Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

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

[Max Wilkinson]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Joe Robertson and Max Wilkinson

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The flavour and mood of this debate have been somewhat strange. I expected to be in a debate facing Members on the Government Benches who were at least showing humility, and who at least, in the words they chose, showed that they regretted the decision, even though they reluctantly supported it. But that is not the mood we have faced at all. Government Members have been bullish. We have heard the word “proud”. They have been jovial and, at times, even upbeat in describing this very worst decision of this Government of bad decisions, and pensioners will have heard them. Labour Members may have impressed each other, and they may have impressed the trade unions of which they are members, by talking about and defending train drivers’ pay, but they will have deeply depressed, and depressed further, those pensioners who live in their constituencies, in my constituency and right across Britain.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State took us through the issues caused by withdrawing the winter fuel payment, and she made the central argument that has been repeated from these Benches: they are withdrawing the winter fuel payment not from the wealthy, but from those on as little as £13,500.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituent Jean told me that she is now washing in cold water as a result of this measure. She is one of those people right on the cusp. She might also be concerned by comments from the Leader of the Opposition about the potential means-testing of the triple lock after the next election, if the Conservatives are in government. Will the hon. Gentleman offer Jean reassurance that there will not be an even longer winter if the Government were to change next time?

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Debate between Joe Robertson and Max Wilkinson

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

The right hon. Lady speaks powerfully for her constituency, which I know has a specific issue.

We mentioned housing developers, and one housing developer has put its head above the parapet to support the Bill. I am grateful for the support of Thakeham, and it is to be applauded for supporting the measure. Developers should support the Bill for sound business reasons. There is a clear market preference for homes with solar panels, and a relatively small proportion of the price will be rewarded with a decent payback, and customers want them.

Politically, there is demonstrable cross-party support. In the last Parliament, 79% of Members were found to be supportive, and I suspect the percentage is higher in this new Parliament. The climate barometer tracks support for mandatory solar panels on new builds and found a clear majority of support among all parties’ voters, so doing this would place us at the centre of political gravity. Some 80% of Conservative voters, 89% of Labour voters, 92% of Liberal Democrat voters and 63% of Reform supporters responded to the survey in favour of mandatory solar panels for new build homes. Those same constituents rightly look to us to make the right and logical decisions on these matters. They back the measure because all the evidence points to clear benefits at every level, including the Government’s positive agenda on energy and climate.

MCS Foundation research has found that mandatory solar panels on 1.5 million homes would be the equivalent of two additional Sizewell C nuclear power stations, which should give us all pause for thought. For a country that struggles to build infrastructure, we must not look past these easier, small-scale wins.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. He talks about the nuclear power that may not be needed if we have solar panels on houses. Does he have a view on how much pressure we could take off demand on green land for solar farms, because many people have concerns about that use of green land, if we had solar panels on new builds?

[Max Wilkinson]

My strong suspicion is that the market will help to decide the answer to that question, but it is inevitable that if we produce more energy from some sources, it will lower demand in other areas. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I visited Hinkley Point on a school trip as an 11-year-old and was told, very excitedly, that a new Hinkley C was on the way. I regret to tell the House that I am now 40 and, on current projections, Hinkley C is not expected to generate any power until I am at least 44. On the point of time, the new homes built today will outlast us all. If we can make them work better for the planet, they will be a lasting testament to this House’s efforts to tackle climate change, and they will offer protections against the energy shocks we have all endured too. That is what we have the chance to do today, if Ministers are willing to support the principles of the sunshine Bill. We cannot and should not let this opportunity pass us by, and it is our duty to build a political consensus here to match the consensus among members of the public.

So to paraphrase the great Morecambe and Wise in the song that shares the informal name we have given to this Bill, let our arms be as warm as the sun up above, and let us think about how much joy we can give to each brand new bright tomorrow—if only we can lower people’s energy bills and help to tackle climate change too.