer marketing. As someone who has teenage children, I am only too aware that responsible mobile phone usage only goes so far; we must ensure that our children are protected from this insidious way of introducing people to gambling far too early and far too often. Gambling Commission statistics show that 1.2% of children experience problem gambling, and 3.4% of 11 to 17-year-olds are already being harmed by their gambling. That is astonishing and outrageous. Children should receive independent education about the dangers of gambling, and we must stop incentivising them to gamble through widespread advertising, both online and offline.

We cannot treat gambling as a harmless leisure activity when 14% of British adults are at risk of gambling harm and gambling-related suicides occur in their hundreds every year. Gambling is a matter of public health. I appreciate that it is overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I think it should be overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care, with a legislative framework that is fit for purpose for the digital age.

We have heard about the last Government’s White Paper, which does not give us the right road map to address this public health crisis; it does not address the fact that councils have no adequate powers to prevent adult gaming centres from proliferating locally, sucking the life out of our more deprived communities, and it fails to address advertising, sponsorship and the modern marketing of gambling. We must look to review the White Paper and set a timeline for a new gambling Act.

BBC Leadership

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

As somebody who has shared my frustrations at some of the failures at the BBC over the last 16 months, and at the response at times, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that throughout this process I have very much felt that there is a recognition of the seriousness of this issue at the highest levels of the BBC. In the conversations that I have had with the senior leadership in the institution, there is also a discussion and a consideration of what wider changes need to be made in order to maintain and uphold the highest standards. He asks when it will end. I think the answer has to be: now.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, and particularly her strong support for the BBC as an institution that belongs to us all. With the BBC regularly rated worldwide as one of the most trusted global news sources, does she agree that a strong BBC acts as a bulwark against misinformation not only in this country but across other critical parts of the world where there are few other trusted news sources, and that the delivery of services to those parts of the world must be properly funded?

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

I absolutely do. As a Leeds United fan, I know that we definitely cross the spectrum from sport to culture—everybody has probably seen “The Damned United”. In a country such as Spain, football goes across the cultural spectrum, but the ownership of clubs is also with the fans and not with oligarchs—as the former Chelsea owner was—or others. There is a different cultural aspect to it in other European countries.

As I was saying, this is classist abuse of young and budding talent that exploits their lives for the benefit of financially high-powered middlemen. Labour’s driving mission is to protect working people against exploitation. Let us include football players in our party’s founding mission and give them the protections they deserve.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak once again on this important Bill. I happily declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Selhurst Park and long-term fan of Crystal Palace. I am still basking in the glory of our Wembley triumph in May. I promise to stop talking about it soon, but I hope to milk it for another couple of months if I can.

This hugely overdue Bill has wide support from fans and communities across our country, as evidenced by its adoption of the key recommendations of the 2021 fan-led review. The central insight of the review was that, as we all know, what is essentially true about football is that it is not like any other industry and cannot be treated as such. Football clubs are more than just local businesses. Across our country, they sit at the heart of our communities, as Dartford football club does in my constituency. They are anchor institutions, culturally and economically, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Bill to put in place a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs where they belong: at the heart of our communities.

For that reason, it was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee—the third of my first year in this place; I hesitate to claim that it was a parliamentary hat trick. What set that Committee apart was the Opposition’s baffling approach to the legislation, as we can see on the amendment paper today. We were told on the Committee’s first day that the reason the Conservative party was against the Bill, despite having introduced it in the last Parliament, was that despite it being close in spirit and letter to the previous version, it now represented a clear case of over-regulation, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

In the sitting days that followed, a blizzard of amendments was visited on the Committee by the Opposition, the majority of which increased the powers, scope and responsibilities of the regulator. For instance, there was an amendment to investigate and possibly cap agents’ fees, which I notice has not returned on Report, and one on alcohol in football grounds, which has returned as new clause 1, as well as a range of other matters.

[Chris Evans]

Does my hon. Friend not think it is a bit rich of the Opposition, given the problems they had in the 1980s when they did not stamp out hooliganism and instead thought that the way forward was to pen fans in behind electrified fences and even to introduce ID cards, to claim that they are now standing up for football fans?

[Jim Dickson]

I do think that the Conservative Government’s attitude in the 1980s was to treat football fans as less than human. I would not wish to say that Opposition Members are not football fans, but the empty terraces on their side of the Chamber bespeak a lack of interest in the Bill.

The Opposition’s amendments that are designed to increase the scope and responsibility of the regulator would also increase the cost of the regulator to clubs, which was another of the Opposition’s complaints. They were at pains to try to point out that the regulator will cost fans dear, but their amendments would increase that cost. What we need, and what the Bill provides, is an agile and lean independent regulator whose efforts cannot be diverted from the key objective, which is to create a financially sustainable football pyramid that is responsive to fans.

I will touch briefly on a couple of the other amendments tabled for discussion today. I am sympathetic to the aims of new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), and I echo others’ comments that the approach of the hon. Gentleman and his party to the Bill has been incredibly constructive, in contrast with that of the official Opposition. New clause 3 would set out in legislation a requirement for all these different matches to be free to air. While I am sympathetic to that, I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause—or indeed anything specifying such a thing on the statute books—is wise, because the Bill’s intention is not to get involved in commercial deals. However, I would like to see more top-class football on free-to-air television in order to give young fans the chance to watch more than just highlights on video or social media.

On amendments 10 and 11, I must confess strong agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and what he is seeking to achieve. The separation of club and home grounds, both past and present, as we see with Sheffield Wednesday—a case that I know that is very dear to my hon. Friend’s heart—invariably ends in serious jeopardy for the club. As he said, it invites speculators to treat grounds as just another asset, rather than something central to their communities, and, apart from anything else, it causes major problems when clubs change hands. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I also agree with the points my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made in Committee about wanting the state of the game report, which the regulator will have to produce, to be brought forward as soon as possible so that its analysis can be used to broker a financial distribution deal across the pyramid at the earliest opportunity.

In our manifesto ahead of last year’s election, Labour said that we were committed to making Britain the best possible place in the world to be a football supporter. The Bill delivers this commitment for a sustainable game, putting clubs at the centre of our communities and fans at the heart of our game.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to have the chance to speak in this debate on an issue of such importance in legislation—one that goes to the heart of our national identity—which is the future of the beautiful game. Football, like Shakespeare, the Beatles, and James Bond, is one of this country’s greatest contributions to the world. Not just a fantastic sport, but a global phenomenon and, arguably, our most successful cultural export. English football is watched by billions globally, with some of the most exciting players, clubs and stories of any league.

However, we must not allow that success to disguise the underlying fragilities in the English football pyramid. Too many clubs have collapsed in recent years, with consequences rippling through entire communities. In my constituency, while it has not collapsed, the football club for Chipping Norton has been away from the town for more than a decade. Its ground was bought and sold off by what I shall refer to as a rather unscrupulous individual with little regard for the club, the town or its fans, and that loss is still deeply felt.

However, there is also hope. Down the road at Banbury United, supporters, fed up with mismanagement, took matters into their own hands. They have transformed the club, taking it over and turning it into a community benefit society, with revenue from shirt sales and matchday tickets now going back into supporting local groups and good causes. After two successive promotions, they have proved that this model is not a barrier to success on the pitch. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister have many calls on their time, but I can assure them that they would both be given a warm welcome should they choose to grace the hallowed turf of the Spencer stadium in Banbury, and I once again invite them to my constituency to do just that.

While neither Chipping Norton nor the Puritans are within the scope of this legislation because they are not high enough up the football pyramid—not yet, anyway—their stories and those of countless others up and down show why this reform is so necessary.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When we discussed this issue on Second Reading, I said that the prospect of Arsenal playing Manchester City in Dubai should have all football fans reaching for the sick bucket—I assume most Man City and Arsenal fans would agree with that. I remain of that view. The new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside the UK. It would allow a regulated club to stage non-competitive fixtures outside the UK.

Football is our national sport but too many fans are already priced out of attending matches. Clubs with large overseas fan bases clearly have a profit motive to schedule games outside the UK. The new clause would erect further barriers to stop that happening. We do not want barriers to local fans, who have supported their clubs through thick and thin, getting to the game.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is pointing to a real fear for fans, particularly Premier League fans. In Europe, Serie A has said it will be playing competitive matches in the United States within two years. The Spanish super cup, its equivalent of the Community Shield, is already played in Saudi Arabia. It is important that we collectively as a Bill Committee keep an eye on this matter, so that the regulator uses its power to prevent that happening. Nothing would bespeak a bigger betrayal of fans than competitive matches played overseas that they could not get to.

[Max Wilkinson]

I strongly agree. This is a real risk that we cannot look past. With the increasing foreign ownership of clubs, many people would clearly look to buy a football club and market it around the world by taking it on tour. We should not put up with that in this country; this is our national game and it should be protected as such. Staging competitive UK fixtures outside the UK must not be allowed. It would dilute football’s links to the communities that it needs to continue to survive. It would act only in the interests of club owners who might not always have the interests of fans at heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

I think that we should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time, during the first half and during the second half. I have attended a football match and seen cocaine somewhat brazenly being taken in the loos at half-time. Those of us who attend football regularly will see that, and it is very concerning—more concerning, I would suggest, than people drinking beer during while watching football. I draw my remarks to a close, other than to say that this is a long-overdue debate.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope he forgives me for not being a supporter of a club at which gin is the normally consumed pre-match beverage.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I regularly attend home matches for Dartford football club, where people can drink in view of the pitch and there is no trouble—it is a great, family atmosphere. However, just to be real here, I have also seen situations where alcohol is clearly fuelling aggression, violence and bad behaviour for some of the reasons that have been pointed out. I am a little fearful of very significant consumption in view of the pitch; we still need to be careful of that. Were we to allow limited opportunities to consume alcohol in view of the pitch, in certain parts of the grounds, in the leagues where it is currently not permitted, we would need careful controls to prevent the problems that have been identified.

[Max Wilkinson]

To clarify the point about the lucky gin and orange, I believe that my friends chose that as a pre-match drink because they had already had five pints of real ale and were no longer able to fit in that quantity. Having gin on top of five pints of real ale is clearly not a good idea. There are other opportunities for people to have all kinds of drinks before football. The point is that people force down drinks in pubs because they know that they cannot drink during the game, and that means that they are more likely to be drunk in the football ground. We support the new clause.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have indeed—clearly.

These amendments therefore strengthen and clarify the process for setting the questions for resolution. They highlight the importance of a league proposing specific questions for resolution when it applies to the regulator. They emphasise that if the regulator agrees to trigger the backstop, it will not take a sweeping approach and try to rule on every possible aspect of distributions. It must set out specific questions that it will resolve, and its powers are then restricted to resolving those questions.

These amendments make it clear that questions must meet certain tests in order to be resolved through the backstop. Those tests are twofold. First, the regulator must consider that leaving the questions unresolved presents an apparent threat to the regulator’s objectives. Then they must consider that the questions could not be resolved within a reasonable time by the regulator exercising any of its other functions.

The amendments clarify that the regulator need not take forward all the questions proposed and that the regulator can modify the proposed questions. They will also require the regulator to take into account representations from the other league that accompany the application. That will give the regulator the flexibility to pick out which questions it is appropriate and within its remit to address, without forcing it to either accept every element of an application or reject the whole application outright.

The amendments also set out procedural requirements. They require the regulator to consult the FA before setting the questions for resolution, ensuring that the national governing body has a chance to raise any views about the scope of the backstop process. They will also ensure that the regulator transparently sets out what questions it has chosen and how it made that decision. The questions for resolution will then be taken forward into the mediation phase. That will ensure that all parties understand the specific aims of the mediation stage.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The Minister is setting out how important it is to get the distribution arrangements right. This is the part of the Bill that may be the most critical in ensuring that the pyramid is sustainable, which is the objective. It is great that the Government are working hard to get the backstop arrangements right, as she said. Does she agree that, once the regulator is in place, it will be important to have the state of the game report already in place—with an analysis of what is going wrong in the financial distribution and how it could be put right—before a distribution agreement is made and the backstop powers are used to bring that about?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he touches on something we will discuss later. It is important that the state of the game report takes place swiftly. That is an important part of the Bill. Of course, it is a backstop, and we are keen that a football-led solution is the priority and that people get round the table. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, who was one of my predecessors as sport Minister, and obviously we know how involved she was in the Bill. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a short but very focused speech, which I encourage hon. Members to read, on how the backstop should be a backstop. I often quote that speech.

For the reasons I have set out, the amendments are vital for supporting our new backstop model, and I hope that they will be accepted. I commend them to the Committee.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We have all seen clubs driven into the ground by irresponsible owners. We have cited Dai Yongge at Reading, Mel Morris at Derby and Steve Dale at Bury, who disastrously led Bury into bankruptcy and eventually it disappeared. The dilemma will clearly be in how and when these powers are invoked and what criteria are used to invoke them. Would my hon. Friend say that this is about having backstop powers to enforce better behaviour by owners who may decide to engage in a course of action that brings a club to the sort of place that Reading, Derby and Bury have found themselves, rather than those powers always being exercised?

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one wants to see the regulator come in and compel clubs to change ownership. That is not the intention. Encouraging owners to behave better so that that intervention is not necessary is of course the ideal outcome, but history would teach us that not every power or potential use of power will compel some owners to behave properly. This is about what happens when they do not.

The whole purpose of these arrangements in the Bill is to stop the Burys happening again, or to stop the situation at Reading getting worse than it did. At this stage, I do not see where the power is for the regulator to do anything other than to say that someone is not a fit and proper person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 137, in schedule 5, page 102, line 2, at end insert

“including the club’s official charity.”

This amendment would make clear that the activities of a football club’s official charity can be counted towards it meeting the corporate governance code.

It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the amendment. The Bill as drafted does not specify that the activities of these charities—often known as community trusts—count when taking into account actions taken by the club in relation to meeting the corporate governance code, so I start by asking the Minister why the Bill does not contain explicit recognition, in the governance reporting requirements, of the work done by community trusts. I would appreciate it if she could pick that up in her comments.

As both the shadow Minister for sport and the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I am in a fortunate position: I get to see week in, week out how sport, and football in particular, can transform lives. I also get to see what that looks like in practice, not just in headlines or strategies, but on the ground—in local parks, youth centres and school halls across my constituency. I know that other Members will have similar experiences in their own.

In my constituency, we are lucky to benefit from the extraordinary work undertaken by Charlton Athletic Community Trust. It is no exaggeration to say that CACT, if we want to call it that—I do not really like that wording—has become one of the most respected and impactful community foundations affiliated with a professional football club anywhere in the country. It often wins awards at national level for that work. Its work extends far beyond the pitch and well beyond the borough of Greenwich, where the training ground and the stadium—the Valley—are located, and deep into my borough of Bexley, the wider south-east London area, and Kent. In fact, Charlton have been delivering services and support in Bexley for well over a decade.

Charlton’s community trust delivers youth services on behalf of Bexley council. It provides safe spaces and structured activities that help young people to develop skills, build confidence and stay on the right path. In today’s world, where young people, as most Members would recognise, face growing pressures and limited opportunity, that kind of work is more vital than ever.

Although Charlton are not a Premier League side just yet, one of the flagship initiatives that it runs is the Premier League Kicks programme, which operates across the borough in areas such as Thamesmead, Slade Green and Erith—places where young people often face the dual challenge of limited opportunities and exposure to risks—as well as in my area of Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling. The Kicks sessions are free weekly football sessions, but they are about much more than just sport. They take place in safe and welcoming environments and are led by trained staff. Young people aged between eight and 18 can build confidence, learn leadership skills and receive mentoring from positive role models—often young adults who were once participants in the scheme.

What makes the Kicks programme in Bexley particularly valuable is its consistency and partnership working. Sessions are delivered year round in collaboration with the police, youth services and local schools. This is not a one-off scheme or a publicity stunt. It is part of a broader, integrated approach to youth engagement and early intervention that genuinely helps to steer young people away from things such as crime and towards the opportunities that football presents.

Charlton’s work goes far wider than just youth engagement, although I have seen that recently at Hurstmere school in my constituency and when Charlton brought the Premier League trophy to a local park. It was incredible to see the reactions of young football fans to the trophy. Just remember not to touch it—a mistake that I made on the day, and I was rightly told off.

In Bexley, Charlton are a contracted delivery partner for the council’s early help youth services—statutory support that has been delivered to a high professional standard for many years. Importantly, the trust has developed deep and lasting partnerships in Bexley and Greenwich, not only with the local authority, but with the NHS, local schools, the police and the voluntary sector. That joined-up approach is what makes its work sustainable and successful. As I said, I am sure that many other clubs around the country are doing such work.

[Jim Dickson]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining in great detail the amazing work done by Charlton Athletic through its club charity. Nearby Dartford football club are lower down the football pyramid, but is he aware that, none the less—typically of clubs around the country, be they in League One, the Championship, as Charlton now are, or lower down the pyramid—it does amazing work? Dartford FC educational charity does incredible work in the community. It has partnered up with ellenor hospice to raise money, and it has undertaken great public health work with Kent county council around stopping smoking. I am glad that he has mentioned Charlton’s work and given us an opportunity to raise the work done by our clubs.

[The Chair]

Before the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup responds, it may be of assistance if I put on record that I am prepared to take it as read that all football clubs do good work. There is no need for Members to explain it in detail.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I believe “Blue is the colour, football is the game” is the motto in the song. That is of course Chelsea. I congratulate them, as well as Spurs, on their recent victory in Europe. I probably should say that every other club that has won—

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr French]

Oh, here we go.

[Jim Dickson]

I wonder whether any Opposition Members are able to assure us that, in winning those trophies, the club stuck to profit and sustainability rules as other clubs have done.

Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

From years of experience of listening to Ministers respond to helpful amendments, I sort of anticipate the response that is to come.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. My hon. Friend is pushing for 12 months, and I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to do because it needs to be quick so that the regulator can start to take the right decisions about the future of game. However, does he agree that what is in the Bill is a significant improvement on what was in the last Bill, which I believe was three years rather than the 18 months that is before us?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. I accept that the Government have been listening to the arguments—not all Governments do, but this one clearly have. That is an important step forward. One of my worries, which we will look at further when we come to later clauses on the distribution of funding, the effect of parachute payments and the role that they may play and for how long, is that unless we give the regulator slightly stricter time periods, we could get to the end of this Parliament and find that nothing has changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

“(9) The IFR must make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence within the period of one month.

(10) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (9) by no more than two weeks if it requires more time to consider the application due to—

(a) unusual staffing pressures, or

(b) discrepancies or abnormalities with the application.

(11) If the IFR extends the period as per subsection (10), it must give a notice to the relevant club stating—

(a) that the period has been extended,

(b) the length of the extension, and

(c) the reasons for the extension.”

This amendment places a time limit of one month for the IFR to decide whether to grant a provisional operating licence.

The amendment would require the independent financial regulator to make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operational licence within a period of one month. The independent football regulator would be able to extend the period by no more than two weeks if it required more time to consider the application, whether that be due to staffing or other issues. If the independent football regulator extended the period, it would have to give notice to the relevant club explaining why.

Clause 17 is where we find the initial provisions that give the Government’s regulator the power to grant provisional operating licences and the conditions that must be satisfied for a football club to be granted a such a licence. The Government’s regulator must be satisfied that the club applying will comply with the free-standing duties on clubs as set out in part 4, comply with the mandatory licence conditions set out in schedule 5, and operate a relevant team.

On the face of it, the clause seems necessary. There should be a safety net for clubs that have uncertain futures but cannot afford to pause operations while a full licensing determination is made. In that sense, the provisional licence acts as a regulatory bridge which, if implemented properly, can be an essential tool for avoiding the kind of cliff-edge collapses that we have sadly seen in years gone by. Clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, where administrative or ownership crises rapidly spiralled and led to total collapse, might have benefited from such a mechanism. I pay tribute to all the fans and campaigners who have fought so hard for a regime that intervenes earlier rather than only when it is too late. As I have said, I believe that all Members would have preferred football to have got its act together and for our not to be doing this today, but we are where we are.

Although I support clause 17 in principle, I want to raise concerns about how it is drafted and how its powers might be used in practice. First, the clause gives the regulator significant discretion in determining whether to issue a provisional licence and under what conditions. Subsection (1) provides that a licence may be granted—not must—even where a club applies in good faith and has satisfied the initial criteria. That may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it raises the risk that clubs could be left in a holding pattern, awaiting a decision for weeks or months on end with no firm timetable and no recourse to receive an outcome from the Government’s regulator.

Secondly, the measure allows the regulator to impose any conditions it considers appropriate when granting a provisional licence. We absolutely recognise the need for the independent football regulator to have flexibility, particularly when dealing with clubs that may be in financial distress or suffering from poor governance. However, as currently drafted, the clause presents a clear and present danger to English football. As I have highlighted already, we believe that imposing different rules on different clubs will create issues for the regulator going forward, legally and particularly in relation to independence and European competitions, but Members will be pleased to know that I will not go into that again. We must also guard against the risk of disproportionate or arbitrary conditions being imposed, particularly if they are unchallengeable or unclear for clubs. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether a club might, for example, be required to restructure its board to get a provisional licence? Would it be forced to accept certain ownership conditions, and would it be required to provide reams of documentation within a short period just for the provisional licence? These are not hypothetical questions but real-world concerns that clubs will have, particularly at the lower end of the football pyramid. Many such clubs, as I have already outlined, lack the administrative bandwidth to deal with complex regulatory demands at short notice.

That is why the official Opposition have tabled amendment 101, which would ensure that the Government’s regulator must reach a decision on a provisional licence within one month. We fear that, without a time limit, clause 17 risks becoming an instrument of delay, rather than one that supports and creates certainty for clubs by providing a regulatory bridge. Crucially, there is no requirement in the clause as drafted for the regulator to explain why a provisional licence has been refused or revoked. That, again, undermines transparency, and if a regulator is to command trust and credibility, particularly in the emotionally-charged world of football—in its good moments and its bad—it must be seen to be operating with both fairness and openness.

We understand that a decision can be appealed as a “reviewable decision” under clause 81. However, that does not provide transparency for fans, and an appeals process increases uncertainty for clubs. Fans and clubs deserve a Government regulator that acts swiftly, proportionately and, above all, transparently. Clause 17 is the beginning of that promise, but it must be shaped with care.

[Jim Dickson]

Does the hon. Member think that there is any contradiction between his desire, as set out in the amendment, to see decisions made incredibly quickly and his desire that he expressed earlier to see the number of people employed by the regulator limited to 50?

[Mr French]

No, I do not, and I think the hon. Member slightly misunderstands what the measure is about. It is about the provisional licence, not the full-fat licence. I am not asking the regulator to rush a decision on whether a club should be granted a long-term licence. We are asking for some certainty and some time limits to help with that bridging. We have already said that we are concerned about the size of the regulator, but we want clubs to have some certainty around timeframes and not to be left in limbo for too long.

Our belief that clubs should have certainty was why we tabled amendment 101, which would establish a time limit of one month for the Government’s regulator to decide whether it will grant a provisional operating licence. This is supposed to be the main focus of the regulator, so we believe that it is reasonable to expect that it fulfils that function efficiently. This would be an important and proportionate safeguard. It would not diminish the regulator’s authority, but rather ensure that it is exercised in a timely, effective and accountable manner. It is about introducing clarity, certainty and discipline into a process that, under the Bill as drafted, risks becoming needlessly opaque and potentially open-ended.

We must remember what the provisional licence mechanism is designed to achieve. It is not the final or comprehensive licence that will be granted to a club, as I have just said. It is a stopgap—a holding measure meant to ensure continuity of operation for clubs while their full licensing application is under assessment. In short, it is there to prevent disruption, not to prolong it. Thinking about the footballing element to this, a club that was held in limbo, unable to play, would create a lot of issues for the league and the season overall.

As it stands, the Bill provides the Government’s regulator with no firm timetable or obligation to act within any defined period when it comes to a provisional licence. That raises two concerns. First, it risks leaving clubs in regulatory limbo, especially those already in difficult situations. That is not just a matter of administrative inconvenience. For clubs living hand-to-mouth, as many sadly are, uncertainty over their licensing status could mean missed deadlines for investment, lost commercial deals or even delays in paying staff and suppliers. In the worst cases, it could trigger crises and the very things that the Bill was supposed to prevent.