Voluntary Groups and Community Centres

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. For transparency reasons, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am the honorary president of a local Royal British Legion branch and patron of the Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Association.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from all Members this morning. They have been varied, but as a former councillor myself, I recognise many of them. Across the United Kingdom, our communities are supported by an estimated 166,000 voluntary organisations. The majority are small organisations that are close to the ground, but which often have the biggest impact on people’s lives. Throughout my time as the shadow Minister, I have had the immense pleasure of meeting a variety of these groups; I am sure I will meet many more after this debate.

As a Member proudly representing my home community of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have the immense privilege of working with many fantastic groups which include the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, faith-based groups, amateur sports clubs, u3a Sidcup, the Friends of Danson Park, Friends of Foots Cray Meadows, Discover Welling, and many more that I will get into trouble for not mentioning. Bexley is also home to a number of fantastic community centres that continue to serve our communities throughout the year, from the various clubs and youth zone at Blackfen community library to the wide variety of clubs that use our church halls, or even the amateur wrestling group at Falconwood community centre. Bexley’s community hubs have everything on offer and are supported by over £1 million of investment by Bexley’s Conservative council.

Returning to the national picture, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations represents more than 17,000 charities, social enterprises, community groups and organisations. I understand that 92% of its members are charities with an income of less than £1 million; most have an income of less than £30,000. In response to the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, it said that the changes the Government had brought in would:

“intensify the ‘triple squeeze’ charities face from increasing costs, reduced funding, and higher demand.”

In fact, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor to urge her to reimburse charities for those costs, as she committed to do for public sector organisations. That has not happened, and the 2025 spending review provided no respite from the increased pressures caused by this Chancellor. When Labour Members and Ministers say that they support civil society—and I have no doubt that many of them do have that passion in their community—the voluntary sector is right to ask why, as we have heard from Labour Members, it is being hit with higher employment costs at the very moment when it is trying to recruit staff, keep buildings open and meet rising demand, when it already provides more than £14 billion of public services on behalf of both central and local government. In a very stark contrast to this Government, the previous Conservative Government knew very well that communities need practical support—not just warm words read out by Ministers in this place.

That is why, in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we Conservatives pledged £750 million to make sure that voluntary, community and social enterprises could continue their vital work of supporting the country. In my community of Bexley, I saw this work in action first hand, with an army of community champion volunteers coming forward to support the elderly and those most in need across the community. Bexley was also one of the first areas in the country to launch a dedicated pot of funding, which supported pubs, amateur sports clubs and other groups that contribute so much to our way of life.

The last Conservative Government went further, beyond the coronavirus outbreak, and in 2021 we established a £150 million community ownership fund to help communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and, with voluntary and community organisations, bid for match funding for the purchase and renovation of local community assets. That is exactly the kind of support that helps save a pub, village hall or clubhouse, or a variety of other community buildings, before they are lost forever. This Government closed that fund.

The youth investment fund was established in 2022 and received more than £300 million of capital and revenue grants from the previous Conservative Government. However, for all the warm words from this Government, The Guardian reported last year that they have spent less on youth work than the Conservatives did. In 2023, the previous Conservative Government announced a community organisations cost of living fund, with a further £76 million for charities and community organisations carrying out vital work to help vulnerable groups. You guessed it, Ms McVey: this Government closed that fund as well.

While we were in office, the Conservative party backed our voluntary groups, whereas this Government keep piling on the pressure and leaving many across the country at breaking point. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the support we provided, but almost £1.3 billion in funding and support over just the last four years from the previous Conservative Government is now at risk, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. We have all heard from our local groups that since the election life is tougher than it used to be, and that they are facing a triple squeeze thanks to this Government’s actions. Costs increased—thanks to the Chancellor. Funding reduced—thanks to the Chancellor. Facing even higher demand—thanks to the Chancellor.

Our voluntary sector across the nation, and the local organisations that all Members meet, deserve better than this Government and Chancellor. If this Government and the Minister are serious about supporting voluntary organisations, why is her Chancellor increasing their taxes? Why is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stopping cheap energy that could help to alleviate the cost pressures they are facing to keep the lights on? Who in this Government is actually on the side of voluntary organisations?

In closing, I look forward to hearing the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, explaining what her Department is doing to champion these vital groups within Government. What conversations have Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had with the Treasury regarding the additional costs that charities and voluntary groups are facing across the country? Surely, even the most tribal Labour MPs must see that their Government have made life harder for voluntary organisations and community groups across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of those on this side of the House, I congratulate everyone at Team GB for an incredible winter Olympics performance. Like many across the House, I was glued to the excellent coverage during recess, and was pleased to see online that the Sport Minister was in Milan supporting the team. We all know that the true value of Team GB’s success is their ability to inspire the next generation of athletes, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the legacy of these games in both the elite and grassroots facilities required for sports to succeed?

[Lisa Nandy]

The Sport Minister has just told me that more than 4,000 people have expressed an interest in the skeleton following Team GB’s fantastic performance, which really shows the power of these games. It was an absolute privilege to be out in Milan cheering on Team GB during the most successful winter Olympics ever.

The shadow Minister is absolutely right; we now must ensure that the lasting legacy of the games is in bringing forward the next generation. As well as committing future funding so that our athletes can succeed and we can bring people through from grassroots sport, as we have just discussed, one thing I discussed with the team in Milan was recognising in our honours system the people who helped those incredible athletes to get to where they were along the journey. It must not be just about the people who have succeeded and won medals; it is about time—it is long overdue—that our honours system recognised the ordinary men and women in grassroots sport who have helped people go on to do extraordinary things.

[Mr French]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I am sure we all echo her comments. She will be aware of the widespread concerns regarding the Government’s plans to water down the powers of Sport England and the much-needed protection for grassroots pitches. Before Christmas, leading sports figures led by former Lioness Jill Scott and Fields in Trust wrote an open letter highlighting their concerns for people’s health and wellbeing and for sport more generally if the Government allow pitches across the country to be concreted over. What action is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to try to force the Government to U-turn on this bad policy decision?

[Lisa Nandy]

This Government believe that we need a much more sensible and lighter-touch system of regulation in this country. In principle, that is something that Members on both sides of the House should be able to agree with. What we do not want is a reduction in the grassroots facilities that are available to communities. The Sport Minister has been working with the Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and Sport England—they met recently to discuss this—to ensure that we proceed in a sensible way that sees no reduction in the amount of facilities that are available.

Gambling Harms: Children and Young People

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. For full transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this important debate. The protection of children and young people should unite every Member of this House. We all recognise that under-18s should not be gambling, and it is right that the law is strict on that point. Young people are still developing, as others have argued; they are more exposed to online influence and less equipped to assess long-term risks and consequences. That is why it is somewhat difficult to square claims that even limited exposure to gambling advertising is intolerable with the arguments made by some on the Government Benches for 16-year-olds to have the vote—but I will move on, because that is not the purpose of today’s debate.

If we are to make real progress in protecting children, we must be clear about where harm and exposure actually arise, particularly in the online world, as we have heard, and ensure that our response is based on the best possible evidence. Crucially, as we have heard, harm to children does not come only from direct participation. Many children experience gambling harm indirectly—from parents or loved ones who themselves struggle with addiction. That can mean financial instability, stress at home, relationship breakdowns and wider impacts on a child’s wellbeing, education and mental health. Those knock-on effects are real and deserve serious attention from Government.

That is why prevention, early intervention and family support matter so much. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister telling me or trying to work out why I have yet to receive a response to the letter that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) sent to the Secretary of State on 6 November regarding the impending cliff edge on funding that fantastic charities such as Gordon Moody, Betknowmore UK, Deal Me Out, Ygam and GamCare are all facing. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised the issue, and the Minister will be aware that I raised it with him personally before Christmas, because we do need to ensure that Government understand the unnecessary worry that has been caused to charities that have real expertise in this space.

I understand that there may be interim grants to cover the next financial year, but that information is only just starting to come to light. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government have left these essential charities in the dark over the future of the services that they provide, and whether the Government will finally—hopefully—get their act together and engage with the sector, so that a real, working solution can be put in place for the long term and we do not have this ongoing situation in which gambling harm seems to fall between the DCMS and the Department of Health and Social Care. That is a real issue and concern. As a shadow Minister, I have visited a number of these charities to see the work that is happening on the ground. They do incredible work and have incredible expertise in helping people across the country, so we must ensure that gambling harm does not fall between the cracks any more.

Much of the debate has focused so far on advertising. There is no question but that children should not be targeted, and within the regulated sector they are not permitted to be. But at the same time, as we have heard, we cannot ignore the wider online environment in which children now live. Evidence shows that when young people encounter gambling-related content, it is most often through social media, streaming platforms and online influencers—the places where enforcement is hardest and protections are weakest. This is the area that I have most concern about as a shadow Minister, and I have spoken about it before, particularly in relation to some of the crypto scams that we see online. Someone mentioned doomscrolling, and I sometimes come across this content when doomscrolling. Illegal and unlicensed operators are exploiting this space and exploiting young people. They use influencers and celebrities in ways that licensed operators are explicitly banned from doing, and they operate in overseas jurisdictions, which means that age checks can be bypassed entirely. Once a child enters this space, there are no safeguards at all—no limits, no interventions and no support.

We must be honest about unintended consequences. When policy decisions, including sharp tax rises, weaken the legal, regulated market—I have said openly before that I do not mind bashing the bookies, but I am worried about the growth of this—the activity does not stop, but moves to the illegal market. I have made that point before in the House. Evidence from abroad shows such displacement to the black market, where there are no age checks, safeguards or accountability. In my opinion, that environment is far more dangerous for children and adults alike. Of course, we know that gambling harms exist, and every case involving a child is one too many, but they do not exist in isolation. They are closely linked, as we have heard, to mental health, family circumstances, financial stress and patterns of online behaviour.

That is why education, parental engagement and digital literacy must sit at the heart of the Government’s response. Children need a clear understanding of risk and probability, a resilience to online marketing and the confidence to question what they see online. Parents need support, information and early help when problems arise. If Government Members want to do what is best for children and completely remove their exposure to unregulated, predatory advertisements from black market sites, I kindly encourage them to back the Conservatives’ plan to raise the age of consent for social media to 16 years old to support children and parents. It is a bold policy that, as we have heard, has cross-party support, and I urge the Government to get on with it. I think it is the bold action that is needed to tackle online harms, including gambling harms.

Moreover, the statutory levy provides an opportunity to fund evidence-based education, treatment and prevention, including support for families affected by gambling addiction. That funding must be targeted, evaluated and focused on what works. Would the Minister outline what he is doing to step up work on this issue to ensure that charities have the funding certainty they require to continue their operations across the country? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Gambling Commission has the resources and the right approach to tackle the illegal black market and the targeting of young people on social media, particularly in relation to crypto?

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

This Labour Government have announced that they intend to remove Sport England—alongside the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust—as a statutory consultee in planning decisions, putting playing fields across the country at risk. The Conservatives oppose this move. Can the Minister explain how first scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities fund and now allowing developers to concrete over playing fields will increase access to sports facilities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I outlined, this Government are putting their money where their mouth is. We have announced £400 million investment in grassroots sport. I have discussed this issue with the Planning Minister and I have heard the points he has made.

[Mr French]

Not much of an answer there, but hopefully another U-turn will be coming soon. Over the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government invested more than £1 billion in grassroots and school sports. On this side of the House, we are also absolutely clear that girls’ and women’s sports must be protected to ensure fairness, competition and safety. Will the Sport Minister confirm today what action she is taking to ensure the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex is applied in leisure and sports facilities across the UK?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We are working with sporting bodies to make sure they get this right.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Louie French Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 General Committees

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Jardine. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks in outlining the regulations. The Opposition broadly welcome the regulations, to which His Majesty’s Government committed during discussions on the No.1 regulations before the summer recess.

My first question is on the 5% carve-out. In the other place, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee quoted the correspondence it has had with the Minister’s Department about the carve-out and the way in which it will be used. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said:

“Our judgment is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote”.

We can appreciate where the Government are coming from. Even though the scenario that the previous Government initially looked at—of multiple countries getting together and each seeking to acquire a 15% stake—was perhaps a little far-fetched, it was not entirely implausible. So it is right that this Government have listened and now acted to close that loophole.

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

I welcome the statutory instrument, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that this is about ensuring not just the future of the free press and editorial independence, but the financial stability of the industry? It is vital that any state-owned investors do not deter legitimate investment or the capital investment that the news industry needs.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. I agree with his sentiment, and I will come on to explain why. The approach that the Government are taking, of carving out holdings of 5% or less in quoted companies, reduces the risk further. However, will the Minister tell us about the work that has been done by her Department to ensure that even in the unlikely event of foreign-state investors seeking to circumvent the rules, this has been ruled out?

As my noble Friend Lady Stowell said in the other place last week, the path to getting to this point has been rather longer than any of us expected or would have wished. Delay has a price for investors and vendors, as well as for the readers and journalists of our newspapers. My noble Friend took the opportunity to ask about whether and when we might expect a conclusion to this for the sake of The Daily Telegraph, and more broadly, whether His Majesty’s Government will look again at the Enterprise Act 2002 regime to ensure that future scenarios do not have to play out at such length.

We are all aware of the underlying need for investment in our newspapers, national and local, if they are to continue to flourish and perform the job that they do, which is vital for public discourse and democracy in the UK. That is why it is important that we get the rules right in the regulations before us, and that we maintain a framework that properly protects this essential part of our democracy, while still giving room for responsible investment. We need a regime that safeguards independence and free speech, but that also ensures that our newspapers and media organisations have the ability to grow and thrive for years to come.

Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Louie French Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today.

Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country.

Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear. The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent.

The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies. The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes.

We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics. From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand.

The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans. Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging.

That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks. In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters.

We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast.

There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy. The industry has spent the past three years implementing more than 60 measures from the gambling White Paper. The statutory levy, introduced in April this year, is one of the most significant and most costly. Operators have now made their first payments under the mandatory system, totalling more than £100 million, but there is still no clarity about how charities such as Gordon Moody, GamCare, Betknowmore UK and others that do fantastic work in the treatment and prevention space can actually access any of that.

We have warned the Government about that, privately and publicly, for many months. That is why we did not feel that we could support the gambling levy legislation as drafted. To date, only UK Research and Innovation has published basic guidance. Organisations that were promised long-term certainty have no idea how, when or even if they will be able to bid for levy funds to continue their vital work. Frontline charities supporting people suffering from gambling harms tell us that they cannot plan ahead, cannot recruit or even retain staff, and in some cases cannot continue services at all because the system remains so opaque.

Before the Government bring down another wave of major reforms, impose the most aggressive tax rises in Europe, and throw operators and charities into further uncertainty, should they not first ensure that the levy is actually up and running properly? Should they not ensure that charities with experts who have decades of experience are not forced to close because of the ongoing ideological madness in Westminster, which has stacked the deck against those with more pragmatic views about gambling and how we prevent harms? It makes no sense—literally none—to introduce new burdens when the existing regulatory framework is still incomplete and not functioning as the Government promised. Perhaps if the Minister could get his ministerial colleagues to properly engage with anybody in the sector, the Government might have a clue about what is happening: they are gambling with lives.

Protecting consumers means keeping them in the regulated domestic market if they choose to gamble: that is a very simple truth. I am all in favour of bashing the bookies—it is a long-established British tradition—but I want it to be done by the punter, not by this anti-fun Labour Government. Hon. Members should already know that British operators, although not perfect, prevent the use of credit cards, enforce 18-plus age verification, operate GamStop self-exclusion, display prominent safer gambling messages, use data to identify markers of harm, adhere to the strict advertising rules that are in place, and provide stable funding for research, education and treatment. The unregulated market that the Government are fuelling to the tune of £6 billion in extra stakes does none of that. Once someone has moved into that unregulated environment, there is no longer any meaningful ability to protect them from gambling harms.

Will the Minister personally review the commissioning of prevention and treatment to ensure that it is being managed fairly and that charities are not being deliberately excluded? Will he commit to a formal review, across the House, of affordability checks and of the pilot that has been extended by the Gambling Commission? Does he believe that the £26 million of funding given to the Gambling Commission is sufficient to stop the growth of the black market? Lastly, what message does he have for the thousands of employees at risk of losing their jobs this Christmas because of Labour’s tax raid?

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Sport England’s role as a statutory planning consultee promotes participation in grassroot sports, including by girls and women, by protecting vital playing fields across the country from development, including in Greater Manchester. However, this Labour Government are aiming to bulldoze protections, and concrete over grassroots provisions for young people. How will removing the protections in place for playing fields help to improve participation by girls in grassroots sport?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman refers to a consultation being carried out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I have spoken to my ministerial counterpart. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who have announced £400 million for grassroots facilities.

[Mr French]

No commitment there to stop the concreting over of sports pitches. Alongside the National Lottery, the regulated gambling sector provides more than £400 million of crucial sponsorship to British sports, whether that is horseracing, the Betfred Super League, Sky Bet EFL, William Hill’s sponsorship of Scottish football, or direct funding for grassroots programmes. After Labour’s short-sighted £1 billion tax raid yesterday, which will fuel the illegal black market, will the Minister tell the House how her Department will fill the black hole in funding for British sports, and say what impact assessment it has made on that and on job losses across the sector?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The Chancellor set out the Budget yesterday. We believe that we have made fair choices. The Minister responsible for gambling will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I will relay it to her.

Independent Football Regulator

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.

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

In 2021, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set up the fan-led review of football, and selected Dame Tracey Crouch to chair it. This led to a clear recommendation for an independent football regulator, which was strongly endorsed by Members from all sides of the House. The previous Government promised that they would deliver this regulator, but they did not, leaving fans in the lurch as a result. This Government made it a priority and passed that legislation within our first year, because we are fully committed to protecting football clubs across the country.

To make that a reality, the Minister for Sport confirmed David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator on 6 October. David Kogan was the exceptional candidate, warmly endorsed across the world of football and by the cross-party Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.

As the House will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments conducted an investigation into the appointment itself, which was released last week. I am pleased that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The report also makes it clear that I did not personally know about the donations to my leadership campaign at the time that I selected him as the preferred candidate. It also recognises that, as soon as I became aware of the donations, I chose to declare them and chose to recuse myself from the remainder of the process.

However, as I have made clear, I acknowledge the findings of the report. The Commissioner was clear that the breach around donations to my campaign was unknowing, but I recognise that the highest standards were not met. As the Secretary of State for the Department that ran this appointment, I take full responsibility for that, and it is for that reason that I wrote to the Prime Minister and apologised for the error. I will, of course, ensure that lessons are learned from this process with my Department.

Our focus now is to make sure that no fan ever has to go through what my constituents and I lived through in Wigan. Implementing this regime to help protect clubs in financial peril, and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first, is a priority for this Government and, led by David Kogan, the Independent Football Regulator will get on with the job.

We are here today to debate process, but this is also about real-world impact. Fans up and down the country need us to get on with delivering on our promise and making a difference. This is for Derby County and Scunthorpe United, for Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday, for Wigan, Reading, Macclesfield Town and Bury. We are putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running.

Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition.

The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him?

Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?

[Lisa Nandy]

I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. First, this process was subject to a thorough investigation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, and when he questions the findings of that report, he should reflect on whether that is the proper role of this House. The report was absolutely crystal clear on that point. It was also clear—in contrast to what the hon. Gentleman just asserted—that I personally fell short of what was expected on one occasion. There were two other technical breaches from the Department, but as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I take full responsibility.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister. As he will know, if he has read the report, I personally took the decision to ask Mr Kogan to put that information in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at his hearing to ensure that it had full information as soon as I had it, within hours of finding out about the donation. Mr Kogan was open and transparent about the fact that he had donated to both my campaign and the Prime Minister’s campaign, but I am the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; my Department ran this process, and it is for me to take full responsibility for it.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asserts that Mr Kogan was not part of the process. I find that astonishing, and I presume that at some point he will come back to correct the record. When he speaks to his colleagues, he will know that one of them—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—oversaw the process before the general election, at a time when they were proudly extolling the virtues of having a football regulator and governance Act, which they later opposed.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know that Mr Kogan was approached for this job under the last Conservative Government and put on the list, which I inherited from the last Government. I want to be crystal clear on this point. Mr Kogan was not added to the list after the general election; he was on the list from the last Conservative Government.

The hon. Gentleman talks about cronies. [Interruption.] The Opposition can chunter all they like, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about a man who has extensive media experience and represented the Premier League, the English Football League, the National Football League and others throughout his long and distinguished career. He was put on the list by the last Government in the full knowledge that he was a Labour donor. If he is such a crony and unfit to hold this sort of office, why on earth did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), appoint him to the board of Channel 4? It just does not stack up. Mr Kogan was so good that the last Government approached him themselves.

Finally, I am happy to answer extensive questions about this issue. That is why I have chosen to come to the House and answer these questions, despite the fact that the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), made the final decision. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is a Charlton Athletic fan, and I am a bit surprised that, given its experience of bad owners, he is setting himself and his party against football fans in his constituency and the length and breadth of the country by trying to attack a man whose credentials are unquestionable.

Points of Order

Louie French 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?

Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 General Committees

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister rightly said, these regulations are made under powers introduced by the Media Act 2024, which is a significant piece of legislation designed to modernise our broadcasting framework for the digital age, passed under the previous Conservative Government.

The draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 update the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to ensure that key definitions and obligations remain consistent with the new statutory regime established by the Act. In particular, these regulations bring the treatment of repeats within the original and regional productions quotas up to date, reflecting the way in which programmes are now produced, distributed and consumed.

As members of the Committee will know, the Media Act gave the Secretary of State the power to determine whether repeats of public service content could count towards broadcasters’ quotas. These regulations delegate the responsibility to Ofcom, the industry regulator, which already sets the levels of the original productions and regional programme-making quotas for public service broadcasters, other than the BBC. Allowing Ofcom to decide how repeats are treated ensures a coherent and practical approach—one that links the measurement of quotas to the operational realities of programming, commissioning and scheduling.

By modernising the definitions and entrusting Ofcom with the appropriate discretion, these regulations help to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom’s public service broadcasting system, while ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in a fast-changing media landscape. They are a further example of how the previous Conservative Government’s Media Act continues to provide the foundations for a flexible, forward-looking and well-regulated broadcasting sector.

Moving on to the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025, as members of the Committee will know, the previous regime for independent production quotas was based on linear television, requiring each public service broadcaster to commission at least 25% of their qualifying hours from independent producers. However, as audiences have increasingly turned to on-demand platforms, such as ITVX and BBC iPlayer, the old system no longer reflected how viewers were accessing public service content. The Media Act addressed this by extending the scope of the quotas so that they could be delivered across a broadcaster’s wide range of services, and by converting percentage-based quotas into minimum hours targets.

This statutory instrument gives effect to those provisions, setting the new quotas for each of the main public service broadcasters—the BBC, S4C and Channels 3, 4 and 5—based on a five-year average of qualifying hours. I understand that the updated framework has been agreed with both Ofcom and the broadcasters themselves to ensure that it remains balanced, proportionate and achievable. It also updates the definitions of “independent production” and “independent producer” to bring them into line with modern industry practice without making substantive policy changes.

An important part of the reform relates to Channel 4. Following the removal of the publisher-broadcaster model under the Media Act, Channel 4 has been permitted to undertake limited in-house production for the first time. To maintain its strong relationship with the independent sector, the quota for Channel 4 has been increased from 25% to 35% of its programming hours. We believe this represents a fair and reasonable adjustment that safeguards opportunities for small and medium-sized independent producers, while giving Channel 4 the scope to adapt and innovate.

Overall, this instrument reflects a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to media regulation. It ensures that public service broadcasters continue to meet their obligations to commission high-quality, independent content while providing flexibility to operate effectively in a rapidly changing digital landscape. It builds on the legislative foundations set out by the Media Act and maintains the UK’s reputation for having a diverse, independent and world-leading broadcasting sector. On that note, we will not be seeking to divide the Committee.