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.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I am a member of Tottenham Hotspur football club.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am a Crystal Palace season ticket holder.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I sold my shares in Manchester United to the phoenix fund, which exists to buy the club if it ever comes back on the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to be opening the first sitting of this important Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. It is right and proper that we begin by considering the most fundamental questions of all: what is this Bill actually for? What is its central aim, or its core principles? What will it actually do? And why are the Government looking to establish a regulator for football at all?

As we consider those fundamental questions, I want again to put on the record my thanks to all the clubs, fans and leagues, and those in the wider football community, who have engaged positively over many years, highlighting a range of challenges, experiences and opinions in the game. It would be remiss of me not to thank Dame Tracey Crouch again for all her work on the fan-led review of football. I am sure she is very happy that Spurs have finally ended their European trophy drought.

Moving on to the future of football, clause 1 states that the purpose of the Bill is

“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football.”

The Opposition believe that that is something of a missed opportunity. Why should our ambition for our national game be limited merely to its surviving? We have much higher ambitions for the future of English and British football than mid-table mediocrity. As the creators of this beautiful game, we want these isles to continue to be home to the best leagues, the best clubs, the best players and managers, and of course the best fans, both here and overseas.

Although the focus of the Bill is the English game, I want to be absolutely clear that the Conservative party has the same passion for seeing all British football clubs thrive and the sport as a whole continue to go from strength to strength. Football is a national sport rooted deeply in our communities, but we must not lose sight of its global reach, evolving international competition and the importance of our game to millions of people around the world.

Amendments 95 and 96 in my name seek to provoke exactly that discussion. They also seek to ensure that there is a specific definition of the “sustainability of English football” that is more than just the preservation of the status quo, and that sustainability means the sustainable growth of the game. Given that the Government’s stated core mission is growth, let us see whether Government Members support them. Without the amendments, there is a real and growing risk that Labour’s football regulator will stifle the growth of English football at all levels, whether by overzealously adding more burdensome regulations and costs on clubs throughout the pyramid, or by increasing its scope beyond that originally intended. That is why my amendments seek to ensure that the regulator has a clear objective actively to support growth of the game.

As we heard on Second Reading, English football has a proud and unparalleled heritage and is now an economic powerhouse for this country on the international stage. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere, as was the English Football League. In the inaugural 1888-89 season, Preston North End went undefeated in the league and the FA Cup, making them the original invincibles—that is something a member of my team, Matthew Comber, will not let me forget. So long is the history of English football that it predates the Labour party by almost two decades. The deep-rooted identities of our clubs have been passed down through generations and inspire deep passions across England and around the world.

Those emotions are not captured by the word “sustainability”. The love of a home ground, the pride in a club’s colours, the hope of a promotion push and the agony of a relegation battle are deeply human attachments. Some of that is recognised in the clauses on heritage assets, but if those elements are important enough to warrant specific provisions, why are they absent from clause 1, which sets out the Bill’s purpose? We must be careful that, in striving for sustainability, we do not risk entrenching stagnation. A regulator whose primary remit is to preserve the status quo risks falling behind and becoming rigid and resistant to positive evolution of the game, and that creates significant risks given the increasing international competition.

It is sometimes said that the Conservatives fear change. I reject that characterisation. We value our history, but we are not stuck in it. We embrace change where it is well thought out, positive for the future and rooted in our values. That is exactly the mindset we should bring to the regulation of football. The Government’s new regulator must be forward looking. It cannot simply aim to keep the wheels turning. It must support the growth of the game, including in attendance, participation and commercial success. Anything less risks relegating English football from its current position of world leader.

That is why my noble Friends in the other place tabled amendments to build on sustainability with ideas such as success, growth and aspiration. Those are not just slogans; they are principles that clubs and communities live by, and they reflect the very spirit of English football. We should not be afraid to put those words in the Bill. Doing so would give the regulator a true north—a clear, unapologetic mission not just to preserve English football, but to help it flourish.

Let me be clear about what is at stake. Football is one of our greatest national industries. The Premier League alone accounted for £1.4 billion in TV exports in the 2019-20 season. It is watched by more than 1.5 billion people across 189 countries. This is not just sport; it is a key part of our cultural identity and one of our nation’s most powerful soft power assets, with all leagues, including the English Football League and the National League, highly ranked around the world.

The women’s game has been clear that it does not want a regulator as it wants to be able to grow. The men’s game, in many parts, is the same. It should be allowed to continue to grow, to do the great things it does in local communities and to employ thousands of people across the country to support football, not to perform Whitehall-imposed box-ticking exercises.

Football is deeply local. Clubs are the beating hearts of our towns and cities up and down the country, as Members know. If the House gets this Bill wrong— if we give the regulator an inadequate remit—we risk weakening that fabric. We cannot let that happen. I urge colleagues to support these amendments and the broader principle behind them, namely that we must aim higher. The Government’s majority means that it is almost certain that the Bill will pass and a regulator will be created, so let us give that regulator a purpose worthy of the game it is being created to protect. Let us ensure that the Bill is about not just survival, but the long-term success and vibrancy of English football.

[Jim Dickson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to be part of this Bill Committee. I again declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Crystal Palace for over 35 years, which has given me a chance to see the ups and downs of a football club and the perils of clubs going into administration. That has happened to Palace twice in just over 25 years, but that shows that clubs can sometimes bounce back. I hope, Sir Jeremy, that you will tolerate me briefly putting on the record my joy at having been at Wembley two weeks ago to watch the mighty Eagles win the FA cup—a high point in my time as a fan. I promise the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I will not turn the Committee into a clash of the south London giants over the next month or so.

I warmly welcome the Bill. Fans and all those who value clubs as integral parts of local communities will fully support the establishment of the independent regulator and the three primary objectives of sustainability, resilience and protecting heritage. The enhanced owners and directors test; the club licensing system, which is proportionate and puts advocacy first; the oversight of financial distribution; and the backstop powers in the Bill are very important. Fan organisations are particularly pleased by the provisions requiring clubs to meet the fan engagement threshold.

Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill and defines sustainability. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup seeks to change that definition. I am curious why the Opposition want the definition of the sustainability of English football to be tied to, for example, its increasing TV viewership. Although I am sure that is well intentioned, I fear that it conflicts with other parts of amendment 96. While growing a TV audience is obviously important, if it is considered critical, I am sure that clubs will argue for even more late changes to fixture schedules to produce the best kick-off times for TV, or, as has started to happen in other leagues, to begin playing games abroad. Those things create major expense and inconvenience for fans and therefore will not meet the needs of present or future fans, which the amendment refers to.

The amendment misses the point in another important respect by muddying the waters between success and sustainability. Across their history, the Premier League and the English Football League have been very successful in generating revenue. According to the football finance expert Kieran Maguire:

“Since the Premier League was formed in 1992-93, its revenues have increased by 2,857%, whereas the Championship is at just over 1,000%”—

also very healthy. Given that prices have doubled, from a consumer prices index perspective, that is great business.

However, that has come alongside an inability to control costs. The most significant costs in the industry are wages. While Premier League revenues are up by 2,857% since 1992, wages have increased by over 4,000%. Mr Maguire also said:

“Similarly, as far as the EFL Championship goes, if we take just one division, wages are up 1,400% compared with revenue of 1,000%...As a consequence, if we look at the figures for 2022-23…the 20 clubs in the Premier League lost a collective £836 million. In the Championship, on average the clubs were losing £20 million: League One, £4.1 million, League Two, £1.4 million; and in the National League, £970,000. All those clubs have been part of a spectacularly successful industry, of which we should be proud.”

He added, as the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has also said:

“It has globalised the game of football as coming from the UK. There has been a collective inability to control costs.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 5, Q1.]

One of the results is that since the start of the Premier League, roughly 40% of clubs in the top four leagues have gone into administration, which further underscores the problem. It is little wonder that, according to Dr Christina Philippou from the University of Portsmouth:

“More than half of the clubs in the top five leagues are technically insolvent, so if they were any other business, they would not be in existence.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 7, Q4.]

So why is it right for the Bill to focus on the broad definition of sustainability? It is because the fans and communities need these clubs to exist. Unless we root the definition of success in sustainability, rather than the other elements that the Opposition are trying to introduce, we will not see that happen.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am delighted to be on the Committee, although I feel slightly ashamed that, unlike seemingly everyone else, I do not have any interests to declare.

The amendments deal with the important issue of the Bill’s purpose, but I will start by saying that football in this country is more than just a game; it is a defining part of our national identity. With around 14 million grassroots players and over 40,000 clubs across England, football is deeply woven into the fabric of communities. From the local pitch to the world stage, our game is a source of pride, unity and aspiration.

There are many key dates in this nation’s history. One of them is 1066, when the Norman conquest marked the start of modern monarchy in England, but for many people 1966 is an even more important date, because it was the last time that England won the World cup. To see this as merely a Bill relating to a sport would be to misunderstand the fundamental importance of football in our country. As a previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport noted in 2023:

“We invented the beautiful game. The English Football League is the world’s original football league, while for over 3 decades the Premier League has been the template for all other leagues to follow—simultaneously generating both the most excitement and the most wealth of any league on the planet. The Premier League and EFL are true global success stories, exported and watched by millions of people around the world each week.”

The community value of football clubs at the grassroots level also must not be underestimated.

The original wording of the Bill risks reducing sustainability to narrow financial metrics; amendment 96 seeks to broaden its definition to encompass environmental, social and generational responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the amendment aims to make the definition more aspirational; rather than merely sustaining the status quo, it would mean looking to promote and enhance football in this country.

Our amendments 95 and 96 would frame football as not merely a business but a shared cultural institution, and they would protect fans’ long-term stake in their clubs, ensuring that future generations can access the same joys, histories and traditions. An overly cautious approach in the Bill could stifle investment and reduce competitiveness, so I ask the Minister for greater clarity on the regulatory model. The statement of the Bill’s purpose relates to sustainability and the Bill itself is overly focused on financial metrics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I appreciate the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I will say that, though the Liberal Democrats like to avoid this point, they were in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, so some of those decisions would have been made by—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dartford want to intervene?

[Jim Dickson]

indicated dissent.

[Mr French]

The hon. Gentleman was chuntering, but I did not hear what he said so I cannot comment on it. The amendments tabled in my name are important to ensure that there is transparency, and to ensure not only that the regulator has independence in everything that it does but that the perception of its independence is not brought into question, because that is important.

I will talk through the grouped amendments. Amendment 117, to schedule 2, would insert that :

“Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

The shadow Minister represents a political party and the Opposition’s view has a wider perspective on the work that we are doing today. To try to carve this Bill out entirely from the wider appointments process seems odd when he represents a party with a Secretary of State and a party leader who take a wider view on these matters.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for Dartford, one of my new neighbours. He has not mentioned Dartford football club—I am sure they will be unhappy about that.

[Jim Dickson]

It is not in the scope of the Bill.

[Mr French]

There we go! He might wish that the hon. Member for Cheltenham had moved his amendment. This is quite painful, because my local club, Welling United, were relegated this season. It is quite painful as the local Welling-Dartford rivalry plays out.

I understand the point the hon. Member for Dartford makes. Of course I represent a party and of course I am the shadow Minister for Sport, but my job today is to focus on the Bill. The job of this Committee is to focus on the Bill. I respect the fact that hon. Members may have different opinions about whether we should be considering other aspects of public appointments but when we sit here today, having seen the news last night that an independent inquiry has been called into the appointment of the chairman, that strengthens the point of why the amendment is needed.

In government, parties have to make difficult decisions. That is undoubtedly true, regardless of who is in power. We have already seen such a huge own goal, which has undermined the regulator so much, and it was an own goal that could have been avoided. That is why it must be clear and transparent that, whoever is in power, political donations of any kind—particularly when they are to the Secretary of State and Prime Minister, which creates a lot of issues—must be properly declared so that Select Committees have the analysis to make proper, informed decisions.

I am not saying that the Select Committee might have reached a different decision, but it should have had the information on donations. The fact that an inquiry is taking place creates difficult issues for this Committee. At this point we are unclear, given that the story broke only yesterday—that was the first time I was aware of the inquiry—but we have an independent inquiry into the appointment of the chair of the football regulator when we are seeking to discuss the legislation for that regulator today. That creates concerns about the Bill and how it is drafted—I am trying to stick to the Bill rather than the person. I urge Members to accept amendment 117, because it would make the rules on donations clear and it would apply to all parties in government.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am about to answer that. The figure is based on conversations with the leagues and other regulators already in play. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in the points I am coming to.

We have heard that the number of people employed is 42. Unofficially, before today, I was told that it would be 80. That is the rumour going around the football world, but we have clarity from the Minister that it will be 42. [Interruption.] That is based on conversations with clubs. That is what engagement is about. That is why we asked the question. We are not basing the figure on rumour; I have just asked the question. That number will include civil servants, of course, and, as we have heard, regulatory specialists, policy advisors, analysts, stakeholder engagement leads, public affairs professionals and legal advisors, all of them at considerable expense to the taxpayer in the short term, and at significant cost to football fans in the longer term, as costs are passed on. In our conversations, the industry shared concerns about the scale and cost, especially compared with how football currently operates.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe just made a point about the size of the regulator. I do not think it is fair to quote someone directly when they are not here, or to quote an informal conversation, but I understand from a briefing that was given to the Lords, and a similar conversation that took place with me directly, that a gentleman very well-respected in football—who was key to this Bill—suggested that the work of the regulator could be done with several people. That was his expert opinion. When I suggest 50 people in this amendment, I am being very generous, given what the football industry believes the number should be, the costs and the fact that other regulatory bodies will still be involved in football.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I think we all agree that any regulator, including this one, should be agile, proportionate and just large enough to do its job, but is it really the role of politicians to pluck figures out of the air based on rumour and conversations, and put them in a Bill in a way that ties the regulator to that figure forever and a day? I know it is a maximum figure, but should not politicians stick to the thing that they do best—setting regulation and making the law—rather than trying to specify the detail of individual organisations that have a job to do?

[Mr French]

I respect the hon. Member’s comments, but I think that this issue is fundamental to the discussion. The Opposition are seriously concerned about the cost and scope of this regulator, and how that will impact both clubs and fans in football’s delicate international ecosystem, so this issue is pertinent to the point that we are trying to make. The number that we have reached was not plucked out of the air. We had discussions with people directly involved in running football to try to ascertain an appropriate number of employees for the regulator. People in football are concerned about how big this regulator has become, and how quickly, even before the chairman has his feet under the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member for Cheltenham also referred to the principles of business, but the issue is that this is not a business; it is a regulator. That is why it is entirely proper and fair for Parliament to put a cap on headcount to ensure that the regulator delivers its objectives with some sense of constraint. I suspect that there will always be a justification for taking on more staff to dot every i and cross every t, but that should not be what the regulator is about. I take the point, however.

[Jim Dickson]

If the number is 42 at the moment, as the Minister says, and the regulator is not yet up and running, might 50 not be an entirely inappropriate number for the work that the regulator ultimately has to do, as set out in the Bill?

[Joe Robertson]

I am slightly worried that there are 42 people devoted to setting it up. That sounds like quite a lot to me; it gives me concern and supports my argument for a cap. In response, the Government could come forward and say, “This is the headcount that we expect to deliver the things we want to be delivered,” but I do not think that the Minister is saying that. She will have the opportunity at the end of this exchange—when she resists the amendment, as I am sure she will—to give some assurance that the regulator will not grow beyond a certain size. If she cannot give some indication of headcount, that will ring alarm bells. Those are the alarm bells that the cap seeks to deal with.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Jim Dickson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

This Bill enables Labour Members to fulfil our manifesto commitment to make this the best place in the world to be a football fan. As outlined by the Secretary of State, the Bill will put in place a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs where they belong—at the heart of their communities. It is even more pleasing to be here after a successful trip to Wembley to see Crystal Palace overcome Aston Villa, with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). However, it was particularly pleasing to hear Birmingham City fans providing a great rendition of “Glad All Over” at their match the following day.

My long experience as a Crystal Palace fan, which has seen the club go into administration twice in a little over 25 years—in 1999 and 2010—has shown me the need for change, but this is not really about the larger clubs such as Palace. It is about the fact that the system is not working for clubs further down the pyramid, where the risk of takeover and abuse by malicious owners is even higher. We have heard from Members across the House about the clubs—Reading, Bury, Southend, and the litany goes on—that have been brought low by poor ownership. Since 1992, over 60 clubs have gone into administration. Notoriously, we have seen club owners simply uprooting clubs and moving them around the country, and changing badges and shirt colours without fans being able to prevent it.

Over my time as a fan and since being elected to represent Dartford in this place, I have seen the power of football clubs, not just as sporting organisations, but as the vessels for community identity and aspiration. They are often the most important local institution that binds a community together, and that gives a borough, town or city a sense of itself and of its potential. Dartford football club is an integral part of our town, having been founded over 130 years ago by members of the Dartford working men’s club and saved by its fans in the early 1990s. I wish the manager, Ady Pennock, and the players the very best of luck in their play-off match on Wednesday against Cray Valley in their bid to return to national league south, where they belong.

We all agree that football clubs must be solvent and well run, and every fan will dream of their club seeing success on the field, but they are and must remain so much more than companies competing in a marketplace. That is why the protection and regulation provided by this Bill are so vital. I hope that all Members of the House, for the sake of communities up and down the country, will support the Bill tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Copyright law stands firmly behind the creative industries today, and will in the future. We will do absolutely nothing to undermine the fact that this country is one of the few great countries in the world that is able to boast of itself as a content superpower, and anything we do in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright will proceed only if we can make sure that the creative industries have more control and more remuneration at the end of that process, rather than less.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

T7.   I very much welcome the national youth survey, which was launched last month and was mentioned by the Secretary of State. It is great to see a Government who are not only listening to young people, but are determined to put young voices at the heart of policymaking. In Dartford, we have a rapidly growing youth population, with the number of under-15s having grown by 30% at the last census. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that policies that affect young people are produced with the people who are affected by them, and will she consider attending my youth engagement event in Dartford later this month?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that kind invitation. The Minister with responsibility for young people, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), would be delighted to go, if she can make that work with her existing commitments. I share my hon. Friend’s view that we, as a Government, are not just interested in young people having a voice; we also want them to have real power to be in the driving seat of their own lives. That is why we have invited young people to co-produce the national youth strategy with us, and I am delighted that we have already made good on our promise of the biggest conversation with this generation that has ever taken place.

Victory in Europe and Japan: 80th Anniversaries

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman rightly outlines Scotland’s huge contribution. I am visiting Edinburgh next week, and I look forward to meeting my counterpart there. He is absolutely right that supporting our veterans today is incredibly important, and we work across Government on that. We are joined in the Gallery by Lord Coaker; we speak very regularly. This falls to not just DCMS and the MOD, but Departments across Government.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Can I say how very welcome the Government’s announcement on the VE and VJ Day celebrations will be in Dartford? My constituency was very much on the frontline during world war two. The town and surrounding villages were a target for air raids by German bombers that could not reach central London, which often deposited their bomb loads on Dartford. Only today, part of Kirby Road and Hillhouse Road has had to be cordoned off due to a suspected unexploded world war two bomb. I pay tribute to the emergency services, which, even as we speak, are dealing with that situation. Many brave Dartford men and women fought and died in the war, and their memories are still strong. How can people use the VE and VJ Day celebrations to uncover wartime histories in their families?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend has outlined the huge impact that the war had. I said in my statement that my generation would be the last to grow up with family members and friends who fought or contributed; I remember on my first day at school, or certainly not long after I joined school, my first teacher talking about her experience during an air raid. That was really important to me growing up—it was part of my childhood that people talked about the second world war. That is not the case for today’s generation, which is why we have launched our “Letters to Loved Ones” initiative. That initiative encourages people to explore their family history—to look for letters and artefacts so that they can understand what life was like during wartime. We are encouraging people to share those letters and artefacts on our website, so that we can all learn from them.

Market Towns: Cultural Heritage

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate. Like him, I have the privilege of representing the historic market town of Dartford, where a great market still operates on Thursdays and Saturdays in the town centre.

Dartford and its surrounding villages have a proud cultural heritage, with the borough council running its own blue plaque scheme to celebrate historical events and figures from around the borough. This includes Dartford football club, with a plaque at the site of the original entrance to its Watling Street ground. It also includes the Rolling Stones. I am sure the music aficionados here know that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met as teenagers on platform 2 of Dartford’s railway station in 1961—a year before forming the band. The iconic duo is immortalised in the town, with a pair of statues unveiled in 2023.

Dartford football club is an integral part of the town’s cultural heritage, having been founded over 130 years ago by members of Dartford working men’s club. It currently sits proudly at the top of the Isthmian league. The club was saved by supporters in the early 1990s, and the team now play at the fantastic Princes Park on the edge of the town.

Another proud part of Dartford’s heritage is the Orchard theatre, which was built in the early 1980s and has hosted comedians, musicals and pantos ever since. Sadly, it is currently beset with RAAC in its roof and has been closed, with a temporary theatre created to hold performances in the interim. Additional work is needed on fire safety, and we look forward to the theatre being open again in 2026, which is sadly a year later than planned.

As others have stressed, pubs are an important part of our cultural heritage. Historical pubs are a key part of an area’s social infrastructure. In Dartford, the Royal Victoria and Bull pub on High Street is a leading example. The Lads of the Village pub in Stone was built in 1793 and has recently closed. The parish council has successfully campaigned to get the pub listed as an asset of community value, but despite the council offering the full asking price, the owner is refusing to negotiate, leaving the site in limbo with the parish powerless. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in the “English Devolution” White Paper to a strong new right to buy to maintain beloved assets. That cannot come soon enough.

I hope the Government will continue with their plans to revitalise our high streets and historic market towns, looking at how business rates can be reformed. Again, I welcome the commitment in the devolution White Paper to support high streets by strengthening business improvement districts. Let us all work together over this Parliament to ensure that our market towns can thrive.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

In the spirit of working together, I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. There are still eight people who want to speak, so I am afraid speeches will have to be less than two minutes or someone will be disappointed.

Gambling Harms

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I am delighted that the right hon. Member raises this important point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly; I will come on to the levy in a moment.

The public, too, are concerned about gambling advertising, with opinion polls consistently showing most people in the UK want a clampdown. As we have heard, we fall well behind other countries, with the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all having almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. We can clearly see that the boom in online gambling and huge rise in advertising and marketing is leading to an increase in gambling harms.

That leads me on to the legislation, which is in urgent need of an update. The last time primary gambling legislation was put forward was the Gambling Act 2005, which established the Gambling Commission, with the primary aims of preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, ensuring that it was conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling companies. The Act was delivered before the rise of online gambling and before smartphones even existed; it is an analogue Act in a digital age and has long been in need of an update.

However, I was pleased to see the statutory levy introduced last week by the Government, which will generate £100 million from gambling operators to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms —without a doubt, an important step in ensuring that the industry begins to pay for the harm it causes. While the changes to the levy are welcome, however, we lack clarity on where the money raised through the levy will go on prevention. It is important that prevention commissioning is undertaken independently of the gambling industry. We cannot expect people to access services commissioned by the industry that they have been harmed or exploited by.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just spoken about the levy, which is a big step forward. Does he agree that prevention needs to focus on people who are at immediate risk but also, more widely, on our education system and services for young people?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, I agree that it is important that prevention should work across the piece, but I think it is more important to reduce the ubiquity of advertising that our young people are exposed to. They do not need to learn too young about gambling, and prevention should take that into account.

As I said, the changes to the levy are welcome, but we lack clarity on where the money that is raised will go with regard to prevention. It is important that the prevention commissioner be from the Department of Health and Social Care, given the synergy between the role and the Department’s current expertise in the delivery of similar services.

The introduction of the levy is a good first step, but it is just that—a first step. Two decades on from the Gambling Act, further action is needed to protect individuals and families from harm. I am thinking of the families of Ben and Jack and the thousands of others who have lost someone to gambling-related suicide, as well as the more than 1 million people who are experiencing gambling harms right now.

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, working with Members from both sides of the House to minimise the harms from gambling—I am pleased to see so many of them present. I will highlight to the Minister some of the proposals on which the group has been working.

I ask the Minister to continue to monitor and regularly review the statutory levy on gambling operators. As I mentioned, it is important that the levy should commission preventive work independent of the gambling industry. I ask that mandatory affordability checks be implemented, which would help to prevent individuals from gambling beyond their means by identifying those at risk of financial harm and providing timely interventions.

I ask the Minister to commit to properly investigating every gambling-related suicide. Families such as Ben’s and Jack’s deserve each of these tragedies to be fully examined to understand the underlying causes and to develop better strategies for prevention. I would encourage the introduction of a gambling ombudsman to deal with disputes and provide appropriate redress where a customer suffered harm due to the operator’s social responsibility failure.

I would strongly push for greater restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and inducements. We need to stop the practices that encourage children to gamble and that create unavoidable risks for the more than 1 million adults who are already suffering harms from gambling. Many of these challenges can be addressed by reviewing the 2005 Act in the light of the huge technological developments that have happened over the last two decades. That would allow us to follow through on the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to reduce gambling harms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate and for his insightful opening speech. I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time, so I will focus on a small number of points.

In 2023, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities published its latest report on the economic and social cost of the harms associated with gambling. It identified that 1.76 million people participate in harmful gambling in England, of whom 168,000 are classified as experiencing problem gambling. Those figures are enormous. GambleAware estimates that in Dartford, the community I am privileged to represent in this place, one in 33 people have a problem gambling severity index score of 8-plus. In layman’s terms, that means that they have experienced adverse consequences from gambling and may have lost control over their behaviour.

Like other Labour Members, I was elected on a manifesto committing us to reducing gambling-related harm, and I very much welcome the progress that we are making. The statutory levy and slot stake limits are both impressive steps forward, but there are still a few areas in which I—and other Members, I am sure—have identified the need for Government action.

First, as a football fan, I am pleased that the Premier League will ban front-of-shirt advertising by gambling companies from the summer of 2026, but anyone who regularly watches or attends matches will know that that is not enough. We need to go further and ban all shirt advertising, as well as perimeter advertising, and other sports need to follow that lead.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to reform how coroners look at the role of problem gambling, because many bereaved families have felt that problems with gambling were simply excluded from consideration. I support calls for the Government to look at how they might reform the coroner service to ensure that the causes of preventable deaths, such as those linked with gambling, are properly examined and addressed to prevent future deaths. Importantly, the evidence submitted by families must be properly interrogated.

I pay tribute to all organisations involved in reducing gambling harm, but particularly Gambling with Lives, which has put families bereaved by gambling suicide at the heart of its work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Naish—not here.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the contribution of community spaces to civil society.

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

The Government are committed to creating thriving community spaces, including community centres, youth clubs and sports facilities, that offer vital resources for communities across the country. My Department is allocating over £85 million of funding in 2025-26 to create fit-for-purpose, welcoming spaces for young people. That includes launching the better youth spaces fund.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Swanscombe pavilion in my constituency is at the heart of the Swanscombe community. It hosted dedicated lunch clubs for older people, provided a hub for local sports teams, and was a venue that local people could hire for parties. The building has fallen into disrepair, and the town council is searching desperately for the funds to rebuild or refurbish it, having been unable to obtain funding from the youth investment fund or the community ownership fund. What guidance could the Minister offer on bringing this crucial building back into community use?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), on Monday to discuss this issue, which falls under his remit. As a local MP, I know from my constituency the important role that community spaces play in supporting local groups; they bring a huge benefit locally. The Government encourage community groups seeking funding to use the tools available on the My Community website, which suggests funding sources. I hope this information will help the council to work out its next steps, alongside the feedback that it should have received on its unsuccessful application to the community ownership fund.