High Street Gambling Reform

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Health and Social Care Committee on 2 April 2025, on Gambling-related harms, HC 804; and Correspondence between the Health and Social Care Committee and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, on Gambling-related harms, reported to the House on 18 June and 29 April 2025.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Dawn Butler, who will speak for about 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. We will start immediately with a seven-minute time limit.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his lived experience. I can relate that to when I have spoken to organisations through the Business and Trade Committee and through my role on the Joint Committee for National Security Strategy. I have heard from organisations that have been impacted about how paralysing the immediate aftermath of such an attack is and how it challenges an organisation. It is crucial that these red team, blue team scenarios get played out, but when it is actually happening and a company is facing an entire shutdown of its systems, it is very difficult to navigate. Many have talked about the culture change that is needed, and we need to urgently embrace that change. The experience in the NHS that my hon. Friend mentions is a good example.

These attacks are the new normal and we must be better prepared. In September 2024, led by the FBI and the National Security Agency, the United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Canada and a plethora of other allies released their clearest articulation of the threat posed by Russia, and Putin in particular. They said that Russia is

“responsible for computer network operations against global targets for the purposes of espionage, sabotage, and reputational harm since at least 2020.”

The NCSC annual review in 2024 called the landscape “diffuse and dangerous”, while the 2025 review could not have been clearer in saying “It’s time to act” in the defining text on the front cover. Richard Horne, head of the NCSC, said:

“Empty shelves and stalled production lines are a stark reminder that cyber attacks no longer just affect computers and data, but real business, real products, and real lives… The recent cyber attacks must act as a wake-up call.”

Just last week, Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, said that cyber-attacks were one of the biggest threats to UK financial stability and stressed the critically important need for collaborative defence.

The reality should be clear to everyone here. The frontline is everywhere. It is our phone, it is at our desk, it is our businesses, it is our infrastructure and it is even here at the heart of our democracy. Such a threat requires a whole-of-society response. We are not the first to have been targeted. Back in 2007—18 years ago—Russia launched a determined cyber-attack on Estonia. It was damaging and debilitating to Estonia’s society and economy. The cyber-attack was a call to action for Estonia and it responded at pace. It brought about cultural change, which was talked about earlier in the debate. Estonia overhauled its legal, political and strategic framework—even looking at its education system—and adopted a whole-of-society approach to cyber-security, developing a serious public-private partnership to counter the threats posed by Russia. No doubt the Minister will have looked at this case in more detail to understand what learnings could be applied here and to our cyber-security strategy more widely to ensure whole-of-society resilience.

The reality is that cyber-attacks target the weakest link. It was welcome to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister talk about the initiatives with the FTSE 350 companies and some of the smaller businesses about how they should be engaging with these threats. It cannot be acceptable that the most popular password in the United Kingdom is “password”. It is ridiculous. Every one of us must act as guardian against our cyber-adversaries.

The Bill lays out valuable and desperately needed provisions. Its extent and scope are hugely welcome, bringing in data centres, large load controllers and managed service providers under the network and information systems regulations protects more of the economy from cyber-attacks. I am particularly pleased to see the inclusion of managed service providers, given the vulnerabilities that organisations often face from external IT suppliers or their supply base.

The amendments to the regulatory framework are a positive step. Improving the reporting of incidents will allow the Government to respond at pace and be agile to the evolving threats and shared vulnerabilities. That said, during the last Parliament, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I now chair, called for one cross-sector cyber regulator, and I echo those calls, as I believe that would enable far greater regulation and enforcement. Finally, the improved resilience and security enabled through additional powers granted to the Secretary of State are crucial in enabling the Government to act quickly in real times of crisis.

Despite all the positive aspects of the Bill—I congratulate Ministers after the years of dithering by their predecessor Government—it does leave large parts of the economy outside its scope. As I have mentioned already, how can we incorporate a whole-of-society approach to cyber-security like that of Estonia? There will be many different levers for the Government to pull. This Bill is just one part, and I trust that others will follow swiftly. It is worth noting that the EU’s NIS2 directive is broadly parallel to the Bill before us. However, the EU goes further on cyber-resilience, having added sectors such as manufacturing, food distribution and waste water. Having witnessed such devastating attacks in these sectors in the past year, I urge us to act swiftly with further legislation to address those areas.

In summary, I just restate that I absolutely welcome the Bill and the three key pillars of the legislation—the expanded scope, improving regulation and strengthening resilience—are hugely welcome, as is the importance of experience reporting and sharing by victims. The cyber-attacks we have suffered this past year must be our inflection point—our call to action. Like Estonia in 2007, we have an opportunity to reinvigorate our cyber-defences and ensure the whole of society is resilient. The shadow Minister mentioned digital ID, and I gently say that that opportunity was seized upon by Estonia at the time and it has since introduced digital ID. It is secure, as it is in Denmark. Estonia looked at the opportunity presented by that challenge and that attack that they faced, and those systems work. That has been demonstrated by both those countries. As the annual review from the National Cyber Security Centre rightly asserts,

“the UK’s cyber security is… a shared responsibility where everyone needs to play a part.”

We parliamentarians have a duty to raise the salience of the issue, and to bring about a national conversation to ensure that everyone plays their part.

Finally, may I gently encourage the Minister to go further and faster, and to look at the broader cyber-landscape, as Estonia did and as the European Union is doing with its NIS2 legislation? May I encourage him to consider introducing legislation to cover food production and distribution, manufacturing and other critical sectors? As I have said, however, the Bill is an important first step, and I look forward to working constructively with him to ensure that the UK and its citizens are secure from, and resilient to, any future cyber-attacks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Independent Football Regulator

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

As always, my hon. Friend has taken this debate back to focusing on the people who matter most: the fans. They have been through hell over recent years as the last Government committed to act, then dragged their feet, and then refused to fulfil that promise to those fans. It was shameful to see Conservative Members go through the Lobby to vote against their own Bill, but I put on record my thanks to Dame Tracey Crouch for all the work she did and continues to do to uphold that promise. I also sincerely thank my hon. Friend; he and I have had numerous conversations over the course of the saga that has developed at Sheffield Wednesday, and I know how active he has been. That is the approach that this Government will always take. We will not stand by and let football fans pay the price when bad owners take over their clubs; we are putting those fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

The Lib Dems have welcomed the introduction of the new Independent Football Regulator. Our football clubs are huge, historic institutions that unite generations, bring local economies to life and inspire millions, both at home and abroad. As such, the Secretary of State carries a significant responsibility to earn the confidence of our world-leading football clubs and guide them through the introduction of these vital regulatory reforms.

The news that the Secretary of State broke the governance code by failing to declare in a timely manner donations received from the newly appointed head of the regulator, David Kogan, has undermined trust at a crucial moment. This regulator is about securing the future of our national game, ensuring that clubs remain sustainable, rooted in their communities and capable of thriving for generations to come. She cannot shy away from the potential conflict of interest involved in the breaches of the code that have emerged in recent days. This oversight requires genuine accountability from the Government in order to restore confidence in the new regulator. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to order an independent investigation into the appointment of David Kogan and, if necessary, rerun the selection process for the IFR chair?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for the years of work that he put into ensuring that we reached this point. I thank him personally as well, because when my club, Wigan Athletic, was in trouble, not once but twice, he and other members of the Select Committee could not have been more supportive in making sure that we got the right outcome and saved our club.

I also thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because even though he has latterly decided that this is a terrible appointment and that the Football Governance Act is a terrible thing, a couple of years ago he said this to the then Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew):

“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans at local clubs such as Charlton Athletic, I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]

I am not sure whether the then Minister could give an answer at that time, but I am happy to say that we certainly will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I want the independent regulator to succeed—not least because of clubs like mine, Portsmouth football club, whose fans had to step in and buy it after it had gone into administration twice—but we need transparency and trust in public appointments. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found Mr Kogan appointable, and that is correct; we did so under the remit with which we were asked to work. However, we did so taking the unprecedented step of including a recommendation for him to take

“concrete steps to reassure the football community”

of his neutrality, because it was Mr Kogan—not the Department, and not the Secretary of State—who told the Committee about the donations, at the very meeting that was held to decide whether or not he was appointable.

The commissioner’s report points to a wider issue relating to the Department’s public appointments process. All but one of the last 10 public appointments involving parliamentary scrutiny have featured problems with the candidate or the process at some point, which are undermining the organisations concerned and the people who are picked to lead them. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department must do better when it comes to public appointments, and may I ask her what concrete steps it is taking to achieve that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am pleased that he has joined the Select Committee. He has extensive knowledge of football and has been a consistent champion of football fans, and I very much support what he has said. This Government are absolutely determined to appoint the right people to the right positions, so that when fans go through the difficulties caused by poor owners, as they did at Charlton, they do not feel that they have nowhere to turn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is not my style to attack the integrity of any Member of Parliament, so may I just ask a general question about the whole process of securing public confidence? Can we now consider tightening the ministerial code, and indeed the whole process, so that at the beginning of the process civil servants check on whether a Minister has received any donations, and if that is the case, the Minister recuses himself or herself at the very start?

Points of Order

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr French]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During today’s urgent question, the Secretary of State provided a number of answers that seem to contradict parts of the commissioner’s report, particularly around the role of the Prime Minister. In particular, she made reference to a conversation between herself and the new chairman of the Independent Football Regulator before his appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have read the report very carefully, and I cannot find any reference to that conversation in the commissioner’s report. I seek guidance from you on how hon. Members can find out why that is not in the report.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Does the Secretary of State wish to respond?

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. The request that I made to officials in my Department was relayed to Mr Kogan. It was, of course, his choice whether to take that advice, but he did. I have to be clear with the hon. Gentleman: from the moment I discovered that donations had been made to my campaign, I did not have any discussions with Mr Kogan about this or any other matter, and I recused myself from the process. I took that seriously. It was for the Minister for Sport to make the final decision, which she did, but from that point, I did not have direct conversations with Mr Kogan until the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments had been able to do his work. I hope that clarifies the matter.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition recently visited my constituency for her tool theft campaign, but I do not think that she has been informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has already secured changes through the Sentencing Bill. The right hon. Lady did not notify me of her visit, and given that she is a long-standing Member of this House, I seek your advice on how she can be reminded of the courtesies to be afforded to Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. Has he given notice to the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to raise this matter?

[Jacob Collier]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has put his point on the record.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question, the Secretary of State mentioned that she was aware of my social media posts attacking and targeting her. I have never made a post about the Secretary of State. Perhaps she would like to clarify that point. My colleagues may have posted about her; we may all look the same, but we are not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair.

Bills Presented

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)

Secretary Peter Kyle, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary David Lammy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Ed Miliband, Anna Turley and Josh Simons, presented a Bill to amend section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and section 6 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 321) with explanatory notes (Bill 321-EN).

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Wes Streeting, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Emma Reynolds and Kanishka Narayan, presented a Bill to make provision, including provision amending the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, about the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 329) with explanatory notes (Bill 329-EN).

BBC Leadership

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the BBC.

As the House will be aware, this weekend, the director general and the chief executive officer of BBC News tendered their resignations, following concerns about accuracy and impartiality at the BBC. This has sparked intense debate across the media and our nation. Today, I want to set out for the House what action is being taken to address the allegations that have been made, and the actions that the Government are taking to support the BBC in addressing this, and I want to address the future of an institution that has been at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.

The House will know that yesterday, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, wrote to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He accepted that there had been editorial failings, and he committed to a number of steps in response. Dr Shah believes that our national broadcaster, which remains one of the most trusted sources of news in our country, has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. I agree. Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with him and his team to ensure that where these standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows. I welcome the steps that have already been set out, and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues.

The concerns that have been raised are serious in and of themselves, but some in the House have gone even further, suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased. It should not be lost on us that the BBC has faced criticism from all sides for its coverage of highly contentious and contested issues. It has been accused of giving too much airtime to particular parties, and of giving them too little. Those in the House, from left and right, who are attacking the BBC for not expressing views with which they agree should consider just what is at stake. There is a fundamental difference between raising serious concerns about editorial failings, and Members of this House launching a sustained attack on the institution itself.

The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it is a national institution that belongs to us all. Every day, it tells the story of who we are—the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK. It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries, has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched, and is by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom. At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart. It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world. Trusted news and high-quality programming are essential to our democratic and cultural life, and all of us in the House should value them, uphold them and fiercely defend them.

The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future. Throughout its history, the BBC has always adapted and evolved. This is an institution that began in the era of radio, when it was deemed an existential threat to the newspaper industry. It evolved into the age of mass audiences ushered in by the invention of television, and navigated the complexities of reporting during the second world war.

We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves. We will publish a Green Paper and launch a public consultation shortly, and I will set out more detail on that for the House in the coming weeks.

I would like to thank the outgoing director general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years. I thank the CEO of BBC News for leading the BBC’s news operation through stormy times. I do not underestimate the challenge of taking on those roles, and the personal toll that that can take on the individuals who hold them. As we write the next chapter of an institution that has stood at the centre of British public life for a century, our overarching goal is simple: to ensure that the BBC can renew its mission for the modern age and continue to inform, educate and entertain, not just for the coming decade but well into the next century. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so I am unable to pursue the course of action that she suggests.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy.

That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship?

On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[Lisa Nandy]

It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with that or with his characterisation of an institution that plays a vital role in this country. I gently say to him that I do not think most people do either. While I am sure the public have been extremely concerned about the serious failings that have been accepted this week by the BBC, it still remains the most trusted source of news in this country.

I say to all Members of this House that there has been a lot of discussion today about individuals being held responsible for all the problems at the BBC, whether they are individuals who serve on the board or as senior executives. My assessment of the failures that have been admitted over recent years is that they stem not from an institutional bias, but from a need to have sufficient rigour and oversight at the top of the organisation that is applied consistently across the board. That is something I know the chairman of the BBC is seeking to achieve, and as a Government we stand ready to support it in that.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Duty not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling—

“A regulated club or English football competition must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”

This new clause prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.

New clause 3—Free to air coverage—

“(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—

(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,

(b) the League Cup Final, and

(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals

are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.

(3) In this section ‘free-to-air television’ means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”

This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.

New clause 4—Fan representation: mandatory golden share—

“(1) A licensed club must, as a condition of holding a licence under section 15, issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan organisation.

(2) The golden share must confer on its holder the right to veto any proposal by the club to—

(a) relocate the club’s home ground outside its current local authority area,

(b) change the club’s name,

(c) materially alter the club’s primary colours or badge, or

(d) enter into or withdraw from any competition not sanctioned by the Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League.

(3) A licensed club must—

(a) consult the holder of the golden share on any material changes to the club’s ownership, governance, or strategic direction,

(b) provide the holder with access to relevant financial and governance information reasonably required to fulfil its function, and

(c) facilitate structured and regular engagement between the club and the holder of the golden share.

(4) The Regulator must monitor compliance with this section and may—

(a) issue guidance to clubs and Supporters’ Trusts on the operation of the golden share,

(b) impose licence conditions or financial penalties for non-compliance, and

(c) take enforcement action where a club fails to uphold the rights associated with the golden share.

(5) In this section—

(a) ‘Supporters’ Trust’ means a formally constituted, democratic, not-for-profit organisation that is recognised by the Regulator as representing the interests of a club’s supporters;

(b) ‘golden share’ means a special share or equivalent legal instrument issued to a Supporters’ Trust, entitling its holder to the rights and protections described in this section.”

This new clause would give fans a veto on club proposals, exercised through a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan body.

New clause 5—Protection of assets of regulated clubs—

“(1) Where any of the following assets belong to a regulated club, the asset must not be removed from the club’s ownership or used as collateral for a secured loan—

(a) any stadium,

(b) any training facility,

(c) any trophies,

(d) any car park,

(e) any hotel.

(2) But subsection 1 does not apply to a car park or a hotel where—

(a) the regulated club can demonstrate to the IFR’s satisfaction that the asset is causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial sustainability, and

(b) the IFR has provided prior written approval for the disposal of the asset or the use of the asset as collateral.

(3) Where the current owner of a regulated club owns any asset listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c), the owner may not sell the club unless the owner has inserted the asset into the club’s ownership structure.”

This new clause would ensure that the club assets listed above are recognised as the inalienable property of the club rather than the club’s owners.

New clause 6—Financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud: protection etc—

“(1) The IFR must, in any strategy it publishes, set out measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective.

(2) Measures to be set out under subsection (1) must include oversight of—

(a) robust education for relevant players on matters relating to financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud,

(b) industry wide standards aimed at relevant players in relation to those matters, and

(c) an equitable system of support and redress for relevant players where they have been affected by those matters.

(3) In this section, a ‘relevant player’ means a current or former player in English football who—

(a) has been a victim of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, or

(b) is at risk of becoming a victim of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud.”

New clause 7—Human rights and modern slavery considerations—

“(1) When considering whether a person (‘A’) satisfies the requirement in section 26(7)(c), the Regulator shall have regard to (among other things)—

(a) whether A has been complicit in any egregious or consistent violation of international human rights law, whether of any international human rights treaty, customary law, or other instrument,

(b) whether A has been convicted, cautioned or reprimanded or complicit in any egregious or consistent violation of domestic human rights legislation, including breaching provisions in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 or equivalent national legislation,

(c) whether A has been subject to a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order,

(d) whether A has been found liable in a civil claim relating to a human rights violation,

(e) whether A has been convicted of an offence, cautioned or reprimanded for failing to comply with their human rights and modern slavery reporting and due diligence obligations under applicable domestic legislation,

(f) any representations made by A or the club in accordance with the notice.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) where A is a body corporate or other non-corporeal entity (including a government or nation state), the Regulator shall consider the actions of anyone who controls that body corporate or entity (and ‘control’ shall have the meaning given in section 255 of the Companies Act 2006), and

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

(3) In respect of subsection (1)(c) and (d), a risk of disrepute shall not be valid grounds for disqualification of any person if such disrepute would, in the reasonable opinion of the Regulator, be unfounded.

(4) In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraph 15, the Regulator may establish a committee or committees to discharge its functions under this Clause.”

New clause 8—Duty to address ticketing market practices—

“Regulated clubs and competition organisers must take reasonable steps to—

(a) monitor practices in the secondary ticketing market that may lead to excessive price mark-ups or unauthorised resale;

(b) provide transparent information about ticket pricing and resale policies, including the face value of tickets; and

(c) provide official ticket exchange channels where reasonably practicable.”

New clause 9—Prioritisation of competitions within English football—

“(1) This section applies where a regulated club is participating in a competition outside of English Football.

(2) Where the IFR considers that the regulated club’s participation in the competition is damaging to the heritage of English football, the IFR must take what measures it considers necessary to prevent that damage.

(3) Measures that the IFR might take include a direction to the club that it—

(a) prioritise any fixtures taking place in a competition within English football over those in the competition outside of English football;

(b) cease participation in the competition outside of English football.”

New clause 10—Player welfare—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must review how to improve the welfare of football players. This review should include consideration of—

(a) neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs;

(b) the number of games that footballers are required to play each season; and

(c) the impact on the welfare of current and former professional footballers as a result.”

New clause 11—Correspondence about the IFR—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish any correspondence received by the Secretary of State from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the IFR’s exercise of its functions.

(2) The IFR must publish any correspondence it receives from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the exercise of its functions.”

This new clause would require correspondence between FIFA and UEFA and either the Secretary of State, or the IFR, with regards to the IFR’s regulatory functions, to be published.

New clause 12—Impact on Regulator of changes in Government administration—

“If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”

This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered.

New clause 13—Neurodegenerative care scheme—

“(1) The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care and support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition linked to their career in English football.

(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out—

(a) minimum requirements for the scheme,

(b) a timescale for the scheme’s establishment, and

(c) arrangements and a timescale for a periodic review of the scheme.

(3) The IFR must ensure that, as a condition of organising any competition specified pursuant to section 2(3), all specified competition organisers jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme in accordance with subsections (4) to (8).

(4) For the purpose of operating, managing and funding the scheme, all of the specified competition organisers must form a Joint Coordinating Committee (‘JCC’).

(5) Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer is eligible for the scheme.

(6) The scheme must provide care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition which is deemed, pursuant to subsection (7)(a), to have been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football.

(7) The JCC must, under the supervision of the IFR, appoint a panel of independent experts—

(a) to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football, and

(b) to determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in the case of each eligible person.

(8) The IFR must ensure that the JCC acts upon the panel’s determinations.

(9) Where—

(a) specified competition owners, through the JCC, cannot agree about the operation, management or funding of the scheme, or

(b) at any time, the scheme does not meet either—

(i) the aim under subsection (1), or

(ii) any requirements set out in regulations under subsection (2),

the Secretary of State may, having taken advice from the IFR, make a direction about the operation, management or funding of the scheme.”

New clause 14—Duty to vet financial investment in football clubs—

“(1) The IFR must review and approve all proposed financial investments in regulated clubs from funds which are located outside of the United Kingdom.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include—

(a) assessing if any sources of revenue for such a fund is the result of money laundering;

(b) assessing if the owner of such a fund is charged with any breaches of UK or international law.

(3) If upon completing a review under subsection (1) the IFR has determined a source of revenue for a fund is the result of money laundering or the owner of a fund is in breach of UK or international law the IFR must direct the club to reject the investment.”

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this Act a ‘specified competition’ includes—

(a) the Premier League,

(b) the English Football League, and

(c) the National League.

(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament amend the competitions specified in section (3).”

This amendment would specify the leagues that are to be classed as “specified competitions” under Act.

Amendment 3, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of people who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football forms part of any strategy published by the IFR, and to oversee an equitable and fair industry financial scheme to provide care for those people.”

Amendment 12, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to take responsibility for the protection, financial welfare, and safeguarding of current and former players involved in English football who—

(i) have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, or

(ii) are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, (referred to in this Act as ‘the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective’).”

Amendment 29, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football is a central part of its approach to football governance, and to establish and supervise the scheme provided for under section [Neurodegenerative care scheme].”

This amendment places an objective on the IFR to establish and supervise a scheme to provide care and support to those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football (see NC13).

Amendment 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA.”

This amendment requires the IFR to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.

Amendment 1, in clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) an assessment of the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets.”

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its state of the game report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Amendment 21, in clause 11, page 7, line 41, at end insert—

“(7) No football governance statement may have effect unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the football governance statement to be approved by Parliament before it could have effect.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets, and”.

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its annual report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Amendment 28, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the cumulative impact of the costs imposed on clubs through compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime, and”.

This amendment would require the IFR to include in the annual report an account of the financial costs imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.

Amendment 26, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

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

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

(a) unusual staffing pressures, or

(b) discrepancies or abnormalities with the application.

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

(a) that the period has been extended,

(b) the length of the extension, and

(c) the reasons for the extension.”

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

Amendment 15, in clause 37, page 28, line 28, at end insert—

“(fa) whether the individual is a member of a proscribed organisation as per section (3) and schedule (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.”

This amendment requires that IFR, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Amendment 8, in clause 46, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) in the case of a disposal under subsection (1)(a), it has taken reasonable steps to establish that the majority of the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales approve of the disposal.”

Amendment 9, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(6A) Before the IFR grants an approval under subsection (6) it must—

(a) consult the supporters of the body in question, the relevant competition organisers and persons representing the local community with which the body is associated, and

(b) have regard to the views expressed by those consulted.”

Amendment 24, in clause 53, page 42, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) But the IFR may not require a club with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees to pay the IFR a levy in respect of a chargeable period during which the club is a licensed club.”

This amendment would exempt clubs with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees from having to pay the levy.

Government amendments 4 to 7.

Amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 87, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”

Amendment 19, page 87, line 37, at end insert—

“(5) No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Board.

Amendment 23, page 88, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.”

Amendment 22, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.

(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”

This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.

Amendment 20, page 93, line 5, at end insert—

“(4A) No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.

Amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 99, line 37, at end insert—

“(f) the club’s political statements and positions.”

This amendment ensures that clubs have to engage their fans on the political statements a club might adopt.

Amendment 10, in schedule 5, page 100, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) an Asset of Community Value condition.”

This amendment adds the requirement to attach an Asset of Community Value condition to each club operating licence.

Amendment 27, page 102, line 7, at end insert

“including the club’s official charity.”

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

Amendment 17, page 102, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the requirement for the corporate governance statement to cover what action the club is taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.

Amendment 13, page 102, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) The IFR must ensure that the persons referred to in subsections 1(a) and 1(b) are representative of the majority of the club’s fanbase and represent the club’s key supporters’ groups.

(1B) If it is unclear which are a club’s key supporters’ groups the IFR must consult with the Football Supporter’s Association to determine which groups apply for the purposes of this paragraph.”

Amendment 11, page 103, line 20, at end insert—

“Asset of Community Value

11A The Asset of Community Value condition is a condition requiring a club to either—

(a) obtain and maintain Asset of Community Value status for its home ground; or

(b) incorporate into its Articles of Association a restriction which substantially mirrors the restrictions placed on Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act 2011,

and the Secretary of State may create regulations detailing further the implementation of the Asset of Community Value condition.”

The amendment defines the Asset of Community Value condition that clubs are required to obtain for their home ground and is consequential on Amendment 10.

[Mr French]

I also put on record my thanks to Lord Tebbit for his life of service to both our country and our party. He will be dearly missed by us all. In opening today’s proceedings, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is a privilege to speak on Report for the countless fans who fill the stands week in and week out, wear their club’s shirt with pride and keep our clubs alive, come rain or shine. I put on the record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions in Committee, and to everyone who has engaged with the process outside of Westminster. For all the high talk of regulators, quangos and corporate structures, let us never forget that football in this country is not an industry dreamed up by officials on neat PowerPoint slides or Excel spreadsheets, but a living tradition that is part of who we are and part of the fabric of our nation.

That is precisely why we must be so careful now: because this Bill, well-intentioned though it may be, risks replacing one danger—a minority of reckless owners—with another, namely reckless political interference that risks the independence of sport. This Bill, which wants to tackle cowboy owners, comes from an incoherent Government under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to be the new sheriff of football, and from a Department that has seen the Whip resign since the last meeting of the Bill Committee. We really are in “The Thick of It”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The Secretary of State has, either deliberately or not deliberately, just misled the House. The gentleman in question—[Interruption.] Let me explain. The gentleman in question has already said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I understand that the shadow Minister may not have meant to say that the Secretary of State has deliberately misled the House; he may want to clarify that.

[Mr French]

I will reflect on that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] And I withdraw it. [Interruption.] I have said that I withdraw it; I do not know what the problem is. Members can scream and shout all they want, but the reality is that in the Select Committee, the chair in question said very clearly that he had been approached by civil servants, not by the then Minister in question. The Minister in question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has already said on the Floor of the House that he did not approach the said gentleman. Perhaps the Secretary of State would also like to reflect on her comments. There is a revolving door of vested interests ready to leap in. We would not let the chairman of a rival club—[Interruption.] You are already under investigation; I am not sure you want to make it worse. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why let—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure the shadow Minister did not mean to infer that I was under investigation.

[Mr French]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. You are not under investigation, but the Secretary of State and the Government are. That is a matter of public record. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why would we let people with political or commercial conflicts of interest sit at the very top of this new football referee? My amendments to schedule 2 are basic due diligence: they would mean no party hacks in the chair and full declarations of conflicts of interest, to avoid the mess that this Government have got themselves into. Amendment 18 would put a stop to the cronyism once and for all, and give the public proper transparency. It is not radical; it is responsible. If we do not accept it, the regulator will fail before the first whistle blows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am really grateful for that intervention. Again, I know that my hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work on this issue.

I have heard the calls from Members across the House, and indeed from retired footballers, and the Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. The Government are committed to looking further at this issue and supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address the lifelong consequences from concussion, as well as post-career mental health and financial crises. I am afraid that these measures are not within the tight regulatory scope of the Bill, although that does not mean that the Government are not aware and sympathetic to the calls being made on this issue, both in this House and from many former players and their families.

The Bill is focused on the financial sustainability of football clubs up and down the country. Too many fans have watched as their clubs make changes on which they have no say, from selling their stadium and changing club colours to, in the worst case, collapsing under inadequate ownership. This is unacceptable. It is devastating for fans and for local communities.

It is this Bill, delivered by this Labour Government, that will help to protect one of our great sporting assets and ensure that fans can focus on what is happening on the pitch, rather than off it. Today, Members across this House can vote with football fans, or they can vote against them. Today, we can deliver an independent football regulator. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We welcome this Bill, as did Members across the House until a few short months ago. [Laughter.] Indeed, some of those Members even came up with the idea. Like many in the Chamber today, we are disappointed that the consensus remains broken, after an apparent direction from the Leader of the Opposition, and that the Conservatives have chosen to turn their backs on the sustainability of football quite so dramatically—perhaps it is time to sack the manager. While their time in government left much to be desired, the Conservatives had the chance to claim a statement win today. After all, as I said, this Bill was their idea: Dame Tracey Crouch initiated the fan-led review, and the previous Government started this process.

Now, however, the Conservatives have spectacularly missed an open goal, much like Ronnie Rosenthal at Villa Park in 1992. If I was generous, I would say their performance on this Bill has been like Man United in 1998—throwing away a massive points lead only to finish with nothing. Instead, I fear for the shadow Minister that they are more like Spurs in 2016, somehow managing to finish third in a two-horse race—although, I suppose coming third is the sort of result the Conservatives need to get used to.

Throughout this process, we have been clear on our position: we are in favour of the principles of protecting the heritage of our national game, of greater financial sustainability, and of greater fan involvement in the game. We applaud the Government’s approach in delivering that, and we will support the Bill on Third Reading later today, because we remain consistent in our view.

None the less, we think that the Bill could go further. Let me begin with the issue of free-to-air coverage. In new clause 3, we are calling for key fixtures from the domestic football calendar to be made available on free-to-air television. This includes a selection of 10 premier league matches each season, the league cup final and the play-off finals in the championship, league one and league two. As a Charlton Athletic fan, the shadow Minister might have an interest in this one, because his team might make the play-offs one day. These would complement the existing free-to-air marquee events such as the FA cup, the World cup and the Euros. This proposal is neither about undermining private broadcasters, whose viewing figures sadly are already declining, nor about devaluing the broadcasting rights on which clubs rely, which are showing signs of plateauing, despite the addition of so many more live games to broadcast packages. Rather, this is an opportunity for broadcasters and the football leagues to innovate and to consider a more direct route to accessing fans without a paywall.

By introducing more free-to-air games, broadcasters could explore wider sponsorship opportunities tied to larger audiences, generate new appointment-to-view moments, and engage fans who are currently priced out of football not just in the stadium, but on television, too. This approach is already proving successful in other countries. For example, La Liga broadcasts one Spanish top-flight match per week free to air, helping to maintain widespread public engagement with the sport. With the rising cost of living and the growing number of subscription services required to watch live football—now totalling around £700 a year—making more matches available without a paywall would ensure the game remains accessible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Starting with an immediate 6-minute time limit, I call Chris Evans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am imposing an immediate five-minute time limit. I call Clive Betts.

[Mr Betts]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—not for the time limit but for calling me.

The Bill is crucial because football has failed to regulate itself. It is key to ensuring the sustainability of our great game. The first aspect of it that I really commend is the move to give the regulator powers to ensure a fairer redistribution of money throughout the football pyramid—it is clearly totally unfair that money is concentrated in a handful of clubs at the top while other clubs struggle at the bottom—and to remove the enormous cliff edge between the premier league and the championship. I thank the Secretary of State and the Sport Minister for listening to the concerns raised about the powers of the regulator with regard to the backstop. In improving the backstop in terms of scope and process during the Bill’s passage, they have listened and acted, which is welcome indeed.

Points of Order

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

We do not normally heckle points of order, but, if the right hon. Lady is going to do that, I will say that our party’s leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), refused the grant. The band appealed, and this Government did not oppose the appeal. Those are the facts. Will the right hon. Lady please explain to us exactly how that happened and how we can get the money back? I did not want to make this issue partisan, but she interrupted me.

Thirdly, I understand that Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury, which, under the circumstances, would be unconscionable. As Mr Speaker is chairing a Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ safety, can we implore him through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to write to the organisers of Glastonbury festival and say that this House does not think it is appropriate that Kneecap should be allowed to appear, at least until the investigation is completed? I ask this on behalf of all MPs and all our families. I hope that that is not unreasonable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of some aspects of his point of order. As he knows, we do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House, but I understand that the police are investigating the incidents. I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his points on the record.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on how to put on the record my concerns and those of my constituents about worrying allegations in the weekend press about the awarding of contracts by Martin Dowey, the Conservative leader of South Ayrshire council?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his point on the record.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are significant concerns in Whitehill and Bordon in my constituency about changes to healthcare provision and meeting the needs of the rapidly growing local population. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 28 January about this issue, specifically about the future of the Chase community hospital. I have sent follow-up emails, but—three months to the day later—I have still received no response to that letter. The refusal of the Secretary of State to engage with my constituents on this matter is concerning. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on securing a ministerial response to the proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the hon. Member’s comments.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At business questions last week, I asked a question related to JCB’s hydrogen diggers. Given that JCB was a sponsor of my constituency jobs fair, I should have referred the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests before asking that question. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, for notice of it and for putting his point on the record.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we in Northern Ireland are particularly concerned about the threats against Conservative MPs, and indeed against any MP in this House. We are also concerned about the funding of this particular group, Kneecap—whether they get funding from here, back home from some councils, or whatever—and about their ability to travel right across the world, such as to the United States of America. Will the relevant Minister make a statement on all those issues that concern the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and that concern me, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and all of us who represent Unionism in Northern Ireland?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, although it is not a point of order. He has put his comments on the record, and he may want to make a further point to the Table Office.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Stuart Andrew has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I am going to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see, by your nodding your assent, that you would like to do so.

Real change or lasting change never comes from the Government alone; it takes a nation. I thank the fans, the clubs and the leagues, including the English Football League, the Premier League and the National League, for their extensive and constructive engagement; the FA, UEFA and FIFA for their continued support of the Bill; the Football Supporters’ Association, the Professional Footballers’ Association, Kick It Out and clubs across the pyramid for their invaluable perspective and support; and noble Lords for their close scrutiny. I also thank the civil servants in my Department who have worked tirelessly for many years, across two different Governments of different political persuasions, to get us to this point. Most of all, I thank one woman, without whose passion for football and its fans, relentless drive and determination to make good on this long-held promise, we would never have reached this moment—Dame Tracey Crouch.

This effort has united clubs across every league, fans and governing bodies; towns, villages and cities across our country; and, until today, even political parties, in our determination to fulfil our promise to fans. For the Conservatives, this—the amendment—is genuinely a shameful moment, pitting themselves against fans, clubs and the national game. However, for football and its fans, this is a new dawn. Hard-fought-for and long-awaited, it will give our national game and our much-loved clubs the most promising future, and put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

Of course, Peter Ridsdale’s name is blackened in Leeds. It is also blackened in Arsenal, Barnsley and wherever he has been. Leeds is an important point. We talk about the glory days of Don Revie. We forget about the early 2000s, when we were overspending on certain players. There were massive wages where players had been sold and wages were still being paid. It was ultimately trying to bring success to the club, but it failed, and when it started failing there were no safeguards in place, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe and hope—the eternal optimist—that we both will be celebrating a top-four finish next season and will be back in the champions league for the first time since the 2000s.

The huge issue I have with this Bill, though—again, this is a framework piece of legislation—is that when the independent football regulator comes about, they will have to set out their rules and guidance. That will likely run to hundreds of pages and will take time, so the Government must make regulations specify which leagues will follow the legislation initially. They also need to bring about a timetable to ensure that when that framework legislation is written out, it is done in a way that does not affect clubs’ futures. The fact is that a lot of clubs with small budgets have to plan for the future, so I hope that a strict timetable is put in place for governance and other issues that clubs must meet.

I turn to my concerns about the Bill. I have already talked about UEFA and the scaremongering from the Conservatives about English clubs somehow being banned from Europe, and I hope I have addressed that. The second concern is that the owners’ test might require some current owners to sell their clubs, although again that is scaremongering from the Conservatives. That is unlikely, though there is a possibility of some impact on the ownership of clubs in the next few years. The new test in the Bill develops the tests already applied by the Premier League and the EFL to date, and the most significant changes are likely to emerge in the long term as we see more in the guidance and overall approach from the IFR to how it applies to the test in practice.

It is also important to bear in mind that the Bill is focused on the application of the test to new owners purchasing a club, rather than owners already in place, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on earlier. However, it is possible that some current owners may find themselves subject to the IFR applying the test if new information raising concerns about their suitability comes to light in future. I hope that amendments will be made in Committee to address that.

I broadly support the Bill, but I want to return to something that needs to be addressed, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Throughout writing the Don Revie book, I was heavily involved with the players and met Johnny Giles, who is probably the greatest midfielder to come out of Ireland—sorry, Roy Keane. I met his son Michael and his cousin John Stiles, who is the son of Nobby Stiles, who was a 1966 World cup winner. Unfortunately, Nobby—like so many other professionals and many of that World cup winning side—succumbed to dementia and Alzheimer’s. They formed the Football Families for Justice, a voluntary organisation that campaigns on behalf of ex-professional footballers who have died because of neurodegenerative diseases incurred in the course of their work.

Footballers suffer neurodegenerative diseases at four to five times the national average. It is something that needs to be investigated. Alzheimer’s and CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—which is usually suffered by boxers from blows to the head, is five times the national average for footballers. Motor neurone disease, which claimed the life of my hero Don Revie, is four times the national average, and Parkinson’s is twice the national average. That needs to be investigated.

This is the goal of the FFJ:

“We call on the leaders of the football industry to act with urgency in allocating a small proportion of their massive wealth to address the tragedy of dementia and other neuro-degenerative diseases suffered by so many ex-professionals”

and

“to meet the needs of these victims with respect and kindness through best-in-class support, including care home costs and financial assistance for their widows, as required.”

When the football regulator comes about, I hope that research into medical conditions is part of its remit, to support people who have given so many others so much pleasure over the years.

I also hope that the football regulator will investigate not just the leagues but the Professional Footballers’ Association and the way it is run as a trade union. There are serious concerns about the pay of the chief executive and the way in which that so-called union is being run. I hope that that will be part of the football regulator’s remit.

I hope that there is something we can do to ensure that the tragedies suffered by Nobby Stiles, Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton—legends whose names trip off the tongue—are not suffered by their successors, such as Harry Kane.

As I said, in the main, I support the Bill. It is a good Bill. I am disappointed that Conservative Members have decided to take a crazy decision, even though the Bill is almost identical to theirs. I believe that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Daventry, supports the Bill in his heart, but that other forces—mainly the leader of the Conservative party—have probably changed his mind somewhat.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I am sorry, but we must kill this myth that somehow the Bill is going to kill the premier league. It is not. This Bill is designed to sustain the rest of the football pyramid. We should look at the resources the premier league has: it has twice as much money as any other major European league. That is the difference. Taking a proportion of that away to support the rest of the pyramid will not undermine and destroy the premier league. It will help sustain the rest of the pyramid, and that is the message that we need to get across.

On the rest of the Bill, the issue of the sustainability of the pyramid is absolutely key, but I am still a bit wary about the rigidity of the backstop powers. There is some room for debate about giving a bit more flexibility to the regulators on that; I hope we can discuss that in Committee. The other key element is about ownership. We have heard stories about the problems that clubs have had with owners who simply are not fit for purpose, and I have no doubt that we will hear more. I was talking to colleagues in Reading on a Teams call the other day, along with other Sheffield MPs, and we discussed the problems facing Sheffield Wednesday supporters. We should stop clubs having to face such problems in the future.

On Sheffield Wednesday, the owner is not a bad man; he has put a lot of money into the club and he has not ripped it off, but he is clearly running out of money to make the club sustainable. He could not pay the players’ wages last month, and he could not pay the tax dues a few weeks ago. Another failure to pay will mean the club is subject to a transfer embargo for three transfer windows. That would completely undermine both the competitive and the financial basis of the club. That is not acceptable. The chairman is the only owner and the only director; he does not have a board of directors and has no chief executive. He runs the club from Thailand by remote control, and when he could not pay the bills he said, “Well, my companies are owed money, so I don’t have the money to pay the club’s bills.” We do not know what companies those are in Thailand. As far as we can see, he has no companies that earn money. We suspect that the money comes from the family trust that owns Thai Union Frozen Products, which owns John West and other brands. In other words, he is reliant on his family members to give him the money to pay the players’ wages. That is not sustainable. This Bill compels the regulator to make sure that owners have the funds to sustain their club, and that the sources of those funds are transparent and open for all to see. That is absolutely key, not only for Sheffield Wednesday but for lots of other clubs.

Finally, I am concerned that the owner, like owners of other clubs, has separated the ownership of the ground from the ownership of the club, and I hope we can strengthen the Bill on that issue. I do not think that was done for malevolent reasons; it was done to try to get around the financial fair play rules, and to help the club—that was his view. The fact is that the ground and the club are separate. Other clubs have that problem as well. In future, if an owner wants to separate the club and the ground, the regulator can step in to ensure that that is for proper reasons, and done in the proper way. Unfortunately, when ownership of the ground is separate from ownership of the club, there is a challenge. I would like a measure in the Bill that says that in order to get a licence, the owner has to prove that they have not only financial funding but a ground to play on. That should be locked in.

Changes and improvements can be made, but the Bill really helps football. It helps fans to ensure that their club is sustainable, and it holds owners to account. It is great that fans will now have a real role and involvement in their club. They can be properly consulted about what happens at Hillsborough; currently, there is an engagement panel for fans, but the chairman chooses who goes on it. When people join the engagement panel, they have to sign a document that states that they will not talk about what has been discussed outside the group. What sort of accountability is that? It is nonsense. The Bill will strengthen the hand of fans, so that they can properly engage with a club. I fully support it, and hope that the House overwhelmingly supports it, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Film Industry

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I put on record our thanks as a Government for the work that my hon. Friend has done to champion opportunities for young people in his constituency and across the country. One of the things that matters personally to our Government is not just that we put rocket boosters under some of the fastest-growing industries—the creative industries outside of London and the south-east, as well as in London—to offer opportunities in every part of the country, but, crucially, that we ensure that young people in those communities can have those opportunities. That is why we have already kick-started the curriculum review to put art, sport, music and culture back at the heart of the curriculum where they belong, after the mindless cultural vandalism of the last 14 years. It is why we are also reforming the apprenticeship levy, and it is why we are working closely with industry to ensure that there are no limits on our ambition for young people, so that we can match the ambition that they have for themselves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to support the creative industries both in Merseyside and up and down the country? Yesterday I was at Pinewood, where the work he has done to support our creative industries was spoken of highly.

I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the work that Steve Rotheram is leading in Merseyside. Just a few years ago, the mayor took me to see the newly opened Shakespeare North playhouse, an incredible project just a few streets from where he grew up. He was told by the previous Government that nobody would come to see Shakespeare in the north of England—how wrong they were.

I am keen to support the work that Steve Rotheram, Tracy Brabin and other mayors in the north of England are doing through One Creative North. It is the most exciting project to create a cultural corridor in the north of England, building on the assets and talent that exist in every part of our country. Parts of the country have not been heard for far too long, but with this Labour Government they will be heard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

First, I welcome the Secretary of State’s words. The Select Committee worked hard to get that commitment to tax credits in the Budget earlier this year, and her implementing it at a time when investment in British film—particularly low-budget British film—is at its lowest ebb, is both welcome and timely. Our recollections of the previous Government’s achievements on the creative industries differ. I think that once she has had a little bit of time to get her feet under the table, she will see that she has a hard act to follow on commitment to the creative industries.

When does the Secretary of State expect the Government to confirm the introduction of the visual effects tax credits? They were also announced in the Budget and have been consulted on, and they are also desperately needed and urgent. I would be grateful for an urgent response on that. Does she have any plans to look at the enterprise investment scheme for film and high-end TV? That is also much needed to get investment into British independent film and television. Finally, she spoke about the investment summit. Will she please confirm that the creative industries’ role in that will not just be to add the stardust? They are such a fundamental and integral part of our industrial strategy and they contribute so much to the British economy, so they must be there as a central focal point of her Government’s future industrial strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area. We are absolutely committed to introducing the recommendations of the White Paper, which we have published, and a Bill will be published shortly.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The chair of Girlguiding UK has recently informed me that with Government funding, Girlguiding can at least be sustained in three overseas military bases. Will the Minister update me on his discussions to ensure that girls living on UK overseas military bases can continue to access Girlguiding?

[Stuart Andrew]

I know the hon. Lady has done a lot of work in this area, and we had a good Westminster Hall debate on this. Girlguiding is an independent organisation, and must make its own organisational and directional decisions. The Department is working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, Girlguiding, and representatives from overseas territories to see whether we can come up with a solution.