Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I know the Committee is delighted to hear me continue my speech.

These amendments are on the key issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Alongside the other amendments we have tabled, we believe that requiring that the chair of the board is not a member of a political party, or a campaigner for a political party, will help to protect the integrity of the football regulator. As the Bill stands, the Government are allowing appointees to the regulator to hide their political activity from fans and from Parliament, which would undermine the regulator from day one. I urge all Members to accept these amendments with good conscience, or to be prepared to explain to their constituents why they are supporting cronies over clubs and favours over fans.

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

We are debating a group of amendments that attempt to better the regulator’s independence. The shadow Minister has set out at great length—made even longer by the interruptions —how these amendments would do that.

I think we all agree that the regulator should be independent. It is perfectly open to Labour Members to say, “Hang on a minute, the Bill already does that,” but their interventions and their scoffing from sedentary positions seem to make the counterargument, “Well, when you were in government, you made political appointments to bodies like the BBC and Ofqual.”

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Vicky Foxcroft)]

Yes.

[Joe Robertson]

The Government Whip is agreeing from a sedentary position. “And therefore it is perfectly open to us to make a political appointment to the football regulator.” That is an extraordinary argument.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I do not think it is a case of saying, “Well, you did it, so we’ll do it too.” It was just highlighting the absolute hypocrisy coming from the Opposition Benches.

[Joe Robertson]

I obviously disagree with the word “hypocrisy.” [Laughter.] There is no point laughing when dealing with the very serious issue of taking politics out of football. Fans do not want to see us trading arguments about hypocrisy and the BBC; they want to see us working together to keep politics out of football, and that is what these amendments seek to do.

On the amendment about political donations, of course the shadow Minister spoke about the Government’s preferred candidate—that is the environment in which the Bill is being considered. We learned about the preferred candidate’s political donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister only in a Select Committee hearing, after the Bill had already been considered on Second Reading.

My colleagues and I looked at the preferred candidate’s donations to Labour MPs and prepared a list of those that had been publicly filed. The list did not include his donations to the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I am not saying that there was an improper lack of a declaration of interest, but the donations were not in the public domain. It was only at the very late stage of a Select Committee hearing on his appointment that the donations came out, and they came out because he voluntarily gave that information. I commend him for doing so, but this is the problem we have: we are relying on candidates voluntarily declaring donations they have made to the Government of the day—donations that might not otherwise be publicly declarable. Amendment 117 would force such donations to be publicly declarable in order to keep politics out of football.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman appears to presuppose that such a declaration would result in a person being turned down for the post. In fact, there was a declaration and the Select Committee still decided that the candidate was a fit and proper person. As could happen in future, this person was found to be suitable regardless.

[Joe Robertson]

I am not sure I agree with the hon. Member’s interpretation of why individuals should disclose that they have made political donations. It is not necessarily so that they can be automatically vetoed; it is for transparency, making sure it is in the public domain and making sure the Select Committee has all the information available when it reviews their suitability. This time, the Select Committee relied on a voluntary disclosure. Through amendment 117, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is trying to make that mandatory. It would then be for the Select Committee, other commentators, MPs and the media to draw their own conclusions and give their own opinions on suitability.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way again, for which I am incredibly grateful. Could he explain what questions members of the Select Committee are not permitted to ask candidates when they are making these decisions?

[Joe Robertson]

Amendment 117 would mandate that a candidate for chair of an independent regulator must declare all their political donations. It would not be merely a voluntary process. I back that, and in the absence of any good reason not to, I urge Government Members to do the same.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my hon. Friend remember the case of a referee whose footballing allegiance became public a couple of seasons ago? It caused a huge ruckus because it generated a suspicion that he had been, in some way, partial in the way he had conducted his independent role as a referee, which is not unlike that of the regulator. For football affiliation, read political affiliation. There will be semi-political decisions. Does that not also make the point that the regulator should not be politically aligned?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I have to confess that was not in my mind when I rose to my feet, but my hon. Friend has a good memory. I welcome his sporting analogy, rather than the analogy of Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a job for GB News, which is completely irrelevant to the Bill.

That brings me to another point. I wonder why the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, given that he is chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, tried to widen this debate on the politicisation of organisations. We are talking about football, about sport. It is almost uniquely an apolitical thing, both nationally and internationally. In fact, international sporting bodies are very sensitive to politics. I recall that, in the last 15 years, UEFA—was it UEFA?—tried to ban England players from wearing the poppy on their arms. That was ridiculous, but the organisation saw the poppy as a political symbol.

Football probably stands highest in trying to keep politics out of sport. Associating it with who might have a contract with GB News shows a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of sport.

[Jon Pearce]

If we are dealing with the independence of sport per se, does the hon. Gentleman consider the British Olympic Association to be within the ambit of sport? Its current chair, Sir Hugh Robertson, is a former Conservative MP and Minister for Sport. Does this apply to all sports, or just to football?

[Joe Robertson]

The issue here is that this is a regulator, with regulatory authority and powers. When we legislate, we should do whatever we can to keep politics out of sport. If there are examples going back over time, we can debate them, but doing that in the context of creating a brand-new regulator for football—one that has never existed anywhere else—would probably be a distraction tactic on the Government’s part. It would not deal with fans’ genuine concern that we should not bring politics into sport. We have an opportunity to do something to deliver that by agreeing to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.

Amendment 116 states:

“The Chair of the Board must not…be a member of a political party”.

Why would anyone disagree with that? It is perfectly open to someone who wants to run to be the independent regulator to resign their membership of a political party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about the word “currently”. Well, “currently” means at the point that someone is appointed, so it is perfectly possible for someone to go through the appointment process before resigning their interests at the moment the Government propose to appoint them. I think the word “currently” deals with that issue, which we possibly agree on.

The amendment also says that the chair must do no canvassing

“on behalf of a political party”,

including in council elections. The hon. Member for Newbury might find it weird—as would I—that someone would want to live without canvassing for council candidates, but that is not much of a sacrifice for someone to make if they want to be the national regulator for English football.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions amendment 116, and proposed new paragraph 7A(b) references the fact that the Opposition would not like the chair of the football regulator to canvass for a political party running for the European Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is suggesting some kind of movement to rejoin the EU, or is he suggesting that a Frenchman, a German or someone else from the European Union might become the regulator? In that case, which parties might he like to rule out or rule in?

[Joe Robertson]

The Liberal Democrats are always looking for an opportunity to bring things back to potentially rejoining the EU. No, I would not read the amendment as either an overt or a subtle message about a campaign to rejoin. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a non-British national might campaign in Europe for a candidate standing for the European Parliament, but I will not get distracted by all the possibilities. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. The point is that, while somebody is chair of this independent board, they should not campaign for political candidates or for someone to attain political office.

I urge the Government to take the amendments on board. All they would do is further embed the idea of independence, which the Government say they support.

[Amanda Martin]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

Taking politics out of this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who said this morning that we should have the best person for the job. I believe we do, and it is not just me. The cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, approved the appointment, because it recognised the strength of the candidate. It could have rejected him, or it could have taken more time and asked for more information—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Before speaking directly to these amendments, I want to address the comments made about the chair appointment. I am very aware of the direction that you have given, Sir Jeremy, so I will focus my remarks on the comments made by the shadow Minister and Opposition Members.

David Kogan brings with him a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries. The shadow Minister’s speech had three parts, so I forget when he said this, but he made the point more than once that it is about attracting the right candidate with the right experience, and how that is a challenge. We are confident that David Kogan is the right person. He was found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member who was agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

David Kogan declared his political activity to the DCMS Committee, as the shadow Minister has stated, which endorsed his appointment, adding a further layer of robustness to the appointment process. The donations were declared during the Committee session, as the shadow Minister also stated, and the Committee was sufficiently aware when it published its report endorsing him.

[Joe Robertson]

I know we know this, but the Select Committee is dominated by Labour MPs—I want to make that clear. I did not follow the process within it, but a Committee dominated by Labour MPs approved a Labour donor as the independent regulator.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that it was a unanimous decision by the cross-party Select Committee. There will have been similar instances in the previous Parliament, so I think his point is somewhat unfair, but it may be a reflection of the fact that he is new to this place.

Reference was made to the fact that we have received a letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will of course co-operate fully with his office. No conclusions have been reached at this stage, and we will completely co-operate. Some points were made about what was said on Second Reading and to the Select Committee. The governance code already sets out the requirements for political donations. Donations in scope of the governance code were provided to the Select Committee in advance of the hearing. The leadership campaign donations fall outside the reporting window and the threshold for declaration; however, they were disclosed to the Select Committee in the interests of transparency, which endorsed the appointment on a cross-party basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Whenever I rise to speak on the Bill, I try to keep the fans uppermost in my mind. We have heard discussion about the potential for increasing costs. That is because the Bill will create a bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that some Members support, which is fine, but it is a bureaucracy and has to be paid for. It is being paid for by a levy on clubs. The amendment is not about whether we support a regulator; it is about whether we support the principle of trying to put some parameters around the cost by putting a headcount cap on the regulator and ensuring that this bureaucracy does not grow and grow over time.

In this country we have had a slight tendency, across Governments of different political colours over many decades, to allow bureaucracies to grow. The Bill would be relatively unique but, I think, strengthened if we put in a cap to ensure that this regulator and this bureaucracy cannot grow without restraint. It would therefore ensure that fans will not be overpaying for an organisation that does not need to grow to hundreds, thousands or whatever number anyone wants to suggest.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument. The other point that we are trying to make is that the other established bodies of football are still in place and doing other parts of the job. The regulator is seeking to bring in new responsibilities, but it will not reduce the existing costs on clubs of those other regulatory bodies.

[Joe Robertson]

I take the point, which is well made. We do not want the regulator to grow and start trying to perform the functions of other bodies that exist, just because it has an unrestricted budget. Who knows what the Government of the day will allow to be spent on it? I heard the representations from Government Back Benchers about the methodology to evidence why 50 is the magic number. It is correct to say that it is not the role of MPs to mandate specific headcount, but putting a cap on it would ensure overarching budgetary control. Although it is reasonable to disagree, it is also reasonable to assert that a regulator should be able to function with 50 paid staff members.

[James Naish]

What the hon. Member says is absolutely correct, but the reality is that we do not start with the outcome; we start with the process and the functions. What does the regulator need to do? How is it going to achieve that? How many people are required to deliver those services? Then we get to an outcome. I understand the principle of saying that there should be a cap, but that is just not the way it is done. I have done a lot of advisory work, but I do not know any business that would start with that principle.

[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.

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think that that is the responsibility of MPs. All of this is really about scaremongering and about creating the idea that there will be a huge cost. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the size of the regulator will be when it ultimately delivers its functions. It is the responsibility of the regulator to manage itself appropriately. Putting an arbitrary figure from a random conversation into legislation such as this is not good practice.

[Joe Robertson]

The cap is not a mandatory number. We are not saying that the regulator must have 50 people delivering a set of regulatory powers. It is about trying to impose some sort of control on the regulator to stop it growing and growing. The hon. Gentleman says that we will leave it to the regulator, but what happens when the regulator comes back and says, “We need 250 people”? What if, further down the line, it thinks that the job is a bit bigger than it thought, so it argues for 300 or 400? We can name a whole list of bureaucracies that have grown and grown; NHS England is one such, although I am prepared to accept that the IFR would not grow to the size of NHS England, at least within this Parliament.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. My argument, which I believe he is making too, is that hon. Members should have a say in what the regulator looks like, both now and in future. Our overriding point is that once the Bill has passed, there is no power in it that I can see that gives hon. Members any say over what the regulator will look like. We are trying to put a ceiling on it now so that hon. Members can have a say in the size of the regulator.

[Joe Robertson]

The shadow Minister puts it much more succinctly than I have, and I thank him.

The rationale behind the amendment is to keep control over the costs. There will be a levy; it will be football clubs that pay; and ultimately the costs will fall on fans, potentially through higher ticket prices, which we want to avoid. If the Government will not back the amendment, I invite the Minister at least to give some assurances of control over spiralling costs. The headcount of any organisation is one of the key costs.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions ticket prices. Some very simple back-of-a-fag-packet maths tells us that even if the football regulator costs £100 million to run, when we divide that by 92 teams and about 40 games in a season, it comes to a matter of pence per ticket sold: something like 20p, 40p or 50p. I could not even get a Mars bar for 50p in the Tea Room. I do not understand why this argument is being made; it really does not stand up to any kind of challenge. I am not a mathematician or a businessperson, but I can do simple division. I can work out that this body will not cost £100 million, £200 million, £500 million or £1 billion a year to run. It is a fanciful argument and the Opposition should put it to bed.

[Joe Robertson]

It is rather tempting to make a gibe about Liberal Democrats and back-of-a-fag-packet economic comments, but I will not. If it is as simple as the hon. Gentleman says, then let us hear that from the Minister. Let us hear assurances and guarantees that we are talking about pence, because frankly any inflation of ticket prices beyond pence is unacceptable, given the current prices and the legitimate views of fans about them.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe made the very powerful observation that, in identifying a target operating model, form should follow function. The function has been pretty well defined in the Bill, which rather prompts the question why the Government do not have some idea of the form that the regulator should follow. Without any cap whatever, we would simply be inviting untrammelled mission creep and cost growth. Perhaps the hon. Member disagrees with where the cap has been put and with the methodology approaching it, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the principle that he and other hon. Members should have an opportunity for scrutiny if there is a proposal to grow the budget, the wages or the number of people in the regulator.

It is interesting to note the varied approach across the regulatory network. Do we think that the football regulator will be like the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is pretty important—we all drink water—and does its work with 55 people? Coming in next is the Office of Rail and Road, which has up to 370 people. The Information Commissioner’s Office has 500-plus; information is all around us, so that is pretty important. Not quite topping the tree, but coming pretty close, is the Pensions Regulator, with 900 people.

The point is that untrammelled bureaucracies have a tendency simply to grow. There is no limit on the amount of fan consultation that could be done. A member of the football regulator could be sent down to every fan meeting if it really wanted to convince itself that the club was engaging with the fan base. All the amendment seeks is some measure of control, to give Parliament the opportunity once again to stop this thing growing arms and legs and moving way beyond its intended purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is not for us to say. It is an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman outlined how different regulators have wildly different numbers of staff. We do not think that we should set a cap.

[Joe Robertson]

Can the Minister give any indication of the sort of headcount she expects of this regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am not going to be drawn on figures. I will say that we think that the regulator should be as light touch and slim as possible. We do not think that it should be unwieldy and we do not think there should be staff for staff’s sake. It is not for me as the Minister to prescribe a specific number. I do not agree with that. For those reasons, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s interpretation. It is quite commonplace for the chief executive to be the highest paid member of staff in most organisations. In my experience, it would be highly unusual for members of staff underneath the chief executive to be paid more than them.

[Joe Robertson]

I am going to stick my neck out here. I have little confidence in the Government curtailing the expenditure of money, but I do have confidence they would not let a football regulator come into existence where every single employee is paid £173,000. I hope that my trust in them is not misplaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman actually makes the point that I have made already, because we believe that Parliament should have a say on what the regulator looks like in future. We have already made the case that the Bill gives unchecked powers to the Secretary of State. The hypothetical situation that hon. Members have referred to, where we come back with another Act of Parliament, would give Members the opportunity to scrutinise what the regulator has done and scrutinise its costs. It would give Members the opportunity to explain to fans around the country why they are increasing ticket prices and other costs. Members should have the opportunity to keep a sensible check on the regulator in future.

I will get back to my comments, as I appreciate that I am testing your patience again, Sir Jeremy. I am sure that the Minister will understand the serious concerns around not only the cost of the chief executive but, importantly, who determines the pay, which is the second part of the amendment.

I hope that the Minister can also answer my questions about the other issues that my amendment brings to the fore today. On paragraph 8(4), why must a non-executive member of the board of the Government’s regulator notify the Secretary of State when they intend to resign from said board? Why do they not need to inform the chairman, deputy chairman or even the chief executive of the regulator? From my experience, it would be commonplace on most boards for someone to notify the chairman of the board rather than—obviously this is a unique situation—the Secretary of State, so the focus of the Bill seems unusual. Does the Minister understand that, once again, that makes it look like a political regulator? By maintaining the legal ties between the employment of non-executive directors and the Government, it is clear that they are not independent of Government, but reliant on Government. Will she clarify why that is the case?

Paragraph 9(b) states that the Secretary of State can remove a board member if they are satisfied that there is a conflict of interest. Will the Minister tell us what qualifies as a conflict of interest and how the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, will decide what meets those qualifications? Would donating to a political party not in government count—or perhaps donating to a political party that is in government? Would having an interest in related broadcasting companies qualify?

Paragraph 10(1) sets out that the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of non-executive members of the board. That gives the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, extensive powers over patronage. Can the Minister tell us how many board members does she anticipate will be needed and how many will be appointed? What will the remuneration per board member be, and what is the total cost of the board’s operation?

Does the Minister agree with the spirit of my amendment that the Prime Minister should be paid more than whoever is the chairman or the chief executive, whoever that may be? Those already large salaries may encourage the Prime Minister, perhaps on the advice of the current Secretary of State, to appoint somebody to the role to make sure they get a good return on their investment into Labour leadership bids.

[Joe Robertson]

I will not repeat what the shadow Minister has very ably said, but clearly the amendment goes back to the issue of costs spiralling out of control. Let us remember that the concern is about the pay levels for those appointed. The role has already been advertised, as I understand it, on the Government website at £130,000 for a three day part-time role, which means that pro rata they will be paid more than the Prime Minister. I have a serious problem with that, and I suspect that most fans have a serious problem with this so-called slimline light touch regulator being headed up by somebody who is paid more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friend is trying to bring in some level of cap on pay.

We were not successful in bringing in a cap on headcount, but the Minister could not give us any indication of how many people she expects to be employed by the regulator. The Government are prepared to say that 73,000 people should serve in the armed forces, so it is not unprecedented to give an indication of the number of employees in organisations, which is all this amendment is trying to do. If Government Members are happy for the regulator to be paid more pro rata than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so be it—they will have to vote in that way. I am not happy, and that is why I support the amendment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I appreciate the intent to ensure that the regulator offers value for money. That is precisely why the regulator has a regulatory principle encouraging it to be as cost-efficient as possible. There are also countless other safeguards in place to ensure value for money, and we referred to those in earlier debates. For example, the regulator will be required to lay its annual accounts before Parliament, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, for scrutiny.

The regulator will also be subject to pay remit guidance, in the same way as central Government Departments are, to ensure that pay rises are justifiable. That will ensure value for money without sacrificing important operational flexibility for the regulator. On the other hand, a maximum salary for the CEO, fixed in legislation, would leave the regulator unable to adapt to market changes and could leave it unable to recruit and retain the expertise that it needs to effectively regulate.

I understand that the amendment seeks to limit the CEO’s salary to no more than the current salary of the Prime Minister. There would be no way to update that if the salary changed in the future, or even with inflation. It is not a practical constraint to impose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend gives an example that I admit I had not thought of. That is a well-made point about transparency and how that works in the City, and about the important role of the Bank of England.

[Joe Robertson]

I offer the shadow Minister another example: on Select Committees, as mentioned by the Minister. There may be no formal record of how minority votes go in Select Committees—although the Minister did seem to know the outcome of the appointment decision—but, as sittings are held in public, people can see how different members of a Select Committee respond to an issue.

[Mr French]

That is an excellent point. I believe that the people who want to sit on these expert panels and help with the future of football—I assume that is what they will be contributing to—should be able to operate transparently for the ultimate fans. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I will press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

I have a football at home signed by Sir Geoff Hurst, so I know exactly how heavy those old balls were, particularly when they got wet. We have seen coaching improvements so that children no longer head the football. That has come about because of the experiences of footballers who played in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. The Lib Dem spokesman referenced a game at Southampton in the early ’90s, when the football was not too dissimilar to the modern football. I can remember kicking it around at the park myself.

I am not in favour of banning headers in games. I would like to see a fully funded and legally compelled scheme set up to protect footballers who have suffered from playing the beautiful game and to support their families. Footballers of previous generations were not paid anywhere near what current footballers are paid. I would also like more research on preventive measures. Without the players, there is no game. We have to support our former players while protecting our future ones.

[Joe Robertson]

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham for speaking to amendment 1 and new clause 1. He said that this may not be the right place or the right Bill to do so, and I probably agree with him. Nevertheless, this is a helpful opportunity to acknowledge the issue, and it is timely given that there is a debate on dementia care in the Chamber right now. Until I entered this place, I worked for a national dementia care charity that was looking at the possible link between heading footballs and dementia diagnoses.

This debate is also timely because, almost at this hour as I understand it, an APPG is being set up to look at dementia in sport. While this amendment may not be successful, it is nevertheless very timely. I commend the hon. Member for raising the issue.

[The Chair]

I call Max Wilkinson.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[Jon Pearce]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a tension between increasing TV viewership and increasing match attendance? Many fans around the country will say that the frustration of moving kick-off times from 3 o’clock on a Saturday to 4 o’clock on a Sunday, or to a Monday, Thursday or Friday evening, has a massive impact on the regular UK fan. Does the hon. Member see any tension between the aims of amendment 96?

[Joe Robertson]

I would not like to sweep aside any suggestion of tension. There will always be tension among people who watch sport—in this case football—in different ways, but I do not accept that there is an overall tension. It is perfectly possible to grow both match attendance and TV audiences. I do not accept that there is a structural tension between those two things. In my view, the success of football is infinitely growable.

Amendment 96 also refers to the unique heritage of football clubs. The shadow Minister talked about football being older than the Labour party, which shows how woven into the fabric of this country—indeed, of the whole United Kingdom—football is. The amendment also mentions the

“effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment or the reputation of the local area.”

All Members know that football and football clubs have a positive effect on those things. It is right to that the Bill’s purpose reflects all those things and the breadth and importance of football in this country.

[The Chair]

I am happy to call the hon. Member for Cheltenham automatically in every group or, if he prefers, he can indicate whether he wishes to contribute. Which would he prefer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We were clear on Second Reading that we supported its aims, although we believe that it should go further—on the scope of the competitions covered, for one example. We also agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about financial redistribution; he made some eloquent points. I am not sure that they were entirely in line with what his party was arguing on Second Reading or in the House of Lords, but there we are.

Our amendment 74 is clear. It extends the scope of the Bill to cover the sixth tier of English football. We all remember what happened to that tier during the covid pandemic: many clubs ended up on the verge of bankruptcy and needed bail-outs. The need for financial sustainability does not end at the fifth tier. To push back against the point made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I should say that we would see the football regulator taking a light-touch approach, as in the outline aims of the Bill, and there would also be an exemption for clubs in the sixth tier because many are run by volunteers with perhaps one or two members of staff, not all full-time.

We believe that when clubs come up from the sixth to the fifth tiers—there are many ambitious clubs in the non-league sector—it is really important that those also build in a financially sustainable way. We believe that including them in the Bill will help them become financially sustainable as they make their way through the football league.

[Joe Robertson]

I rise to support Opposition amendment 132. The shadow Minister eloquently set out the reasons why, and I do not need to repeat them. But I pose this question to the Minister: why would she reject clarifying that specified competitions mean the Premier League, the English Football League and the National League? If she is not prepared to accept the amendment, which would set out those competitions with clarity, that slightly begs the question of what she or her Government have in mind. What are they seeking to add by using the wide discretionary powers set out in the Bill already? Unless the competitions are clearly identified as in the amendment, there could be a question about whether the England national team could accidently get swept up as part of the regulations. The amendment makes an obvious clarification and gives certainty to football clubs and fans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I declare my interest as a member and the former chair of the RamsTrust. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South is also here, this is probably not the last time that we will get to talk about Derby County.

I welcome these definitions, which are hugely important as a balance against some of the tests of ownership. They will help to solve some of the problems that Derby County have faced. In October 2003, three individuals bought Derby County for £1 each. The three amigos, as they became infamously known by the fans, had no money of their own and initially refused to disclose who the actual owners of the club were. It turned out that the money the trio had used to support their takeover was a loan costing 10% interest a year from a company, the ABC Corporation, registered in Panama.

It was at that point that I joined the RamsTrust—the supporters’ group that campaigns for a stronger voice for supporters in the decision-making processes at Derby County. Obviously, such trusts play vital roles at other clubs across the country. The tireless efforts of the fans in scrutinising the activities of the management of the club led to four individuals being convicted for fraud and receiving substantial prison sentences. The definitions will certainly help; although those individuals would have passed any fit and proper person test because they had no previous convictions or previous evidence of fraud. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

In looking at the definitions, I am concerned about what is intended to be meant by “ultimate owner”, not least from a drafting point of view. Schedule 1 deals with an owner in significant detail, although it is actually quite convoluted and I worry that there may be loopholes in there that may be exploited in the future. By setting out such a high level of detail around trying to close loopholes, loopholes might accidentally be opened or created.

However, it is not the definition of “owner” that I want to look at, but the definition of “ultimate owner”, which must be something different or else it would not be separately defined. It is contained in clause 3(2), which says:

“For the purposes of this Act, a club’s “ultimate owner” is—(a) where the club has only one owner, that owner;”.

That makes sense; if a club is owned by one person then they are the ultimate owner—that is easy. It goes on to say:

“(b) where the club has more than one owner and one owner exercises a higher degree of influence or control over the activities of the club than any other owner,”.

That seems very vague wording for lawmaking. There could be two highly influential owners, but one has some power at their disposal that makes them technically able to exercise a higher degree of influence; that does not mean that the other owner is not also very influential. I do not understand why “ultimate owner” dismisses the possibility of there being two club owners exercising a significant degree of control, albeit where one has a marginally higher degree of control than the other.

Normally the wording in company law—but not just company law—talks about an owner, director or officer exercising significant influence and control, and there is a lot of case law that sets out what that means. That wording is used in the Bill, in schedule 1(15), which is entitled

“Significant influence or control over the activities of a club, trust or other body”.

But because clause 3(2) does not use that wording, “ultimate owner” must mean something different than exercising a significant degree of control, and I do not understand what it is getting at.

There is a third definition of “ultimate owner”. We have dealt with where there is only one owner—that is easy. We have dealt with where there is more than one owner, and one owner exercises a “higher degree” of influence, whatever that means. The third definition is

“in any other case, each owner of the club who exercises a degree of influence or control over the activities of the club”.

That seems to be sweeping up anyone with any influence, so potentially every owner. But it goes on to say

“where there are other owners, is a higher degree of influence or control than any other owner.”

That suggests that the only owner in a multi-owned club who is not caught by the definition of “ultimate owner” is the one owner who ranks the lowest in terms of the amount of control that they exercise over the club. The provision is badly drafted. It is very unclear what it is trying to achieve, and alternative wording is available to the Government and the draughters of the Bill. If the aim of describing the ultimate owner is to avoid applying this to very small shareholders, such as community shareholders and fans who have some ownership of the club but no meaningful say over what happens to it, the Bill could simply state that an ultimate owner is any owner other than those who exercise a negligible or trivial degree of control. That would exclude those who have no influence but who own shares and would avoid the convoluted, inclusive set of provisions that amount to nonsense in the minds of most people.

If an ultimate owner is not defined in the Bill, the Government open themselves up to all sorts of problems. An ultimate owner, who may be very wealthy, could deploy his well-paid legal team to take the Bill apart in court, and we know what courts will do: if the wording is unclear, they can find in favour of the person who is trying to be bang to rights with a badly drafted Bill. I would urge the Government to rectify that. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to be able to respond to all that detail on the hoof now. If she cannot, I ask her to go away and seek clarification on that, because I worry that that is a major drafting defect. If we cannot define an ultimate owner in the Bill, we have a problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who makes some valid points. We will talk about owners and directors when we come to part 4. Competition and conflict of interest are not in scope of the Bill and are for UEFA, but I am happy to debate this with him further down the line.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made an extensive and technical speech. For transparency purposes, the ultimate owner or owners will be publicly identified in clubs’ personal statements, and this will help fans to hold the most powerful owners to account, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said. Anyone who exercises significant influence or control will be defined as an owner and can be subject to an ODT, but I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on some of the technical points that he made, as he asked.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that. She has already given some better words by talking about “significant” control. That is not the wording in clause 3, but I prefer it, to be honest. Will she go away and look at that? It is probably a drafting issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The clause formally establishes the Independent Football Regulator as a statutory body, providing the legal foundation for the IFR’s existence and marking a significant moment in English football governance and our constitution. The clause gives the Independent Football Regulator its own legal personality, allowing it to operate independently of Government and the football authorities.

We will come to the issue of independence, so I will not hold up the Committee too much on the point. I will not make this personal to the Government’s proposed choice of chair. It is rather about the structural integrity of independence, which is crucial to what we do as a House and how sport operates across this country, as it has done successfully for a number of years. The last thing that sport fans want is politicians involved in the regulation of football. We all welcome being supporters—a number of Members are supporters of clubs—but we must be clear that there should not be political interference in the running of the game.

The clause ensures that the regulator can exercise powers conferred elsewhere in the Bill, including around licensing, enforcement and oversight functions. We have a number of concerns about how the details in schedule 2 will work in practice, and the rules around making the independence of anyone involved in football regulation clear as we move forward.

More broadly, I seek clarity from the Minister on a few matters. Does she believe that clause 5 provides sufficient clarity and authority for the IFR to act decisively and independently when enforcing breaches of licensing conditions or financial rules? What safeguards are in place to ensure the Independent Football Regulator’s independence from political or industry pressure when taking enforcement action against powerful clubs or owners?

Will the IFR have the necessary investigatory powers from the outset to underpin robust enforcement, or are those powers dependent on secondary legislation or guidance? How will the IFR balance its role as a regulator with the need to maintain constructive relationships with clubs, especially when initiating enforcement proceedings?

On that point, I again highlight the importance of independence—not just independence from this place, but independence from other leagues and experiences that might bring into question any judgment that the IFR makes. That is a concern I have around the choice of chair, which I know we will come on to. I have concerns about leagues and any bias—known or unknown—in decision making, and the questioning of that. Going forward, that would generally be very unhelpful for the game.

Lastly, to what extent will the IFR be held accountable for the consistency, transparency and proportionality of its enforcement decisions under the powers established in the clause?

[Joe Robertson]

The requirement for the regulator to be independent is clearly essential. I am sure that it is common ground on both sides of this Committee Room, and in the rest of the House, that the Independent Football Regulator board and chair need to be independent.

This is a significant time for English football. To be regulated by statute and lawmaking and the decisions of the Members of the House of Commons and the other place is a departure from the way our beautiful game has grown in this country, without regulation. In certain aspects, we need to be really careful about what we are doing. The independence of the chair and the board of the regulator is key. Independence can mean so many different things, as the shadow Minister has noted. It can mean independence from the influence of certain interests within the game—clearly, if the regulator is to regulate multi leagues, we need an independent regulator that is not encumbered by particular interests, particular clubs or particular leagues.

There is also the very important issue of political independence. Given that the chair will be appointed by an elected politician—by the Secretary of State—the decision needs to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that independence, with a capital I, remains key. We might get on to this point at another time, possibly today, but the Secretary of State has recused herself from making any decision over the recommended candidate because of a donation he declared to her leadership campaign. The preferred candidate also made a donation, which he declared to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but the Prime Minister has not recused himself from any involvement in the decision.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member is making a compelling case. Does he think that in all cases—in all public bodies, in all quangos—anyone who is a member of a political party, or has ever been canvassing, even in an European election, might be barred from holding any of those kinds of offices? As I understand it, political parties of all colours have in the past appointed people to various public bodies. This is clearly what is being implied by the Conservative amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Thank you for that guidance, Sir Jeremy. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do, and I have sympathy with his general point about the independence of chairs of bodies, but I will stick to this Bill and this independent regulator for two reasons. The first is that we are in this Bill Committee today to talk about football governance. Secondly, the point I was making is that because this is a new departure—to have a regulator in a sport that does not have a regulator—particular regard needs to be paid to political independence. We have a candidate who has made a political donation to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Government have an unexpected relationship with the preferred chair of the regulator.

I urge the Minister to address at some point today how the independence of the football regulator will be protected. Even putting to one side the preferred candidate, the fact is that the appointment will always be made by a Secretary of State, so how will we avoid the criticism that the hon. Member for Cheltenham identified? If it is a political appointment, there are always going to be accusations—in this case, fair—around an elected politician appointing a regulator over English football. I know that that is inherently unattractive to fans, who should be our priority.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will deal with the comments specifically on the chair in the next group—I am not avoiding the question, but I think we are going to have a more substantial debate on the next group. Let me answer some of the other specific points that Members have made. The shadow Minister asked about finance, and the levy will be proportionate to the size and level of the club. We absolutely value the independence of the regulator. That means all sorts of different things in terms of leagues, Governments, clubs and so on.

On how the independent regulator operates and what will guide them, I draw Members’ attention to clause 8 in part 2 on the regulatory principles. We will go through those later so I will not go into any detail now, but they are a useful guide to help the independent regulator in their functions and in carrying them out. I will pause there, because I think we will have a more substantial debate in a moment.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Schedule 2

The Independent Football Regulator

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

As has been mentioned, only one Football League club is represented by a Conservative MP, and that is the mighty Bromley football club. My efforts to bring about a chant of “You’ve got the only Tory” across opposition stands in league two are ongoing, and I will keep the House informed of how well they proceed.

Hayes Lane, the club’s ground since 1938, stands proudly in my constituency. Bromley FC is a football fan’s dream. We have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Earning promotion to the conference south league in 2006, the club was crowned champion eight years later. We climbed the national league, reaching the FA trophy final in 2018 and earning promotion in 2021, but our rise did not stop there. Bromley faced Ryan Reynolds’s Wrexham at Wembley for a second shot at the FA trophy in 2022. It was an amazing day, and one that I remember well. While we may not have had “Deadpool”, we did have Michael Cheek—Cheeky, the Maradona of Bromley—who secured the silverware with the game’s only goal. I love Michael Cheek, and I congratulate him on being named league two player of the year last night; it is well deserved. Last year, a moment 132 years in the making arrived as Bromley was promoted to the English football league for the first time in its history.

Why is this story relevant? Bromley’s football dream was realised thanks to sound management, private investment and raw talent, not a state regulator, and I congratulate Robin Stanton-Gleaves, Mark Hammond—Hammo—and Andy “Woody” Woodman on all that they have done for the club. As a Ravens fan, when I look at Labour’s supposedly independent football regulator, I have to ask whether it would help Bromley FC or aspiring clubs like it, and in its current state, the answer is a resounding no. When the Bill was first proposed, it was proposed with the right intentions. It would protect cherished community clubs from bad owners, and would prevent a breakaway European super league. However, Labour’s regulator is morphing into a meddling, costly political deadweight for English football, because the regulator will be neither independent nor impartial. This is cronyism at its worst.

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

My hon. Friend is a football fan. Does he recall hearing any fan group saying, “What we really need is a Labour donor crony regulating the beautiful game”?

[Peter Fortune]

What fans tell me is that they want the money to move more freely through the sport. I shall say more about that in a moment. The cronyism is what we are concerned about. With political leadership, the risk of mission creep is greater. More state intervention would threaten English football’s independence, and UEFA warns that without independence, English clubs could not compete in European leagues. The Government know that their Bill could torpedo English football, and I wonder whether that is why Ministers refuse to publish UEFA’s letter about it.

The regulator will also cost clubs a small fortune. The levy to pay for the new bureaucracy will cost them nearly £100 million, and the regulatory burden will cost them nearly £35 million more, hurting the smallest clubs, such as Bromley, that do not have the staff to handle yet more red tape. For clubs it means higher taxes, more paperwork, and staff working on state demands, rather than football. For fans it will inevitably mean higher ticket prices, especially in view of the new jobs tax that Labour has instigated, and employment red tape. We should be focusing on getting money to the league clubs, not tying their hands with bureaucracy. That is what the clubs need.

Football is about risks and aspirations. Teams win or lose, are promoted or relegated. This is not banking; it is football. While I recognise that smaller clubs need support, a partisan regulator is not the answer. English football’s independence is worth protecting.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

Let me begin by declaring my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I think most of us have agreed today that football has a governance problem. Just last Friday, I attended a meeting with Sheffield Members of Parliament and fans of Sheffield Wednesday—fans who are desperate for their owner to sell their club, so that we can share the lessons from Reading football club. We are well aware of the problems of bad ownership at Reading; its stadium is in my constituency. Our club is on the brink of expulsion from the English football league, after its absent owner was disqualified by the EFL more than a month ago. Reading and Sheffield Wednesday are the tip of the iceberg. As we have heard during the debate, and as we have seen over the last few years, there have been crises at Wigan, Derby, Portsmouth, Bury, Bolton, Macclesfield, Southend and beyond. Football definitely has a governance problem. I am heartened that this Labour Government are serious about fixing it, although sadly the same cannot be said for all parties in the House.

It is shameful that the Conservative party, which initially backed the Bill, has spent the past few months delaying its progress. In those months, many Members, including me, have spent our time fighting for the future of our local clubs. Every day is another day on which Reading fans are left in the dark, another day when Reading staff and local businesses are left waiting for late wage payments. I ask Conservative Members: how much longer would you like us to wait? The shadow Secretary of State likes to talk about business and the economic case. I ask him this: when the average club in the championship spends more than 100% of its revenues on wages, and when, according to the non-governmental organisation Fair Game, more than 50 of the top 86 clubs in the country are technically insolvent, with liabilities exceeding their assets, is this a successful market? Is it a functioning market? I would argue that that is not just unfair, but financially unsustainable. As we heard from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), self-regulation has not worked, so we need to find a system that works.

[Joe Robertson]

Has the hon. Lady not received a payment of £8,000 from the man whom her own Government want to install as an independent chair of an independent regulator? Does she not accept that that is a major compromise of the independence of that chosen nominee?

[Yuan Yang]

I have already declared my interest, and I do not agree with that intervention. It is for us in this Chamber to decide whether we want a regulator, and whether we want the Bill to be passed. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she believes that any regulator would be a waste of resources. I presume that that means that her party believes that football does not need regulation. It is for the Select Committee—previously chaired by the hon. Member for Gosport, who, in her speech, seemed to support the idea of independent regulation—to scrutinise the appointment of regulators.

Reading is one of the oldest clubs in England. It once prided itself on good governance, and was known for “the Reading way”. Since the current owners took over, we have seen four winding-up petitions and five points deductions. Sadly, the EFL, which tries to support and intervene, has been unable to effect change for our club because it lacks sufficient regulatory powers. This is where the new ownership test, as well as the new licensing regime proposed in the Bill, would have been so helpful. Reading’s crisis was avoidable, and if we had a strong, independent football regulator, we could start to fix football’s governance problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Football is more than a business; it is one of our country’s greatest exports and a pillar of local and national identity. Football would be nothing without its fans, and this strengthened Football Governance Bill will put fans firmly back at the centre of the game. For too long, financial instability has meant that loyal fans and whole communities have risked losing their cherished clubs as a result of mismanagement and reckless spending. The previous fan-led review was instigated following three trigger points: the collapse of Bury FC, the coronavirus pandemic, which suspended football, and the European super league. The fan-led review recommended in the light of those events and the structural issues in the pyramid that the Government should establish an independent regulator for football finances.

I am delighted that our Labour Government have reintroduced and improved this Bill without delay to deliver on our commitment to football fans. The Bill’s primary purpose is to ensure that English football is sustainable for the benefit of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. It will improve the sustainability of club finances, prevent rogue owners and directors, and strengthen the voice of fans. This legislation will protect our football pyramid for future generations. The independent football regulator will have three main objectives: club financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and the safeguarding of club heritage. The proposed regulatory activities are pretty standard—it is a light-touch regulator.

The improvements that our Labour Government have made to the Bill include clubs providing effective engagement with their supporters on changes to ticket prices and any proposals to relocate their grounds. The regulator will be given a remit to include parachute payments to be considered through any backstop mechanism when considering finances across the game. The requirement to consider Government foreign and trade policy has been ditched, which is appropriate, and the regulator will ensure that clubs democratically elect fan representatives for the club to engage with, which is right. We must have that clear commitment to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the game.

I was therefore gobsmacked when I heard the thoroughly disappointing and embarrassing amendment from the official Opposition in the name of the shadow Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. As a member of the Bill Committee, he well knows that there was genuine consensus on the Bill. It is fundamentally the same Bill with just a few changes, and I do not understand why he does not support them. As has been mentioned, the former Member for Chatham and Aylesford Dame Tracey Crouch worked so hard on the fan-led review.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

No, I will not; I have only four minutes.

I remind the shadow Secretary of State what he said on that last day of Committee when unfortunately the previous Bill did not make it to wash-up. He said,

“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”

and

“a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans”.––[Official Report, Football Governance Bill Public Bill Committee, 23 April 2024; c. 244.]

By declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Conservatives are now opposing greater financial sustainability across the football pyramid, the tackling of rogue owners, greater fan engagement and club heritage protections. It is a disgrace that they are not supporting the Bill, but I support it wholeheartedly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that a successful games supports lasting benefits for the city and the region. As I said, I met with the CEO and chair two weeks ago. I was in Edinburgh to meet with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to discuss the games. My team is in close contact with the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office and other delivery partners to understand the games’ ambitions for these wider benefits. The organising company has already confirmed that the games will include £6 million of investment in existing sporting venues, as well as 3,000 trained volunteers and a cultural programme.

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

The Minister will know the springboard that hosting international events is for the economy, grassroots participation and sporting facilities in the UK. Under the last Government, we secured and hosted a number of major events, with a pipeline of events. What steps are this Government taking to ensure we have that pipeline of major events in the future?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the economic contribution and the huge inspiration of these events. We have a number of exciting events coming up, whether that be rugby or cricket, and the Government are hugely supportive of major events.

Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on this important matter. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on bringing forward this Bill. She has spoken with passion and knowledge on an issue that she clearly knows and cares much about. I also thank her for supporting my Westminster Hall debate on a related issue that is particularly important for charities: the impact of this Government’s national insurance increases.

The simple and well-intentioned aim behind the Bill is to allow charities to raise more money to deliver on their charitable aims, and the hon. Lady seeks to do that by disposing of the limits imposed by the Gambling Act 2005. She has already referred to the People’s Postcode Lottery, and we have heard how much it does to support charities in our constituencies up and down the country, including in mine on the Isle of Wight. Who would not want to support charities such as the People’s Postcode Lottery?

The leading argument against restricting the cap on charity lotteries is that they might then compete with the national lottery, which is not subject to this cap. That is a legitimate concern. It is in all our interests that the national lottery continues to thrive, but research has been done on competition between charity lotteries and the national lottery. In 2017, the Gambling Commission found

“no statistically significant effect of Charity Lotteries affecting National Lottery sales.”

Indeed, it remarked that the national lottery and society lotteries have continued to grow side by side. Consequently, the previous Conservative Government partially liberalised charity lottery sales and prize limits in 2020. Two years later, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence on the matter, and its subsequent report, “What next for the National Lottery?”, said:

“We do not consider that society lotteries pose a threat to the charitable giving of the National Lottery, in line with the views of the Gambling Commission and the Department.”

The Conservatives support the principle of allowing charities to raise more money, including from society lotteries, and reducing the regulatory burden placed upon them. The previous Government commissioned independent research, as the hon. Member has referred to, and she asked some questions of the Minister, which I endorse. Can the Minister say whether the research has been received at the Department, and will she give an indication of its summary?

Before finishing, I will briefly discuss the importance of charities’ work in delivering £17 billion of public services each year, without which the public sector could not do its work. This Government bear greater responsibility to support charities through additional fundraising than might otherwise have been the case, because they are taking an estimated £1.4 billion from charities through their increases to national insurance contributions in the Budget. The Government know that will damage the public services that charities deliver. That is why they exempted the NHS, but they provided no such exemption for charities delivering health and social care, charities supporting people who need housing, charities trying to lift people out of poverty, charities trying to cure disease, and charities supporting victims of violence against women and girls.

I urge the Government to act. They owe charities the support and they owe charities compensation for the money they are taking off them in extra tax. This Bill would just be a start. I thank the hon. Member once again for bringing this important issue before the House, and I wish her every success in realising the aims and objectives behind the Bill.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to employers’ National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.

The background to this debate is the October Budget presented by the Government, and in particular the rise in national insurance contributions for employers. The rate was raised to 15% and the threshold at which national insurance contributions apply was brought down from £9,100 to £5,000, bringing in some part-time workers who previously had not caused their employers to be subject to national insurance contributions. Much has been said about the impact of the rise on the economy, but less has been said about the impact on charities.

Charities deliver almost £17 billion-worth of public services a year. Public services and civil society could not operate without charities. There is a tendency to overlook the important work they do. Particularly at the level of local government, charities are responsible through contracting for the delivery of a lot of the services that local governments are required to deliver.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The Balsam Centre is a charity in Wincanton in my constituency that delivers some of the vital services that the hon. Member talks about, including maternal mental health support and youth counselling. The NI changes mean that it will have to find an extra £40,000 for its salary costs next year, cancel any pay increases and operate at a reduced capacity from April. Its work relieves pressure on the NHS and on local government, so does the hon. Member agree that the Government must rethink the national insurance changes?

[Joe Robertson]

I of course agree with the hon. Member that the Government must rethink the changes. I will go on to use examples from my own constituency, and I thank her for doing so with hers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Joe Robertson]

I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the overall cost of the money taken from charities and transferred into the Treasury will be £1.4 billion. That is money being taken from charitable sources and transferred into the Treasury. Sarah Elliott, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said:

“This is the biggest shock to the sector since pandemic. Charities already juggling rising demand, escalating costs, and the falling funding cannot absorb an additional £1.4 billion in costs without drastic service cuts...This additional cost, for which there is no headroom in budgets to cover, will be devastating.”

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland, the effect on charities will range from £5,000 per year to £200,000 per year. The costs are extreme and incredibly worrying. Does the hon. Member agree that charities are the backbone of many local communities across the UK, as he said earlier in his speech, and that as such they deserve even more support? Does he feel, as I feel on behalf of charities in my constituency, that the change could ultimately be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and that charities could well disappear?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with both those points. Charities tell us that the change will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many. I know that because, immediately before entering Parliament, I worked for a nursing charity supporting dementia carers.

The Government know the pressure created by the national insurance contribution rise. They exempted the NHS because they knew the impact it would have on healthcare, but they ignored or failed to understand the contribution that charities make to health and social care.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The Midlands Air Ambulance Charity, which serves my constituents, receives no Government funding whatsoever for its daily missions. It does not burden the NHS financially, yet it adds immense value to the healthcare sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time the Treasury considered giving organisations and charities such as air ambulances the same exemption they are giving to NHS trusts, hospital trusts and NHS bodies?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree. Ultimately, the Government should exempt all charities from national insurance contribution rises. Another possibility, which would be much less beneficial, would be to target the exemption at health and social care provider charities, without which the NHS could not function, but I ask the Minister to expand the exemption to all charities, not just those in health and social care.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Shooting Star and Demelza House are two children’s cancer hospice charities that make a significant contribution to the national health service. Is it not absolutely ludicrous that money given for charitable purposes should effectively be siphoned off to the Treasury instead of being used to provide the support to children and their families for which it is intended?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree: of course it is ludicrous. This is charitable money—most of it is charitable donations—that is given to charities to provide valuable work, and the Treasury is taking it and putting it into the Government’s coffers. Some of these charities, such as those in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, are small charities doing valuable work and are the least able to afford to give money over to the national Government. It is therefore unsurprising that 7,000 charities have signed an open letter to the Chancellor. This is about not just the increase in national insurance contributions but the timing of it and the combination of factors.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

rose—

[Joe Robertson]

I will make a little progress and then come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Most charities are suffering as they try to raise charitable funds, yet the Government have decided to take some of those charitable funds for themselves. For charities that support older people, such as Age UK, the simultaneous impact of the withdrawal of winter fuel payments has meant that more people are using their services, and at the same time the Government are taking money off them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Joe Robertson]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We can see from the attendance on one side of the Chamber how important charities are to Opposition parties of all sorts. We are united in opposing the change, not least because those who are the most vulnerable, such as users of Citizens Advice, are likely to see services cut. There is an £88,000 impact just on the Citizens Advice service in Hull and East Riding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to go back to her colleagues and change direction? No one voted for a Labour Government to attack charities and the most vulnerable.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Minister needs to go back and do that. That is why I secured the debate.

The chief executive of Crisis said:

“Increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions will have a dreadful impact on charities at a time when we are seeing unprecedented demand for our services.”

Some 75% of charities are reducing or considering withdrawing from public service delivery. Who will pick up that shortfall? In the worst case, no one will pick up where charities withdraw, or the Government and the public sector will have to, and I am fairly sure it will cost them more than £1.4 billion to do so. I prefer to put my trust in charities with experience in what they do, rather than the Government having to put emergency measures in place because charities are forced to withdraw. Some 61% of them are likely to cut staff.

The Government’s stated aim is not backed by their tax policy in three areas in particular: in health and social care, which we have already spoken much about; in poverty and homelessness; and for vulnerable groups.

[John Milne]

On the hon. Member’s earlier point about Age UK, it estimates that just in my Horsham constituency it will cost £150,000 per year to cope with the changes and the extra charge. Age UK is not a business and cannot raise its prices; it can only cut its service. Does the hon. Member agree that when one in five pensioners are adjudged to be living in poverty, this is the wrong time for such a measure?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Member. Broadly speaking, Age UK operates as small charities in individual communities. Age UK in the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, also faces paying tens of thousands of pounds. On a national scale, that might not seem like much money, but it makes a huge difference at the local level and leads inevitably either to service cuts or to staff cuts. I agree with the hon. Member that no good can come of it.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) about the additional costs hitting Age UK, in West Sussex and Brighton and Hove the change has had an astonishing impact which, combined with the increase in the real living wage, is going to double Age UK’s fundraising target for this year, which it cannot bear. Combined with the cost of the cuts to the winter fuel payment, that goes against the very sentiment of the Budget, which was to try to prioritise the NHS. More elderly people will be, and are presenting, in A&E. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to rethink?

[Joe Robertson]

I do agree. It looks like the Government do not understand that healthcare is delivered not only by the NHS, so when they chose to exempt the NHS from the damaging rises, they either did not understand or had disregard for all the other healthcare providers, without which the NHS could not function properly.

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

rose—

[Joe Robertson]

I will give some examples before I give way to my hon. Friend.

The change will cost Marie Curie almost £3 million a year, and it says that without further support critical services for the terminally ill may be scaled back. Hospices throughout the country will pay between £30 million and £50 million a year. For the Mountbatten hospice in my constituency it will cost £338,000—just for one hospice. Just before Christmas, the Government announced £100 million of investment in hospices over two years—so £50 million a year—which is merely giving back, broadly, what they have already taken. That money is targeted at capital spending, when hospices tell me their main pressure is revenue. Are the Government taking revenue from them and giving it back provided they spend it on capital? Clearly, they are not going to give money to all hospices, but they are going to take money from all hospices—that seems inevitable.

[Helen Grant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Heart of Kent hospice in my constituency does amazing work caring for families at a time of crisis, but the Government changes to NICs and the national living wage will cost the charity more than £200,000 per annum. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s approach is undermining many hospices, damaging the vital services they provide, and ultimately putting more pressure on the NHS?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree. Putting pressure on other health providers and social care providers inevitably leads to pressure on the NHS. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head in her comments and I thank her for them.

For Carers Trust the cost of this rise is £3 million—that is not its tax bill; that is just the bill from this rise in the Budget. For Stroke Association it is £2.1 million over two years, and for Teenage Cancer Trust it is £300,000. It is not just about health and social care charities, but charities tackling poverty and homelessness. The Labour Government say it is their aim, and it was in their manifesto that they would develop a new cross-party strategy

“to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness”.

What good is a strategy when it is stripping £60 million from charities trying to do what the Government want them to do? The homelessness charity Crisis says the rise will cost an additional £750,000 and—here is the point—with little or no time to prepare. That announcement was made just a few months before the effects will kick in, and Crisis says it is likely to lead to a reduction in frontline services.

I will mention a few other charities. The changes will cost Single Homeless Project £650,000. Rick Henderson, the CEO of Homeless Link, says—his words, not mine—that they are “desperately worried” about closures of homelessness services, leaving thousands without support, and that this NI increase

“could be the final nail in the coffin.”

Those are not my words, or the words of politicians, but the words of charity leaders up and down the United Kingdom.

The change affects charities supporting other vulnerable people, as well as charities supporting women and girls. Labour pledged in its manifesto to halve violence against women and girls, but chief executives of seven charities, including Victim Support and Rape Crisis, have warned the rise could result in their losing staff, closing waiting lists and ultimately closing the doors to some vulnerable victims of crime. That is the result of this Budget national insurance rise.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this issue. I agree with him completely in so far as violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is at crisis levels. It is one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a woman, and we have women and girls who have lost their lives already this year to violence. Would the hon. Member agree that if the Government are serious—as I believe they are—about tackling violence against women and girls, surely this increase flies in the face of everything we are trying to achieve in terms of ending violence against women and girls?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, and would like to share the hon. Member’s optimism that the Government do intend to make improvements in this area. This debate is a second chance for them to go away, then come back and provide relief to all charities, but particularly those that are operating in what might be called emergency services, because nobody else is doing what those charities are doing. Earlier today I spoke to a journalist who was involved in reporting the criminality and repulsive scandal in Rotherham. He said that when he went there, it was charities that were providing those emergency services—no one else was doing it—yet those are the groups that are having money taken off them in order to fund the Government.

Women’s Aid is a conglomerate representing 175 member organisations across England. It says that the national insurance contribution rises will effectively negate gift aid. The Government are giving a tax relief through gift aid and then taking it back through the Budget NIC rises.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I think we can all suggest what the Government are going to say today, and they are not going to change their mind, so surely we should ensure that they do other things to support charities. Does the hon. Member agree that one thing the Government could do is to support my private Member’s Bill, the Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill, which would remove the charity lotteries cap and allow charities to raise more money at no cost to the taxpayer?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, although I am perhaps a little more optimistic than the hon. Member. The Government might not make the promise today, but they have an opportunity to go away and provide financial relief to all charities, even if they might not want to admit that in black and white. I congratulate the hon. Member on her Bill.

I am grateful to Members who have come to this debate to talk about their constituencies. In my constituency, the local charity Aspire is currently building, for the first time on the Isle of Wight, accommodation specifically for vulnerable women—and now the Government want £27,000 from it. Community Action does amazing things on the Isle of Wight, and provides a lot of contracted services for the Isle of Wight council; the Government want £45,000 from it. The employment allowance will offset £5,000 of that. The Government will tell us that is what they are giving back, but those are very small returns on the money they are taking.

I could say much more about other charities that operate in sports, the arts, live music and culture, but clearly there are time constraints. This debate is not just about charities in the sectors that I have talked about, although broadly speaking they are the ones doing things at the coalface that the public sector tends not to be able to do itself directly—otherwise, frankly, these charities would not exist.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Member was exactly right to draw particular attention to hospices, given that the House will shortly be debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I have heard from constituents that if we are to introduce that Bill, they would like to see also proper investment in palliative care. Does he agree that that is another reason why national insurance needs to be prioritised for hospices?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, and the hon. Member perfectly illustrates the point that the Government’s stated aims are not backed up by their tax decisions. If the Government want better palliative care—I hope that they do—they should not be taking money away from hospices, or from charities, such as Marie Curie, that operate end-of-life care. He makes that point well; I thank him for it.

Before finishing, I will again quote the interim CEO of Refuge. She has said that the violence against women and girls sector

“is already under immense financial pressure”,

and that not only did the Budget

“fail to include detail about how much funding has been set aside to tackle violence against women and girls, the Government’s plans to increase National Insurance contributions for employers could have dire repercussions for charities.”

My ask of the Government is to extend to charities the exemption that they have given the NHS and public bodies. It is not difficult; there is no lack of clarity about what a charity is. Nobody will wish to beat the Government for making a sensible decision for charities. There are some alternative options, but that is plainly the only ask that will really deal with the problem. The alternative options are to provide some other form of relief, but that relief should be felt by all charities. If the Government cannot go as far as to relieve all charities, they should target relief to specific sectors. We have heard in this debate about those sectors, such as those operating in poverty and homelessness, and in health and social care, and those tackling violence against women and girls. At the very least, they should do an impact assessment. No impact assessment has been carried out of the impact of this tax increase on the charity sector. That must be the most basic ask: there can be no good reason not to have an impact assessment. Finally, the Government must go back and rethink their whole approach to taxation on charities, to help to deliver—not hinder—their stated aims.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members can see the time now and we have to take wind-ups from about 5.8 pm. A number of people have put their names down to speak, so could Members stand if they want to speak and then we can work out timings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for coming here to address the arguments that have been made, particularly as they were about a set of decisions that were not made by her personally or by her Department. I thank her for assuring Members in this debate that she will go back and make strong representations to her colleagues. There is probably no option other than to do so, given the strength of feeling she has heard today, particularly from Opposition Members. This is not her fault, butthere is no compelling argument that money had to be taken from charities to deliver the Government’s objectives. I urge her to say to the Chancellor, “Please give charities their money back. This is their money—give it back.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to employers’ National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.