Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this debate and for speaking with such knowledge and passion, not only about the Stockton and Darlington railway but about railways more generally and the impact they have had on this country.

The Stockton and Darlington railway was the first step in the great railway invention and expansion that shaped our country and the world. Britain pioneered steam locomotion and railways, and we have heard how George Stephenson set the global standard. Railways in turn powered the industrial revolution by enabling the efficient movement of raw materials, goods and people.

Within just a few years our country had established a railway network that grew throughout the country; what was once a three-day trip to remote areas by horse and cart became, within a few years, a journey of a few hours by train. We take it for granted today in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence, but it is hard to overstate just how transformative the railways were in the 19th century—and it all started in Stockton and Darlington.

Beyond the railways’ economic impact, they transformed the social fabric of our country. They opened the countryside to the urban population, offering access to fresh air and green spaces. Rail travel also revolutionised tourism. Affordable fares made trips possible for working-class families, reshaping the character of seaside towns such as those in my constituency on the Isle of Wight.

Heritage railways act as living museums that preserve the rich legacy of our railways, and they will be doing so up and down the country—an essential part of the 200th anniversary celebrations. The central and most important part of that will be the cultural festival in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. While discussing heritage railways, I must mention the contribution of the heritage railway in my constituency, the Isle of Wight steam railway at Havenstreet, which welcomes over 110,000 visitors annually. It is not just a tourist destination; it is an accredited Arts Council England museum and educational charity, employing 35 staff and enriching our local economy—particularly the visitor economy—and our community.

Heritage railways contribute £600 million to the UK economy and welcome 13 million visitors each year. None of that would be possible without the extraordinary contribution of volunteers, and I am sure volunteers will play a very significant role in the upcoming cultural festival. Across the country, thousands of dedicated individuals give their time and expertise not only to restore locomotives and maintain rolling stock, but to guide visitors and passengers. On the Isle of Wight steam railway alone, we have a team of up to 500 volunteers, and it is one of the largest volunteer organisations on the island.

In celebrating the 200th anniversary of our railways, we must do more to remove barriers to volunteers and offer more flexible opportunities that encourage people both young and old to volunteer. Recently, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay identified just such a barrier to volunteering and sought to remove it during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place. An obsolete 1920s law governing the employment of young people has survived in later legislation. It means that, strictly speaking, it is not legal for heritage railways to give volunteering opportunities to anyone under the age of 16. My noble Friend was able to amend the Bill in the other place on a cross-party basis to remove that outdated provision in existing legislation. I hope very much that when the Bill comes back to the Commons, as part of the 200th anniversary celebrations and in that spirit, the Government will allow that amendment to stand.

I close by again congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and by celebrating the story of Britain’s railways. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. Its opening was pioneering proof of the role not only of steam, but of railway, as a means of public transport that continues to this day. It is only fitting that we all join in honouring 200 years of innovation, connection and progress.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, I suspect that you will have plenty of time to leave space for the mover of the motion to respond.

Future of Terrestrial Television

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I want to begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for bringing us this debate and for speaking so eloquently. It is always good to see colleagues from across the House, particularly my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), contributing to an important discussion like this one on the future of television.

Terrestrial television matters. For generations, it has been one of the few services in public life that, subject only to payment of a licence fee, is free, universal and trusted by the public. Beginning almost a century ago, programmes were broadcast via radio waves through local transmitters to household aerials. Here in Britain, the British Broadcasting Corporation—the BBC—launched regular television services in 1936. Independent Television, or ITV, followed in 1955, breaking the BBC’s monopoly. Channel 4 followed in 1982, as did Channel 5 in 1997.

The commercial sector too has enhanced the choice and diversity available to consumers in recent decades. For more than half a century, free-to-air channels have helped to shape our national culture and to inform our shared experiences. The digital switchover, completed in 2012, expanded choice and picture quality, with terrestrial television remaining a vital, universal service, trusted for news, public service broadcasting and live national moments.

With the simplest of aerials and without any subscription or broadband package, families can switch on their televisions and know that they will find news, culture, sport and drama of the highest quality. That civic reach, as we have heard in this debate, is available to 98.5% of households. The current guarantee, provided by the last Conservative Government, for terrestrial broadcasting runs into the early 2030s.

Decisions will soon need to be taken about what comes next, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale sought this debate. Ofcom and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering whether to maintain, reduce or phase out digital terrestrial television—DTT. These are weighty choices, which will have real consequences for households up and down the country.

It is true that viewing habits are changing, and changing rapidly. Already, most households combine terrestrial, satellite and online streaming. According to Ofcom, 94% of households have internet at home, and 85% use video on demand services. It is not just younger people; older people do so too, but younger people are certainly doing it in greater numbers, and they of course will carry forward their viewing habits into the future.

This debate is not about technology in the abstract; it is about people. If terrestrial television were to be withdrawn too hastily, it is clear who would be worst affected: older people who rely on accessible services they are used to; our rural communities; lower-income households, for whom streaming subscriptions are often a stretch too far; and people with certain disabilities who continue to depend on reliable and familiar formats. Those groups are not small in number; indeed, many such people live in my constituency on the east of the Isle of Wight. Those are good examples of groups that could struggle if this is done too early or in the wrong way.

Maintaining the current system for a declining audience will not come for free. There will almost certainly be a need to upgrade transmission equipment by 2034 if DTT continues beyond that date. It will come at a cost to public service broadcasters too, and they may not be willing to bear that indefinitely. Managing the transition into a world without DTT, if that becomes the Government’s final decision, would need very careful planning, communications and support. The successful digital switchover in 2012 demonstrated what can be achieved when change is handled carefully. It was gradual and well supported, and no household was left behind. That must remain the principle today: whatever the future holds, nobody should be excluded.

This debate is not about nostalgia for the past, but about fairness, resilience and continuity. It is about ensuring that the march of technology does not leave anyone behind, and about giving broadcasters and audiences alike the reassurance that free-to-air television, in whatever form it takes, will continue to serve the whole nation. I would also urge the Government and public service broadcasters to ensure that in the internet protocol television world, when it comes, their content is made as freely available as possible on as many platforms as possible. There should be no walled gardens.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

For the regulator to be empowered, even indirectly, to evaluate, reshape or strike out parachute payments as part of a redistribution order is to invite Government interference in a private financial mechanism. That is not regulation; that is re-allocation. Would the Minister confirm whether the Government intend for their regulator to have the power to limit, modify or prohibit parachute payments as part of a distribution order? If so, does she recognise that that may constitute political interference in domestic football structures, which is specifically prohibited under UEFA statutes, as we have discussed?

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

The shadow Minister is speaking very clearly, and I agree with him on the potential for political interference. Does he also see within the clause any scope for market distortion because of the powers that the regulator has?

[Mr French]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I note that the Football Association sent a letter to Bill Committee members over the weekend, highlighting its concern about scope creep and how that may also interfere with what the regulator is meant to be tightly governed to do.

I would like to think that we would rather solutions were made within football. It is important that backstop powers are a clearly defined last resort and that the process encourages the principle of bodies working together to find a joint solution. Let me be very clear: by defining “relegation revenue” in statute and bringing parachute payments into scope, the Government risk triggering exactly the kind of interference that UEFA explicitly prevents in its statutes. Amendment 126 would remove subsection (3) in full. That would not abolish the regulator’s ability to consider fair distribution; it would simply make clear that internally agreed mechanisms, such as parachute payments, fall outside the regulator’s remit.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I rise to support amendment 110. I suspect the Minister might say that we do not need to cover everything and that there is a general catch-all measure in the clause, so we do not need to make this amendment.

I will draw the Committee’s attention to a similar case in my own constituency, however, where a member of the public wrote to ask if I could please hurry up his EU settlement scheme application. When we checked with the visas and immigration service, it turned out that he had been subject to a deportation order in 2017, and had indeed been deported in 2017. He had somehow managed to get back into this country illegally and make an EUSS application. He is still subject to that deportation order, yet for some crazy reason, the Home Office still have to go through his application. That is the sort of thing that we should not have to legislate for and that we should not have to state, but sadly we do.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I rise to add my support to the amendment that the shadow Minister discussed very well and clearly.

The point is that the list set out in clause 37(2)(a) to (f), which gives examples of things that would prevent a potential owner from having the requisite honesty and integrity to own a football club, is missing a provision about their being a member of a proscribed organisation such as a terrorist organisation. In football, which is the most international sport and which has very international ownership, it seems particularly sensible to have that provision.

I do not think a terrorist offence is captured by someone being

“convicted of a criminal offence”,

because, as we know, the Terrorism Act 2000 was put in place to introduce various provisions relating to terrorism where it had not necessarily been identified that a perpetrator had committed a criminal offence. The provision in the amendment would therefore be a fair addition to that list.

Of course, clause 37(2)(g) is a catch-all measure that refers to “such other matters”. Nevertheless, the point is that this matter is particularly important and we do not want to leave it to be swept up in a catch-all measure. Of course, if it is argued that it could be swept up in a catch-all measure such as clause 37(2)(g), why have the list in clause 37(2)(a) to (f) at all? I support the sensible and non-controversial amendment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairship, Ms Butler. I echo the welcome back from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, to Committee members.

I will respond to amendment 110. I reassure the shadow Minister that the intent of his amendment is already achieved within the current drafting of clause 37, which lists the matters that the regulator must take into account when it conducts its owners and directors test. We will discuss that in more detail when we consider the next group of amendments, but I will summarise briefly now.

When assessing an owner or officer’s fitness, the regulator must have regard to any criminal convictions and proceedings, in particular those included in schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007.

The regulator will seek information and expertise from relevant organisations to help it to stay alive to both national and international concerns. The shadow regulator is already building a strong relationship with the National Crime Agency and law enforcement in general to ensure that the regulator is in a strong position to gather the information it needs.

I also reassure Members that the regulator and its staff will have the requisite measures and security clearance to be able to receive information relevant to their functions. Consequently, the current provisions in the Bill deliver the intent of the amendment. On that basis, I would be grateful if the shadow Minister would withdraw it.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Dillon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Clause 49 is an important part of the Bill, particularly if we look at recent history. We saw Cardiff City unilaterally changing the colour of their kit and the Leeds United club badge redesigned using something similar to Microsoft Paint. All that was done without consultation or agreement with fans. Both those decisions were met with overwhelming negative reaction from football fans.

Our amendment would allow for fans to be properly consulted before such irresponsible and poorly supported changes even see the light of day. The regulator should be responsible for ensuring that the consultation of fans on such changes is independently observed in a fair and transparent process. In this morning’s debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East raised the point about what consultation and fan engagement mean. This amendment tries to get to that in some respect.

It would be all too easy for some clubs to hand-pick a small group of fans that they know will agree with them and make an announcement claiming overwhelming support for a change. If the regulator is able to observe the process, fans can be reassured in the knowledge that the proposals will be given proper scrutiny and challenging views will be heard and considered.

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

Can the hon. Member explain what the process the football regulator should go through would look like? The amendment does not specify any standards for what acceptable oversight of the consultation process would be.

[Mr Dillon]

We are happy to put the onus on the regulator to create a process by which it can reassure itself that a full consultation process has been undertaken. That consultation process could look different for different teams. A Premier League club has a country-wide fan base and a large amount of fans to engage with, whereas a smaller club might have a regional fan base and a smaller number of fans to engage with, so a different consultation method may be appropriate. We would be happy for the regulator to have that in its purview.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 4, page 99, line 34, leave out “crest” and insert “badge.”

My amendment raises a point that may seem technical, but I believe it is important if the Bill is to respect the history and traditions of our great national game. There is reference in the proposed legislation to the “crest” of a football club, but as any student of heraldry or loyal football supporter will tell us, that term is often misunderstood. In fact, the correct term in almost every case should be the “badge”. A crest is a specific heraldic element part of a full coat of arms traditionally appearing above a shield and regulated under royal prerogative through the College of Arms.

That distinction may seem academic, but it is not. When clubs are challenged on their intellectual property, or when supporters are concerned about the commercialisation or alteration of the symbols that represent generations of loyalty, it matters enormously that we use the correct terminology. We are not just talking about branding. We are talking about something deeply symbolic: an identity that lives on scarves and gravestones, and in the hearts of whole communities. My noble Friend Lord Parkinson raised this point in the Lords with great care and I believe he was right to do so. He proposed that the Bill use the term “badge”, not “crest”, to ensure accuracy and to avoid the legal and cultural confusion that can arise when the wrong term is used.

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

Another reason to include the word “badge”, my hon. Friend would presumably agree, is not only that is it technically correct, but it is a word used in football. It is a word that fans use. It is always helpful if legal documents in a Bill can reflect both technical and everyday wording. If the two are the same, that seems like an obvious answer.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I must admit, as a long-term football fan, that I have never heard a player say that he kissed the crest of his club when celebrating a goal. The footballing term is as accurate as the legal one, as he highlights.

This may seem a modest amendment, but it speaks to something bigger: the importance of precision, respect for history and an understanding of football not just as a product but as a tradition. If we are going to regulate the game, let us do it properly with the right words and the right respect.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

Clause 23 sets out the process that the Government’s new regulator must follow when it wishes to attach or vary a financial discretionary licence condition, which are by definition additional obligations that the regulator may impose on clubs that go beyond the mandatory licensing framework. In doing so, the clause confers on the regulator considerable further discretion. As with other discretionary powers in the Bill, the risk is not merely that the regulator uses its discretion, but that it does so inconsistently, unpredictably or in a way that strays beyond its core remit. Given that the powers provided by the clause relate directly to the financial obligations of clubs, the implications for competitiveness, investment and long-term planning are significant.

Although it is welcome that the clause does not set out a consultative process for how the financial conditions are imposed or amended, the process must not be a box-ticking exercise. Clubs should be able to challenge unreasonable conditions, and the regulator should be required to justify in clear terms why any new financial burden is necessary to meet the threshold requirements. It cannot become the case that discretionary conditions are routinely imposed as a back-door method of raising standards in areas for which Parliament has not explicitly legislated.

The risk of regulatory mission creep is particularly acute in a sector like football, in which the boundaries between finance, governance and culture are easily blurred. That is why we will be looking closely at whether there are sufficient checks, balances and transparency mechanisms in the clause to protect clubs from arbitrary financial conditions. Will the regulator issue any guidance on financial discretionary licence conditions, and will that guidance be made public? Will the Minister consider requiring an annual report to Parliament detailing how many clubs have had such discretionary financial conditions imposed, varied or removed, and on what grounds those decisions were made?

Without such checks, there is a real risk of an unequal competition taking place without fans and Parliament knowing, until it is too late and UEFA and FIFA have ejected us from their competitions. That is what I most fear may happen by accident. As we have discussed at length, the Bill is already flawed in this respect, and UEFA and FIFA would intervene if the regulator caused any impact on competitiveness. I only have to highlight the example of Crystal Palace, which is currently in the press, to demonstrate that UEFA and FIFA will stick to their rules rigidly, whether we like them or not. As I said when speaking to my amendment 97, any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and international frameworks.

Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a voice in the development and implementation of these requirements? As the clause stands, her new regulator will be able to attach or vary financial licence conditions that would that mean one club becomes more competitive than another. She has said that she intends for the regulator to be able to adapt to the circumstances of each club. However, we must be mindful that that would mean changing the level of competitiveness between clubs. That is the key risk. That is not a political point; it is sadly a risk and a fact of which we have to be mindful.

Let me stress-test that with a hypothetical question for the Minister on the Bill’s impact. Brighton & Hove Albion and Aston Villa will both compete in the Premier League next season, both have been in that league for a number of years, and both also compete for European football. If her regulator decided, for whatever reason, that Brighton required stricter or simply more financial licensing conditions than Aston Villa, there would be a competitive imbalance between the teams. Does she accept that fact, which is plainly obvious, and recognise that such club-by-club tailoring of rules and licence conditions is potentially a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules on fair competition? To give her a bit of time, I ask her to respond to that concern after I have spoken about the other provisions in the group.

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

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister sets out his question very well. It sounds as though the situation could get very complicated, especially over time, as the regulator might impose certain conditions on certain clubs and severely distort the market. Does he have any comment on that?

[Mr French]

That is exactly my concern. In trying to tailor the conditions that we are discussing, there is a risk of inadvertently impacting the ability of clubs to compete on a fair and level playing field. I am concerned that that should not happen inadvertently, as the regulator evolves. That is why I keep pushing for more parliamentary oversight, so that we understand the risks. At the end of the day, fans will not forgive us as Members of this House if this goes wrong. I do not believe in any shape or form that the Government are aiming deliberately to get it wrong—I say that openly—but I fear that there will be unintended consequences, and that is the broader point that we have been trying to make in a number of the Committee’s debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for explaining the objectives behind the amendment, which is aimed at preventing individuals with a record of human rights abuses from owning a club. My question for the hon. Member is about new clause 8(2)(b), which states that

“the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

In other words, it will have discretion to determine whether such conduct constitutes human rights abuses. Given we are talking about a football regulator, the obvious question to ask is about what qualifications the regulator would need to make such a decision. What information could they rely on? Would we be looking for Government involvement in that, given that that would probably provide the intellectual experience required? Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham think it might improve the new clause to include a route of appeal against such a decision, as a matter of natural justice, so we are seen to give individuals the right of appeal if they believe that they have been wrongly classified?

[Joe Robertson]

I have sympathy with the aims of the amendments, but I also have a few questions. I wonder whether the wording in the Bill about “requisite honesty and integrity” might cover the issue that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is trying to deal with in new clause 8. I note that amendment 75 would do more that protect against owners with a record of human rights abuses, because it would require them to promote human rights. I obviously have no problem with people promoting human rights, but the amendment would put a duty on an owner to do something positive to show that they are fit and proper. I wonder whether that is really the hon. Member’s intention.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling his amendments. It is absolutely right that clubs should have suitable owners, which is why the new statutory owners and directors test is a key focus of the regulatory regime. Because we have provided the regulator with statutory powers, including information-gathering powers and information-sharing gateways with other government agencies such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the regulator will be better placed to apply all elements of its tests than the relevant leagues. Unlike the tests used by the leagues, the regulator will assess owners’ and officers’ suitability in the round, as well as any relevant mitigating circumstances, leading to a better determination of whether an individual is suitable.

A core part of the owners and directors test is the fitness test, which the hon. Gentleman’s amendments seek to expand. The individual ownership fitness test criteria—honesty and integrity, and financial soundness—have been carefully designed. The relevant matters the regulator must consider are listed in clause 37, which I will speak to in a later sitting. They are based on precedent, and are specifically relevant to whether someone is suitable to be an owner of a football club.

All individuals will be tested against the same criteria. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that much of what his amendments seek to achieve is already delivered by the Bill as drafted. In line with the relevant matters listed in clause 37, if an individual has had legal proceedings brought against them, whether civil or criminal, including in the international courts, the regulator must have regard to that.

The regulator will also look at whether the individual has had regulatory or disciplinary action of any kind brought against them. If that action has a bearing on their honesty or integrity, the regulator must take that into account and could potentially find them unsuitable on that basis. That means that offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or equivalent legislation, whether in the UK or elsewhere, are already captured by the Bill’s owners and directors test, as are any behaviours that have given rise to legal, regulatory or disciplinary action against the owner in any forum, as well as egregious actions committed outside the UK that can be proven and that would have been criminal if done here. In addition, the regulator will consider whether any individual is sanctioned by the UK Government—for example, because of their connection to a foreign state. The regulator will take those things very seriously.

Where the amendments go further than existing drafting, however, we believe they are not appropriate. New clause 8 gives the regulator absolute discretion to determine who is “complicit” in violations, but complicity is not a clear legal test. That would fundamentally undermine the general principle of how the test is applied, and would lead to a subjective decision. The Bill, as drafted, ensures that any negative determination the regulator makes must be evidence-based. It will test every individual against the same criteria. It is crucial that it remains that way. The new clause also states that the regulator can establish a committee to help make decisions about owners. We agree that it is important that the regulator can do that, which is why it is already possible under schedule 2, so there is no need for the amendment.

The shadow Minister also spoke about appeals, which we will come on to when we debate clause 28. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his amendment and not to move the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for tabling new clause 15. It is the result of close co-operation between local parliamentarians and the Supporters Trust at Reading, which I have mentioned previously. I thank it for its constructive approach to the Bill.

The new clause mandates that individuals must notify the IFR if they are aware of any evidence that indicates a change in circumstances that could affect the ability of club owners or key personnel who are essential to the management and survival of football clubs to meet the statutory fitness criteria set forth in clause 26. It is widely recognised that whistleblowing is a vital tool for public scrutiny and accountability of individuals, and that wrongdoing and bad practice need to be called out. It is therefore essential that there are protections to encourage people to speak out. The new clause seeks to flesh out formal whistleblowing routes with regard to football ownership. Although I welcome and recognise the detail already included in the Bill on that, we need to go much further.

We need to expand the list of groups and stakeholders who would be required to report any concerns that they have about the suitability of owners or officers, including the governing body for the relevant league, the football supporters’ trust and the Football Supporters’ Association. It is often the case that those stakeholders have more knowledge about the day-to-day operations inside a club than fans, due to their proximity to the club’s inner workings. As many fans do not have the same connection or influence as such organisations, it is vital to provide a strong and accessible voice for them when issues arise, particularly when evidence concerning the survival of a club comes to light.

It is essential that the individuals listed in new clause 15 have the opportunity and route to escalate their concerns when necessary. If we take as an example my local EFL club, Reading, there may have been some people in the EFL and in the club itself who had suspicions about the deteriorating situation at the club long before those problems came to the surface and to the attention of the fanbase. If this new clause had been in place, it would have given stakeholders a formal route to raise such concerns and ensure that Dai Yongge was scrutinised properly. That could have gone some way to resolving the situation before the club ended up teetering on the brink; it is only recently that it has been sold and been able to recover.

To conclude, new clause 15 would enable accountability and monitoring of owners during their time in charge. Football club owners are temporary custodians of heritage assets that are vital to our communities; at the very least they should face regular scrutiny. It is for those reasons that I hope new clause 15 is accepted.

[Joe Robertson]

Once again, I have some sympathy with the aims of the new clause and I see where the hon. Member is trying to go with it. However, as it is currently drafted, it has a lot of breadth and contains vagaries that could throw up all sorts of issues. I will just deal with those issues briefly.

By the way, I like the idea of identifying “material change” to the extent that someone who may once have been considered fit and proper is no longer considered fit and proper, because of something that has happened or something that has been identified.

I have a problem with imposing a duty, particularly on some of the groups set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2). For example, there would be a positive duty on “club employees”, which would include some very junior members of staff. In English law, imposing a duty on someone to do something is fairly exceptional. Although I could probably tolerate imposing a duty on “officers and board members”—if people have attained that level within an organisation, they should expect duties to come with it—I could not tolerate imposing a duty on all “club employees”. That is a difficulty I have. Also, that list is not exhaustive. Subsection (1) refers to:

“ Individuals or organisations associated with a regulated club”.

That could capture a lot more people than those listed in subsection (2).

I am also slightly concerned that the duty for notification applies:

“when they”—

that is, the person—

“have evidence or information that a material change in circumstances has occurred”.

I suspect that that could open the floodgates and be misused as a means to try and potentially smear someone, or raise questions about whether they are fit and proper, based on some pretty spurious “evidence”. Such evidence could be pretty much anything—even a trivial matter. I would have hoped that there would be some sort of threshold, such as evidence that points to a strong or compelling case. “Evidence” on its own is a very, very low bar and could encourage all sorts of minor allegations that could make the job of the football regulator far bigger than it is intended to be.

Otherwise, I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for speaking to the new clause on behalf of his colleague, the hon. Member for Wokingham. The point that he made is very interesting and I have great sympathy with fans of Reading football club, who he referred to, and with fans of other clubs around the country that have fallen foul of their owners, who, I think it is fair to say, did not have the club’s long-term interests at heart. I say that as someone who has already referred to Charlton a number of times in this Committee—been there, done it, got the T-shirt. As I say, I have a lot of sympathy with fans of Reading and I hope that the future looks brighter for that club.

Even before the election, I publicly supported strengthening ownership tests. I believe them to be part of one of the most fundamental roles that the regulator should play. We should ensure the consistency of those tests between the leagues, and we should ensure that up and down the country we have the best people in charge of such community assets, and that they have the long-term interests of clubs at heart, as I believe the overwhelming majority of club owners do.

Those examples of where problems came to a head and caused significant damage to communities have proven that there is a difference in some of the tests applied by the leagues historically, with gaps and loopholes that individuals have looked to exploit. Such examples have also highlighted the need for ongoing review by the regulator about how it manages the information that comes to light. An owner might be deemed an appropriate and fit person to run a club in 2025, but changes to their financial circumstances—assuming that they have other business interests—could mean that they become more stretched, and they might be involved in other activity that comes to light, so it would be right for the review to take place as early as possible to minimise the potential damage to clubs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East posited a number of important legal challenges around this point of duty. I have sympathy with the broader objective of new clause 15, but this issue of duty poses a number of risks for people who are not board-level employees or in significant roles of influence. I think that all Members would seek to avoid a situation where people disengage from a process because they are concerned about that word “duty”, and what that could leave them exposed to legally if they were to come across information, for example, but did not feel confident in passing it on. That might arise in a variety of circumstances, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 15 in particular and on how we can seek to deliver the broader objective of strengthening ownership tests, without having to go down the rabbit hole of this duty element.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Member did not talk about Crystal Palace’s success in the FA cup final. I am sure his point is noted by the Committee.

More broadly, the football industry supports around 100,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, contributes more than £7.6 billion to GDP and delivers £3.6 billion in tax revenues annually. A major disruption to international participation because of this Government’s regulator would clearly put a serious dent in all that. In short, any move that risks our relationship with UEFA and FIFA is not just a sporting gamble but an economic one, and a profoundly reckless move for any Government to take.

We must also consider the practical impact on clubs and fans. Imagine a scenario in which the Government’s regulator intervenes in the ownership model of a particular club in UEFA competitions and in doing so breaches UEFA’s licensing criteria. That club could find itself barred from the Champions League, the Europa League or other leagues through no fault of its own. Fans, players and club employees would suffer, and the club’s value and viability undermined, all as a result of a conflict that could and should have been avoided through foresight and careful drafting of this legislation.

There is precedent for this kind of statutory provision. In sectors such as financial services, we have long recognised the need for domestic regulators to align their actions with international frameworks that they are part of. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority operate in a global regulatory environment and Parliament has provided them with duties and powers that reflect that reality. This is not a novel concept; it is standard practice where cross-border frameworks exist. As the Government have chosen to model their regulator on those in financial services, perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have not done so in this regard.

Football is different. It is more internationally integrated than most sectors. Rules are more intertwined and clubs more interdependent on foreign clubs for competition, particularly at elite level. English clubs compete weekly in cross-border tournaments—for example, when Arsenal sadly lost to Paris Saint-Germain, who went on to win the Champions League. What a final that was. Players move freely between jurisdictions. Broadcasting rights are sold and consumed around the globe, as we have heard. Football’s regulatory framework must reflect that international dimension, not wilfully ignore it.

Some will say that the amendment is unnecessary because the regulator can use its discretion to avoid conflict, but without a statutory duty, it could operate without full regard to the consequences abroad. The amendment would place a clear and proportionate duty on the Government’s regulator—something that its leadership would be required to consider in every decision they take.

Importantly, the amendment would not hand international bodies a blank cheque. It would not bind the regulator to follow their rules blindly or to give up domestic responsibilities. What it would do is make sure that the Government’s regulator takes those rules into account and, wherever possible, avoids direct conflict. That is entirely reasonable and, in my view, essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the Government’s regulator.

We do not want to create a regulator that acts in splendid isolation. We want a regulator that defends English football’s integrity but also safeguards its place in the global game. It would be the height of irony if, in the process of attempting to strengthen our domestic football pyramid, we inadvertently isolated it from the wider footballing world, solving one problem only to create a much worse one. The amendment would act as a safeguard and send a signal to fans, clubs and international partners alike that we in Parliament understand the integrated nature of modern football and legislate accordingly.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. Amendment 97 is objectively reasonable; the Government, in setting up the independent football regulator, should want to do so in compliance with any FIFA or UEFA rules, in order to secure our national teams’ places in international tournaments.

There is a genuine risk that the football regulator may conflict with FIFA and UEFA rules, not least in the political appointment of its chair. I know that the Government do not think that it is political to appoint a chair who, in the current circumstances, donated to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but FIFA may take a different view. If FIFA takes a different view and seeks to ban our national sides, the Government will not be able to do anything about it. This is the moment to enshrine in law that the regulator must comply with FIFA and UEFA rules.

We can delve briefly into what we think FIFA might deem political. In 2016, FIFA fined domestic teams, including England, for wearing an armband with an Armistice Day poppy because, in FIFA’s view, the poppy is a political symbol. I think that is madness, and pretty much everyone in this country thinks it is madness, but that was FIFA’s view, and it levied a fine. I think that, after negotiation, FIFA has since changed its mind—but if that was its view of the poppy and all sorts of symbols that most ordinary people would not think of as political, I am concerned about what it will think about a football regulator that has a chair appointed by Government, who in this instance also donated to the leadership campaign of the Prime Minister of the day, and who may then exercise a decision over ownership of a particular club in this country. I suspect FIFA may think that is political and conflicts with the ability of England and other home nations to compete in international events. The Government can deal with that very simply.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is speaking in support of this amendment or against it? As far as I can see, if UEFA or FIFA decides that the poppy is a political symbol, the shadow Minister’s amendment would mean that we would have to follow that decision.

[Joe Robertson]

No. The football regulator is not set up—unless the Government view otherwise—to decide what symbols the England national team wear on their arms. It is set up for all sorts of things such as financial viability and ownership models of teams within the English leagues. My point is about how FIFA views political interference and political symbols. It is clearly very sensitive to them and has a very high bar. I am concerned that, if the football regulator breaches that bar, England will be restricted from entering international tournaments. The Government will not be able to do anything about it at that point, but they can deal with it now by mandating the football regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules. The football regulator will not be responsible for symbols on football shirts.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Turner. The hon. Gentleman is talking about political statements, and my understanding is that FIFA’s rulings are on political statements made on players’ kits. It did not make a ruling on players taking the knee and did not impose sanctions on them for doing so. That was seen as a political stance by some, but FIFA ruled that it was not a political stance because it was not on their kit.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Lady and I can debate all day what we think is political and our recollection of what FIFA has ruled or not ruled in the past. However, that is not relevant, because she and I will have no decision-making authority over the football regulator once the Bill is passed. It would be much better that we build into the system a requirement for the regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules, whatever they may be, to secure the future of our domestic football teams in international tournaments.

[Max Wilkinson]

I may have misread the documentation for this Committee, but I am pretty sure I read an Opposition amendment that would allow a football club’s political intervention or statement if the club had established that a majority of its fans were in favour of that political statement or intervention. That seems to be somewhat at odds with what is currently being argued.

[Joe Robertson]

No, I do not accept that. All the amendment does is to seek the compliance of the football regulator, which this Government are trying to set up, with the major international governing bodies—FIFA and UEFA. Any arguments about political interference and political symbols and how decisions on them are made will be a matter for FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the regulator, but we should want to ensure that the regulator is required not to do anything that conflicts with the rules of FIFA and UEFA.

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

The hon. Member has talked about the appointment of the chair and how the political connections of the nominated person might be deemed to conflict with the neutrality that FIFA expects in the way football is run. I direct him to paragraph 9(b) of schedule 2, which talks about the tenure of non-exec members, and provides that the Secretary of State may remove a non-exec member of the regulator if they have a conflict of interest. Surely if FIFA said that a person had political connections and therefore was not appropriate to be the chair, that would be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State could act at that point. That is already covered in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I, and I suspect a lot of fans, would not be comfortable if there was a negotiation between FIFA and the Government—by the way, the current Secretary of State received money from the current preferred candidate—about the viability of the England national team playing in an international tournament, when what they were negotiating about was the suitability or decision making of a political donor to that Government. That is not healthy. It does not satisfy me.

I would much prefer that there was a provision in the Bill that clearly stated that the football regulator—that is more than just the chair; it is the entire body—must not do anything that

“conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies”.

By the way, this is about far more than just politics; I use the political issue as an example, but there are many other ways in which the regulator could conflict with FIFA and UEFA. I am sure that nobody here intends that it does, so let us build that into the Bill.

[Mr French]

A point that is being slightly missed in this exchange is something that I mentioned in my speech: the impact and risk for clubs and whether the line is crossed. In particular, the qualification for the Champions League each year in the Premier League is a huge source of revenue, as I explained. Having that risk at play could deter the inward investment into clubs that we know is key to the future success of English football, as we have already seen. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the shadow Minister. I suppose there is a not-too-fanciful theoretical situation in which the football regulator makes a decision on the ownership of a club that has otherwise qualified for the Champions League, and that decision was made by a body headed up by someone who had donated to the Prime Minister of the country. I think that that would be a problem. However, if clause 7 were amended, he would have to recuse himself, or the body would have to deal with it in a different way. My hon. Friend demonstrates perhaps the most likely scenario and the most powerful justification for backing the amendment. I urge all Members to do so.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I ask the Minister to respond to this simple question: has the Bill as drafted been shared with UEFA? Is UEFA satisfied that it does not represent political control?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the shadow Minister for the amendment and the chance to clarify the Government’s position on the redistribution of revenue. Let me be clear: the backstop process will apply only to revenue received by the leagues. That is already explicit in the definition of “relevant revenue” in clause 56. It does not allow the regulator to include individual club revenue that is not relevant for distribution agreements—for example, shirt sales. The amendment is not necessary to ensure that. It would call into question the regulator’s powers under the backstop process. Although that process is about resolving distribution disputes between the leagues, not individual teams, the money received by the leagues is ultimately distributed to their member teams.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for seeking to provide clarification. Can she clarify what would happen in the scenario posed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham? If a club such as Manchester City were to negotiate a TV rights deal abroad, and it was a very good deal, should the football regulator have any role in seeking to redistribute that money in any circumstances?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The point in the intervention speaks contrary to the amendment that we are discussing. It is somewhat confusing—[Interruption.] It was a question, indeed, but it speaks contrary to the amendment in the shadow Minister’s name.

The amendment would cast doubt on the regulator’s ability to effectively deploy the backstop, even where requested to do so as a last resort by the leagues. For the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

We are seeking to avoid the guarantee that what has been described will happen. As I have said, I think it will be impossible for the regulator to know, so it will be putting a finger up in the air and saying, “We think it has been 50p per ticket in League Two” or in the National League, and it may be £1 per ticket in the Premier League. But the regulator will not know. We cannot know now; it will not know in the future. Only the people who own the football clubs will be able to say, and it is obvious what they will say; we will be giving them a get-out. We strongly oppose this amendment, for those reasons.

[Joe Robertson]

Once again, I am going to refuse the temptation to make a political point about back-of-a-fag-packet calculations by the Liberal Democrats. This amendment does not provide a get-out for clubs to blame the regulator for putting their ticket prices up. They could do that anyway. Clubs can, if they want, try to blame the regulator, regardless of whether the regulator has a power or a compulsion to assess its own impact on ticket prices. What the amendment seeks to do is just add a layer of transparency. Of course, it is up to the regulator to make its own assessment of its impact on ticket prices, and it may be that its assessment is that it has had a negligible effect. However, it seems entirely reasonable, in the interests of transparency, to compel the regulator to nevertheless make this assessment. At the end of the day, we should all be here in the interests of one group of people only—the fans—and it would be a great shame, indeed worse than that, if the regulator were to increase the cost of match tickets, which are already very high.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The amendments from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup regarding ticket pricing touch on an important issue that I recognise is very important to fans. I reassure fans that the Bill will increase clubs’ overall accountability, including on this important issue. However, the annual report is not an effective place to address ticket prices.

Ticket pricing is fundamentally a commercial decision, and it would not be appropriate for the regulator to interfere with the commercial decisions of a private company. That is why the regulator will not intervene on this issue, aside from ensuring that clubs consult their fans on ticket pricing. It may well be that the regulator chooses to look at ticket pricing as part of the state of the game report, but mandating that it reviews the effect of its regulatory activities on ticket pricing as part of the report would be unnecessarily prescriptive.

Ticket pricing is ultimately a matter for clubs and is driven by many factors, but we do think it vital that fans are consulted and can have their voices heard. That is exactly why this Government amended the previous Government’s Bill to add an explicit requirement that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing and take their views into account as part of fan engagement. That is the way to ensure that fans can have their voices heard on such an impactful issue.

The amendment seems to assume that the cost will be passed on to fans in the form of higher ticket pricing. I want to be clear, as I was on Second Reading, that that would not be a proportionate response by clubs. If clubs increase ticket pricing, it will not be because they cannot otherwise afford to pay the regulator’s levy. As mentioned before, the cost of the regulator will be tiny compared with the vast revenue of the game, and the cost of the levy will not be among any club’s top area of expenditure.

Every measure has been taken to ensure affordability. No club will be charged to the point of needing to increase ticket pricing, and no fan will be subject to price rises without having their voice heard—I associate myself with the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendment.

Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I do not intend to have a long debate on amendment 9, because I am sure that the Minister will agree readily to my suggestion. At the least, would she agree to reflect on it? The state of the game report is core to what we are trying to do with the football regulator—to look at the state of the game, what the problems are and what needs to be done to change it. Therefore, getting that report in place as soon as possible is the intention of my amendment. Why wait 18 months if it can be done in 12 months? I do not know what the regulator will consider and how long it will have to do so, but its primary job to begin with will be to look at this issue. Twelve months should be completely adequate.

In some ways, my second point is more important. Football does change, like the rest of society, and circumstances in football change, so I do not think it is entirely reasonable to say to the regulator, “Once you’ve done your job, you can sit back and wait another five years before coming to look at the issues again.” Three years seems a much more proportionate time. The Minister will probably tell me that five years is the end time, and the regulator could look at it in the meantime if it so wanted. Perhaps I am anticipating what she is going to say.

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

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but I am slightly concerned that perhaps he rolled over before he even rose to his feet, and will not press his amendment to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I appreciate that we have a situation where one of the Minister’s Back Benchers is seeking assurances in this Committee, but does she accept that is not the equivalent of having something written into the Bill? With the greatest respect, if it is not in the Bill, her assurances here on what she expects from the football regulator is only her expectation—it is nothing more certain.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that part of the purpose of a Bill Committee is to give our intention as Parliament. Yes, I can give those assurances and I have done so at every step of the way.

[Joe Robertson]

rose—

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will take a further intervention, but I have not actually answered the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point. I want to answer it, if he gives me the chance.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a fundamental principle of lawmaking that, when interpreting the law, judges or anyone else do not go and look at what a Minister might have said in Hansard. I appreciate that she may have a long career, but the Minister will change at some point, and the law has to stand, potentially, for a very long time.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to this place—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I am a lawyer!

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman shouts his CV from a sedentary position.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister will accept this common-sense amendment and that the Committee will vote in favour of it. I fear that may be wishful thinking, but at the very least will Members acknowledge the principle behind it? Transparency is good for all regulators and for those who are to be regulated. The more shade the Government provide to the regulator, the more concerns we should all have about what goes on in the shadows.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler.

The shadow Minister, as ever, is a strong advocate for the fans and has set out a compelling case for supporting the amendment. I will not rehash all the arguments, but it is about transparency and reporting—indeed, the clause that the amendment seeks to change is about reporting. Clearly, the Government believe that an annual report should be made or that would not be provided for in the Bill. The report must include a “summary of the activities” undertaken by the regulator, with reference to a financial year, and yet there is nothing about that report’s including the financial impact, which would be fairly usual in a report by any organisation compelled to do one year on year in the interests of transparency.

We debated amendment 122 earlier, and that was more specifically about the impact of the regulator’s activity on match ticket prices. I recall that one of the Liberal Democrat Members did not support that on the basis that the cost of administering the regulator would, if divided up as on his fag packet between match tickets and clubs, add up to a small amount. Amendment 134 is much more compelling because it is about the cumulative impact of the costs of complying with the regulatory regime. It could be the case that the actual budget of the regulator remained reasonably contained, while the regulation that the regulator creates and its obligations on football clubs could balloon.

In my view, that is why the regulator should be compelled each year to include in the report the financial impact of its regulation and the full range of its activities, in so far as they have an implication for football clubs. If it creates a regulatory burden and hence a cost burden on clubs, there will always be the worry that that will be passed on to fans. Whether an individual member of the Committee believes that the regulator is a good thing, or that the cost is bearable, and whatever their view on how much cost is bearable, at the very least the regulator should be reporting this each year, so that the public and Members in this place in the future can form their views. This is a basic argument about transparency, and no one should seek to assist the regulator in not being transparent in financial matters. For that reason, I will back the amendment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment. He gave a wide-ranging speech, and I will focus my remarks on the amendment itself, but I will first respond to a couple of points that were made. Towards the end of his speech, he commented that regulation has not been done well for the past 20 years—perhaps I should remind him of who was in government for most of that time. [Interruption.] Indeed, the past 20 years. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East said that some members of the Committee may or may not think that the regulator is a good thing. But of course we all stood on a manifesto that included it, so I hope that most Members here think it a good idea; fans up and down the country certainly agree that it is.

In speaking to the amendment, I again remind the Committee that no changes have been made since the previous Bill. The Government agree that it is vital that the cost of regulation should not place an undue burden on clubs. That is why we have designed an agile and light-touch regulator that takes a collaborative approach with those it regulates. Unfortunately, the amendment could do the exact opposite of what I think it intends. If the regulator were to track and publish compliance costs every year, it would need all clubs to measure and report on that on an ongoing basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

Regulation does indeed evolve, but giving this football regulator carte blanche to evolve it without any recourse to Parliament is a key weakness of the Bill’s current drafting, which is why I support amendment 99.

[Joe Robertson]

The shadow Minister has already set out in great but necessary detail the reasons why amendments 99 and 100 have been tabled and should be supported. The issue is that subsections (3)(c) and (5)(b) of clause 16 provide a catch-all that allows the regulator to include such other information and documentation as it may specify when a club applies for a provisional operating licence. I support these amendments because I think those two provisions open the floodgates unnecessarily, and clause 16 already sets out the things that the regulator wants to see football clubs submit. To have that completely open floodgate is a problem for the reasons given.

If the Government were keen to have some flexibility here, they could have allowed the Secretary of State to specify any other such information in the future. At least there would then be some accountability via the Secretary of State’s being an elected person and ultimately accountable to Parliament. The particular issue here is that the regulator, once set up, does not have direct accountability, and therefore it would be easy for it to start stipulating all sorts of things. I support the amendments and I think that it should be tight, but the Government could have steered a halfway course here by retaining some powers for the Secretary of State, rather than the unelected regulator.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendments 99 and 100, which are very similar in effect. The Opposition do seem to be getting carried away this afternoon. I noted down some of the phrases he used: “Politically led”; “unlimited power”; “a regulatory land grab”; and “dangerous for sport”. Then he asked whether the Government had written a blank cheque. Well, I do not think that is the case, but if they did, it was his Government, because there have been no changes to this part of the Bill since its previous iteration.

Swimming Facilities

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on Government support for swimming facilities. I will start with the importance of swimming and public facilities, and then move on to the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, as well as some of the challenges faced by providers and operators. I will then finish with the support that has been received historically, and with my asks and considerations for the Government.

Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England, with around 12.5 million adults going swimming each year—that is around 27% of the population. Participation levels are higher than for hockey, football, rugby and tennis combined. Seventy-two per cent of schools use public pools to deliver their statutory responsibility for learning to swim, and 85% of young people learn to swim in a public pool, with almost 2 million children learning to swim outside school through Swim England’s “Learn to Swim” programme each year. Seventy-five per cent of grassroots sports clubs use leisure facilities to deliver social and sporting opportunities to communities. And 66% of NHS cancer rehabilitation services take place in leisure facilities. Swimming helps to save our NHS around £357 million a year. The number of people with a limiting health condition or disability taking to the pool has grown from 15% two years ago to 24% more recently.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many of our constituents. I recently gave medals to members of Larkfield swimming club in my constituency, and it was obvious that swimming is helping the health and fitness of so many young people, as well as teaching life lessons of leadership, teamwork, discipline, respect, how to win and how to lose. It was the club and the swimming—it all helped. Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming is a force for good, and that it is very important for our local authorities to be aware of the major benefits for mental health and physical health? They need to support the funding of these facilities.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that swimming is hugely important for young people and for the mental and physical health of the nation, for all these different reasons. We rely heavily on local authorities for ensuring that these facilities remain open to the public and, crucially, accessible to less well-off people.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I learned to swim as a boy at Tain Royal Academy in my hometown of Tain. A new school is being built, and the old school, complete with its pool, will be shut shortly. Alas, plans have fallen through to build a new pool, so my hometown could be without a swimming pool for at least a year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Scotland as much as in England and Wales, it is crucial that local authorities get to grips with this? For my community to be without a swimming pool for that length of time is a joke, and it has upset people massively.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, his town will not be the only town in the United Kingdom with a pool unavailable for a period of time or possibly forever. I agree that local authorities across the United Kingdom have responsibility, but I also believe the Government have some responsibility to support local councils.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is being very generous with his time. My constituency has six swimming pools. Much has been made of the health benefits, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for those of us who represent coastal communities or constituencies with large rivers, being able to swim is an important life skill?

[Joe Robertson]

Absolutely. I also have a coastal constituency, and swimming is a life skill that, one day, someone may rely on to save a life. I agree with my hon. Friend on that.

Councils are generally responsible for supporting the provision of both formal and informal opportunities for communities to be active. They spend £1.4 billion a year on sport, leisure, green spaces, parks and playgrounds, making local government the biggest public funder of sport and leisure services. Local government is directly responsible for 2,727 public leisure facilities, including almost 900 swimming pools. There are 4,000 more pools in England controlled or provided by other operators.

The sport and leisure infrastructure provided by councils is relied on by residents, schools and voluntary sector organisations, none of which could provide their assistance without public swimming facilities. I acknowledge the work of the Swimming Alliance, which is a collaborative group of more than 25 leading national organisations united to address the urgent and systemic challenges facing swimming participation. I will come on to the challenges that swimming facilities are facing.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend comes on to those challenges—and I am mindful of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—can he tell us whether he is as disturbed as I am by the increasing number of tragic events in which people drown as a result of not being able to swim? There were more deaths in the last four years than there were previously, and most of those deaths were among young people. Learning to swim is more than recreation; it is something vital. I am delighted that a Conservative Member has secured this debate, but Members across this Chamber are of one mind on this matter.

[Joe Robertson]

The statistic provided by my right hon. Friend could get worse if the number of public swimming facilities declines any further, because of that lack of swimming skills. It seems fairly obvious that, if someone is in trouble in the water, their best chance of surviving is if there is somebody nearby who can swim.

Two of the biggest costs for swimming facilities are energy and staffing, and the cost of both has increased in recent years, putting huge pressure on pools. Post-pandemic, energy is twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and according to Swim England, national insurance contribution increases in the last Budget are costing operators across the country tens of millions of pounds.

Since the pandemic, 206 pools have closed either temporarily or permanently, but local authorities are generally squeezed for funding and there is no prospect of that significantly changing in the next few years as far as I can tell. They are not in a position to substantially divert funding from core services, such as social care, to swimming facilities. Operators have already had to dip into reserves, and Community Leisure UK reports that its members across England are currently in deficit.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is spelling out the challenges that local councils face. Does he agree that we have a particularly big challenge coming down the road—albeit one that is already in front of us—in new towns? In Sherford in my constituency, a swimming pool and a leisure facility were part of the plans. People have bought into living in those new towns based on that promise, but given the lack of funding and the increased costs of running leisure facilities, there is a battle over who will deliver them. This means the facilities are kicked into the long grass, and residents like my constituents are left waiting and hoping for the facility to come. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that, as they pursue their housing plans, they are minded to fund leisure facilities so that new towns have them as required?

[Joe Robertson]

It is very disappointing to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Yes, I do think there is a role for the Government, and I will come to that in more detail. I hope she agrees with what I am suggesting.

There is also a significant problem with ageing swimming pools. Generally, they have a life expectancy of around 40 years—the average age of a pool closing due to age is 38 years—but 30% of pools in England are more than 40 years old. This means they are close to the end of their lifespan, and there is no identifiable source of funds to deal with that issue. There is considerable and growing demand for capital investment because our pools are ageing. Swim England says that, by 2030, 73% of local authorities could have a shortage of at least one swimming pool.

On the importance of swimming pools for children, currently only 72% of children leave primary school able to swim 25 metres, but the figure is just 45% in the country’s most deprived areas. If our ageing pools are not upgraded or replaced, it seems obvious that those figures will only get worse.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

In my constituency, Sonning Common primary school is fighting to keep its pool open. The school’s bursar spends every waking hour applying for grants but hits a dead end time and again, often precisely because schools are not eligible for grants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should make provision to support school swimming pools, where they exist, to ensure the continuity of swimming education?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, and schools often also rely on public swimming pools. Wherever schools need those facilities, I ask the Government to provide support. There is no other obvious support, as school and council budgets are already overstretched and must be used for other statutory duties.

Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report showed that swimming generates £2.4 billion of social value each year and improves wellbeing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) said. A 2014 Department for Culture, Media and Sport study valued swimming the highest of all the sports it included.

The Isle of Wight is representative of the challenges faced across England. Pricing for swimming activities has become less inclusive as there are cost pressures for providers, so some of the concessionary rates that benefited those who are less well off or older have been discontinued. On the island, we have the challenge of four ageing facilities, built in 1974, 1978, 1980 and 1993. In 2010, Isle of Wight council withdrew support for Ryde swimming pool, but thankfully the local community saved it through the formation of the Waterside community trust. That pool continues to operate today, albeit without any ongoing funding from the council.

In 2023, Isle of Wight council faced a £1.2 million hole in its leisure and sports development budget, and there were concerns about the continued provision of the two remaining facilities. It is my clear view that our small unitary authority cannot be expected to fund the ongoing costs of those facilities, given that energy prices and the cost of employing staff, due to national insurance contributions, are so high, and particularly when it comes to the capital investment that is needed.

Facilities on the island have benefited from Government support in recent years. I now turn to the historical funding that swimming facilities have received. The last Conservative Government created the swimming pool support fund, with £80 million of funding for swimming facilities. That was £60 million direct from the Treasury and £20 million from the national lottery. The funding was oversubscribed and has now been used—it has come to an end. On the Isle of Wight, Ryde Waterside pool and The Heights in Sandown both benefited from the support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Obviously, the interest in it is enormous, which is why everybody is here. One of the things that I wanted to say—I probably will not get the opportunity to because of the number of Members here—is that having swimming facilities available, as we have in the neighbouring constituency to Strangford, gave people the chance to swim who never would have had it. It also gave us some Olympic champions, such as Bethany Firth—that is a fact—who learned to swim at the Aurora complex in North Down, with the Ards swimming club. Her opportunity gave us a gold medal at the last Olympics. The opportunity is there, and so are future Olympic champions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I agree; swimming does all those things. As we are talking about Olympic champions, I have a quote from five-time Olympic swimmer Mark Foster, commenting on the support that the previous Government were able to provide. He said:

“Swimming pools are at the heart of communities, and there are so many reasons why this funding to keep almost 200 open in England is so important.”

Indeed, 325 swimming pools and leisure centres across England received a share of that money. Investment helped keep them open, and has gone towards helping to meet the target of keeping 3.5 million more people active by 2030. The first £20 million of that money was directly delivered to facilities at risk of closure, and it built on the support from the £100 million in the national leisure centre recovery fund, which since 2019 has helped secure or reopen 1,100 pools. I have secured this debate today because that source of funds has been exhausted but so relied on, and so far, the current Government have not announced any plans to continue with it or to provide any alternatives to help keep pools open and upgrade them where needed.

I have some asks from Swim England. It seeks and encourages long-term capital investment and revenue funding to support the renewal of public leisure infrastructure. It wants to see a shared vision across Government for the future of public leisure, which recognises the value and contribution of swimming, particularly to the health and wellbeing of communities, and its social value. It wants greater integration between the health and leisure sectors, particularly through the work of integrated care systems.

I have some questions for the Minister, which I hope she will address towards the end of the debate. What steps is she taking to support local authorities facing increased financial pressure in maintaining and upgrading ageing swimming pool infrastructure? Does her Department have plans to set targets or a benchmark for reversing the decline in swimming pool provisions across England? If she wants to comment on the United Kingdom, so be it. Will the Minister continue to support and fund, specifically, the last Government’s swimming pool support fund? If not, why not? What alternatives will she put in place?

I remind the Minister gently of a previous quote by her:

“The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools…We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 75WH.]

I could not agree with her more.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I am grateful to Members for attending this important debate and making so many good contributions. There is plainly unanimous agreement about the importance of swimming for the health and mental health of young people, as well as for safety and other reasons. I hope that there is general support, at least, for the Government having a role to play in ensuring public facilities are available to everyone and are affordable.

I welcome the sentiment expressed by the Minister, although it is obviously disappointing that she is unable to commit to previous Government funding pots to secure swimming facilities. I hope in the coming weeks that she and her Government are able to translate that sentiment into funding promises, so that local government and other providers have the security they need to continue to provide swimming facilities for the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.