Heritage Sites: East of England

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pam Cox]

Indeed, planning regulation plays an important part in preserving our heritage. I am sure the Minister will make note of those comments.

The east is a region rich in history. In my constituency of Colchester, we are rightly proud of our claim to be the first city built in Britain and its first Roman capital. We possess the oldest and longest Roman city walls, the remains of the temple of Claudius and Britain’s only known Roman chariot racing track, which is a monument particularly close to my own heart—think “Ben-Hur” with an Essex twist.

It is known as the Colchester Roman circus and is a site of international importance, yet continues to face planning and development pressures, which speaks to what my hon. Friend just mentioned, and lacks the sustained investment needed to realise its full potential. One difficulty we face at that site and at some other scheduled ancient monuments in my constituency is that their historic importance can be at first sight very difficult to appreciate. The Roman circus spectator terraces were so huge that the Saxons, presumably including King Sigeberht, found them a great source of building materials. Unfortunately, their commendable recycling meant that there is nothing left of the circus above ground.

As a result, I have been in discussions with local heritage architects about the possibility of reconstructing these mighty starting gates of the circus based on designs that have been found in similar buildings elsewhere in Europe. These are the gates through which charioteers and horses would have thundered at the start of every race. We have run into a problem, however, in that Historic England does not seem very keen on reconstructions these days, when in previous generations it may have been more keen. A reconstruction in some form would most likely draw many more people to the site, promote local pride and energise local tourism. Given that, I would like to ask the Minister to take up this issue with Historic England to see if its attitude towards reconstruction can be revised in situations such as these.

Another key site in my constituency is the former Romano-British settlement at Gosbecks field. This dates from the early first century CE and is believed to have been the residence of Cunobelin, known to Romans as “King of the Britons” and to Shakespeare as Cymbeline. The site includes an Iron Age dyke, which today still forms part of the boundary line between my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

Gosbecks is believed to be the place where ancient Britons signed up—or surrendered, depending on your view—to become part of the Roman empire. It therefore plays a vital part in the history not just of our county, but of the country. I would like to see very much more made of Gosbecks.

The Romans constructed a large theatre and a huge temple at Gosbecks, but here too the bricks were recycled and today there is little to see. However, experts—and former colleagues of mine—at the University of Essex have a renowned track record in developing immersive technology and virtual and augmented reality applications that could help bring Gosbecks back to life for new audiences. Think Runnymede and Magna Carta—it is of that order of magnitude. There is already some interest in that from the National Lottery Heritage Fund from a green spaces perspective, but I also see many synergies with the ministerial team’s responsibilities for culture, heritage and media, with an emphasis on media, as Gosbecks and sites like it could provide brilliant opportunities for 21st century interactive media interpretations that are the gateway to more inclusive access to our heritage and culture. I therefore encourage the Minister and the Department to do more to promote such opportunities, perhaps taking Gosbecks as a use case.

Our heritage sites tell our national story, connect us to the generations who came before us and offer opportunities for education and tourism and to create pride in place. However, they also face real and growing threats from neglect, development pressures and underinvestment—threats that became ever-more intense under the previous Government’s cuts to local authority coffers.

I welcome the many announcements of enhanced funding for heritage made by the Government over the past year. To give just a few, we have had £15 million through the heritage at risk capital fund, a further £5 million through the heritage revival fund, and just this week we have had details of a new £20 million museum renewal fund. Those initiatives empower communities to take ownership of local heritage and breathe new life into neglected buildings. When done well, such projects can deliver multiple returns for local economies, creating employment, aspiration and pride.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does she agree that other heritage sites including independently run stately homes like Knebworth House in my constituency receive no Government funding and therefore need a fair fiscal and planning framework? Does she agree that we need the Government to provide streamlined consent for energy-efficiency measures so that they can continue to support rural jobs, tourism and climate goals?

[Pam Cox]

I agree that all those options are things to be explored. Speaking as a former historian, I think that anything that enables greater access to heritage is to be celebrated. In the east, beneficiaries of some of the grants that I mentioned include projects to revitalise Lowestoft town hall, the former Iron Duke pub in Great Yarmouth and St George’s Guildhall in King's Lynn in Norfolk. As we can see, heritage takes many forms across our region.

In Colchester, work has just begun on a £10 million project to restore our magnificent Victorian water tower, known as Jumbo. The project is generously supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, central Government, city and county councils, charitable funds and local residents. It will create a great visitor attraction for our city—it is one of the first things people see as they come into the city on the train. But welcome as those projects are, they do not make up for the fact that heritage and cultural sectors in the east face ongoing funding challenges. Much of the blame for that, like so many of the challenges we face, can be laid on the years of austerity after 2010. Since that year, overall local authority spending on heritage has dropped by 45%. That is bad enough in itself, but according to figures from Historic England it is down in the east by 60%, which can be catastrophic for those sites. Spending on museums in the east is down by 57%, and on archives by 38%. By one count from an Institute for Public Policy Research report published in July, the east of England receives less heritage and cultural funding per capita than any other region: just £12.57 per person, which is less than half the national average and just a fifth of the amount in London.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I encourage the Minister to consider two broad courses of action: first, to create a dedicated regional heritage strategy for the east of England, which could help shape devolved policy under the new mayoralties, with clear priorities and long-term funding commitments that address the funding gap for heritage in our part of the country; and, secondly, to meet me to discuss how we might develop more innovative, inclusive approaches to preserving and celebrating our regional heritage.

Heritage is not just about bricks, mortar or memory; it is about identity, belonging and opportunity in the here and now. When we invest in heritage, we invest in jobs, tourism, education and community cohesion. As we have heard from Members around the Chamber tonight, there are treasures aplenty in our region, and I hope we can find new ways to unlock their full potential, with imagination, investment and a commitment to future generations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that there are other ways to acquire funding, such as through the heritage lottery and so forth. I will certainly write to him if there are specific places that he is concerned about. Although the grant scheme is for the Church of England, I am certain that there is other support for churches, and I can certainly put him in touch with the relevant people, if that is helpful.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

4. What steps the Church of England is taking to support community cohesion in its parishes.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

9. What steps the Church of England is taking to support community cohesion in its parishes.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Through the parish system, the Church of England has a presence in every community. Long-term relationships are vital for building trust and understanding in all our communities, and the Church has worked closely with faith organisations, local authorities, the police and so forth—all in aid of building better relations.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the contribution of the churches in my constituency, from All Saints in Datchworth, which is currently celebrating 850 years of service, to St Mary’s in Aston, where the Rev. Canon Jenny Gray has recently retired. However, another church, St Andrew & St George in the centre of Stevenage, is facing the ongoing problem of theft of copper from its roof—an expensive loss to the church. What can be done to safeguard our churches from such antisocial and criminal behaviour?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking two really important questions. I congratulate the Rev. Canon Jenny Gray on her retirement. Her exemplary service to the community was recognised by the diocese in 2023, when she was made an honorary canon of the cathedral.

On metal theft, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is criminal and antisocial, and it causes real harm. The Church has been doing a lot of work on this since 2013, and I am happy to write to him to set out that work in more detail.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I am not sure what to say about that, but the hon. Member can have his say when the Committee votes on the matter shortly. He has stated his belief.

In recent years, we have seen clubs wade into contentious debates, sometimes with noble intentions, without any formal engagement with their supporter base. Whether we are talking about a statement on a foreign conflict, domestic legislation or ideological campaigns, such interventions can divide opinion and risk alienating the people who pay their money, wear the shirt and keep their club alive. Nobody is arguing that clubs should be barred from speaking on social matters, but they should be expected to act with consent, not presumption. Fans should not wake up to find their club being used as a platform for views that they had no part in shaping. The new clause would not restrict freedom of expression; rather, it would enhance democratic accountability in football.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr French]

I will make some progress because I am conscious of the Chairman’s time. The new clause would ensure that where a club proposes to adopt a political stance not directly related to football or the club’s commercial interests, it must first engage with its supporters through an appropriate consultation mechanism. This is about strengthening the bond between club and community, not weakening it. New clause 16 would be a simple safeguard to protect the cultural neutrality of our national game, and to ensure that football remains a source of unity, not division.

The cumulative effect of the Bill’s provisions, as they stand, is that they give the Government’s regulator enormous latitude to impose an ever-growing set of compliance obligations on clubs with little oversight or scrutiny from Parliament or fans. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that clubs could find themselves constantly revising governance arrangements, redrafting financial documents and hiring compliance staff simply to keep up with the regulator’s demands—demands that are funded by the clubs. That is a concern for the entire football pyramid, but it is a particular burden for the lower leagues, where administrative budgets are tight and every pound spent on compliance is a pound not spent on the pitch or in the community.

Let us be clear: good regulation is about balance. It is about ensuring standards without stifling initiative, protecting clubs without disempowering them and learning from the past without writing off the future. There are a number of ways in which the Government could help to strike that balance.

First, we ask the Government to publish a clear definition of what each of the threshold requirements entails. It is not good enough to provide for “appropriate” arrangements. The regulator should be guarded by Parliament’s intent, not left to interpret sweeping language.

Secondly, we must ensure transparency and account-ability. If the regulator decides to change the threshold requirements—say, by requiring new climate disclosure standards or mandating support or representation on the board—that is a major policy shift. We believe that, as a sovereign Parliament responsible for passing this legislation, we should be able to scrutinise and, if necessary, prevent the Government’s regulator from making law by regulation. It should come back to the House, not be slipped through in the shadows.

Finally, we must keep a watchful eye on the cost burden. As we argued in previous debates, the Government’s regulator will not be cost-free. It is expected to fund itself through levies and fees imposed on clubs, so every layer of compliance—every extra form, every extra process —has a price tag. That price will ultimately be paid by the very fans we are trying to protect.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The shadow Minister is talking about cost, yet here is another proposal that would add more cost and is effectively unworkable. This Bill is in Committee at the moment. If a club saw the changes here and wanted to lobby us to say, “We are not happy with this,” how on earth would it do that if it had to consult its fans? How do we define a political move by a club? It just does not work, does it?

[Mr French]

I hear the argument that hon. Gentleman is making, and he will be able to vote on the amendment shortly. Again, I appreciate your time, Sir Jeremy.

It is a shame that the Government would not accept our earlier amendment to ensure that fans know the true impact of the regulator on the price of their tickets. Football is not a normal business. It is a great national institution built on history, local pride and community loyalty. However, that does not mean it should be run by quangos. Clubs should be encouraged to improve their governance, not be coerced into uniformity. They should be supported to succeed, not strangled by red tape.

Schedule 4 is one of the most important parts of the Bill, because it defines the gate through which every club must pass before they can be allowed to simply play football. We owe it to those clubs and their fans to ensure that the gateway is firm but fair, principled but practical, and clear, not vague. That is why we will be seeking further assurances from the Minister that the Government’s regulator’s use of these powers will be proportionate, transparent and subject to proper scrutiny. Without that, we risk creating a regime that may prevent future failures, but at the cost of stifling ambition, independence and the very lifeblood of our national game.

Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Members of the Committee may have heard of the case Pepper v. Hart, which showed that courts do look at what is said in Parliament. What we say here does matter.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. The intention of the regulatory principle is not to list every possible stakeholder that the regulator should ever engage during the course of regulation. That would be a slippery slope to an enormous list that risks missing persons off. Rather, the broader group of those affected by decisions are captured by this provision, even if they are not explicitly mentioned. That is why I am very pleased to give those assurances to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I am a season ticket holder of Sheffield Wednesday and work very closely with the supporters trust there.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I am a member of Tottenham Hotspur football club.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am a Crystal Palace season ticket holder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, because that is exactly the point I am trying to make. Now or in the future, we do not want the appointment of whoever is appointed as chair to be marred by perceived conflicts of interest. As I have said, that would undermine that crucial and important role of the regulator in the football pyramid. As the Minister has said—I agree fully—we hoped that clubs and leagues would have come to a consensus many years ago that would have solved many of the issues that still exist in football. The chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who sits on this Committee, has done more work on this issue than most people in the room—I thank him for that—but the fact is, we are here now to set up a regulator who is supposed to be independent of politics and of having any perceived bias for any league or club, and that is difficult.

I make this point again, without being unsympathetic to the situation for this or previous Governments: trying to find a person with the right skills and expertise to fulfil the role, without having any of those risks of bias, is very difficult. We have sought to find the right person, with the right blend of skills and experience, who would almost certainly have to come from within the football world or the regulatory world. Of course, if they come from the football world, there would always be issues of perceived bias.

[Kevin Bonavia]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I see what the shadow Minister is trying to do with the amendment, but if we want proper transparency, what is special about football compared with other appointments? If the shadow Minister is really concerned, should we not look at the public appointments system, rather than setting precedents in Bills? We could end up with a hotchpotch of different legislation, which would make football need to have this, but not the BBC, for example. It does not make sense. This is surely not the right forum for the change.

[Mr French]

I understand the hon. Member’s point. I welcome his first comments on the Bill today, and I am sure we will hear more from him as it develops over the month. My point is that the Committee has the Bill in front of us right now. I am not involved with the Cabinet Secretary or any legislation regarding that role. I am the shadow Minister for sport, and my job is to analyse the Bill in front of me as an Opposition spokesperson. We can only deal with the here and now and the Bill in front of us, so I do not see the argument. There is a lot of whataboutery—

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I disagree. As I have said, we are here today to set the guidance for what we think is an appropriate level of pay. We believe that fans on the street will think that this amendment is fair and proportionate, and that the chief executive of the football regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. He made the comparison with a public servant, which is the point that I am trying to make. If we classify this independent regulator as a public servant—that is another rabbit hole that we probably do not want to go down now—should they be paid more than the Prime Minister, who should be the ultimate public servant in this country?

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister talked previously about guidance, but that is not the proposal in this amendment. The amendment would put in primary legislation a figure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, is set in law until Parliament decides to change it—is that not bonkers?

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I will start by quoting this historic football match commentary:

“It’s Grimsby giving it away in a very dangerous part of the pitch, for the first time the visitors becoming the architects of their own downfall, it’s tucked in by the substitute Luther Wildin and Stevenage you sense are going up today!”

With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), that was the moment on 3 May 2023 when the Mighty Boro, Stevenage FC, scored the final goal in a match that sealed their promotion to the EFL league one, where they remain today. Our club, whose colours I am wearing, is part of the lifeblood of the town not just on the pitch, but off it, with the incredible work they do in the community. It is the exemplar of a local football club being a truly community asset.

I speak in favour of the Bill because it is not just about much-needed regulation, but about safeguarding the future of our national sport, ensuring financial stability for clubs across the pyramid and making sure our fans—the people who spend their money, week in and week out, to follow their team across the country—are given a real say in how their clubs are run.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is telling a very similar story to that of my local club, Leyton Orient. Its fans warmly welcomed the reinvestment from David Gandler, building on the leadership of the chairman, Nigel Travis, who has delivered sustainable growth, promotion to league one, clear championship ambitions and a new stadium, and has strengthened the community with up to £6.7 million in social value. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that all ownership transitions should be like this and should follow this model of fan engagement?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We both represent constituencies with clubs that are good examples of what can be done, but our duty here is to safeguard our clubs and all clubs in this country from future failure. They are not businesses; as I have said, they are community assets.

Last season, 23.7 million people attended matches in EFL competitions, demonstrating the profound connection between these clubs and their local communities. It is not just on the pitch that clubs are contributing to their communities. In the same season, EFL clubs contributed over £1.2 billion of social value through their community programmes, with my local club’s community arm, the Stevenage FC Foundation, alone generating £10.7 million of social value in my constituency and the wider area. In that timeframe, the foundation also delivered 185 training sessions per week, engaging over 15,000 unique participants annually and delivering over 9,000 hours of activity. That is an incredible feat.

However, the financial stability of all clubs across the football pyramid is in a precarious place, with EFL clubs expected to lose around £450 million this season alone. Alongside this, the financial disparity between the premier league and the EFL is stark. In the 2022-23 season, 20 premier league and five EFL clubs with parachute payments received 92% of the distributable revenues, while the remaining 67 professional clubs shared just 8%. This imbalance undermines the systemic sustainability of English football, and I am glad that this Bill proposes change so that a 75%-25% split of combined media revenues between the premier league and the EFL will become the new normal and provide much-needed financial support to EFL clubs.

It is clear that the financial situation in which we find ourselves across the pyramid is untenable, and this has directly led to financial crises in clubs across England. It is beyond belief that the Conservative party, which sat on its hands for most of the past 14 years, claimed in its manifesto that it wanted an independent football regulator, so why on earth do we not have cross-party consensus on this principle?

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

Quite simply, because it is no longer independent.

[Kevin Bonavia]

The hon. Member will know that the Bill has been improved to make the independent regulator more independent, for example—and there are plenty of examples of improvements in the Bill—by giving the regulator a greater ability to actually regulate the game. Conservative Front Benchers say they support independence and say they want regulation, but many of its Members do not like regulation at all. This is not a party that believes in protecting the national game; it is a party that wants to play party political football with something that should have cross-party consensus.

Alongside the financial stability that this Bill will bring to our clubs, we need to respect fans’ involvement in these community assets, so I want to pay tribute to all the clubs that already engage in good faith with their fans. I am proud of the work that Stevenage have done to involve fan representation in their yearly engagement plan, and for the initiatives of other clubs, such as Blackpool, whose directors I chatted with at the match with Stevenage last week. They explained how they had had a pint with Tangerine fans from across the country to hear their views on how the club should be run. That said, they did get a bit lucky at our place, although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) would agree with me that both our clubs have great foundations and trusts that support their fans.

I am also pleased that the amendments the Government have made to the Bill during its passage in the other place actually do strengthen that independence, as I said to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). Under this Bill, poor and reckless behaviour that ignores local fan communities will not be tolerated by the regulator. This Bill provides the safety net that clubs need to be financially secure and to be able to deliver for their local communities for a long time to come. Let us all support this Bill, and therefore support our fantastic football clubs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to support grassroots sport.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department has taken to support grassroots sport in Stevenage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Biodiversity net gain is a legal requirement for all new developments and is not specific to sports facilities. The Government are working with Sport England, the Football Foundation and wider grassroots sport to help reduce the sector’s impact on the environment. That of course includes supporting these organisations in meeting their obligations regarding biodiversity net gain. I understand that the Football Foundation will meet officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which oversees the implementation of biodiversity net gain, to discuss this issue further.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the Minister for her response. Last year, in my constituency, the Stevenage Football Club Foundation delivered more than 9,000 hours of activity in grassroots sports and engaged over 15,000 participants, generating nearly £10.7 million-worth of social value. This did not happen only in my constituency. Last year, the 72 English Football League community club organisations delivered more than £1.2 billion-worth of social value across this country. Will the Minister commit to supporting local community club organisations, such as the Stevenage FC Foundation, in engaging local people and directly supporting communities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I pay tribute to the Stevenage FC Foundation and the many other community organisations up and down the country for their important work. Local community club organisations use the power of sport to change lives through charitable and community activities, often through delivery across a range of areas, from health to wellbeing and employment. I have seen it in my own area of Barnsley, with Reds in the Community, which does brilliant work across my town.