Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Louie French Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—it is appropriate that you are chairing given that, as I understand it, the road to Wembley runs right through your constituency. I will say only that we support both amendments. The principles that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East stated apply, and more regular reporting will clearly help the regulator to hold itself and clubs to account. On whether it should be 12 or 18 months, I think the sooner it is done, the better, and then we can get on with sorting out the state of football.

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—a half-time substitute in today’s proceedings. I will speak briefly to the amendment. I completely understand the objective that he is seeking to nudge the Government towards, which he explained well. The obvious question for the Minister is whether more frequent reporting—three years rather than five years—would mean additional costs. I await the Minister’s response, but I understand that the hon. Member is not seeking to press his amendment to a vote.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment.

The state of the game report will be a key study into the structure and dynamics of the industry. It will help to build an evidence base to inform the regulator’s approach and decision making. I therefore recognise the intent behind my hon. Friend’s well-meaning amendments.

The state of the game report needs to be produced promptly, but it also needs to be a robust study. The timeframes set out in the Bill balance the importance of a timely first report with giving the regulator time to undertake the necessary in-depth analysis. The regulator will need to publish its first report as soon as possible or, as my hon. Friend outlined, within 18 months of the competitions in scope of regulation being specified by the Secretary of State, as an absolute maximum. For subsequent reports, a maximum of five years between publications will encourage the regulator to take a more long-term look. That should minimise unnecessary burdens on the industry and better align with the timelines for existing industry processes, such as commercial agreements. The regulator will still have the discretion—as my hon. Friend anticipated—to publish subsequent reports sooner if it considers it appropriate to do so.

I cannot accept my hon. Friend’s amendments to reduce the timings further. He asked me to go away and reflect on them, but I do not want to give him any false hope. We have put careful consideration into the time limits, which were changed from the previous Bill. They are an absolute maximum. We have had a number of conversations with the various leagues and stakeholders, and we are confident that they are the right time limits. We have made it clear that the regulator has the power and discretion to publish sooner, and we would very much hope that that would be the case for the first report in particular. For those reasons, I cannot accept his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 10, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

“(iia) supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans;”.

This amendment adds fans and fan organisations to the list of groups that the IFR must consult about a state of the game report.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the heart of football, the fans are remembered and properly considered, and that their voices are heard throughout the Bill. The state of the game report is a key output of the new regulator. It will provide comprehensive assessment of how football is functioning. It will help to set the direction of future policy and regulation, and will be a key measure of accountability for the sport as a whole. Given that, it is essential that fans should have a say.

Week in, week out, fans give their time, money and hearts to the clubs that they love, and yet too often they are the last to be consulted and the first to be overlooked when decisions are made about the future of our national game. The amendment is about changing that. It is about ensuring that the voices of supporters are formally recognised in the process of shaping the game’s future.

Supporters trusts play a key role here. They are often the bridge between clubs and fans, with a working relationship on both sides. They are well placed to represent fans’ views in a constructive and organised way. I recently met STAR, the Supporters Trust at Reading, which represents Reading FC, the closest professional league club to my constituency. Over the years, I have been to many games as a fan, and I have seen at first hand how passionate and committed the supporters are to improve the club and represent their fellow fans. Supporters trusts such as STAR are well placed to act as that bridge between the clubs and their fanbase.

We also recognise that not every fan may agree with their trust. That is why the amendment also allows for individual fans to be heard directly where necessary. It is vital that the Bill is amended to ensure that the independent football regulator listens to supporters when assessing the health and direction of the game through the state of the game report. By formally including fans and their organisations in the consultation process, we ensure that their lived experience, insight and passion are properly reflected in how the game is monitored and improved.

[Mr French]

The amendment, as explained by the hon. Gentleman, seeks to add supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans to the list of those whom the independent football regulator must consult about the state of the game report. We have absolutely no problem with the principle of consulting fans in that context, and we would expect the football regulator to wish to do so in the due course of its business, for reasons we explained in other parts of the Bill. I suppose there might be some concern about how long the consultation would take if it had to consult every individual fan, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but we will await the Minister’s comments to understand that in the context slightly more.

[Mr Betts]

Briefly, I think we are going back to a very similar discussion to the one that we have just had, but would the Minister expect—without this going on the face of the Bill—the regulator to consult fans, in particular the Football Supporters’ Association? It has done a brilliant job. It was party to the fan-led Crouch review, and it has provided a great deal of assistance in framing this legislation. I hope that the association would be seen as part of the consultation process when the regulator comes to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

The state of the game report will allow the regulator to better understand the finances and economics of the industry and its individual clubs. This, in turn, will inform the regulator’s approach and decision making across the regulatory framework.

Clause 10 requires the regulator to publish the report and sets out the topics that it must cover, including an overview of the main issues affecting English football and whether any features of the industry are jeopardising the regulator’s ability to deliver its objectives. These are deliberately broad and non-specific topics, affording the regulator some discretion as to what to cover. In essence, this means that the regulator can cover any matter that it considers relevant at the time, providing it relates to the functions of the Bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide further reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East on his earlier amendment. We would expect at this stage for it to include distributions, and powers lie within the Bill for the regulator to do that. I want to put that on record once again, further to our earlier debate. It will depend on which issues and features of the market are relevant to its objectives and the regulatory regime at any given time. However, the report is still constrained by its link to only matters relevant to the regulator’s function, so I reassure the Committee that this cannot be an avenue for scope creep.

The clause also requires the regulator to publish its first report no longer than 18 months after the competitions and scope of the regulation have been specified by the Secretary of State, as we have discussed. Subsequent reports must be published at least every five years after this but, as we have just debated, they could be more frequent if the regulator considers it appropriate. These timeframes balance the importance of a timely first report with giving the regulator time to undertake the necessary in-depth analysis.

Finally, the clause sets out clear consultation requirements, including an open process of inviting suggestions about the issues to be included in the report, as well as targeted consultation on a draft report, which I hope speaks to some of the comments from the hon. Member for Newbury on his previous amendment.

[Mr French]

I do not want to rehash the debate we had before the lunch break. We will press amendment 122 to a vote under a future clause, but we are disappointed that the Government are not willing to accept amendment 123. As we explained before the break, Conservative Members are very concerned that the regulator may impact ticket prices even further. We were calling for transparency in the state of the game report for fans and for Parliament so that they could understand the impact of the regulator on ticket prices for fans. We are disappointed that that amendment was not accepted. I appreciate the further comments that the Minister made, but I would like her to consider that in the future.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman said that he would not rehash the debate, but somewhat did. I have made my argument clear: ticket pricing is a commercial decision, and the Government have gone further by adding a consultation. We have nothing more to add on that topic; it has been fully debated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Football governance statement

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 113, 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.

As we know, clause 11 makes provision for the Secretary of State, whoever that may be in the coming months, to issue a statement on issues related to football and, specifically, to the Government’s regulator. While the statement is not a binding one, it walks a very fine line and could be interpreted as political interference in the governance of football. As we have already heard when deliberating on clause 7, that is a very real issue with real-life implications for English football and English clubs.

I do not want to get bogged down in the earlier debate, but I ask the Minister to accept the fact that, aside from the context of the Bill, if UEFA or FIFA deem the Government to be exerting influence on how football is run in a way that compromises the independence of football associations and clubs in line with their statutes, they can, and perhaps will, take action to exclude the nation’s teams and clubs from competition. Irrespective of the Bill, if FIFA or UEFA believe that there is Government interference in football, there is a risk that clubs could be kicked out of European competitions.

[Stephanie Peacock]

No one is disputing that. We are clear that the Bill does not stray into that. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, in his Government’s iteration of the Bill, the regulator had to have due regard to foreign and trade policy. We took that out, further strengthening the independence of the independent football regulator.

[Mr French]

I genuinely thank the Minister for clarifying. We have to understand the context in which the Bill is operating. As I said earlier, the Bill is being made not in isolation, but in a complex international football ecosystem. We have to be mindful of that in everything that we do in this Committee and in the legislation that goes forward. Will the Minister therefore accept that, even if she does not believe that it will happen, if her regulator is perceived to be exerting influence and undermining the independence of English football, both international governing bodies will exclude English teams? I want to confirm that the Government understand those risks.

Much like the Secretary of State’s failure to declare her interests in relation to her appointee to the chairmanship of the regulator, who we know donated to her, this is about the perception of undue influence and the impact that will have on how the independence of English football is viewed internationally. If UEFA and FIFA perceive that there is undue influence from whoever the Government of the day may be, they will act, as I explained already with the example of Greek football in 2006. I hope that, as the Secretary of State has now done, the Prime Minister will make sure to declare any relevant interests, as we know that the chairman also donated to his campaign.

I believe that the Minister confirmed that she understands that there is a real risk that we have to be mindful of and that if the regulator breached independence, the entirety of English clubs’ participation in Europe, and the jobs and significant revenues that come alongside that, would be at stake. That is why I have tabled amendment 113, which would require the football governance statement prepared by the Secretary of State to be approved by Parliament before it could have effect. That is a vital safeguard to prevent the perception that any Government of any colour have direct influence over the regulator.

[Mr Dillon]

The shadow Minister may be coming to this point. His amendment states,

“No football governance statement may have effect unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament”,

but on the other hand he argues for more independence for the regulator. Surely Parliament and, by extension, political parties having to vote for a resolution would introduce more politics into the independent regulator.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, but I am speaking very clearly about the interference of Government in football. That is very different from how Parliament acts in creating this statute and being able to check that the regulator is not putting clubs at risk, as I have said before. It is about Parliament having its say, rather than just delegating powers to the Secretary of State of the day.

By requiring that Parliament approve the statement, my amendment would ensure two things. First, there will be proper scrutiny of the Government and their policy. Mr Speaker has recently had to remind the Leader of the House, because of the way the Government have continued to ignore it, of paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code, which states:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

The amendment would require the Government to come the House to present and defend their policy, instead of hiding behind media briefings or social media posts.

Secondly, the amendment would help to mitigate UEFA’s and FIFA’s concerns about the direct influence of Government over the independence of English football. Accepting the amendment and inserting Parliament into the equation would make the regulator much more palatable for the international governing bodies.

I hope that members of the Committee will accept the amendment for what it is: an attempt to ensure that no Government of any colour can be the cause of English football’s exclusion from European or international competitions. There will come a day—the sooner the better, in my opinion—that the Labour party is no longer in government. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members must therefore be realistic, practical and honest about the situation. When there is a different Government in place, will they accept the risk of that Government being the reason that the Three Lions cannot play in the World cup, or the reason that English clubs—from Cheltenham to Barnsley or Welling, or perhaps Sheffield Wednesday —cannot compete in European competitions? That might seem a remote prospect at the moment, but it is the ultimate aim of every club to be in such competitions. That is at risk without this amendment.

If hon. Members are being honest with themselves, their constituents and football fans across the country, the answer will be clear, and they should support my amendment to help to protect English football and give Parliament a greater say.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment, but I am not sure that his remarks spoke much to the detail of it. I remind him that this part of the Bill has not been changed since its previous iteration under the last Government. He has once again made his well-rehearsed argument about UEFA, but there is no risk in that regard. We have been very clear. UEFA and FIFA are happy with the Bill as drafted, and the FA has made that clear to Members of both Houses.

The purpose of the clause is to allow the Secretary of State the power to prepare a football governance statement that sets out the Government’s policies on issues related to football governance, where these are consistent with the regulator’s statutory remit. We believe that this is an important tool that the Government can use to set out their priorities in football governance, similar to the way that the Government give a strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators.

We drafted the provision with appropriate deference to Parliament. Any statement must be consistent with the purpose of the Bill and the regulator’s objectives as set out in the Bill. The Committee has already considered that purpose and those objectives and has approved them. Parliament has set out the statutory remit, but it is appropriate that the Government of the day are able to set out their policy priorities within that well-defined remit without requiring parliamentary approval each time. There are also restrictions on when statements can be made, to ensure that they are not overused. Any statement must be published and laid before Parliament, so Parliament can hold the Secretary of State accountable for its content. Requiring the Secretary of State to gain approval for this statement would add an extra burden to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was new to this place at the election, so he perhaps is not familiar with the previous Bill, but as I have said, this Bill is the same as the Conservative version. On the specifics of the statement, I do not want to pre-empt what may be in there, but it could be, for example, the idea that the Government focus on growth; we have that in the objectives. I do not want to anticipate what could be, but let us be clear: this is about broad objectives, not specifics or operations, and any statement that is not consistent with Parliament’s intention in passing the Bill, as set out in the regulator’s statutory objectives and in the purpose clause of the Bill, could be challenged legally. Similar discussions have taken place in both the House of Lords—the other place—and the House of Commons, and we expect the statement to reflect the Government’s position on the regulator’s use of its powers.

[Mr French]

The Minister, I believe, just said to the Committee that one of the objectives that this Committee and Parliament have set out for the regulator is growth.

[Stephanie Peacock]

No, I did not say that.

[Mr French]

I stand to be corrected; we will look at Hansard, but one of the votes that we have had already in Committee was on an Opposition amendment to make sure that growth was clearly defined in that objective in the Bill, and it was rejected by the Government, so I am slightly confused. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has asked for clarification of what might be in the report, and the Minister seems to be contradicting a vote that has already happened. Could she clarify what she means?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I can absolutely. I said I did not want to be drawn on the specifics of the statement; I do not want to pre-empt what is in there, but I tried to give an illustration without being drawn into the specifics. If, say, there is a general election and a new Government take power, a new Secretary of State may want to give broad direction. We as this new Labour Government have made it very clear that growth is a focus. We know that is in the Bill, so that is why I thought it was a sensible illustration to give in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, but I want to be very clear that I do not want to be drawn into specifics, because this could cover the approach with regulation in, for example, minimising burdens on clubs, which would tie in with that.

I simply do not think this amendment is necessary. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw it.

[Mr French]

I must admit I am slightly confused by the answer that was given. I expected the Government to refuse my amendment, but I am genuinely confused about the direction of travel now. I explained the causes of the amendment. The answer that the Minister has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne seems to contradict—other Members are nodding—votes that have already taken place on this Bill. Without rehashing the whole exchange, we wanted to put in as an objective of the regulator economic growth and growing the game of football, for very plausible reasons. The debate was around the word “sustainability”—I appreciate that you were not in the Chair at that point, Ms Butler. To hear the Minister describe the objective that was voted down by the Labour party as a key part of Government policy—that was the argument we made earlier; we could not understand why the amendment was voted against—is confusing. We are genuinely confused, so I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

To ensure that the regulatory regime is as effective and efficient as possible, the football industry needs to understand what is expected of it. That is why this clause empowers the regulator to prepare and publish guidance on the exercise of its function. The guidance will be crucial to translate the legal framework in the Bill into a detailed and practical explanation of the regulator’s regime. It will ensure that the industry understands the regulatory system, what to expect from the regulator and what is expected of it. Not only will that reduce burdens, but it should improve compliance.

The clause sets out that the regulator must publish guidance about the exercise of its functions under specific sections of the Bill. It also commits the regulator to publish guidance about the exercise of any of its other functions. The regulator must consult any persons that it considers appropriate before publishing guidance for the first time and before revising guidance in the future, unless the revisions are minor. This will ensure the regulator is taking into account the views of all relevant stakeholders and experts when preparing its guidance.

Clause 13 permits the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance on the regulator’s functions. If needed, this guidance offers an opportunity to provide some additional detail on the regime that was not included in the Bill.

The industry and fans alike have been clear that they do not want to see ongoing Government involvement in football, as we have debated in this Committee. That is why the regulator must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, but is not obliged to follow it. That is also why the Secretary of State may not revise this guidance any more frequently than every three years. This will deliver an appropriate arm’s length role for the Government, but avoid any risk of the regulator becoming a political football. The Secretary of State must consult both the regulator and anyone else they consider appropriate before publishing or revising any guidance, and must lay the guidance before Parliament. I beg to move that these changes—I mean clauses—stand part of the Bill.

[Mr French]

The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not pick her up on that slip of the tongue, given I made a few of my own this morning with some of the tongue twisters that my assistant put into my speeches.

As we have just heard, clause 12 requires the Government’s regulator to publish guidance about the exercise of its functions as set out in clauses 21 to 25 and the outcomes it seeks to achieve, and to consult appropriate persons before publishing that guidance.

I have a few questions. Will the Minister clarify when she expects her regulator to have translated its powers and duties into a detailed, cohesive and practical explanation of the IFR regime, and what she believes detailed and practical mean for the clubs, so they can understand that?

Clause 13 permits the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance on the Government’s regulator’s exercise of its functions under the regulatory regime. This guidance would aid the Government’s regulator in interpreting the intention of legislation when designing and implementing its regulatory regime. It would be non-binding, but the Government’s regulator must have regard to it when exercising its functions.

There was an interesting debate between two lawyers on this Committee about where those lines are drawn. They have both made their arguments for the record, so I will not go back into that, but the clause does stipulate that revisions to guidance may not be made

“more frequently than every three years”

unless there is a revision to the Bill, or the revision is pre-agreed upon between the Secretary of State and the Government’s regulator. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult both the Independent Football Regulator and any appropriate persons before publishing or revising any guidance and laying it before Parliament, unless the revisions are minor.

The Minister will be aware that in the previous sitting I pressed her about that parliamentary role; I will now do so again. Might we have some insight into where, when the reports come back to Parliament, the Government plan to publish them? On Tuesday I asked the Minister whether that would be the role of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, or of the Public Accounts Committee, given the financial aspects and the costs, and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, or whether that would be on the Floor of the House. We really would appreciate, as the official Opposition, some guidance on where the Government plan to publish those reports, so that everyone in the House may have a clear understanding of the direction of travel and where those reports will be available to be read.

While the guidance may not be binding, the clause highlights the blurred lines between Government and regulator, particularly when the appointee was a political appointee, as we know. How will the Minister ensure that any guidance published by the Government is not interpreted as Government intervention, and that the regulator remains free to act independently while not bringing in those risks that we have discussed today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 14, 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.

Let us see whether we get a different outcome on this vote, although I will not hold my breath—I had a wry smile from at least one Member. The amendment seeks to insert reference to the cumulative impact of the costs for clubs from compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime. The clause makes provision for the Government’s regulator to publish an annual report

“As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year”.

I will start with a question to the Minister: what does she envision an unreasonable delay to be in the submission of said report? I think we all agree that six months could be unreasonable, for example. I do not ask for a specified time limit of the Minister or in the Bill, although it might be reasonable for the Government to include one; I ask for a rough indication of how long fans will have to wait every season to see what the Government’s regulator is doing. I hope she will give such an indication today in Committee.

Subsection (2), as drafted, lists what the Government’s regulator must include in its annual report. However, we believe that that list is incomplete and requires the amendment tabled in my name. I moved the amendment to require the Government’s regulator to include in its annual report an account of the financial cost imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.

Increases in regulation have costs for businesses, regardless of the industry or of the intent. The Government and their regulator will ensure that all clubs, as businesses too, will see their costs increase. We have had a lot of debate about where that cost may end up, but I do not think anyone disputes that the costs will rise. First, costs might come from the Chancellor’s tax rises, which we have discussed—whether that is national insurance, wage increases or the energy costs that clubs have to pay. At the elite level, people may be less concerned if they think about the finances of a Premier League club, but such costs have a bigger impact on those lower down the pyramid, all the way to the National League, which will be in scope of the regulator. As we have said consistently, we are very much concerned about the impact on football’s finances and the negative decisions that may result for fans and clubs around the country.

Secondly, but linked to that, there is the ever-increasing cost of red tape, not just that introduced by the Bill, but more broadly. Clubs have to comply with the regulations of the leagues that they play in and of the FA, and now they will have a regulator as well. There are a number of compliance costs, and other legal matters that have been discussed in this House in more recent months will also add cost to clubs up and down the country.

Football might have changed over the years, but I am afraid that the Labour party has not. We believe that the Government have focused too much on their left wing, and left themselves exposed in the midfield and at the back.

[Mr Betts]

There we go!

[Mr French]

The hon. Gentleman liked that.

At the heart of the Bill is the ambition to secure the long-term sustainability of English football clubs across the pyramid. That is a commendable—perhaps even noble—objective. However, plain as day, as we have discussed, it will increase costs for every single fan across the country. We need to know how much that cost will be. As the Government attempt to deliver that goal, we must not lose sight of a fundamental truth: regulation is not free. Every new obligation, every form to be filled and every audit to be passed has a cost, financial and operational, that ultimately lands at the door of our football clubs and is then passed on, I am afraid, to fans.

As I have said in previous clauses, many clubs, in particular those in the lower leagues, already operate on a knife edge and in certain circumstances on a shoestring budget. For them, even modest extra compliance burdens can pose fundamental, existential challenges. Those in the lowest leagues—the National League and below—would welcome the improved odds of, for example, perhaps being able to compete in the EFL. As things stand, however, the National League 3UP campaign has been ignored.

The National League clubs that I have spoken to are keen for the 3UP campaign to be included, because they believe that closing the gap on competition should be a conversation not just between the regulator and this Committee about closing the gap between the EFL and the Premier League—a constant theme of our discussion—but about closing the gap at the bottom of the pyramid. Clubs in the National League would have an increased chance of getting into the English Football League. Given the number of clubs in the National League that were previously in the English Football League, we can all understand why the campaign has grown in momentum among the National League clubs. For any Members who were not aware of it, that is the 3UP campaign.

That is not helping the financial sustainability of the clubs that are fighting hard to return via promotion to the Football League or to be promoted for the first time—those that have lofty ambitions to go further up the pyramid. Those in the National League that are, as a direct result of their situation, most impacted by some of the new bills that have been imposed by various actions of the Government, deserve to be able to see why they have those costs and who is causing them. The amendment gets to the heart of that.

At the moment, most fans have an owner they can point to—and blame, if they wish, for their financial failures, as well as their successes on the field. They can campaign to get them out, as Manchester United fans continue to do regarding the Glazer family, for example, or they can sing their praises from the rooftops, as Newcastle fans have done in recent months after their historic success on the pitch. However, this Government’s regulator will blur the lines about who has caused financial instability, because the actions of the regulator will not be as transparent as we believe they could be.

[James Naish]

I am conscious that we will have several more days of discussion, so I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify exactly how this body would have been funded under the legislation of the previous Government. He keeps talking about the costs of the regulator under this Government, but how did he think it would have been funded under the previous Government?

[Mr French]

That is obviously not what this amendment is about. It is about transparency. It is not about the overall cost, but about the transparency of the cost. The hon. Gentleman asks about how things would have been funded before, but we have to accept that we are in different economic circumstances. A number of costs have impacted clubs already. I am talking about the cumulative impact of Government policy—the Minister has heard me say this in a number of debates, including in the debate on swimming yesterday—on clubs from the elite level all the way down to the grassroots level. The point is that there are now extra costs from the regulator, on top of the national insurance increase, which we think has probably been the biggest change, the changes to business rates calculations, which have negatively impacted a number of businesses, and wage increases. Hon. Members may or may not agree with those costs, but we are talking about their cumulative impact.

Because it is ultimately funded by the clubs, the regulator will increase those costs. The hon. Gentleman talks about how we perceived it would be paid for. The clubs will pay the costs of the regulator—that has not changed—but we are trying to get at the cumulative impact. We want transparency about that impact on clubs, including for Parliament, so that we, as hon. Members who represent constituencies around the country, can have informed debates about the impact on English football of the decisions that we make in this House. As Members of this House, it is not unreasonable to want to understand the impact of our and the regulator’s decisions. Whether or not hon. Members agree with the amendments, they make it quite clear that we are calling for transparency on the costs of the regulator.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is important for the House to understand that once an organisation is in the hands of the regulator, it has no choice. I was a director of a company that was applying for an operating licence from a national regulator. It cost millions of pounds, and we never achieved it—we tried three times, and never got there. As long as the regulator is doing its regulatory work, that is okay as far as it is concerned. There can be circumstances in which regulators, as long as things are being done by the rulebook, do not care about the growth of their industry. The amendment is a reasonable counterbalance to that, and would ensure that the regulator understands the financial burden it is putting on teams.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his experience of regulation more generally. He highlights an important point about growth, which we were trying to get at with our earlier amendment and which we have discussed again this afternoon. Unless the regulator has a clear growth mandate—as I said in the previous debate, I understand that the Chancellor is consulting regulators for growth ideas—it may not seek to stick to it, and it could therefore become obsessed with other issues and regulations. This amendment is not trying to alter what the regulator does; it is just trying to ensure that we have information on costs so that Members of this House can understand the impact. Again, I believe that is a valuable tool for us to have.

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

The shadow Minister is talking about growth. Does he accept that growth has been included as a secondary duty in clause 7?

[Mr French]

I do accept that, but as we made clear in the earlier debate, we want growth to be included in the Bill as a primary objective. The hon. Lady has just said that it is a secondary objective, but why is it not a primary objective of the regulator to try to grow the economy of football? We have previously argued that it should be, and I do not want to rehash that whole debate, but that is the distinction that we are making. The hon. Lady quoted the secondary objective, but we have said that it should be primary.

[Melanie Onn]

On that point, the fact that growth is in the Bill means that it is a clear obligation on the regulator. The expectation is that the regulator would then be obliged to consider the desirability of avoiding

“adverse effects on the financial growth of…English football.”

That seems perfectly plain in the Bill.

[Mr French]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady. That is obviously her opinion, and we have made a counter-argument and point of debate, which is what this House is for. We believe that growth should be a primary objective. Before the break, we also outlined at length one of the risks of adverse impacts on growth, which was her second point. We have substantially highlighted the impact that English clubs being excluded from European competitions, or the national team being excluded from international competitions, would have on the growth of the game. We have made that argument quite clear. Government Members may not agree with those risks or the points that I have made, but we have been quite clear on why we believe that growth should have been included in the primary objectives.

I will return to the amendment, because I am at risk of getting a yellow card this afternoon. We believe that this Government’s regulator will blur the lines on who has caused financial instability, as the actions of the regulator are being kept behind closed doors unless this amendment is agreed to. Not only have the Government appointed one of their Labour donors as the regulator’s chair, as we have already heard, but they are now trying to deny English football fans the information to which they are entitled to judge for themselves the success of the Government’s regulator in delivering financial stability, or instability. For supporters, increased costs mean higher ticket prices, fewer community programmes and cutbacks to the very things that make their clubs more than just businesses. They are at the heart of the community, which I believe most people will agree with.

We have already seen the regulator begin to grow in size. While the Minister refused to confirm the number of staff that she expected her regulator to end up employing, she answered my written question after our deliberations in this Committee concluded, which I appreciate. The Minister confirmed that, as of 1 June, the shadow football regulator had 42 employees, 11 of which had previously been employed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and 2 had formerly advised the Department. I make that point because the shadow regulator has already seen a 10% increase in headcount since the Minister in the other place answered a similar question back in January. We know that the Government are hiring more people, and we are still not clear on how big it will become or what the subsequent costs will be.

If that is the direction of travel, transparency on the cost burdens to clubs is not a nice-to-have but absolutely essential to understand how successful an impact the regulator is having. My amendment would introduce a simple but essential safeguard so that Parliament, clubs and, most importantly, fans could see in plain terms what this Government’s regulator was really costing. That scrutiny and transparency will encourage restraint, discipline and proportionality in the way in which the Government’s regulator operates. That, in turn, will help reduce its burden on clubs and thus make football more sustainable—I believe that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne in his earlier intervention.

We do not want to replace one form of financial instability with another, where well-meaning but poorly monitored regulation drives costs even higher, disproportionately affecting those least able to bear them. This is not about opposition for opposition’s sake; it is about delivering sustainable regulation that supports, not stifles, the game that we all cherish. For that, we need proper accountability of the regulator.

As I said on Tuesday, I do not believe that many people think that regulation has been done well in this country over the past 20 years. We can talk about whom we want to blame, but I argue strongly—this is not a party political point—that regulation has not been done well and that Parliament has devolved too much power to unelected people who are not held accountable for their decisions. I want to avoid that at this point in the Bill. We are setting up a new regulator—I am sure that will happen—so let us ensure that it is accountable to this House, that we do not make the same mistakes as in the past, and that we have accountability and transparency on cost and direction of travel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clubs may well do that, absolutely, but the amendment goes further than is needed and I will continue to make the case as to why I simply do not think it is necessary. It could involve the lengthy and onerous process of identifying and separating compliance costs from their overall operational costs. Reporting on compliance costs would drive up those costs unnecessarily. The regulator and Department will already be required to undertake monitoring and evaluation of the impact of regulation; that includes the review of the Act by the Secretary of State as per clause 96. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment and I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw it.

[Mr French]

We tabled the amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East explained, it is in the interest of driving transparency for fans and clubs, and for Members to see the effectiveness and impact of the regulator. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne explained, it is highly likely that most clubs captured by the top five leagues of the regulator will have reports in their board rooms that explain the costs of regulation and compliance costs. As I said earlier, they have to report on a variety of functions for their league credibility, so it is not unusual to expect them to be able to account for how much this extra regulation will cost, nor is it unusual to expect us to have transparency on the impact of the Government’s football regulator on the football pyramid from the bottom to the top. We will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 14 requires the regulator to report annually to Parliament on its activity for that year. As with all public bodies, the regulator must arrange for the report to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for purposes of transparency and scrutiny. The Secretary of State will have some flexibility to direct additional material to be included with the annual report. That will help ensure that the regulator captures all relevant information in a year, and allow the Government and Parliament to properly scrutinise its performance.

[Mr French]

I appreciate that the Minister said earlier that she has written to me to set out where the report will end up and how Parliament will be able to scrutinise it, but will Parliament have a vote on it?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not believe so. I have written to the shadow Minister and will double-check the correspondence. The report will help to ensure that the regulator captures all relevant information in a year, thereby allowing the Government and Parliament to properly scrutinise its performance. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Operating licences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I reassure the Government Whips that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I have not been collaborating, but we have clearly been speaking to the same fans’ groups, who are very supportive of the Bill. There is a very simple principle here: some clubs may struggle with the regulatory burden, as has, I think, been expressed by all Members during the discussion. The way of solving that is not to take the steps that the Conservatives have suggested; it is for the regulator to take a reasonable view on how it might support those clubs.

New clause 6 may well not pass, but I hope that the Minister takes away the message to work with regulators, so that the regulator, when it is set up, is in a position to support the smaller clubs that have maybe only a few full-time members of staff, or even fewer than that. We back the expansion of the regulator to the sixth tier as well; in those circumstances, it would be particularly important that such support was available.

[Mr French]

I am not sure whether that was the start of an official or unofficial coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, but we will see what the future holds.

[Max Wilkinson]

At least we won’t be in coalition with Reform.

[Mr French]

The Liberal Democrats might be in coalition with Reform? Is that what the hon. Gentleman said?

[Max Wilkinson]

No, but you might be.

[The Chair]

Order.

[Mr French]

That was a strange intervention.

New clause 2 and new clause 6 would require the independent football regulator to provide assistance to regulated clubs seeking to obtain a provisional licence, clubs with a provisional licence seeking a full licence, and unregulated clubs that are reasonably likely to become regulated in the next football season. The new clauses would also require the independent football regulator to provide reasonable and proportionate assistance to regulated clubs in their efforts to continue to comply with their licence conditions.

The sentiments behind both arguments are not bad ones. We have made strong arguments already about our concerns regarding costs for clubs lower down the pyramid. I do, however, question the contradiction of being concerned about clubs in National League South and North, but wanting to get them in the scope of the regulator—we disagree with that. I have a few questions about the new clauses that I hope either the hon. Member for Sheffield South East or the hon. Member for Cheltenham might be happy to answer, just so the Committee can understand.

Given that the new clauses would require the independent football regulator to provide reasonable and proportionate assistance, we would be interested to know what assistance those hon. Members think might be reasonable or proportionate for clubs to require, and whether the independent football regulator is to provide them in the different instances covered by the new clauses. How would the independent football regulator’s liabilities towards clubs under the new clauses be determined and enforced? How would it be funded? That would be a question that all clubs would ask.

In a feedback loop that I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield South East is aware of through his chairmanship of the football all-party parliamentary group over many years, one of the arguments that a number of clubs make is, “Why should I pay for someone else to come and try to take my place in the league that I am in?” That is part of the competitive nature of football. Although there is cross-club working in a number of areas trying to help clubs, often, the same clubs are competing against each other. We would need a bit of clarity on how the additional provision of help would be paid for. Would the cost be passed on to other clubs? Leaving aside those questions about what that may look like in the future, we understand the sympathies expressed in the new clauses to try to help clubs further down the pyramid, so that they are not excluded based on the fact that they cannot afford to apply for a licence.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East and the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling new clauses 2 and 6. The Government recognise the intent behind them, and we agree that the regulator should help clubs to comply with regulation as much as is reasonably possible. It is in everyone’s interests for clubs to become compliant quickly and with as little additional burden as possible. It is vital that the regulator helps clubs get to grips with its regulatory regime, which is why we have been very clear that the regulator will operate an advocacy-first approach, and why provisions for a collaborative approach are already in the Bill.

For example, the regulatory principle of clause 8(b) encourages the regulator to co-operate and constructively engage with clubs. Regulatory principles (c) and (d) encourage the regulator to ensure that any action is proportionate to the benefits expected from it.

In relation to the specifics of the new clauses, we disagree with any provision that would require the regulator to provide financial assistance to clubs to comply with requirements imposed by the regulator. That would amount to redistribution by the back door, given that the Independent Football Regulator would be levying some clubs in order to provide financial assistance to others. That is not the regulator’s role, and we do not believe it should be. On training, the regulator can work with clubs to ensure that they fully understand the regulation and what is expected of them. Of course, in cases where this is necessary, the regulator can appoint a skilled person to assist the club in resolving issues in respect of a relevant infringement. For the reasons that I have outlined, I am unable to accept the new clauses and I hope that they will be—

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Application for provisional operating licence

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 16, page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (c).

This amendment prevents the IFR from requiring information from clubs in the other than the personnel statement and strategic business plan specified by the Act, when applying for a provisional operating licence.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 100, in clause 16, page 10, line 25, leave out subsection (b).

This amendment prevents the IFR from requiring information in the strategic business plan not specified by the Act.

[Mr French]

Clause 16 is about the application for provisional licences, and this debate builds on the previous debate about costs. The way in which clause 16 is currently drafted is a textbook example of how the Government have left the door open to scope creep from the regulator. This clause gives the Government’s politically led regulator the power to set its own rules on what documents clubs must provide when applying for a provisional operating licence. On the surface, this may sound like a mere procedural point, but it in fact is emblematic of a broader concern: the unchecked expansion of regulatory scope—scope creep—that could come to characterise this regime if we are not careful. In fact, it may no longer be appropriate to define it as “scope creep”, as there is nothing subtle or creeping about it. The Bill actively, in different places, encourages the Government’s new regulator to build its own football governance empire, as other regulators have done. It would be better now to define some of this risk of scope creep and to avoid such scope imperialism in the future.

That is why I tabled these two amendments. Amendment 99 would prevent the Government’s regulator from requiring information from clubs, other than the personnel statement and strategic business plan specified by the Act, when applying for a provisional operating licence. Amendment 100 would prevent the Government’s regulator from requiring information in the strategic business plan that is not specified by the Act.

At this early stage of the Bill Committee, I am already at risk of sounding like a broken record.

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

Oh no!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I am sure the Government Whip appreciates my comments more than that. The Government’s Bill, alongside the unprecedented and seemingly unlimited powers that it grants to their regulator, is, as we have argued already, putting English football at risk. The Government have assured us that their politically led regulator will be proportionate and risk-based, but the Bill as drafted grants it significant scope to expand its own powers, with limited checks on that unaccountable and seemingly unstoppable expansion of power, and the Minister did say in her previous comments that Parliament will not get a vote on this, so Members need to be aware of this as we go forward. The Government’s regulator is in prime position to commit a regulatory land grab that would belong more in a war documentary than in a sport that is supposed to be independent of the state.

We have seen this before. Regulators rarely stick to their lane; just look at Ofcom, who attempted to remove former colleagues from their role as broadcasters. They were found to be in breach of their own rules, so Ofcom changed the rule. What is to stop this regulator doing the same? Over time, objectives change and bureaucracies grow. What begins as a modest remit to protect financial sustainability can turn into a permanent presence in the boardrooms of clubs, pushing even more conditions, even more reporting requirements, even more intervention —all in the name of “compliance”. We believe that that is dangerous for sport, as a general rule. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also explained how his experience of regulations supports our concern.

Clause 16 allows the regulator to require whatever documents it deems “appropriate” for a provisional licence application. That may include business plans, financial forecasts, ownership structures, or other forms of club data. Crucially, the Bill does not limit what can be asked for. Nor does it require that these requests be proportionate, standardised, or even necessary to the specific risk posed for each club. We believe that this Government have written their regulator a bit of a blank cheque in this area—one that empowers them to define their regulator’s own administrative burden and impose it unilaterally on clubs without giving clubs a say in how that starts to look, going forward, or the issues that it may create in clubs. As I have commented and other Members have commented, that is a particular issue for clubs lower down the leagues, particularly those in League One and League Two, or the National League—clubs that already operate with small margins and stretched resources. We have to remember that while some of this legislation is clearly aimed at the top level—the Premier League level—all clubs will be required to provide documents to the regulator. We must remember that those smaller clubs that may not have big human resources departments will be required to present their homework. Forcing them to comply with excessive or bespoke documentation requirements—there could be uncertainty about what those requirements will look like, going forward—drawn up by a regulator that answers to no shareholders, no supporters and, once set up, only loosely to Parliament—no vote for Parliament—will hit those least able to absorb the resource costs and financial costs the hardest.

More fundamentally, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the regulator is given the power to define its own gatekeeping rules without parliamentary oversight, we create a system where compliance is dictated not by statute but by bureaucracy. Once that door is open, it rarely swings shut, as we have seen with other regulators. We know how these things go. One year it is audited accounts. The next it is fan engagement reports, community impact statements, net zero transition plans perhaps—all well-meaning, but all cumulative, and all irrelevant in practicality to whether a club should be granted a provisional licence to play football.

The way that the Government have drafted and introduced the Bill and conducted themselves during this process shows that they have forgotten the key part of this debate: playing football. They have become more concerned, we believe, with the minutiae of football governance. It is clear that they have put favours over fans in their appointment, cronies over clubs and bureaucracy over the beautiful game as they seek to make it almost impossible for clubs to actually get on with playing football. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is about playing football.

Let me be clear again: we are not opposing things for opposition’s sake, but we will provide a robust and thorough challenge to areas of the Bill that we believe will have unintended consequences. What we must resist is a system where clubs are treated as supplicants—forced to second-guess what information a regulator may require, fearful that an honest administrative error might cost them their licence, or worse, the future of their football club. Currently, clubs are at real risk of being sacrificed on the altar of bureaucracy by this Labour Government.

I urge the Committee to vote in favour of these amendments that would remove the ability of the Government’s politically led regulator to increase its own powers and remit without any oversight. This clause as drafted by the Government includes no provision for Parliament or even for the Secretary of State—whoever that may be in the coming months—to reign in their regulator and reduce their powers, if need be. Once passed, reversing an expansion of power by the regulator will be exceptionally difficult.

This Government promised us and fans a light-touch, risk-based independent regulator. That was before they appointed their own donor to be chair and then returned the favour, we believe, not only by giving him a fairly large part-time salary, but by giving him a fairly blank cheque about how to increase his power over time, as they have voted against amendments requiring more transparency, and we believe the interests of football fans.

It is clear that the Conservatives want to protect fans, and we will press these amendments, which seek to limit the power of the regulator going forward, to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The Minister is trying to suggest that everything is the same, but the Secretary of State has literally nominated a Labour donor who donated to her and the Prime Minister to chair the regulator, so the situation has clearly changed. The appointment is now the subject of independent inquiry; they are under investigation for the appointment. The Minister has been landed the role because the Secretary of State has recused herself, so the situation has clearly changed and it is clearly a political appointment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman can make that well-rehearsed comment, but I specifically said there are no changes to this part of the Bill. I am focused on what we are talking about, and the parts of the Bill that amendments 99 and 100 relate to have not been changed. He also said that he would not oppose just for the sake of it, but that does seem to be what he is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Indeed, a number of Conservative Members are on record as supporting this policy; it is just sad that the ones sitting opposite seem to have forgotten the manifesto they stood on.

[Mr French]

I do not want to go on about this too long, but the argument that seems to be coming from the Opposition Benches is—

[Vicky Foxcroft]

Opposition? Hold on—we are the Government.

[Mr French]

Sorry—Government Benches. Members of this Bill Committee have been appointed to it to scrutinise the Bill based on the situation now. The argument that seems to be coming from the Government Benches is that, under a new Parliament, we are unable to criticise or challenge the Bill because of what a previous Government proposed. We have already explained why we believe that the situation has changed, and why we have concerns, so we are well within our rights to table amendments. If the Opposition party does not agree with the Government, that is their decision to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful, Ms Butler. I completely appreciate the point the shadow Minister is making, but he seems to be missing the point I am making that this part of the Bill has not changed from the previous one. I will now outline why we do not think amendments 99 or 100 are appropriate.

We do not think it is right to remove the ability of the regulator to require additional information from clubs during the application process for a licence. It is only right that the regulator can specify any further information or documentation it may need in order to properly assess whether a club needs the test for a provisional operating licence. It may require further information to assess a club’s circumstances and whether it will need to tailor any mandatory licensing conditions, or attach any initial discretionary licence conditions to the club.

Specifically on amendment 100, the criteria listed in the Bill are non-exhaustive, and the regulator should have the flexibility to request additional information from a club regarding its business plan when necessary. In line with the regulator’s principles, any request for information will, of course, be proportionate, and the regulator will co-operate and engage practically with the club. The regulator will not be asking for any information that is not in the scope of the provisional licence; there would be no reason for it to do so. However, there is an appeals process.

To end with an example, if a club puts forward a business plan and something seems out of the ordinary, the regulator may wish to ask where the funds are from. We think that that is perfectly reasonable, and it was in the previous iteration of the Bill.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. Another point that I made—this is not political—was about the standardisation of requests, which would allow clubs to prepare on the basis of what they expect the regulator to ask and ensure consistency between clubs. Will the Minister tell us how that might work?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Standardisation is not appropriate in this context, because the extra information may relate to discretionary licence terms, which will be tailored to a club. It is therefore not relevant.

For the reasons I have given, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Mr French]

We are concerned about unchecked powers, as we have explained at some length, and believe that the House should be able to check those powers. We are concerned about the lack of standardisation. I fear that, by treating clubs differently depending on their circumstances, the regulator will be left open to legal challenge. Some clubs have the financial resources to challenge a league, and will have the resource to challenge a regulator. We have seen that with certain clubs in the Premier League—I will not mention the cases, for legal reasons. Some football clubs are willing to challenge their regulation in court. We fear that, without standards for what is asked of clubs, there could be more legal challenges down the line. For those reasons, we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Grant of provisional operating licence

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 101, 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 licence.

The amendment would require the independent financial regulator to make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operational licence within a period of one month. The independent football regulator would be able to extend the period by no more than two weeks if it required more time to consider the application, whether that be due to staffing or other issues. If the independent football regulator extended the period, it would have to give notice to the relevant club explaining why.

Clause 17 is where we find the initial provisions that give the Government’s regulator the power to grant provisional operating licences and the conditions that must be satisfied for a football club to be granted a such a licence. The Government’s regulator must be satisfied that the club applying will comply with the free-standing duties on clubs as set out in part 4, comply with the mandatory licence conditions set out in schedule 5, and operate a relevant team.

On the face of it, the clause seems necessary. There should be a safety net for clubs that have uncertain futures but cannot afford to pause operations while a full licensing determination is made. In that sense, the provisional licence acts as a regulatory bridge which, if implemented properly, can be an essential tool for avoiding the kind of cliff-edge collapses that we have sadly seen in years gone by. Clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, where administrative or ownership crises rapidly spiralled and led to total collapse, might have benefited from such a mechanism. I pay tribute to all the fans and campaigners who have fought so hard for a regime that intervenes earlier rather than only when it is too late. As I have said, I believe that all Members would have preferred football to have got its act together and for our not to be doing this today, but we are where we are.

Although I support clause 17 in principle, I want to raise concerns about how it is drafted and how its powers might be used in practice. First, the clause gives the regulator significant discretion in determining whether to issue a provisional licence and under what conditions. Subsection (1) provides that a licence may be granted—not must—even where a club applies in good faith and has satisfied the initial criteria. That may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it raises the risk that clubs could be left in a holding pattern, awaiting a decision for weeks or months on end with no firm timetable and no recourse to receive an outcome from the Government’s regulator.

Secondly, the measure allows the regulator to impose any conditions it considers appropriate when granting a provisional licence. We absolutely recognise the need for the independent football regulator to have flexibility, particularly when dealing with clubs that may be in financial distress or suffering from poor governance. However, as currently drafted, the clause presents a clear and present danger to English football. As I have highlighted already, we believe that imposing different rules on different clubs will create issues for the regulator going forward, legally and particularly in relation to independence and European competitions, but Members will be pleased to know that I will not go into that again. We must also guard against the risk of disproportionate or arbitrary conditions being imposed, particularly if they are unchallengeable or unclear for clubs. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether a club might, for example, be required to restructure its board to get a provisional licence? Would it be forced to accept certain ownership conditions, and would it be required to provide reams of documentation within a short period just for the provisional licence? These are not hypothetical questions but real-world concerns that clubs will have, particularly at the lower end of the football pyramid. Many such clubs, as I have already outlined, lack the administrative bandwidth to deal with complex regulatory demands at short notice.

That is why the official Opposition have tabled amendment 101, which would ensure that the Government’s regulator must reach a decision on a provisional licence within one month. We fear that, without a time limit, clause 17 risks becoming an instrument of delay, rather than one that supports and creates certainty for clubs by providing a regulatory bridge. Crucially, there is no requirement in the clause as drafted for the regulator to explain why a provisional licence has been refused or revoked. That, again, undermines transparency, and if a regulator is to command trust and credibility, particularly in the emotionally-charged world of football—in its good moments and its bad—it must be seen to be operating with both fairness and openness.

We understand that a decision can be appealed as a “reviewable decision” under clause 81. However, that does not provide transparency for fans, and an appeals process increases uncertainty for clubs. Fans and clubs deserve a Government regulator that acts swiftly, proportionately and, above all, transparently. Clause 17 is the beginning of that promise, but it must be shaped with care.

[Jim Dickson]

Does the hon. Member think that there is any contradiction between his desire, as set out in the amendment, to see decisions made incredibly quickly and his desire that he expressed earlier to see the number of people employed by the regulator limited to 50?

[Mr French]

No, I do not, and I think the hon. Member slightly misunderstands what the measure is about. It is about the provisional licence, not the full-fat licence. I am not asking the regulator to rush a decision on whether a club should be granted a long-term licence. We are asking for some certainty and some time limits to help with that bridging. We have already said that we are concerned about the size of the regulator, but we want clubs to have some certainty around timeframes and not to be left in limbo for too long.

Our belief that clubs should have certainty was why we tabled amendment 101, which would establish a time limit of one month for the Government’s regulator to decide whether it will grant a provisional operating licence. This is supposed to be the main focus of the regulator, so we believe that it is reasonable to expect that it fulfils that function efficiently. This would be an important and proportionate safeguard. It would not diminish the regulator’s authority, but rather ensure that it is exercised in a timely, effective and accountable manner. It is about introducing clarity, certainty and discipline into a process that, under the Bill as drafted, risks becoming needlessly opaque and potentially open-ended.

We must remember what the provisional licence mechanism is designed to achieve. It is not the final or comprehensive licence that will be granted to a club, as I have just said. It is a stopgap—a holding measure meant to ensure continuity of operation for clubs while their full licensing application is under assessment. In short, it is there to prevent disruption, not to prolong it. Thinking about the footballing element to this, a club that was held in limbo, unable to play, would create a lot of issues for the league and the season overall.

As it stands, the Bill provides the Government’s regulator with no firm timetable or obligation to act within any defined period when it comes to a provisional licence. That raises two concerns. First, it risks leaving clubs in regulatory limbo, especially those already in difficult situations. That is not just a matter of administrative inconvenience. For clubs living hand-to-mouth, as many sadly are, uncertainty over their licensing status could mean missed deadlines for investment, lost commercial deals or even delays in paying staff and suppliers. In the worst cases, it could trigger crises and the very things that the Bill was supposed to prevent.

[Mr Dillon]

The shadow Minister outlined a number of deadlines that come up, but another of the deadlines in football is transfer windows. The ability to be granted a provisional licence would allow clubs more certainty to make signings and not fall foul of deadlines.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. Transfers are a key aspect. If a club is in limbo, it could arguably be at a much bigger disadvantage when the season starts if it had not been able to make transfers because it was uncertain about whether it could compete in the competition. The point is well made.

Secondly, the absence of a defined period creates a lack of accountability within the regulator itself. As we have discussed, the regulator cannot be scrutinised in the way that we would have hoped. We know that the Government do want it to be strong, but with strength must come accountability and transparency. If it is to command the trust of fans, clubs and local communities, it must be seen to act with purpose, not with delay.

We know from numerous examples across different industries that when regulators are left without timetables, backlogs just build up. I will not name examples because I am conscious of time, but we know that it happens. My amendment proposes a time limit of one month—a full 30 days—for the regulator to determine whether a provisional licence should be granted. That is not a rushed timetable; we believe that it is a reasonable one, especially considering that when a club applies for a provisional licence, the key facts will likely already be known by the regulator. Again, this is not designed to be a forensic financial autopsy, but a short-term stabilising mechanism.

Let me also be clear that the time limit does not bind the regulator to approve an application within a month; it simply requires a decision one way or another within that time. That allows the Government’s regulator to reject unsuitable applications if needed—hopefully not—but it removes the damaging uncertainty of a process that otherwise could drag on indefinitely. We must not forget who bears the cost of delay. It is not just the club executives and directors, but the fans, players and staff. We have just heard about transfers, which are a great example. It is about the people who turn up on a Saturday afternoon come rain or shine, the people who run the club shop and the ticket gates, and the people whose local economies benefit from having a club that is alive, operating and secure.

The amendment also supports the broader aim of stability in football. A system without timelines invites inconsistency and subjectivity. One club might be processed in a week, and another in six. That cannot be right. We owe it to clubs at all levels, from the top of the Premier League right the way down to the National League, to create a system that is predictable and fair.

Finally, good regulation is not just about the rules but about responsiveness. It is about a regulator that can act promptly, efficiently and in partnership with the people it is overseeing. Our amendment does not weaken the regulator; it makes it better. It strengthens the trust between the regulator and the regulated. It gives clubs the certainty that they need to plan, invest and survive. After all, that is what the Government say is the intention of this regulator. I hope that hon. Members will support the principle behind the amendment. We have heard some of the issues that may arise if not.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 101. I will outline the reasons why we will not accept it, and then I will respond to some of the questions that he raised.

The Bill ensures that the regulator has the necessary flexibility to ensure that all clubs that meet the test for a provisional licence will be given one. Introducing an arbitrary statutory timeframe of one month for the regulator to make a decision on a club’s application would remove that flexibility. Only the regulator can know what the process of assessing applications might entail or how long it might take, so it should have the ability to set in rules the period within which it will make a decision, the period of any potential extension and the circumstances in which an extension will be granted. The regulator will engage with all clubs prior to the application for a provisional operating licence to ensure that the process is as smooth and efficient as possible, and its regulatory principles encourage it to act in a timely manner.

I turn to some of the specific points that the hon. Member made. There will be no requirement to restructure the board to get a provisional licence. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the regulator will take an advocacy-first approach. Clubs will be asked to submit basic information and documentation, and to show a readiness and willingness to work with the regulator. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to clause 17(4)(b), which says that if, for whatever reason, the regulator does not give a licence, it would have to give reasons. Even in that scenario, which I highlight is hypothetical, enforcement might take place, but it would not prevent the club from playing. For these reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

I do not plan to speak again at length. I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but we are concerned that without a set timetable on the regulator’s granting of a provisional licence, the uncertainty would create a number of issues.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The Minister just said something that I am not quite clear about; perhaps, given my hon. Friend’s experience, he could explain it to me. If a club gets promoted to the English Football League—the happiest day of the club’s history—it then has to apply to become regulated, but if it does not have that licence by the beginning of the next season, the Minister just said that it can play. Where should I look in the Bill to understand the latitude that clubs have to play in the English Football League without regulation?

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is not my understanding of how the Bill works, but the Minister may want to clarify that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Of course. The shadow Minister referred more than once to clubs not being able to play. As I said, this is an advocacy-first approach; the regulator will work with clubs to make sure that they can reach the provisional licence requirements. It is a basic set of requirements, and they do not have to meet it to receive the provisional licence; they just have to show a willingness and an ability to do that. In the hypothetical scenario that they do not, enforcement may happen, but they will not be prevented from playing. However, we do not anticipate that happening, because at the provisional stage, the regulator will work with them to make sure that they can do that. I want to be very clear—perhaps the hon. Member for Spelthorne misunderstood what I said—that the regulator will work with teams to make sure that they can get that provisional licence.

[Mr French]

That was a rather long intervention, but I suspect it was probably needed. I appreciate the clarity from the Minister on that point, but in terms of the time limit, we are concerned about the impact of the uncertainty relating to the provisional element. In this situation, we would like that to be a focus of the regulator, given that it is being set up for exactly this kind of work. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

We do not anticipate that happening. Enforcement would take place, but we do not want the regulator to stop clubs being able to play. I am outlining how the regulator will do everything it can. The information is fairly basic, and the aim is to move as quickly as possible, so we anticipate clubs being able to receive that provisional licence.

Clause 18 establishes the second step of a two-step licensing process designed to ensure a smooth transition to regulation. Being granted a full operating licence should be the aim of all clubs in scope of the regulator. The full licence means that the regulator is satisfied that the club meets all relevant requirements, including the threshold requirements. For a club to pass the test for a full licence, the regulator must be satisfied that the club

“meets the threshold requirements set out in Schedule 4”

and is complying with and

“would continue to comply with the mandatory licence conditions”

and the free-standing duties on clubs set out in part 5. Finally, the regulator must not have determined

“that any person who is an owner or officer of the club is not suitable”

for the position they hold.

The clause also details the power that the regulator has to extend the provisional operating licence for a club. That will be done only if the regulator believes that the club does not meet the bar for a full licence at present, but will do if given more time. Clubs will have had time and support, while provisionally licensed, to ensure that they can meet the higher bar for a full licence. Once the club has a full licence, it will not have to be periodically reviewed. Instead, the regulator will continue to monitor and supervise the club. There will be an annual touchpoint in the form of an annual declaration, in which the club will notify the regulator of any relevant changes. That will minimise burdens while still ensuring that the club continues to adhere to the necessary requirements, including requirements that ensure that fans’ best interests are at the heart of the club’s decision-making process. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Mr French]

The Minister has outlined clauses 17 and 18 at some length. We had a lengthy debate on clause 17 in relation to our amendment 101. We are naturally disappointed that the amendment, and the time limit that we seek for the provisional licensing, was not agreed to. However, in the interests of time, I will move on to clause 18.

Clause 18 sets out the process by which the Government’s regulator may grant the full operating licence to a club, which is a crucial stage in the proposed licensing regime, with significant long-term implications for the structure, stability and future of the English game. This clause is where the Government’s regulator transitions from assessing provisional eligibility to giving a formal stamp of approval for a club’s longer-term competition and compliance. However, the clause raises several questions that the Committee must interrogate, and that I hope the Minister will be able to answer—not least whether it achieves the right balance between regulatory assurance and operational flexibility.

Under the clause, the regulator may grant a full operating licence only if satisfied that a club meets the relevant conditions of eligibility. That is right and proper, and clubs should be expected to operate on a stable financial footing, meet appropriate governance standards and protect the game’s integrity. But I am concerned about the breadth and, in some respects, the open-ended nature of what those conditions of eligibility might come to mean in practice.

We must be alive to the risk of regulatory overreach, as the Opposition have highlighted, and we should all recognise that bad regulation is worse than no regulation at all. If clubs are to be subject to vague or ever-changing thresholds, with little recourse or clarity on what is required, we risk imposing a level of uncertainty that could deter vital investment, discourage long-term planning and undermine the very sustainability that the regulator seeks to ensure. That is why the Opposition will—as we already have done in Committee—continue to press for greater transparency around the costs and cumulative burdens that flow from the action of the regulator; and it is why we believe that the regulator should not have unfettered discretion to shift the goalposts without clear parliamentary scrutiny and approval. As I have said, we should not write blank cheques to a politically led regulator.

Another issue with the clause is timeliness. As we have explained, clubs will need to plan ahead, financially, structurally and operationally. If the licensing process drags on, it risks becoming a bottleneck and not a safeguard for clubs around participation. We tabled amendments that would ensure timely decision making on provisional licences, and the same principle must surely also apply to full licences. However, we appreciate the different context within which a full operating licence will exist. That is why we have not tabled an amendment to this clause with a specific deadline. We understand that full licences will take slightly longer.

Moreover, there is a danger that the full licence becomes a tool for undue influence. We have spoken about our concerns about the impact that that may have on the statutes of UEFA and FIFA—in the interests of time, I will not go into that again. If clubs feel under pressure to comply with this new licensing regime to be able to play in English football, there may be a concern about them breaching other regimes, such as UEFA and FIFA, and, again, they may fear expulsion from those competitions.

One club asked me this question, although it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, so I will not name them. If a Premier League club decided not to apply for a licence, would the Government look to exclude it? There is the risk that, if a club feels that it will not be able to compete in Europe, for whatever reason, it may choose what this Bill was originally intended to stop: the European breakaway league.

I am not sure that the club would do that, as it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but what would happen if a club says, “We are not going to meet these conditions, and therefore we will not apply for a licence”? Would the Government or regulator be willing to kick that club out of the Premier League? Even though that question is hypothetical, we need to know where this might lead, because we are talking about a regulation that will have an impact. If the Minister can answer where she thinks that club might go, I would be particularly interested in that.

We are also concerned about the future interpretation of eligibility and how that may veer into what we believe to be subjective decisions, or where the Government’s regulator will take on new powers as it enters mission creep. As such, I would appreciate it if the Minister will confirm that there will be no demands, for example, on clubs to provide diversity quotas, net zero targets or enforced political campaigns, all of which stray beyond the regulator’s core remit of financial sustainability and good governance. Let us not forget that football clubs are not franchises, as they are in the American sport system. Our clubs are community institutions with long histories and unique identities. They are not all cut from the same cloth.

[Melanie Onn]

Would the shadow Minister consider the kick racism out of football campaign to be political activity that clubs and the regulator should not be involved in?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about quotas, which is a slightly different thing. We do not think that the regulator should be insisting on quotas, and that is very different from Kick It Out, which has made incredible progress for football over the years. The hon. Lady has raised a very different point, so I will not go down that rabbit hole.

I am sure that the Minister would agree that what is best for Barnsley FC is not necessarily best for Bromley FC or Bristol Rovers. Each club has unique characteristics and should be treated as such. However, we feel that the Bill, as drafted, could lead to clubs being lumped in the same direction. We believe in the equalisation of treatment, but each club should not be treated exactly the same when there are clear differences, whether that be in league structures or financial positions.

We are concerned about parts of clause 18, but we believe that it is an important part of the licensing structure that must be implemented with care, proportionality and consistency. It is essential that the Government’s regulator operates with discipline, sticking to those statutory objectives, resisting the temptation to micro-manage and always keeping front of mind the importance of stability, continuity and respect of football’s unique heritage. We support the principles of the clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister answered some of my questions about what may come in the future and what the Government would do if a club decided not to apply for a licence.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments. A number of the points that he made have been well debated over the last few days in Committee, so I will not be engaging in them. I will not be engaging in hypotheticals either. We have been very clear that we simply do not want scope creep. The two-step process of the provisional and full operating licence means that clubs do not need to make substantial changes in a short space of time. We absolutely appreciate that it could be difficult for some clubs to meet threshold requirements, and the regulator will very much work with them. The regulator will have a balanced and proportionate approach, centred around advocacy first.

[Mr French]

I appreciate that I was asking about a hypothetical situation, but it is an important hypothetical. We are talking about a structure going forward in which clubs will be required to have a licence, and we have had some exchanges on that. This is a serious question: what would the football regulator do if a club said that it did not want the licence, and it did not believe it had to have one? Where would that legally leave the club and regulator? Even though it is hypothetical, it is very important to what we are debating in the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I disagree that it is an important hypothetical. We can come on to talk about enforcement later on, but we are talking now about the regulator’s approach, which will be balanced, proportionate and centred around advocacy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Louie French Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not permitted. We will now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Clause 7

The IFR’s general duties etc

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

I beg to move amendment 97, 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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to open day 2 of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. On day 1 there was extensive debate about an issue that I am sure we will also get into today. We Opposition Members were keen to ensure that the Government’s new football regulator will improve transparency, help reduce costs to clubs and fans and stop political interference in football. It was disappointing that Government Members did not support those objectives.

Amendment 97 seeks to ensure that there are no conflicts with any of the regulations and rules of international footballing governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA. It clearly requires the Independent Football Regulator

“to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.”

As we know, UEFA has written to the Secretary of State to set out its concerns with the Bill. The letter came after the Government introduced the expanded version of the Bill. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to publish it so that all Members can have an informed debate about the risks that UEFA outlined. I will not go over that debate again—I might get a yellow card if I do. The amendment would require the Government’s regulator to exercise its functions in a way that avoids conflicts with the rules, statutes and regulations of international football governing authorities, especially FIFA and UEFA.

The amendment is designed to protect the regulator’s ability to carry out the functions that the Government have assigned to it without inadvertently triggering consequences that could seriously damage English football’s standing in the international game and, in the worst-case scenario, lead to English clubs being removed from the Champions League and—perhaps more seriously—the national team being banned from competitions such as the European championship and the World cup. Let us make no mistake: if the Government’s regulator were to exercise its powers in ways that contravene the established framework of global football governance, the ramifications would be swift and severe.

A particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football. As hon. Members might know, under FIFA’s rules, any form of what is deemed undue third-party interference in the affairs of a national football association can result in disciplinary action. That can include suspension of the football association itself, exclusion of clubs from European competitions or the ineligibility of players to represent England in FIFA-sanctioned tournaments such as the World cup.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCartney—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Turner. Let the record show that I am living in the past—perhaps not as far in the past as some Opposition Members. My concern about what the shadow Minister is saying is that the Opposition seem to be keen on setting a higher bar for football than they would for areas of general law when we are talking about interactions across national borders, with the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union in mind. Will he reflect on that?

[Mr French]

The Lib Dem spokesman makes an interesting comparison. As I said in the Committee’s debate on Tuesday, my focus is on football, and I am outlining with this amendment my concerns about the interactions of a sport with other international competitions. I will come on to explain why football in particular is interwoven with international principles. The majority of fans want to focus on the sport, rather than politics. I am sure that there are many more debates to be had on issues such as the ECHR in the rest of this Parliament. I will stick to football today, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

UEFA’s ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competitions. That risk is very real: it has happened before and can happen again. In 2006, the Greek football federation was banned from European competition. People might argue that I am trying to scaremonger, but I am trying to highlight that this is a real risk.

It is important to clarify what FIFA and UEFA mean by “third-party interference”. It is not a casual term; it is clearly defined in their statutes. It refers to instances where public authorities, including Governments or regulators created by Government legislation, exert influence over how football is run in a way that compromises the independence of football associations and clubs. Examples include dictating the appointment or removal of club directors—which the Bill does—influencing the outcome of football disciplinary procedures and imposing governance models that conflict with internationally recognised standards.

Any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and national frameworks. It is therefore important that the IFR’s licensing criteria are complementary to football and created in full consultation with clubs and any other affected parties. Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a full voice in the development and implementation of those requirements? What consultation are the Government or their regulator currently undertaking on these regulations?

Let me be clear: I understand that the creation of the IFR in and of itself is on the borderline of what constitutes third-party interference. We are taking great care to help the Government to redesign a regulator that is fully independent of Ministers and professionally competent. However, in the absence of clear statutory guidelines to avoid conflicts with international rules, there is a risk, or perhaps even an inevitability, that the Government’s regulator may, at some point in the future, cross a line drawn by UEFA or FIFA.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The shadow Minister is making a pertinent and important point. If the independent football regulator were inadvertently to cross lines into the jurisdictions of UEFA or FIFA, it could be catastrophic for English football. Clearly, that is not the purpose of the regulator. Given the success of many English teams in Europe, that would have serious ramifications. I genuinely think that the shadow Minister’s amendment is meant to be helpful and is incredibly important.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is exactly what we are trying to do. This is not a wrecking amendment; we are just trying to tighten the Bill to ensure that no conflict arises that would damage the participation of English clubs or the national team in future competitions.

We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep and that the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond its loosely defined current competences. That expansion, intentional or otherwise, into broader aspects of football governance could undermine established structures and processes of the sport and amount to Government interference.

That is why my amendment is needed. It would place a duty on the regulator to abide by long pre-existing international frameworks within which English football exists. It requires the Government’s regulator to ensure that, in pursuing its objectives, it does not create legal or procedural clashes with the statutes of FIFA and UEFA. Legislation that compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England would be non-compliant with those international statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally.

Some may ask why Parliament should concern itself with the rules of unelected international bodies. Why not simply legislate as we see fit and allow the regulator to act as robustly as necessary? On the surface, that is a fair political question, but we must recognise the reality of football governance. FIFA and UEFA are not advisory bodies; they are the organisations through which our clubs gain access to international competitions, including European competitions. They are custodians of the World cup, the European championship and the Champions League, to name just a few. Their statutes form part of the accepted legal architecture of the global game and all member associations, including the FA, are bound by them.

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has suggested that that approach means that the Conservative party is happy being a rule taker, after all. Is that the case?

[Mr French]

I appreciate what the Lib Dem spokesperson is trying to do, but I point out that English football has been involved directly with the rules that have been made and continue to be made.

[Max Wilkinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr French]

I think I know where this is going, but go on.

[Max Wilkinson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which our FA has been involved in the making of those rules is a little bit like some other supranational organisations that we were a member of in the past—for example, the European Union?

[Mr French]

I would argue very strongly that when the English football team finally wins the World cup, it will get much more out of FIFA than this country would ever get out of the European Union.

English football does not exist in a vacuum, but the Bill acts as if it does. The global football ecosystem is fantastically complex, but the Bill is simple, clunky and—I am afraid to say—full of holes, which would potentially leave English football to drown among its international competition. I also fear that it will create even more legal cases, whereby clubs end up spending more time in courts than they do focusing on the football matches themselves.

To act as if we can disregard those international rules, or to suggest that a domestic regulator can impose conditions without reference to them, would be to invite precisely the sort of jurisdictional collision that could see English football punished because of the good intentions of Members of this House. We cannot just pander to the politics; we must be practical about the potential havoc that the Bill will wreak across the English football pyramid.

If FIFA or UEFA were to exclude English clubs or the national team from international competitions as a result of perceived third-party interference, the consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. As hon. Members will know, the Premier League generates more than £6 billion in revenue annually, with over £1.8 billion coming from overseas broadcasting rights alone. In fact, I understand that the Premier League is the first sporting competition in Europe to generate more from its international broadcasting rights than it does from its domestic rights.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I suspect that Government Members will oppose the amendment. Given that, does my hon. Friend think that it would be reasonable of me to ask the Minister the extent to which UEFA has seen the Bill and signed it off as something that does not constitute political interference either way?

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is something that we discussed at some length during the Committee’s first sitting. It is disappointing that all members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend, do not have access to that information to help them to make informed decisions.

I appreciate some of the what-aboutery and counter-arguments that are made, but, as I have said, I will defend the right of Committee members to have full access to information. It is so important, in particular given the Committee’s function in respect of this legislation, that its members should have full and frank information. It is disappointing that that has not been disclosed so that we can fully understand all the risks.

The Premier League’s broadcasting rights are in no small part predicated on English clubs’ participation in the Champions League and the Europa League. Exclusion from those competitions would make our top clubs less attractive to global audiences and sponsors, shrinking the broadcast value of the league and undermining its international appeal.

Without wishing to confuse my sporting metaphors, that would have a knock-on effect further down the pyramid. If the Premier League makes less money, there is less money to distribute to the English Football League or the National League, which we will come on to when we consider other parts of the Bill. The Champions League alone contributes more than £300 million each season to English clubs, not including the knock-on commercial benefits. For top clubs, it accounts for up to 20% of their total revenue. Stripping that away would lead to cost-cutting, player sales and job losses, not just in clubs themselves but across the local economies that depend on matchday trade and revenue.

The FA also receives critical funding linked to England’s participation in international tournaments, as I know a number of pubs do; for example, when we are in the Euros in the summer, that normally means that the economy receives a boost. A ban from the World cup or the European championship would not only harm national pride but cut investment in grassroots football, which is often funded in part through FIFA’s global redistribution programmes or revenues generated by the national team.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Mr Turner, you will have seen the declaration of interests that I made on Tuesday. I seek the Committee’s indulgence; this is the only gratuitous intervention that I will make. Can the shadow Minister remind the Committee of the identity of the only team who have won every major European trophy, having recently won the UEFA Conference League?

[Mr French]

I believe “Blue is the colour, football is the game” is the motto in the song. That is of course Chelsea. I congratulate them, as well as Spurs, on their recent victory in Europe. I probably should say that every other club that has won—

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr French]

Oh, here we go.

[Jim Dickson]

I wonder whether any Opposition Members are able to assure us that, in winning those trophies, the club stuck to profit and sustainability rules as other clubs have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Member did not talk about Crystal Palace’s success in the FA cup final. I am sure his point is noted by the Committee.

More broadly, the football industry supports around 100,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, contributes more than £7.6 billion to GDP and delivers £3.6 billion in tax revenues annually. A major disruption to international participation because of this Government’s regulator would clearly put a serious dent in all that. In short, any move that risks our relationship with UEFA and FIFA is not just a sporting gamble but an economic one, and a profoundly reckless move for any Government to take.

We must also consider the practical impact on clubs and fans. Imagine a scenario in which the Government’s regulator intervenes in the ownership model of a particular club in UEFA competitions and in doing so breaches UEFA’s licensing criteria. That club could find itself barred from the Champions League, the Europa League or other leagues through no fault of its own. Fans, players and club employees would suffer, and the club’s value and viability undermined, all as a result of a conflict that could and should have been avoided through foresight and careful drafting of this legislation.

There is precedent for this kind of statutory provision. In sectors such as financial services, we have long recognised the need for domestic regulators to align their actions with international frameworks that they are part of. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority operate in a global regulatory environment and Parliament has provided them with duties and powers that reflect that reality. This is not a novel concept; it is standard practice where cross-border frameworks exist. As the Government have chosen to model their regulator on those in financial services, perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have not done so in this regard.

Football is different. It is more internationally integrated than most sectors. Rules are more intertwined and clubs more interdependent on foreign clubs for competition, particularly at elite level. English clubs compete weekly in cross-border tournaments—for example, when Arsenal sadly lost to Paris Saint-Germain, who went on to win the Champions League. What a final that was. Players move freely between jurisdictions. Broadcasting rights are sold and consumed around the globe, as we have heard. Football’s regulatory framework must reflect that international dimension, not wilfully ignore it.

Some will say that the amendment is unnecessary because the regulator can use its discretion to avoid conflict, but without a statutory duty, it could operate without full regard to the consequences abroad. The amendment would place a clear and proportionate duty on the Government’s regulator—something that its leadership would be required to consider in every decision they take.

Importantly, the amendment would not hand international bodies a blank cheque. It would not bind the regulator to follow their rules blindly or to give up domestic responsibilities. What it would do is make sure that the Government’s regulator takes those rules into account and, wherever possible, avoids direct conflict. That is entirely reasonable and, in my view, essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the Government’s regulator.

We do not want to create a regulator that acts in splendid isolation. We want a regulator that defends English football’s integrity but also safeguards its place in the global game. It would be the height of irony if, in the process of attempting to strengthen our domestic football pyramid, we inadvertently isolated it from the wider footballing world, solving one problem only to create a much worse one. The amendment would act as a safeguard and send a signal to fans, clubs and international partners alike that we in Parliament understand the integrated nature of modern football and legislate accordingly.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. Amendment 97 is objectively reasonable; the Government, in setting up the independent football regulator, should want to do so in compliance with any FIFA or UEFA rules, in order to secure our national teams’ places in international tournaments.

There is a genuine risk that the football regulator may conflict with FIFA and UEFA rules, not least in the political appointment of its chair. I know that the Government do not think that it is political to appoint a chair who, in the current circumstances, donated to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but FIFA may take a different view. If FIFA takes a different view and seeks to ban our national sides, the Government will not be able to do anything about it. This is the moment to enshrine in law that the regulator must comply with FIFA and UEFA rules.

We can delve briefly into what we think FIFA might deem political. In 2016, FIFA fined domestic teams, including England, for wearing an armband with an Armistice Day poppy because, in FIFA’s view, the poppy is a political symbol. I think that is madness, and pretty much everyone in this country thinks it is madness, but that was FIFA’s view, and it levied a fine. I think that, after negotiation, FIFA has since changed its mind—but if that was its view of the poppy and all sorts of symbols that most ordinary people would not think of as political, I am concerned about what it will think about a football regulator that has a chair appointed by Government, who in this instance also donated to the leadership campaign of the Prime Minister of the day, and who may then exercise a decision over ownership of a particular club in this country. I suspect FIFA may think that is political and conflicts with the ability of England and other home nations to compete in international events. The Government can deal with that very simply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I, and I suspect a lot of fans, would not be comfortable if there was a negotiation between FIFA and the Government—by the way, the current Secretary of State received money from the current preferred candidate—about the viability of the England national team playing in an international tournament, when what they were negotiating about was the suitability or decision making of a political donor to that Government. That is not healthy. It does not satisfy me.

I would much prefer that there was a provision in the Bill that clearly stated that the football regulator—that is more than just the chair; it is the entire body—must not do anything that

“conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies”.

By the way, this is about far more than just politics; I use the political issue as an example, but there are many other ways in which the regulator could conflict with FIFA and UEFA. I am sure that nobody here intends that it does, so let us build that into the Bill.

[Mr French]

A point that is being slightly missed in this exchange is something that I mentioned in my speech: the impact and risk for clubs and whether the line is crossed. In particular, the qualification for the Champions League each year in the Premier League is a huge source of revenue, as I explained. Having that risk at play could deter the inward investment into clubs that we know is key to the future success of English football, as we have already seen. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the shadow Minister. I suppose there is a not-too-fanciful theoretical situation in which the football regulator makes a decision on the ownership of a club that has otherwise qualified for the Champions League, and that decision was made by a body headed up by someone who had donated to the Prime Minister of the country. I think that that would be a problem. However, if clause 7 were amended, he would have to recuse himself, or the body would have to deal with it in a different way. My hon. Friend demonstrates perhaps the most likely scenario and the most powerful justification for backing the amendment. I urge all Members to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. I understand that its intent is to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes, and so will not risk English clubs or national teams being banned from international competitions. I will set out why we do not think the amendment is necessary, and then I will respond to some of the questions that hon. Members posed during the debate.

I assure the Committee that the amendment is not necessary. UEFA and FIFA statutes require that the FA manages its affairs without undue influence from third parties and remains independent of political interference. The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game.

The shadow Minister asked about consultation. Through the observer role on the regulator board, there is an explicit requirement to consult the FA. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will not allow it to undermine FIFA’s or UEFA’s statutes. That is why—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne—UEFA has confirmed in writing to the Secretary of State that the Bill as drafted does not breach UEFA statutes. The FA has also confirmed that directly to Members of both Houses, and it is of course publicly supportive of the Bill.

Rather than protect English football, I am afraid that the amendment would have serious unintended consequences. It would put the regulator in a position of deference to a private international organisation—a point the hon. Member for Cheltenham made eloquently a number of times. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, but leave English football in a very weak position. UEFA has confirmed that the amendment is not needed, and it would undermine parliamentary sovereignty; for those very straightforward reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

Although I do not doubt the Minister’s sincere belief in the assurances she has given, I am afraid that unless we have evidence that gives the Opposition certainty about them, we will not withdraw our amendment. We are very concerned about the future participation of English clubs in Europe and of the national team in European and world competitions for reasons that I outlined in my speech—in the interest of time, I will not repeat them now.

I note that the Minister was very careful in her wording when she talked about what was said in the letter from UEFA. She talked about the Bill “as drafted”. The Opposition are extremely concerned about scope creep from the regulator, and much of our contributions have focused on the fact that the future regulator may take a decision that is not in conformity with the rules of FIFA and UEFA, which this House would then have few means to change. That would put at risk clubs, investment and jobs in clubs up and down the country. That is why I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 7, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The IFR may not redistribute revenue, income or any monies from one regulated club to another regulated club.”

This amendment prevents the IFR from redistributing any funds from one club to another.

Again, it is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I promise that this speech will be slightly shorter than the last one—people will be pleased to know that.

Amendment 98 would make it explicit that the Government’s regulator should not engage in the practice of redistributing income or revenue from one club to another. This is a necessary and prudent safeguard and goes to the heart of how we preserve competitive integrity, protect private investment and ensure that the scope of the regulation does not veer into a form of creeping central planning in our national game. Nowhere in the Bill as it stands is it clearly ruled out that this new public body—run by an appointee of the Secretary of State, as we have heard—could compel the transfer of funds between clubs in the name of sustainability, redistribution or solidarity.

That is why the amendment is so important. It would place a clear statutory limit on the power of the Government’s regulator. It would ensure that the regulator could not, in any circumstances, divert resources from one privately owned club to help to subsidise another. It would preserve the principle that the money earned by clubs—through good management, fan support, on-field success or commercial acumen—belongs to those clubs, not to a central authority acting as some sort of financial equaliser. Although I am sure that hon. Members will say that that will never happen, it is important that we, as Members of this House, make sure that it never does. If Members believe that it will never happen, making this amendment to the Bill will not affect the operation of the Government’s regulator. There is no reason to oppose the amendment, other than political goal scoring.

This issue goes far beyond football; it touches on the fundamental principles of ownership, competition and economic freedom. As we have heard, private investment in English football has helped to transform the game. Whether in the Premier League or lower leagues we have seen owners, both domestic and international, commit hundreds of millions of pounds to develop stadiums, invest in training grounds, nurture local talent and grow their clubs responsibly. That investment has come in the expectation of fair competition and the ability to retain the fruits of one’s success. We all know that it has not always been done with the best intentions, but the Government have decided to bring in a regulatory sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. A small minority of owners should not be responsible for upending the entire English football system, which has stood and evolved over more than 100 years.

If the Government’s regulator is granted the power to override that and to redistribute revenues forcibly between specific clubs, that risks undermining the very conditions that made English football the most watched and commercially successful league system in the world. It sends a chilling message to investors that success may be penalised, ambition discouraged and financial reward diluted in the name of a central diktat. It would also, as I said when I moved amendment 97, demonstrate a total violation of the independence of English football from a Government regulator, which would assuredly constitute a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules, in turn leading to the expulsion of our clubs from competitions, as we have just discussed. UEFA states that mandating redistribution that affects

“the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us. We also fear that having a third party intervene in redistribution would likely prevent amicable solutions being found.”

It is not difficult to imagine where that could lead. A well-run League One club, generating income from smart ticketing and loyal fan engagement, could find its revenues skimmed off to support a rival that has been less prudent or less entrepreneurial with its fan engagement. A Championship club breaking even through hard decisions and local investment could be told that its television share will be trimmed to subsidise losses made elsewhere by a less prudent board or chairman. That is not regulation, but redistribution by bureaucratic diktat.

Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the redistribution of moneys in English football. Voluntary redistribution negotiated by clubs, leagues and the FA is a long-standing and respected feature of the game, but there is a profound difference between clubs choosing to support one another and the Government’s regulator imposing that from above, using statutory powers to shift money between private enterprises without consent.

[Max Wilkinson]

In some countries, television deals are struck directly between broadcasters and clubs. If that happened in this country in the future—were Manchester City, Arsenal or Liverpool to strike a direct deal—would we not end up in a situation where the regulator might have to consider redistributing directly from one club to ensure that the redistribution that the hon. Gentleman argues for can take place?

[Mr French]

I understand the Lib Dem spokesman’s point, but in my understanding, that would be the responsibility of the leagues. That is not what we are trying to block with this amendment; we are trying to block club-to-club forced redistribution. That is an important distinction, and I will come on to explain why.

I do not believe that this is a theoretical concern. The regulator’s objectives include financial sustainability. One can easily imagine a future regulator interpreting this objective to mean that it should balance resources across the pyramid, effectively redistributing funds to prop up weaker clubs. Without this amendment, nothing in legislation explicitly prevents such a scenario.

Some may argue that redistribution is needed to make the game fairer—I understand that point—but fairness in football has always been earned through competition, not imposed through central control. We must be very cautious about importing the language and logic of equalisation into a sport that depends for its vitality on aspiration, competition and merit. Sporting competition is a hill that I am willing to die on.

It is also worth noting that forced redistribution between clubs would create perverse incentives. It would reward financial mismanagement and punish prudence, and it would create a moral hazard where clubs are less motivated to balance their books if they believe that the regulator will require others to bail them out. That is not a path to sustainability; it is a recipe for mediocrity, or worse, disaster.

The principle at stake is clear: the role of the regulator is to set standards, ensure compliance and uphold integrity, and not to act as a central accountant deciding who deserves what. If clubs wish to strike revenue-sharing deals through their leagues, they may do so. The amendment draws a line: it protects club autonomy and supports continued investment in the game, and it ensures that the Government’s regulator—whatever its remit ends up being—respects the rights of clubs to manage and retain their own finances.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the shadow Minister for the amendment and the chance to clarify the Government’s position on the redistribution of revenue. Let me be clear: the backstop process will apply only to revenue received by the leagues. That is already explicit in the definition of “relevant revenue” in clause 56. It does not allow the regulator to include individual club revenue that is not relevant for distribution agreements—for example, shirt sales. The amendment is not necessary to ensure that. It would call into question the regulator’s powers under the backstop process. Although that process is about resolving distribution disputes between the leagues, not individual teams, the money received by the leagues is ultimately distributed to their member teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

The clause sets out the general duties of the regulator to define when and how it can act. The regulator must act in a way that, in so far as is reasonably practicable, is compatible with the purpose of the Bill—to protect and promote the sustainability of English football—and that advances one or more of its objectives. As part of that, the clause requires the regulator to, where appropriate, take certain things into consideration when it acts. As the regulator is required only to “have regard to” these things, it is not strictly bound by them, and so its operational independence is not undermined.

The regulator must consider some key outcomes in the football market, beyond its primary objectives. Specifically, where possible, it should have due regard to the desirability of avoiding indirect impacts on: the sporting outcomes of regulated clubs; the competitiveness of regulated clubs against other clubs, which includes overseas competitors; and investment into, and growth of, English football. That recognises that there are other features of the market that should be protected. We want a sustainable football pyramid, but not at the expense of the exciting, competitive product that continues to attract so many viewers and investors. We have explicitly added growth to this provision. The regulator will not actively pursue these outcomes, but it will be mindful of unduly harming them while it advances its statutory objectives.

The regulator must also have regard to five further things when exercising its functions. They include its regulatory principles, which guide how it should operate, its own guidance and the guidance from the Secretary of State, the most recent state of the game report, and the most recent football governance statement from the Secretary of State. We will discuss some of those points later today. I commend the clause to the House.

[Mr French]

It is disappointing that our amendments, which were tabled in a constructive manner, not a political one, have not been accepted. We remain concerned about some of those risks to the future of English football, but we will not seek to divide the Committee on this clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

The IFR’s regulatory principles

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The regulatory principles outlined in this clause are designed to guide the regulator to exercise its functions appropriately and in the manner intended by Parliament. The regulator must have regard to those principles when acting. The first principle encourages time and cost efficiency in everything that the regulator undertakes, encouraging swift action and value for money. The second principle encourages the regulator to co-operate with both those it regulates and those who will be impacted by its decisions. That reflects that the ideal regulatory environment is one where all stakeholders are working towards the same goals. Therefore, where the Bill says that the regulator should consult other relevant persons, we would expect that those affected by its decisions, such as fans, players, and representative groups, would be included when appropriate.

The third principle encourages the regulator to consider, before acting, whether the intervention is necessary, and if the same outcome could be achieved in a less burdensome way. That steers the regulator to take a light-touch approach to regulation where appropriate. The fourth principle encourages proportionality. The regulator should always look to choose the least restrictive action that still delivers the intended outcome, and be able to justify why any burden is worth it for the benefits expected. The fifth principle encourages the regulator to acknowledge the unique sporting context in which it is regulating. For example, it should consider the existing rules and burdens that clubs are subject to, and that market features such as transfer windows impose unique constraints on clubs.

The sixth principle encourages the regulator to apply regulation consistently, while still ensuring that requirements are appropriately tailored to a club’s specific circumstances. A Premier League club and a National League club operate in very different ways and face very different risks, and the regulator should and will take that into account when regulating, as I heard when meeting representatives of the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. The seventh principle encourages the regulator to hold the individuals responsible for making decisions at a club accountable for the actions and compliance of the club. For too long, clubs and fans have suffered the consequences of bad actors and mismanagement by the individuals calling the shots.

The eighth and final principle encourages the regulator to be transparent in its actions. It is important that the regulator and its regime are open and accessible to the industry, fans and the general public. I commend the clause to the House.

[Mr French]

I will not seek to repeat all the objectives that the Minister outlined for clause 8, but I will make some comments on each principle, and pose some questions to which I hope she can provide answers.

As the Minister described, clause 8 outlines the eight operating principles that guide the regulator’s approach. First, the Government’s regulator should be on time and cost-efficient, which is why I have tabled amendment 101 to clause 16. Secondly, the Government’s regulator should take a participative approach to regulation, helping to co-ordinate and co-operating with clubs and competition organisations, as well as engaging with players, fans and others. That relates to an amendment that we will come to shortly.

Thirdly, the Government’s regulator should be light touch in its approach to regulation, wherever possible. Sadly, we Opposition Members believe that that is now highly questionable due to some of the new parts of the Bill, which we raised concerns about in the first day’s sitting. Fourthly, the Government’s regulator should be proportionate in everything it does. Again, we have concerns about that and we have outlined some of those already.

Fifthly, the Government’s regulator should acknowledge the unique sporting context in which it is regulating, aiming to minimise any potential disruption to sporting competitions. I will not go through the debate we just had around UEFA international competitions, but I again highlight some of my earlier questions that I put to the Government on Tuesday about how this regulator is benchmarked against other regulators, because, in a sporting context, it is the first of its kind. It is very difficult for us to understand where the Government are moving towards, whether that is about resources, the size of the regulator, or the future direction, and we would like some clarity on that.

Sixthly, the Government’s regulator should apply the regulation consistently. We all hope that the regulator will do that in the future. Seventhly, the Government’s regulator should, where appropriate, hold individuals responsible for the actions of the club. That is absolutely right. There are clauses that seek to do that, and, as we have heard, to identify the appropriate officers and senior directors for different components of the club.

Eighthly, the Government’s regulator should be as transparent as possible in everything it does. Disappointingly, Government Members voted against the transparency amendments that we tabled, which, again, were not political; they were aimed to future-proof the transparency regarding how the regulator operates. I fundamentally believe that Members, regardless of what party they belong to, should be able to have all the information to make informed decisions on the benefits to their constituents.

Many of the principles in this clause are generally welcome, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a few matters. Does she think that these principles are strong enough to prevent the regulator from jeopardising the future participation of English clubs, particularly abroad? The fifth principle states that the regulator “should” aim to minimise disruption. Surely—we believe—it “must” avoid disruption, because of the risks that I outlined in previous amendments.

Lastly, none of the principles reference or reinforce the regulator’s independence. Why is there no principle regarding the regulator’s independence from the Government and politics at large, for the reasons we have outlined?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for broadly welcoming the principles. I will address a couple of those points, but without rehearsing this whole debate. Independence runs throughout this Bill; it is very clear that it is an independent football regulator, and we will talk about some of the safeguards for that in future debates.

The principles that we are debating are the same as they were under the previous Bill, with one exception: the third principle has been added, which is about making this less burdensome and which steers towards a light-touch regulator. I think that Members across the House would welcome that.

I will not rehearse the conversations we had on the make-up of the regulator—on staffing and so on, which we spoke about that the other day—but the shadow Minister touched again on UEFA. I gently remind him that we removed the need for the regulator to have regard to Government’s foreign and trade policy when considering club takeovers. We took that out of the previous Bill, and that is clearly welcome in the context of that UEFA debate. We are therefore confident that these are the right principles to guide the regulator to do a good job.

Question put and agreed to.  

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill 

Clause 9

Transfer schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

We are committed to establishing the regulator as quickly as possible post the passing of this Bill. To that end, the regulator is currently operating in shadow form in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in parallel to the passage of this Bill. This is a precedented approach; for example, the Trade Remedies Authority was run as a shadow function out of the Department for International Trade before it was formally established by the Trade Act 2021.

The shadow football regulator has started work to develop the regulator’s policy and guidance, engage with stakeholders, and undertake the necessary corporate activity to build an organisation, such as recruitment and procurement. That will enable the regulator to hit the ground running once it is legally established. The shadow regulator, of course, was established by the previous Government, as they clearly also recognised the importance of the regulator being ready to operate as soon as possible once the Bill receives Royal Assent.

On the creation of the regulator, it will be necessary for the property, rights, liabilities and staff held by the shadow regulator within DCMS to be transferred to the regulator. The most appropriate vehicle for effecting these transfers will be a statutory transfer scheme, as has been used in similar situations involving the transfer of assets following the transfer of functions between public bodies. The details of such transfers will be determined at the point of transfer.

[Mr French]

As we heard from the Minister, the clause relates to the transfer of staffing, resources and property to the Government’s regulator in the future. I would like to ask her—this goes back to an earlier conversation on the potential direction of travel, size and scope—how many staff will be transferred? What resources or properties are we talking about, so that taxpayers can understand, and what cost will there be to the taxpayer? Hopefully, those are fair questions.

We did seek to put an employee cap into the Bill to help to maintain value for money for taxpayers. I think that was a fair proposal, but Members did not agree with it or with the number of 50 that we put forward. However, the principle of trying to cap the size of the regulator is fair, especially given the size of some of the regulators that were described in comparison—I believe one had 900 members of staff. Most members of the public would be alarmed if the football regulator ended up anywhere near that, let alone a tenth of it. We are concerned, so I ask the Minister again, given the impact on costs to football clubs linked to the regulator, how big the Government expect it to grow. Can she also answer the questions that were raised about what will be transferred on day one?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions, which somewhat rehearse the previous debate on the staffing of the shadow regulator. He should have received an answer to the written question, and we spoke about this last time; as of 1 June, it has 42 staff. I cannot comment on exactly how many staff there will be at the point of Royal Assent. In my remarks, I said that upon the creation of the regulator, property rights, liabilities and staff will be transferred. I am happy at that point to write to the shadow Minister, but I will not speculate now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 10

State of the game report

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) an assessment of any existing and effective financial distribution agreement against the principles set out in section 62(2);”

This amendment would require the state of the game report to make an assessment of any existing and effective financial distribution agreement against the principles set out in distribution orders for the resolution process.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We are finally starting to get on to the football issues in the Bill. The state of the game report is obviously a key element. It will shape how the regulator operates, and eventually, the financial distribution, which we will come to later in the Bill. So the report is really important.

Amendment 2, without undermining what is already in the Bill in any way, simply ensures that the financial distribution as it exists, and as it might exist according to the principles laid out in further clauses of the Bill, is taken into account when developing the state of the game report. It brings a symmetry to the whole process, so that the state of the game report looks at the financial distribution, and when we come to the financial distribution, it goes back to look at the state of the game report. It is a simple amendment that makes the Bill coherent as a whole. I hope that the Minister might at least consider it when looking at how the Bill might be improved.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling this amendment. As I said in a previous sitting, we have a lot of respect for the work that he does chairing the football all-party parliamentary group.

The amendment would require the state of the game report to assess existing and effective financial distribution agreements against the principles. My understanding is that the amendment would therefore require the Independent Football Regulator to assess existing agreements against the principles in clause 62(2)—namely that they

“(a) should advance the IFR’s objectives,

(b) should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and

(c) should not, if a distribution order were made in accordance with the final proposal, result in a lower amount of relegation revenue”—

also known as parachute payments—

“being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to a club during that period had such a distribution order not been made.”

There are a lot of words there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I think I am reassured by what the Minister is saying. It is obviously quite a complicated area, and it links in to what comes later in the Bill. Maybe we can pursue this later. I want to be certain that the regulator has these powers, because I believe that much of the concern among football fans is around the current distribution of revenue, and we must ensure that when we have finished with the Bill, it sorts that problem out. At this stage I will not pursue this to a vote, but we will have discussions about distribution in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 123, 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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to debate amendment 122, 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.

[Mr French]

Clause 10 provides for what is described as a state of the game report—a new mechanism by which the Government’s regulator is expected to take stock of the health, direction and trends within English football. It is, in theory, a very valuable exercise for both fans and clubs. Done well, it offers an opportunity to review not only the financial condition of the game but its accessibility, integrity and future direction. But for the clause to serve its purpose, the report must include those issues which matter most to the people who sustain our national game—the fans that it purports to protect. That is why I wish to speak to my amendments 123 and 122.

Amendment 123 would require the state of the game report to include an assessment of the impact that the regulator’s activities have had on ticket prices. Amendment 122 is tabled in a similar vein, and would require that same assessment to appear in the regulator’s annual report as well. These are modest and reasonable proposals, but they are also very important.

The cost of attending football in this country has risen markedly in recent years. For millions of supporters, particularly those attending with children or travelling away from home, football is no longer the affordable pastime it once was—we have seen those protests in the stands and outside grounds on a number of occasions this season. While the causes are complex, it is certain that increased regulatory costs, compliance burdens and mandated structural changes may be passed on, directly or indirectly, to the supporter at the turnstile. If we are to create a regulator with statutory powers over finance, governance, and club operations, surely it is not too much to ask that we track the real-world consequences of those interventions.

[Max Wilkinson]

I think the hon. Gentleman is arguing that ticket prices are already going up anyway. Football clubs are raising their prices—in some cases, as fan groups have argued, in the case of Manchester United, for example, unnecessarily—and are discriminatorily against people who have disabilities. Certain concession tickets are being removed already. I wonder whether he might reflect on the free market as it currently operates in football, or whether that is failing already, so that the regulator actually is trying to solve some of these problems by ensuring that fans are properly engaged with on these matters.

[Mr French]

I absolutely understand the point that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats makes. One of the extreme examples, which he used, of Manchester United—if I remember correctly, the owner involved was one of the people who were coming out in support of a Labour Government before the last election, so it will be quite interesting to see what the Minister says about the behaviour of said advocate of the Labour Government in that regard. He makes an interesting point, because fans are being impacted by ticket prices; we all understand that. It is about, as I have consistently tried to say—it is a theme of our amendments—ensuring transparency about how the regulator is or is not impacting the game. We believe the amendment represents a fair and reasonable request—that someone marks the regulator’s homework so that we can understand the impact.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. By what measure will it be possible to work out that the cost of the Independent Football Regulator has a direct consequence on the price of tickets? For example, a club could look to recoup any losses from a regulator by increasing shirt sales, or by putting 10p on a pint on the commercial sales that they get as part of their matchday revenue. Is this amendment more politically motivated, to try to pass blame on to the IFR for any matchday ticket pricing, rather than to understand the true cost of the independent regulator to football clubs?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As I said, it really is about transparency. We believe that we, as elected Members of this House, need to have an understanding of the impact that the regulator will have on the ultimate person, which in this case is the club’s fans. That is what the amendment seeks to do.

I understand the hon. Member’s point, and I did say that the causes of price increases are complex. I will not read out all the figures, but clubs’ costs have increased just this year, whether because of energy bills, national insurance or wages. We are concerned about the burdens and requirements that the regulator will impose on clubs increasing their costs and about those being passed on to the end fan, who is already under significant pressure.

Ticket prices are not an incidental issue; they are a barometer of whether the game remains accessible to its core community. We know that regulation drives up prices, through compliance costs, as I have said, and by reducing investment and squeezing margins even further. The Government must have the courage to recognise that and to adjust course if necessary by ensuring greater transparency about costs. Requiring the regulator to report on that, in its general state of the game report and its annual report, would embed an essential feedback loop in statue. It would ensure that the impact on fans was not an afterthought, but a standing obligation for the regulator.

It is not enough for the Government’s regulator to simply say, “We have improved governance and we ensure sustainability,” if we then learn, in the same breath, that the average family can no longer afford to attend any more games. Football cannot become financially sustainable by pricing out its own supporters: I suspect all Members would agree on that point. I would add that ticket affordability is a deeply traditional concern. It goes to the very heart of football’s place in English lives. Fans must not be priced out of their favourite club in the name of regulation. If we forget that, we forget the point of the Bill, which is the fans.

Let me also stress that the amendment does not restrict the regulator. It does not tie its hands; it simply requires transparency. It says to the Government’s regulator: “If your actions are driving up the cost of entry to the game, tell us, tell the fans and tell Parliament.” Then, we can at least have an honest discussion in this House about whether those actions are justified or proportionate. That is especially important when we consider that many of the regulator’s decisions, whether on licensing, financial rules or ownership models, will almost certainly have financial consequences. Clubs will find ways to balance their books, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham just intervened to say, and if the regulation increases their fixed costs, the easiest lever to pull is ticket price. That is not conjecture; it is basic economics—although we know that some members of the Labour party struggle with that.

In the end, these two amendments ask only that we shine a light on the question that supporters ask every season: “Why is it getting more expensive to watch my club?” If relegation is part of the answer—[Interruption]—or rather if regulation is; relegation is definitely part of the answer—then we have a duty in this House to know and to ensure that we make laws that shine a light and ensure transparency for everyone to understand.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I rise as someone who currently has an invitation in my inbox to renew my season ticket for an eye-watering £950. I would love to know where all that money goes, as the shadow spokesman said, and why the price has gone in the direction it has.

The amendment should not be seen as counter to the regulator. There was significant pushback from the Government Benches when we tried to amend the regulator in terms of size and pay, and we also discussed the budget. If, in a regulated environment, the ticket price went up from £950 to, say, £980, then this amendment would ensure that fans were made aware that that 30 quid had gone on being part of a regulated industry. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for us to want to communicate with the viewing public. Equally, it would create a relationship between the fan and the regulator that might not otherwise be there, so I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

It is not clear to me that Ashford Town (Middlesex) would be one of the clubs covered by the regulator. I am not sure what division they are in, but I do not think they are in the top five at the moment, although I wish them well in the forthcoming season and their efforts for promotion.

[Mr French]

I am not going to guess what league that club is in, but I am sure they are brilliant, whoever they are. I will not seek to offend anyone’s club by not knowing what league they are in. But the fundamental premise of the argument that the Liberal Democrats are making is that this amendment would give bad owners, if we can describe them as that, a get-out clause to blame the regulator for decisions that they are making. I think that is the argument, and the hon. Member is nodding, but this amendment would, if anything, help to shine a spotlight to stop them making that argument, because they can do that regardless of the amendment. We know that a regulator will come in. The Labour party has a huge majority; the regulator is coming, so the same owners, using the same principle he has just argued, could still make that argument, regardless of this amendment, because they know that they will have extra duties. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that fans and ticket prices are at the heart of the reporting that we see in the future, as Members and as fans as well.

[Max Wilkinson]

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

[Stephanie Peacock]

The amendments from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup regarding ticket pricing touch on an important issue that I recognise is very important to fans. I reassure fans that the Bill will increase clubs’ overall accountability, including on this important issue. However, the annual report is not an effective place to address ticket prices.

Ticket pricing is fundamentally a commercial decision, and it would not be appropriate for the regulator to interfere with the commercial decisions of a private company. That is why the regulator will not intervene on this issue, aside from ensuring that clubs consult their fans on ticket pricing. It may well be that the regulator chooses to look at ticket pricing as part of the state of the game report, but mandating that it reviews the effect of its regulatory activities on ticket pricing as part of the report would be unnecessarily prescriptive.

Ticket pricing is ultimately a matter for clubs and is driven by many factors, but we do think it vital that fans are consulted and can have their voices heard. That is exactly why this Government amended the previous Government’s Bill to add an explicit requirement that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing and take their views into account as part of fan engagement. That is the way to ensure that fans can have their voices heard on such an impactful issue.

The amendment seems to assume that the cost will be passed on to fans in the form of higher ticket pricing. I want to be clear, as I was on Second Reading, that that would not be a proportionate response by clubs. If clubs increase ticket pricing, it will not be because they cannot otherwise afford to pay the regulator’s levy. As mentioned before, the cost of the regulator will be tiny compared with the vast revenue of the game, and the cost of the levy will not be among any club’s top area of expenditure.

Every measure has been taken to ensure affordability. No club will be charged to the point of needing to increase ticket pricing, and no fan will be subject to price rises without having their voice heard—I associate myself with the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

It is rather disappointing that the Liberal Democrats and Labour seem to be against the principle of transparency for fans of the impact on ticket prices, given that the issue is so pertinent to fans across the country. As Conservatives, we want to stick up for those fans. We understand the costs of going to a game, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said—I will not criticise his choice of club. Going to games and season tickets cost a lot of money for the average fan, and we have seen the impact of that. One example was the cost for Man City fans of coming down to the semi-final. Part of Wembley was empty because fans were saying that they could not afford the costs, because of the times of fixtures, although that is a slightly different point. We have to be mindful of the impact on ticket prices.

[Mr Dillon]

Supporters’ trusts and football fan bodies across the country support the establishment of a regulator, because they can see what the greater good is. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, even if there was a small increase in ticket prices, fans across the country would rather that there was a regulator tackling the systematic issues of football and accept that a small charge might be added to tickets? Their driver is for fairness across the game.

[Mr French]

That fans would be happy to accept higher prices is a brave argument to make, and it is not one that we are willing to accept. More broadly, we believe that Parliament must be able to scrutinise how much regulators, whether they are arm’s length, more direct or independent—however we label them—cost taxpayers and, in this case, fans. We believe that the sovereignty of this House demands a transparent report that Parliament and the public can analyse. We must understand the impact on ticket prices for fans. As Conservatives, we will stick up for fans today.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Swimming Facilities

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Ms Jardine—excellently chaired, as always. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate. We have had some excellent contributions across the Chamber. He spoke passionately about the case for more investment in swimming facilities across England. He also had brilliant contributions from colleagues in Scotland about important safety issues, particularly in open water swimming. I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of the arguments that have been made. I thank Swim England and those in the Swimming Alliance who are here today for their ongoing engagement with us as the official Opposition.

Swimming, as we have heard already, is a valuable life skill. Going for a swim can keep people of all ages fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. Knowing how to swim can save your life or someone else’s. That is why it is rightly part of the national curriculum. But, worryingly, we have seen a decline in young people’s swimming capabilities following the pandemic. According to Swim England, nearly a third of children leaving primary school cannot swim confidently, safely and unaided over 25 metres. As the sports body warns, there is a risk that many in this generation will simply not learn to swim. The complex causes of that are often seen in London, where swimming facilities are actually a lot better than other parts of the country.

[Jamie Stone]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my dismay that death by drowning is twice as common per head of population in Scotland as it is in England. Does that not say something about the under-provision that we currently have north of the border?

[Mr French]

Sadly, it does. Parts of the Swimming Alliance are looking very closely at the open swimming element because of the tragic examples where people lose their lives. We have to be conscious of that as we go into the summer months across Great Britain, when people are more likely to swim in open water.

We have sadly seen the closure of too many swimming pools in recent years, with the number of new pools opening being only half that of those that have closed. It is a trend that the previous Conservative Government fought hard against. In 2020, we launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund to keep leisure centres open in more than 260 local authorities.

More recently, in 2023, when rising energy prices threatened to close more swimming pools, we launched the £80 million swimming pool support fund. That crucial funding helped 102 local authorities to cover the spiralling costs that threatened to reduce and close even more facilities. Importantly, it funded nearly 550 projects across almost 350 leisure facilities to help them to reduce their energy bills. Those facilities included two in my home borough, the London borough of Bexley, where swimming remains very popular among my constituents. It is also where I learnt to swim, at the Crook Log leisure centre—not very well, I must say, although that is not a comment on their swimming lessons.

We invested to protect swimming facilities, but I now fear that, sadly, the trend of closure could accelerate under this new Government without new proposals coming forward. Schools struggling with the cost of the Labour Government’s national insurance increase might not be able to afford travel costs to local swimming pools. I am worried that the school tax will impact the areas of the country where the private pool in a school is the only swimming facility available, and about how that may impact local clubs looking to use it.

Councils are also braced for more spending pressures as inflation rises again and will struggle to keep public facilities afloat under Labour. My council has been hit with a £5 million extra cost this year just because of national insurance. Leisure facility costs are still rising, as we have heard, thanks in no small part to similar tax hikes. We have only to look at the letter from a number of providers that was made public yesterday to see their concern about the Government’s inaction.

While I appreciate that some of those matters are beyond the brief of the Minister for Sport, they are a consequence of her Government’s decisions. It is against that backdrop that she needs to lay out the Government’s plans to not only prevent more closures but open more swimming facilities, particularly in underserved communities around the country. What representations has the Minister made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the potential impact of council finances on swimming facilities? Will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport continue to provide capital funding to improve energy efficiency at our leisure centres and pools? What is her plan to reverse the trend of swimming pools closing, and promote open swimming because of the safety aspects that we have discussed, so that every generation has a chance to learn to swim?

This is an important issue for not only people’s health and wellbeing, but Britain’s sporting prowess. We all know the amazing British Paralympic and Olympic athletes and the representations they have made at the elite end of the sport. This is something that this Government must address to ensure that everyone can swim safely, and we will hold them to account to ensure that that happens in the years to come.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Louie French Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 118, in schedule 2, 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 114, in schedule 2, page 88, line 3, at end insert “including the Chair.”

This amendment makes it explicit that there must be a system for the declaration and relevant interests of the Chair of the Board.

Amendment 115, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) ‘relevant interest’ will always include donations to political parties.”

This amendment makes it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest.

Amendment 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—

“7A The Chair of the Board must not

(a) be a member of a political party,

(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or

(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”

This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.

Amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, 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.

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

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I appreciate your work and that of the Clerks to get some further information on the point. Just so that all Members are aware of the part of “Erskine May” to which I was referring, it says that

“a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.”

I appreciate your comments, but I think that the spirit of the House is quite clearly outlined there. I would like the Minister to publish the document so that Members can have a view.

I would also argue strongly on your last point, although I appreciate that this is a point of debate rather than one of fact, because I believe that the document in question is not a private letter but a piece of correspondence from a key international regulator to His Majesty’s Government. I believe that Members of this House deserve to have all the information available to make informed decisions about a regulator that will be of the utmost importance to football, as well as to this House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I know that there have been requests to see the letters that UEFA has sent to the Government. As a matter of course, the Government do not share private correspondence, as it would undermine the ability to have open, honest and frank discussions with key partners. It is worth stating that we wrote to UEFA asking whether it would be content for it to be published, but it confirmed that it would rather communications were kept private.

Paragraph 21.26 of “Erskine May” states:

“A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table. The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters”.

“Erskine May” is fairly clear that the Government are not bound to publish the letter, as I have not quoted from it. I refer the House to my earlier comments on the letter.

[Mr French]

I thank the Minister for her confirmation of her position. I appreciate her clarification of her perspective, although obviously I disagree with it; that is why I raised the point. I am concerned about this, and I will pick up the point with Mr Speaker afterwards, because there is a general theme here. This is not aimed at the Minister—I have a good relationship with her, and I respect her—but there is an ongoing issue, which has been expressed in this House in recent days, about the Government not being open and transparent with the House in other announcements that have been made.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I say gently to the hon. Member—this is a point that has been made by my hon. Friends behind me—that his Government did not publish any private correspondence from UEFA. There will be letters in existence similar to the one to which he refers. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), whom I like a great deal—indeed, I respect both gentlemen—did not publish those, so I am a bit confused about why the hon. Gentleman is making this very well-rehearsed argument, which is contrary to what his Government did.

[Mr French]

It is not well rehearsed—it is not in my speaking notes at all. It is just a general point of principle that this House should be able to hold the Government to account with full information. I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy, so I will get back to the amendments. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have lots of support from Government Members.

Schedule 2 sets out the constitution of the Independent Football Regulator for an initial period when it is first being established, and for subsequent periods thereafter. It contains detailed provisions about the appointment of the chairman, deputy chairmen and non-executive members of the board, and the rules by which somebody may be appointed to the board in relation to conflicts of interest. On conflicts of interest in particular, the Government have left much to be desired, so we seek to correct some serious omissions.

As we have seen in recent weeks, the Labour Government have politicised what was supposed to be an independent football regulator by appointing a crony. That is nothing short of a disgrace—such a disgrace, in fact, that the Secretary of State has been forced to recuse herself from any further part in the appointment of the chair. As I said this morning, that is now a point of independent inquiry, so it is not just my opinion. There is clearly a concern, which is why the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be looking very closely at it.

That is why I tabled amendment 117. As we know, although only because of his revelations at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Government’s appointee donated to the Secretary of State’s leadership campaign. We believe that she did not declare that in line with the ministerial code. We also believe that it was not disclosed earlier. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Secretary of State concealed that information from Parliament? We believe that there was no reference to that donation on Second Reading. Did the Minister know that the proposed chairman had donated to both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? Will she confirm whether she or any other member of this Committee has received any donations from the chairman of the regulator? Is she concerned about what the independent inquiry that was announced yesterday might mean for the future of the regulator, if it is found that the process has been breached?

Those are really fundamental points, because a breach of the process will have direct consequences for a lot of what we are discussing today. It will throw English football up in the air and bring it into disrepute if the first chairman of the regulator is found to have been appointed without the Government following due process.

[The Chair]

Order. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is going, and I will certainly not prevent the Minister from responding to the points that he has raised. I would say, though, that this Bill is not about the appointment of an individual to this position, but about the creation of the position in the first place. We must constrain our debate to the content of the Bill, which does not, I am afraid, include decisions about which individual may occupy the office if created.

[Mr French]

I understand your point, Sir Jeremy, and will try to stick closer to the amendments as requested, but amendment 117 is about ensuring that political donations are made transparently and up front so that all Members, including Select Committee members, have the information to hand when they are making informed decisions as elected Members of Parliament.

Amendments 118 and 119, which are also in my name, are designed to further reinforce the appointment process for the chair of the board and the expert panel. As I have just highlighted, the Government have made a bit of a mockery of the process already. It desperately needs solidifying, so amendment 118 seeks to prohibit 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. I hope that hon. Members understand why I make that point.

In certain civil service roles or other roles linked to the public sector, there are restrictions not only on political interference, but on what can be said publicly and in other aspects of a person’s life. I am concerned about what would happen if, say, Gary Neville—I am not just starting on him, I promise—or Jamie Carragher were suddenly appointed to the football regulator. Would this House be comfortable with those people—again, this is just an example—making comments about the regulation of football while having a commercial interest as a media pundit or commentator? Personally, I would not be comfortable with it, because a range of issues could arise. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that we do not believe that people in those positions should hold media roles.

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

I am interested to know where the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to; I am not quite sure that he knows, at this stage. He is saying that anyone who has a role with influence in any of these matters should not be a media commentator. Does that go for MPs? I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s ex-colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg appeared as a presenter on GB News while he was still an MP. Is there not a conflict of interest there, or are such conflicts very specific to this one job?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening. As was the case before lunch, I am happy to have this debate in Committee. I should not talk about people who are no longer Members of this House; they are private individuals and are no longer linked to the Government, and they are certainly not part of the Independent Football Regulator. I refer the Committee to my comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about why the independence of football is so important.

I will not get into the jurisdiction of Ofcom and what it is looking at with regard to political people on TV networks, because that is not what the Bill is about. My point is that the chair is an independent person who will be appointed to independently regulate football. Should they have a dual role that includes media punditry, commentary or other media work? We believe that the answer is no. Ensuring that they cannot have such a role would ensure that there are no vested interests in the process.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member’s amendment reads:

“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.”

It does not state that, if appointed, they could leave that role and take on their role as a regulator, as most people do when they enter a role as a regulator. It says “currently”, so it would essentially prevent anyone who might have that knowledge and understanding from being appointed. His amendment does not say anything about their leaving or resigning; it just says “currently”.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. There is an important reason why it says “currently”. We are not trying to prohibit people who might have the relevant experience. We are trying to prohibit someone from having the dual role of being on the independent regulator while also being in the media world. That is quite clear; she has just read it out.

[Amanda Martin]

It does not say “dual”.

[Mr French]

But that is the point that we are making: we believe that that is a conflict of interest. In our debate on schedule 2, we will come on to the definition of conflicts of interest in relation to the board. We are concerned that what a conflict of interest will look like is very opaque.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the football all-party parliamentary group, made an interesting point about the relevant skills and experience of people we want on the regulator, and earlier I mentioned the difficulty of finding a chair who has those skills and that experience and is seen as non-biased. We will also make a point—I give warning—about some of the other appointments to the board. We desperately need clarification on how conflicts of interest will be managed while appointing people who have the relevant skills and experience.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is dangerous to indulge in hypotheticals, but if an applicant for the football regulator chair role had been integral to the negotiation of broadcasting rights for the Premier League, would they not be conflicted in their duties under the Bill? They would have done something in their former life that could disadvantage certain leagues and certain divisions of the league, and they would be seeking to protect that legacy.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting and important intervention. I touched on this concern briefly before lunch. The perception of such a conflict of interest is a particular problem in the choice of chair. I appreciate your comments, Sir Jeremy, about sticking to the scope of the Bill, but there is a broader point here about how the Bill is drafted to ensure that such conflicts of interest do not arise.

As our amendments on this issue make clear, we are talking about people who are currently holding jobs, but we would expect that the interests of any person appointed to a board such as this would not conflict with their ability to make independent decisions. My concern is that that perception, rightly or wrongly—I genuinely mean that—will be applied to future decisions because of the chair who has been chosen and his experience. That is not personal; I am just concerned that that will be a problem for any future decisions.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

When I first read the amendment, I assumed that it would apply to somebody who owned a stake in a broadcasting company: a famous podcaster or someone who owned a famous podcasting outlet, for example. I understand why that might be a conflict of interest, but if it is somebody who is commenting on whether a penalty or a refereeing decision was any good, I do not quite understand how that would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps the hon. Member can enlighten me.

[Mr French]

That is a fair question. We know how the media works. How can I put this? There is a desire for certain people to make certain comments that might be controversial. Our concern is that such comments could undermine the regulator straightaway. With the amendment, we are trying to be as clear as possible and avoid a headache down the line for the Government, so that the Bill not only covers interests such as shareholdings but ensures that no conflict of interest could arise from working for the regulator.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I think I understand where the shadow Minister is going on conflicts of interest, a subject that the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised, but can he advise me how the amendment would help in addition to paragraph 6(1) and (2) of schedule 2, which in effect says that nobody can be appointed to the board unless there is confirmation that they do not have a conflict of interest? If the conflict of interest test can be satisfied, I am unclear as to why the amendment is necessary.

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer the question, and I appreciate how it was put: it was not adversarial, but on a factual point. We are trying to clarify the point. In the Bill, as drafted, it is not clear what a conflict of interest is. The amendment seeks to make a specific example of an area that we think would be a particular problem for the regulator, and clarify what a conflict of interest is in this regard. I hope that that explains the amendment.

[Jon Pearce]

With respect, in most areas of professional life, conflicts of interest will have to be declared. There is not an exhaustive list of what might constitute a conflict of interest, because that is almost impossible, so whether there is a conflict of interest is a matter of fact to be tested. I go back to the point that if we start defining what might constitute a conflict of interest, a limited amendment such as this one would have to become exhaustive. I do not see how that could ever be possible.

[Mr French]

I appreciate those comments. We will come on to conflicts of interest, and it is a question that I will put to the Minister, because the Committee and the House have to be clear and confident about what a conflict of interest might look like for the regulator. We will come on shortly to appointments to the expert panel. In such appointments, if there are no clear lines of accountability on what we believe to be conflicts of interest, I fear that we could have a situation like the one we have just had with the chair, in which the Government did not feel that there was a conflict of interest, but most people observing the appointment would say that there was a quite clear conflict, given the donations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Labour party. Those are the points we are making, and I am happy to debate the matter further as we make progress. I have given the Minister some extra reading time on what I plan to ask about conflicts of interest.

A crucial point was made about how boards work differently in different sectors, and about whether conflicts are transcribed early on, so that everyone understands what we believe a conflict of interest is. We want to ensure that there are no vested interests in the process and that no one side will benefit from the simple fact that a chair is interested in that same side; that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. By accepting the amendment, alongside our other amendments, the Committee could ensure total independence of the chair of the regulator both from this Government and from industry insiders. That is our objective.

Amendment 114 would make it explicit that there must be a system for the chair of the board to declare their relevant interests. As we have discussed, this needs to be explicit within the Bill because of how the Government have conducted themselves in the appointment process. We have seen that this Labour Government cannot be trusted to run the process properly or ensure that full and proper declarations are made. The amendment would make sure that nobody in this Government’s regulator can avoid being transparent with the public on their conflicts of interest. This amendment has become necessary because of the Government’s actions and their disdain for Parliament and public accountability.

It could be argued that the Secretary of State has hidden her interest in the appointment process to date, especially because she did not declare her interest on Second Reading. This amendment would provide much-needed transparency on the future of the regulator and its chair, whoever he or she may be. I would like to think that Ministers are in favour of full and proper transparency, unless there is something that the Government wish to hide from us. As I said, we found out about the donations only at the last minute, through a declaration made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This House would not otherwise have known. It troubles me deeply, regardless of which parties were involved, that Members made decisions without knowing about the donations.

Alongside amendments 117, 118 and 114, I have tabled amendment 115. As I have said repeatedly, this Government’s behaviour throughout the process has been nothing short of a disgrace. We found out about the appointee’s donations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State only via a Select Committee, and we did not know about them on Second Reading.

Without the appointee’s last-minute admission, we would have been in the dark. We do not know whether the Secretary of State would have been transparent about the donations she received. She has now recused herself, but we must remember that she nominated that person for the Select Committee’s consideration, which is a really important point that I am sure the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will look at closely. We cannot allow this sort of cover-up to continue, as we need a sustainable independent regulator. Amendment 115 would make it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest, as they have been proven to be by this Government.

I have also tabled amendment 116, which would ensure that politics is kept out of football. This debate is making me very uncomfortable as a football fan. I do not believe that politics should be anywhere near football, and it is because of this kind of issue. This has brought football into disrepute, and it is not just me saying that—it is across all the sports pages.

I am concerned about politics being dragged into football, and this amendment would require that the chair is not a member of a political party and does not publicly campaign or demonstrate support for one. It has been drafted in line with other such roles where chairmen are required to be politically neutral. Again, I believe this is common sense, and I hope all Members would support it.

Once again, this is an issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Requiring the chair of the board not to be a member of a political party or to campaign in a political way would protect the integrity of football and the regulator.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Amendment 116 also says that the chairman must not campaign

“on behalf of a candidate”,

which also applies at a local authority level. The regulator could have a friend standing as an independent candidate for a council. That would not be party politics, but the regulator would be barred from canvassing at a super-local level on a “save our local hospital” campaign, which really has no relevance to the football governance role that they hold. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that his amendment would too greatly impede the regulator’s ability to express their democratic rights in society while holding the role?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. [Interruption.] I am afraid that we have been beaten by the bell.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We had a couple more votes than we were expecting, but Members will recall that we were debating the group of amendments beginning with amendment 117.

[Mr French]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I do not have the quote in front of me, so I will paraphrase, but I believe that the Select Committee also praised, or acknowledged, Mr Kogan’s candour and transparency—the fact that he was open with them—and of course the Committee did endorse him. I will heed your yellow card, Sir Jeremy.

[Mr French]

The amendment is quite clear that it is not about the individual but the process going forward for transparency on donations. I will not mention the gentleman, but the other question that the Minister was answering before the intervention related to the rules and duties on Ministers and Members of this House. She made the point about disclosure thresholds within the code, but the spirit of the rules makes it quite clear that any perceived conflicts of interest must be disclosed. It is my understanding that that had not happened, which is the point that I was trying to make.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman gets ahead of himself; he is somewhat excited this afternoon. That was my second point—I have numbered my points one and two, and I have a third to make. He asked about members of the Committee. It is for hon. Members to declare relevant interests, and when we began the sitting this morning hon. Members did indeed refer to their entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not want to be drawn any further on the details of the process as that would not be appropriate. I have made all the comments I can within the confines of the topic and the yellow card you very kindly gave, Sir Jeremy. I will therefore move on to talk briefly about the amendments.

I will explicitly state that the independence of the regulator is paramount. The Bill is, as the hon. Gentleman said, designed to create an independent football regulator free from any undue political or industry influence. That has always been and continues to be our aim. In the service of that, we have already strengthened the Bill further, now requiring the regulator to establish and maintain a register of relevant interests of members of the board. That already includes the chair, so any further amendment is not necessary.

The definition of relevant interests in the Bill is already broad enough to include political donations if they are relevant to the regulator’s functions. The appointment of the chair is subject to the governance code on public appointments, which clearly sets out that any political activity

“should not…be a bar to appointment”,

as well as the requirements in relation to the declaration of political activity. That point has been well rehearsed; indeed, the Liberal Democrat spokesman made it earlier, as have other hon. Members.

The chair of the regulator is already required to undergo a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing, which we have debated at length. Pre-appointment scrutiny is reserved for the most significant roles, including those where demonstrable independence from the Government is required. The chair and other non-executive members of the board would also be bound by the code of conduct for members of public body boards, which sets clear expectations around political impartiality once in a role. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is robust in ensuring the independence of both the chair and board members more widely. The amendments would not in any substantive manner increase the level of protection in the Bill against undue political influence over the chair.

I turn to the amendments 118 and 119 about conflicts of interest for the board and the expert panel. I reassure the Committee that the Bill, supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest, irrespective of sector. It is also important that the widest possible range of people are encouraged to apply to contribute their skills and experience so long as any and all conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.

Government amendments made in the other place have strengthened those protections even further, and beyond doubt. Paragraph 17 of schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters that fall for consideration by the board, and for that declaration to be recorded. The board member would not be permitted to take part in any discussions related to a matter if they have a significant direct or indirect interest in it.

With specific regard to the expert panel in amendment 119, the Bill already places an onus on the chief executive officer to check for conflicts of interest at the point of making an appointment to the expert panel and on an ongoing basis from time to time. The Bill sets out that the chief executive officer must ensure that the expert panel has all the relevant range of skills, knowledge and experience. The amendment might limit the ability of the chief executive officer to do that, as it would restrict the pool of potential members of the expert panel. It may well be appropriate for the expert panel to have expertise in media or broadcasting, but the amendment would outright preclude that, and so might hinder the regulator’s ability to fulfil its objectives.

All in all, the Bill contains comprehensive safeguards to examine and manage genuine conflicts of interest appropriately. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr French]

I have heard the Minister’s comments clearly and I am afraid that I am not filled with confidence, not necessarily because I doubt what she says or her intentions but because of the proven experience of the situation in which we find ourselves. I appreciate the yellow card, so I will not go fully back into that, but it does bring into question the judgment of Ministers and individuals and whether we can have certainty in these steps and measures. The Opposition think these amendments are not party political at all. We want to ensure that we have transparency and absolute security that whoever is appointed to these positions will act with complete neutrality and independence, and avoid any perception of bias. I will not repeat the arguments of why that is so important for sport and the independence of sport. We will press our amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That result may not have come as a surprise. Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to move amendment 116 formally?

[Mr French]

I do, Sir Jeremy. I am hoping for a different outcome on this one.

Amendment proposed: 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—

“7A The Chair of the Board must not

(a) be a member of a political party,

(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or

(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”—(Mr French.)

This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. For the reassurance of the Committee, we will reach amendment 119 later because we have not yet got to that point in the Bill.

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 138, in schedule 2, 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.”

As always, you are keeping me on my toes today, Sir Jeremy; I thought we were about to vote on amendment 119. We always learn something new in Bill Committees. Amendment 138 raises a serious and growing concern, so I will be very clear about what the amendment would do. We seek to limit the number of employees of the Independent Football Regulator to a maximum of 50. We think that is quite fair. I could have proposed 20, 10 or some other number, but I thought 50 was fair, based on the conversations that we have had with the football world.

Our serious and growing concern is about not just what the legislation says, but the consequences of the way this Government have chosen to structure the regulator. The amendment uncovers and seeks to prevent the key problem with the Government’s regulator, which we believe is purely that it will ultimately put up prices for fans. This morning, the Minister said that her Government have not claimed that the regulator will solve all the problems, and while that may be true, we believe that her regulator will actively create more problems for clubs and for fans. I will come on to the problems that we believe it will cause for clubs later in the Bill, but, to be clear, we put fans first and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

The creation and operation of the Government’s regulator and the burdens it generates will impose a very real cost on clubs. I suspect that will not have a massive impact on the billionaire owners of the big clubs, or the executives, consultants and lawyers employed in the football industry, but it will significantly affect clubs that are already subject to serious financial constraints and those lower down the pyramid.

Let us begin with the principle. I do not believe that anyone here disputes the need to protect the long-term sustainability of English football and the need for English football to be sustainable, even if definitions of “sustainable” differ. However, if the Government genuinely intend to safeguard the game for future generations, creating a vast and costly bureaucracy is not the way to do that—yet that is what this regulator will do. It will increase the costs on clubs, which will ultimately have no choice but to pass them on to fans. That view is accepted by those in the industry that I have discussed this with. This Government have chosen bureaucracy over the beautiful game and its fans. It is the ever-present home and away supporters who will end up bearing the brunt of the costs of this regulator.

Turning to the specifics of amendment 138, last week I submitted a written question to the Secretary of State to ask how many appointments had been made to the shadow football regulator already and how many of those appointed were previously employed in her Department. I know from conversations I have had with the EFL, the National League, the Premier League and the FA that the shadow regulator has already begun to scale up. When my noble Friend Lord Moynihan asked the Lords Minister a similar question in the other place in December, the answer, which was received in January, stated that the number of IFR employees already stood at 38. As it happens, the answer to my written question is due today. Can the Minister save me the trouble of waiting for that response to come through online and tell us here and now how many full-time equivalent staff are currently working on the shadow regulator and how many of those were previously employed in her Department as employees, advisers or appointees?

[Stephanie Peacock]

There were 42 employees as of 1 June; 11 joined having previously been employed by DCMS and two joined having formerly advised DCMS. The answer is due by 6 o’clock today and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives it in writing by then.

[Mr French]

I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I used to advise businesses on their target operating models, so I understand how to build teams and structures. On what basis does the hon. Member think that the figure of 50 is correct? What work has he done to understand the different structures that will be required? How does he think the aims of the Bill can be achieved with a staff of 50?

[Mr French]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am about to answer that. The figure is based on conversations with the leagues and other regulators already in play. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in the points I am coming to.

We have heard that the number of people employed is 42. Unofficially, before today, I was told that it would be 80. That is the rumour going around the football world, but we have clarity from the Minister that it will be 42. [Interruption.] That is based on conversations with clubs. That is what engagement is about. That is why we asked the question. We are not basing the figure on rumour; I have just asked the question. That number will include civil servants, of course, and, as we have heard, regulatory specialists, policy advisors, analysts, stakeholder engagement leads, public affairs professionals and legal advisors, all of them at considerable expense to the taxpayer in the short term, and at significant cost to football fans in the longer term, as costs are passed on. In our conversations, the industry shared concerns about the scale and cost, especially compared with how football currently operates.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe just made a point about the size of the regulator. I do not think it is fair to quote someone directly when they are not here, or to quote an informal conversation, but I understand from a briefing that was given to the Lords, and a similar conversation that took place with me directly, that a gentleman very well-respected in football—who was key to this Bill—suggested that the work of the regulator could be done with several people. That was his expert opinion. When I suggest 50 people in this amendment, I am being very generous, given what the football industry believes the number should be, the costs and the fact that other regulatory bodies will still be involved in football.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I think we all agree that any regulator, including this one, should be agile, proportionate and just large enough to do its job, but is it really the role of politicians to pluck figures out of the air based on rumour and conversations, and put them in a Bill in a way that ties the regulator to that figure forever and a day? I know it is a maximum figure, but should not politicians stick to the thing that they do best—setting regulation and making the law—rather than trying to specify the detail of individual organisations that have a job to do?

[Mr French]

I respect the hon. Member’s comments, but I think that this issue is fundamental to the discussion. The Opposition are seriously concerned about the cost and scope of this regulator, and how that will impact both clubs and fans in football’s delicate international ecosystem, so this issue is pertinent to the point that we are trying to make. The number that we have reached was not plucked out of the air. We had discussions with people directly involved in running football to try to ascertain an appropriate number of employees for the regulator. People in football are concerned about how big this regulator has become, and how quickly, even before the chairman has his feet under the table.

[James Naish]

The shadow Minister says that one individual suggested that several people would be sufficient, yet he claims that the figure of 50 is not plucked out of thin air. I ask him again: what modelling has been done, how many departments would be involved, and how many people would be in each of those departments, so that he can credibly stand there and say that 50 is an adequate number?

[Mr French]

I am slightly confused. The hon. Member for Dartford is telling me that we should not dictate how the regulator works and how it manages staff, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is saying the opposite. We have suggested a cap, and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on what that cap should be and how many employees she believes the regulator will need. That is important because we are passing a piece of legislation that is the first of its kind, and it will create extra costs for clubs that, as I am arguing, clearly will be passed on to fans. If the essence of the Bill is to protect clubs and fans, we need an honest, open conversation about how big the regulator should be. The Conservatives have tabled a sensible amendment that seeks to cap the regulator’s size in line with how other regulatory bodies in the sporting world work. That is the premise of our amendment. I would like to move on, because I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy.

We are told that, once operational, the Government’s regulator will be funded through yet another statutory levy. That may sound benign but, in practice, it will be yet another financial obligation imposed on clubs, many of which, particularly in the National League and the EFL, are already stretched due to increases in other bills that we have already seen this year. Higher energy bills, national insurance, and employment costs around wages are real costs with which clubs are already struggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The Committee will recall that we were discussing amendment 138 to schedule 2. As usual, it was the shadow Minister who was interrupted.

[Mr French]

I am getting used to being interrupted, Sir Jeremy. This is so thrilling that people want to escape as quickly as possible. Before the Division, we were highlighting that clubs will have no choice but to pass these additional costs from the regulator on to fans. As we have explained, we believe that a number of clubs are financially stretched, particularly as we go lower down the pyramid, although that is not always the case, as clubs’ finances differ.

We believe that this cost will go on to fans, by which we mean higher ticket prices and higher merchandise costs. Matchday programmes, concessions, streaming fees and even transport subsidies and loyalty schemes could be scaled back as clubs tighten their belt, and they will be required to tighten that belt even further. This is not just speculation; it is the economic reality that clubs are experiencing, according to their feedback, although I appreciate that economic reality is not always the Government’s strong suit.

This matters because, as those of us who still manage to watch our local clubs know, the cost of attending football matches has already become prohibitive to many families. The idea that we are creating a regulatory regime in the name of protecting fans while simultaneously driving up the cost of a matchday experience is not only a contradiction; it is laughable.

[James Naish]

What figure is the shadow Minister using for how much a single full-time employee would cost that leads to the total of 50 in this proposal? What figure is he using to say that this will be economically prohibitive for clubs?

[Mr French]

The structure of the regulator is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, so I will not drift too much because I have already been yellow carded by the Chair, to use a football term. However, we have made it quite clear that we are trying to limit the size of the regulator because we are already concerned, and that question about costs is one that I want to ask the Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will come on to this shortly.

The Opposition have been clear that we will not oppose the Bill for the sake of opposition, but like many fans and clubs up and down the pyramid, we are worried about how these bills will be paid. A regulator of this scale, with powers of licensing, enforcement, business model oversight, owner scrutiny, fan engagement mandates and financial analysis, does not come cheap, yet nowhere in the Bill do we see sufficient transparency or constraint on how big this body might grow to be, including how many people it may hire or how heavy-handed it may become. That is our concern regarding scope creep.

Let us not forget that the Football Association already exists, the EFL has its own monitoring tools and the Premier League already has fit and proper tests and financial regulation. This new regulator risks not only duplicating existing efforts but adding an entirely new layer of complexity, cost and compliance for clubs, particularly those already operating on a knife edge. The smaller clubs that are already struggling will, in a cruel twist of fate, be the clubs that suffer the most. When they are forced to divert resources away from their academies, community foundations or stadium improvements to pay for the regulator’s levy, it will be fans who feel it first and the Government who will deserve the blame.

Looking forward, what is the projected headcount of the football regulator over the next three years? What is its estimated operational cost in its first full year? How much of that cost is expected to be recovered from clubs? Will the Minister provide exemptions for smaller clubs or those in financial distress, or will this be another flat levy that hits the lower leagues the hardest?

Good governance in football is vital, but so is affordability, restraint and remembering that every pound extracted from the system is ultimately paid by someone—the fan in the stand, the father and daughter already paying £90 to sit in the upper tier of some Premier League clubs, the lifelong fan who travels to away games week in, week out, and the dedicated fans who create their own podcast to discuss their club’s trials and tribulations. There are lots of podcasts out there, and I could recommend a few. On a more serious note, they are the ones who will suffer, and they are the lifelines that clubs will lose. We are already seeing fans protesting ticket prices in the streets and the stands. We are concerned that the burdens from extra reporting will increase the cost for those fans.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am a new Member and I was not here for the previous iteration of the Bill, brought forward by the previous Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether the regulator his Government proposed would have been entirely staffed by volunteers? How it was going to be funded? Was there any kind of levy proposed? Please forgive my ignorance.

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that question. I think it is quite clear. The comparison is drawn and it is argued that this is the same regulator as before, but it is not. We clearly have different political opinions about what regulation might look like and how big it might be. These are the questions that we are trying to tease out. We are trying to put a cap in place because we are concerned that what is being proposed in the Bill will significantly increase the size of the regulator and its cost. These are the key points the amendment is designed to draw out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he has concerns about the cost of the regulator, will support it.

It is clear that the Government’s Bill for the regulator is not about lowering costs for fans or improving the experience of football. It is about Government control and intervention into more aspects of our lives. By limiting the number of employees that the Government’s regulator can employ, as those across the industry have suggested, we can make sure that fans are protected and clubs not over-burdened with new costs and regulations, because in football, as in politics, promises are easy but the bill always comes due.

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to make two quick points. First, it seems to me that the previous Government were going to impose extra regulation, and there would have been a regulator that probably would not have been run by volunteers. By the logic we have heard today, the Conservatives previously proposed some kind of increase that they worried would put up ticket prices. I do not agree that that is necessarily going to happen.

Secondly, one of the first things that my local club, Cheltenham Town, said to me after I was elected, was, “Please support the Football Governance Bill, because that will make our club more sustainable.” Then I spoke to the Robins Trust, of which I am a member, and it said, “Please support the Football Governance Bill.” If the club and the fans are both saying, “Please support the Football Governance Bill,” it is my duty as their local Member of Parliament to take their word for it that they think things will get better as a result of the Bill.

Cheltenham Town is a League Two club; sometimes, in a good period, they are in League One, but these are not people who are burdened by the concerns of billions of pounds, as at Manchester United. Ticket prices at Cheltenhm are about £20—I think I might be able to get in for £20 for some games. Price sensitivity is probably an issue for Cheltenham Town fans and the club, and they tell me I should back this legislation, so I do not know why, based on that and having heard the arguments made by the shadow Minister, I should change my mind, because there is nothing to suggest that anything has changed between the previous regulator and the newly proposed regulator. The opinions of the club that I serve are entirely clear.

[Max Wilkinson]

We have a fundamental disagreement here on the Bill and the need for regulation. It is clear that the Conservatives have decided that they will now not support the concept of a football regulator. That is a perfectly legitimate political decision. It is also legitimate to point out that that was not their view until a few short weeks ago. It is also legitimate for me to point out that both the club I represent and the fans are telling me that I should support the Bill.

I hate to make a point about political ideology, but sometimes I do. This perhaps is one of those instances when we just have to let organisations decide for themselves. My understanding is that traditionally that has been a Conservative thing. Someone sets up something or there is an existing business, and the Conservatives might say that that organisation can make decisions for itself. The next amendment is about salaries, and I will probably make the same point. Sometimes we just have to let organisations make their own decisions and let the market decide.

[Mr French]

If we follow that train of thought and bring it back to what we have been talking about today, which is a regulator, does the hon. Member believe that such a hands-off approach to a regulator is common sense, given the issues of regulation that we now see across our country—issues that the Liberal Democrats often campaign on—which call into question the expanded powers that regulators have failed to act on. Using that same philosophy we should try to ensure at this point in time that this regulator does not end up in the same bad place as regulators in other parts of our economy.

[Max Wilkinson]

The shadow Minister makes a persuasive point, but I still do not understand why it is right for politicians to say, before a regulator has even been set up, “You may have no more than x employees.” I shall end there.

[Melanie Onn]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to address some of the points about the costs. I fear that as we discuss each amendment we run the risk of disappearing down quite a few rabbit holes and losing sight of the Bill’s principle and purpose.

Everyone will have received the submission from Fair Game, a collaboration among the smaller clubs that are concerned about the football pyramid as a whole. Fair Game’s biggest concern is not the potential for runaway regulator costs, although it is important that the costs are proportionate. Nobody is saying, “Let’s have a cast of thousands,” but the shadow Minister has failed to provide any workings-out for his number in respect of the scope and size of the organisation.

The fundamental issue for clubs is not the costs of the regulator and the economics of the bureaucracy. The issue for them is how little the smaller clubs get from broadcasting and attendance, and the fact that the football pyramid is entirely broken. If we fail to remember that in each debate, we will fail to assess and address the points that are being made up and down the country. The shadow Minister keeps referring to the costs of premiership clubs, but the majority of areas around the country do not have premiership clubs; they have clubs in the Championship and below. Those clubs are struggling to make ends meet and to keep going year by year, and they are seeing extraordinary disparities in the entirety of the financial system.

It is worth referring to the disproportionate spread of the costs. The broadcasting deal controlled by the Premier League is worth £3.2 billion, of which 88% goes to Premier League clubs and 70% goes to clubs in receipt of parachute payments. The remaining 5% is then split between the next 138 clubs. I would say that clubs’ futures and costings rest on issues that relate to that, not on the costs of setting up a regulator. If we continue with the argument of not wanting the associated costs, we will not have a regulator. We cannot have one free. It comes down to the fundamental question of whether we do or do not want one. The Opposition currently seem to be going down the route of saying, “We don’t want one.”

[Mr French]

The hon. Lady is missing the point of what I said. By adding tens of millions of pounds, which I suspect will end up being the cost of the regulator—the Minister will be able to explain the figure—we are not reducing the cost for clubs but adding further costs. We will get on to distribution—

[Melanie Onn]

I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I promise that if he goes on too long, I will stop him.

[Mr French]

We will come to the distribution of media rights and so on, to which the hon. Lady referred, but that is separate from the problem that we are talking about, which is that if the regulator is too big, it will add to the costs and there will not be as much money to go down the pyramid.

[Melanie Onn]

The shadow Minister might be surprised to hear that I understand perfectly well what he said, as I have understood on all the previous occasions on which I have intervened. I am sorry that he does not seem to recognise that I do.

If the clubs had more money in the first place, because the structure of the pyramid and the flow of the finances were right, some additional cost proportionate to the size of a club would not be prohibitive to that club. Therein lies the problem: we fix the issue with the pyramid and then everything else will flow from that, and we can do that only with the existence of a regulator. The regulator cannot exist in isolation. It must have some supportive executive functions to be able to fulfil its roles and responsibilities in this weighty Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

[Mr French]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

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

[Mr French]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I—

[Mr French]

I am sorry to jump in—I am a bit keen. The point that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe makes supports the point that we have made throughout. The political argument that the Government have made is that the objective is to have a light-touch regulator. Does my hon. Friend agree that by trying to limit its size, in principle, we are helping the Government to do exactly what they are promising?

[Lincoln Jopp]

We do not know yet what the target operating model will be. I think the Government can do that work, as they have a pretty clear picture of the functions of the regulator that are envisaged in the Bill. The shadow Minister asked the Minister to give some indication of the limits on money and structure, because we have the powers and the functions. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to hear the Minister’s answers.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. I note the irony of him saying he does not want to oppose the Bill for the sake of it, given our discussion today and the fact that the Bill began its life under his Government. I completely understand the intent to ensure that we do not end up with an overstaffed regulator that is not delivering value for money. That is exactly why there are appropriate controls over the regulator’s expenditure.

Proportionality is key to the point about costs. We will have a further debate today or on Thursday about the regulatory principles, which are really important, but the operational cost estimate is between £77.4 million and £106.8 million over 10 years. That was based on the impact assessment signed off by the previous sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry. Those costs have not changed—with the caveat, of course, that that is an estimate.

[Mr French]

The Minister referred to an impact assessment based on the previous Bill. Given that there are changes in this Bill, will a new assessment with estimated costs be published for hon. Members to understand?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We do not believe that the changes are significant enough to lead to a significant increase in costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

[Mr French]

I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and to the answers provided by the Minister. I am concerned that the Government will not publish a refreshed impact assessment because, as I have highlighted, the costs to businesses and football clubs around the country have increased since the impact assessment was published. The regulator designed by the current Government also differs from the previous Government’s. We believe that it is bad practice for Members not to have all the information to hand for a live discussion about the expected costs of the regulator or concise information about what the size of the regulator may be.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? The Minister said that some indicative numbers for the costs came from the impact assessment for the previous version of the Bill. I asked her what personnel numbers that was based on, because if such assumptions do not underpin the budget, that is as random a number as any.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The amendment is about the headcount, and he asked the Government, who oppose the amendment, what assumptions they have made for the headcount in their financial calculations. That is a completely fair question for Committee members to ask in this debate. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer, and I do not believe my hon. Friend is either, based on his intervention. Members should have the information on the impact of staff costs. I have set out some of my concerns about what it may mean for fans down the line. I am afraid we have not had assurances that give us any confidence that the Government will seek to cap the size of the regulator. We want to get a vote on the record, because we believe there should be a cap on the size of the independent regulator.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 9

Ayes: 3

---

Conservative: 3

Noes: 13

---

Labour: 11
Liberal Democrat: 2

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, 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.

It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I have not said it in a while—even if you have given me a yellow card. At least in football that does not mean the sin bin, so I can keep playing.

Let me explain why the amendment is important. In doing so, I will stick to the principle of trying to play not the man but the ball. We tabled the amendment to make sure that taxpayers and fans get value for money from the Government—in what would be a first since their election. It would limit the pay of the chief executive of the Government’s regulator to make sure that they are not paid more than the Prime Minister. Who would argue with the principle that the chief executive of a regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country, whatever you think of him or her at the time?

It is a fair amendment that would also ensure that non-executive board members determine employees’ pay, instead of the chief executive by themselves as an employee of the regulator. We believe the Bill will create a conflict of interest if it is left solely to the chief executive to determine pay, as the chief executive would be able to determine their own pay increases as part of the package, unless it was done independently by non-executive members of the board.

[Mr Dillon]

I seek clarity. The shadow Minister said that the chief executive would not be able to negotiate their own pay, but if they were already at the limit and they were appointed on a rate of £172,153 per annum, they would not be able to receive any inflation increases, because the amendment would tie the pay not to the Prime Minister’s salary but to a specific value.

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that question, because I believe the figure should be considerably underneath that rate. The amendment would allow pay to go up to the cap, but I am not saying it should be a target. This is similar to the slight difference in understanding about the previous amendment. We are not saying that it should be that artificial figure; we are saying that we believe there should be a cap that is not above the Prime Minister’s current salary.

[Mr Dillon]

Proposed new sub-paragraph (3A) says:

“Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer”,

and it does not say whether any other members of staff could be paid the same as the chief executive, so it would do nothing to limit the costs of the operation—they could all be offered £172,000 a year. Part of the shadow Minister’s argument is about cost saving, but there are no arbitrary limits on other members of staff in the organisation.

[Mr French]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Well, we will see. All jokes aside, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It would be highly unlikely and deeply unpopular if any member—or especially all of them—of that regulator was paid more than the chief executive, and it would add more to our cost argument.

[James Naish]

When looking at the operating model and how pay should be done, one would benchmark against equivalent organisations. What benchmarking has the hon. Gentleman done against the pay of other chief executives? The Prime Minister’s pay is not a good example for that particular type of role.

[Mr French]

There is no equivalent to the football regulator. It is the first of its kind. We cannot argue to fans that it is unique and everything else, but then say that it is the same as something else. If it is the same as something else, why are we doing it?

We have benchmarked the figure quite clearly—the hon. Gentleman may disagree; that is what voting is about in Committee—to the Prime Minister’s salary, which we believe is fair. It is fair to the taxpayers, who understand that someone appointed by the Government or by the board to run the independent football regulator established by the Government should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. That is fair and moral.

[James Naish]

This amendment is yet another example of plucking a random figure—although it is an actual figure, as has been referenced—and putting it in legislation, which is not best practice. That is why it should not be supported.

[Mr French]

I understand the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. We have had lots of attempts at muddying the waters today, but it is Government Members who will have to explain to their constituents and fans around the country why they believe that a regulator should be appointed that earns more money than the Prime Minister. We on this side of the Committee are happy to stand up and say very clearly that we do not agree that that should be the case.

We do not agree that those costs—which we have concerns about, as I have said in debates on previous amendments—should be passed on to fans, as the cost of the regulator ultimately will. That may not be the case for the clubs that have large billionaire owners, but we are talking about the whole pyramid all the way down to the National League. I fundamentally believe that it is our duty in this place to seek to limit the cost of the regulator to those fans.

[Mr Betts]

There is a matter of procedure and process here. I cannot think of another example where a public servant’s salary has been written into primary legislation, either as an actual or a maximum. Does the shadow Minister accept that we would have to have a new Act of Parliament to amend that figure in 10 or 20 years’ time? Surely that is appallingly bad practice.

[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?

[Mr French]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I absolutely agree, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson puts an important point on the record.

We expect a significant benchmarking exercise to be undertaken in determining the appropriate level of remuneration for the CEO of the regulator. That should be consistent with other regulators of a similar size and regulatory remit. We believe that an arbitrary constraint would be problematic. Safeguards are also in place already requiring approval for any public sector salary that exceeds £150,000, as per the senior pay controls process.

[Mr French]

I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am listening carefully. On the point about markets, we are not talking about the market dictating the level, but Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in for a rude awakening if he believes that this is what the market looks like, if he goes down to the City of London. But on the argument that the Minister is making about the size of the regulator, what is that comparable size? We have tried to get an answer on what size the Government are looking at. So on the point that she just made about the salary being appropriate and reflective of other representative regulators, what is the size of the regulator? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the point about the salary that has been advertised only being a part-time salary, so what are the expectations in relation to that compared with the size of the regulator? That is fundamental to the Minister’s point.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I have outlined, a benchmarking exercise will be done thoroughly on that. I am intrigued by the mock outrage from the Conservative party, who did not in any way put in a staffing cap or a salary cap when we were in this room previously. To take some examples of other salaries, they are much higher: at the Financial Conduct Authority, the salary is £400,000, at the Competition and Markets Authority, it is £200,000, and at Ofcom, it is £350,000. This is the current salary now but it was not wildly different under the last Government. I did not see them making these amendments to their Bill.

[Mr French]

Again, there is this deliberate conflation regarding what I am asking. The Government are arguing that this regulator is light-touch and different from those other regulators, and that the salary has been benchmarked against those at other regulators of a similar size and nature. This is the question I am asking the Minister: what is that other regulator, and how big is it? That determines what is an appropriate level of salary. This is about not only the Government’s arguments and our understanding, but the cronyism argument. I will not go into this but the reality is that a Labour donor is in the process of being appointed to a part-time job on a six-figure salary. Members of the public have a right to know what analysis the Government have done to determine that level of salary on a part-time basis.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not know if the hon. Member is wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying or not. I have made it very clear that there will be a benchmarking exercise. I have given a number of examples of other regulators whose salaries are much higher and were so under the previous Government.

Senior pay controls allow the Government to ensure that senior pay is set at an appropriate level to enable the public sector to recruit, retain and motivate the best people, while also ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. That means that if the regulator sought to set the CEO’s salary above £150,000, it would need approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I think they were more confusing than they were an answer to the questions. We have tried to be clear, and I do not mean this disrespectfully. I am not wilfully misunderstanding; I am asking a really clear question about the comparison the Government are making. What does the benchmark look like? That is not a theoretical question; we already know that someone has been appointed, and they used a benchmarking exercise to make that appointment. That is the point I am trying to make: a benchmarking exercise must have already been carried out, if the Government have done their due diligence in making that appointment.

[James Naish]

I make the point again: it is the hon. Member’s amendment that would insert a figure. He is lecturing the Government and saying that benchmarking should have been done, but his amendment includes a figure, yet he is saying that he has not done the benchmarking and that it is just a random figure.

[Mr French]

To use the Minister’s comment, I think that the hon. Member is wilfully misunderstanding. I have made it absolutely crystal clear that the political argument—what we believe and what the taxpayers and fans will believe—is that it is not appropriate for a regulator to be paid more than the Prime Minister, the No. 1 so-called public servant in the country. That is the benchmark in the amendment.

What I am asking the Government—the hon. Member is conflating this, I think deliberately—is this. What is the benchmark that they have already used to appoint somebody? That appointment—not of the chief executive, but of the chairman—has already happened. That is the point we are asking about: whether the Government have done a benchmarking exercise. They must have an idea of what the regulator looks like, yet we have had no answer to that question.

We on this side of the House will be putting fans first. We will be seeking to cap the size of the Government’s regulator, to ensure that it is nimble and light-touch, that it is not overburdensome and that it does not do what we know regulation can do in this country, which is to snowball and to create more jobs and more duties for itself. We will look to cap it, in the interest of fans and taxpayers.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

As the Minister set out, Government amendments 61 and 63 are consequential on the insertion of new clause 3, so I will limit my comments on this part, because I agree with her that it would be better placed at that point. However, I want to ask her about a couple of points. My understanding is that new clause 3 replaces what was clause 61, which set out the final proposal stage under the resolution mechanism. Again, I will save my substantive comments on that for later.

Government amendment 62 provides that the board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or of making a distribution order under new clause 4 to another committee of the board. I would like to ask the Minister the rationale for making this change at this stage in the process, given that the Bill has gone through the other place. We had a discussion on Second Reading and, as she just acknowledged, the leagues were not happy with the mechanism as it was designed previously. It is a fair question to ask why the Government are seeking to change this part of the Bill now. Why does the Minister think that the decision on whether to trigger the resolution process or to make a distribution order should be delegated to a committee rather than taken by the board itself?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. On the broad question of why we are making the change, to be quite blunt, it would be easier not to. We have a big majority in this place, but we spoke earlier about parliamentary scrutiny and we genuinely listened to the debate in the Lords, where there was quite a lot of discussion around the mechanism of the backstop.

It is important to make it clear right now that the backstop is a backstop. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a very succinct speech—it is worth reading—about how the backstop should be a backstop. Understandably, a lot of the debate has focused on the backstop—that is not a criticism—but it is genuinely meant to be a backstop. To be quite blunt, it would be easier not to make the change, but we think that it is the right thing to do. I could understand the previous Government’s pendulum arbitration and why it could be successful, but it was more risky, and that prompts more nerves from stakeholders. I am straying into debating the backstop, which I do not want to do because we will debate it later on.

On the question about specifying that the board can delegate these decisions to a committee, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not changing the way that the backstop can be triggered— again, we are straying into the backstop. There is a set of criteria for when the backstop can be triggered by a league, and the state of the game report must have been written and the regulator must agree with that. That stays the same.

I am straying into a future debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying—he can correct me if I am wrong—that under the previous mechanism it was pendulum arbitration, where party A would put forward a proposal, as would party B, and an expert panel would decide on one or the other, in a completely binary way. This changes it so that there is informal mediation and then a proposal stage. Because the regulator is more involved in saying, “We like that but go and speak a bit more about this,” or, “Seek some more evidence on that,” it makes sense that they do not then delegate that decision. That is the point that I am making, though it is quite difficult to debate this outside the backstop, as I acknowledged in my remarks. I am happy to take his comments away, and when we come to part 4, I believe, and we debate the backstop and the changes more thoroughly, I am really happy to go into more detail.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

Amendment made: 62, in schedule 2, page 91, line 41, at end insert—

“(da) the function of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under section 59;

(db) the function of making a distribution order under section (Distribution orders);”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment provides that the Board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or making a distribution order under NC4 to another committee of the Board.

Amendment proposed: 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, 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.”—(Mr French.)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC3.

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 94, line 34, at end insert—

“31A (1) The Expert Panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under this Act.

(2) Any decision published by the Expert Panel must include—

(a) the number of members of the Expert Panel who supported the decision;

(b) the number of members of the Expert Panel who did not support the decision;

(c) the reasons for the decision;

(d) the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to.

(3) The Expert Panel must publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph (30).”

This amendment requires the Expert Panel to exercise its functions transparently.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under the Bill, and that any decision published by the expert panel must include the number of members of the expert panel who supported the decision, the number of members of the expert panel who did not the support the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to. The expert panel must also publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph 30 of schedule 2.

The amendment is all about transparency of the decisions made by the expert panel. As it stands, paragraph 30 requires that the expert panel

“must act independently of the Board”

when exercising its functions, without preventing the two-way exchange of information between the board and the expert panel. It is clear, however, that that needs to go further, which is why we tabled amendment 121, which requires the expert panel to exercise its functions transparently. I hope that the Committee agrees that no regulator should hide behind closed doors, and the Government’s football regulator should be no different.

That being said, the Bill lacks detail on the expert panels, and I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the following. How many people does she expect to be on the panels? How many of the panels does she expect to be needed in the first year of operation, and then in subsequent years? What is the cost expected per panel, and is there a specific cap on the cost that can be incurred by an expert panel to the regulator? Finally, how will each member of the panel meet the qualifications of the experience, skill and knowledge we have discussed already, while not incurring a conflict of interest?

To be clear, amendment 121 seeks to ensure that the regulator, a world-first in sports governance, and not in a good way for many of us, will maintain transparency with the fans it is intended to protect and support. We in this House have a great many tools at our disposal to hold the Government to account. It is only right that fans who do not have such tools can see what those deciding the future of their clubs and English football are doing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and my amendment seeks to let the sun shine on the Government’s regulator.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will address some points on amendment 121 and then respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The Government recognise it is vital that the regulator is transparent and able to be held accountable by Parliament and others. That is why, for the expert panel, the legislation already sets out a number of requirements to publish decisions and give reasons for them.

Transparency in decision making is important, but it is also important that individual panel members can act without fear or favour and that ultimately the regulator as a whole stands behind the decisions it makes. It will also be necessary in some instances for details to remain private for commercial, personal or other sensitive reasons. We absolutely agree that transparency around the regulator’s processes and decisions is important, particularly in football, where fans often complain of being out of the loop. That is exactly why the Bill already contains extensive publication and consultation requirements and the regulatory principle encouraging the regulator to be transparent. However, the amendment goes further and risks undermining the operation of the expert panel. Some details may be commercially sensitive, as I have outlined. Equally, individual panel members should not necessarily be singled out for their contributions to decisions; the panel as a whole makes decisions and is held accountable as a whole.

I am at risk of comparing apples with oranges, but we spoke earlier about the Select Committee. In this place, we will have minorities on Select Committees, and I do not believe that those Members who do not agree have their names published. I acknowledge that I am not comparing like with like, but I make a gentle point about how members should be able to make decisions without fear or favour.

The hon. Member asked some specific questions about the expert panel. For the panel to take a decision, it must form a committee of at least three members. If that decision is appealed, three new members will be needed to form a committee to take a new decision, so the minimum number of members required for the expert panel is six. There is no cap on the maximum number of members as the regulator should have flexibility to react in the event of a high workload. Obviously, different panels may be required for different issues. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am sorry; I have just finished.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne just missed the Minister, but if he is minded to intervene on me, I am happy to accept an intervention.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. The Minister admitted that with Select Committees she was not comparing like with like. Would not a better comparison be another big regulator, the Bank of England, where the Monetary Policy Committee in setting interest rates does indeed allow for minority reports, which are helpful to the market in understanding the logic behind those who want rates to go up, go down or stay the same?

[Mr French]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

[Mr French]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I suspect members of the Committee will have noticed that we have spent quite a bit of time on schedule 2 in the course of the day. I am prepared to allow a debate on schedule 2 stand part, but nobody should feel obliged to extend it if they do not wish to do so.

[Mr French]

Unfortunately, based on the earlier deliberations, I do have something to say. I will try to be succinct and not rehash the debates we have had already, although I am happy to carry on taking interventions, as I have done all day.

I will set out why the Conservative party will be opposing schedule 2. The Government have missed the opportunity to tighten up the transparency of the regulator. Instead, they have allowed it to operate under a shadow, and they have not ensured that it will be transparent to fans, who are the ultimate stakeholders in this process. There is a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes. The regulator is granted broad discretionary powers with limited obligations to publish detailed reasoning for its decisions, as we discussed in the debate on amendment 121. Clubs and stakeholders may be left unclear about how rules are interpreted and applied, undermining confidence in regulatory fairness.

A number of times today, I have made the point that there is to be limited parliamentary scrutiny. Because of the amendments that have not been accepted, there are limits in the Bill on how Members of Parliament can have their say on what the regulator will look like. The regulator’s rules and standards are not subject to the affirmative procedure or meaningful parliamentary oversight.

I know that the Minister did not wish to make any comments, but I am interested in her view and the Government’s view on where reports on the regulator will end up. Will it be at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or, given the costs involved, at the Public Accounts Committee? It is important that Members understand whether they will be at least able to see the reports, even if the Government are not willing to make votes available. There is no requirement to consult publicly before issuing or revising key regulatory frameworks, which again limits external input. We have already brought up the issue of some people not being consulted and others being consulted.

On the opaque appointment and governance structures, we have highlighted the Opposition’s concerns about how the selection process has taken place and how it will take place in the future. We need strong safeguards to ensure that political interference does not impact the perceived and the realised work of the independent regulator. It is a fundamental risk to the future of football and the future of sport.

We believe that the duty to disclose key information is insufficient and that the regulator should be disclosing information on a regular basis, so that Members of Parliament and fans can have clear sight of what it is doing. That is a completely fair thing to ask for. It is not a political request; it is about transparency.

On costs, which we have discussed at length, the Opposition are concerned that we do not have transparency about the cost of the regulation. We are unclear on what the Government’s end goal is for the regulator. We have heard different arguments about what its size may be in the future and comparisons with regulators that I think would scare most of us. Hearing the cost of 900 members of staff should scare all football fans, if that is the direction of travel the Government are going down with the regulator, which is supposed to be light touch.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, just to give her a bit more time. How will Parliament scrutinise the regulator’s spending, as set out on page 96 of the Bill? Can she tell us whether scrutiny will come from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? There is also mention of financial assistance being provided, based on the Secretary of State’s judgment. Can the Minister tell us what the Bill means by “appropriate” and whether taxpayers will be bailing out failing clubs or even the regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. To take the final one first, taxpayers will not be bailing out failing clubs. This is not going to save every single club; to make it very clear, it was never intended to do that.

The provisions in the schedule ensure that the regulator has the necessary structures in place to function effectively and efficiently, with appropriate accountability as a public body, which is an issue that we have debated extensively. It ensures that an agreed and transparent process is adhered to when establishing a governance framework, including its board, committees and expert panel. We have made provision for the regulator to appoint a board observer from the Football Association, and as the national governing body for English football, they will get an insight into the operation of the regulator without having voting powers. Ultimately, the regulator will be accountable to Parliament. As we have spoken about throughout this debate, it will be operationally independent and free from undue political or industry influence. The provision in this schedule is central to creating that framework, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Mr French]

As I referenced in the question, I was deliberately trying to be specific because we have not really got into what part 4 of the schedule says. The Minister has just made a point about scrutinising the spending of the regulator. How will Parliament be able to scrutinise the regulator going forward? I am happy to have it in writing, if the Minister does not have the answer on her today. Will it be the role of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Public Accounts Committee or both? Will reports be laid on the Floor of the House, for example, for hon. Members to look at, or in the House of Commons library? That is the question that I am trying to ask the Minister today, and I would appreciate it if the hon. Lady gave us a bit of certainty on that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am absolutely happy to do that. It is obviously up to the Select Committees, and they can scrutinise if they want to—it will be up to individual Select Committees to decide. The IFR has to publish an annual report, and there is a review clause in there, too. We are happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail if that would be helpful.

Question put, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

My first Southampton game at the Dell was in 1993. Southampton lost, predictably, to Manchester United. My grandparents and father took me, and playing at the back that day was a man called Kevin Moore. He was one of the greatest headers of the ball that the Football League has ever seen. He would regularly be seen rising above the level of the crossbar and heading the ball downwards into the goal. He did so in the Zenith Data Systems Cup final—that is a reference for the spotters among us.

Kevin Moore is one of a number of footballers whose case has clearly established a link between heading the football and dementia. To balance things up with my friend from Portsmouth over the way, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, there is similar evidence in the case of Portsmouth legend Ray Hiron. The Portsmouth News has done a wonderful public service for us all by reporting on that. Kevin Moore’s brother Dave, told the Daily Mail that

“Kev had great spring and he absolutely loved heading footballs”.

Kevin talked about how he would go to the back of Blundell Park in Grimsby with his friends and head the ball, which was apparently on a string tethered behind the stand. He probably gained a lot of aptitude for heading a football by training like that, and it definitely made him more successful at playing the game as a fierce centre-back. However, it clearly had an impact on his health in later life, and he died in a nursing home aged just 55, which is a tragedy.

Kevin Moore and Ray Hiron are not the only ones; Chris Nicholl was another Southampton legend with a Grimsby Town link. There are also more famous names such as Jeff Astle, Nobby Stiles and, more recently, Dean Windass. They are legends at their clubs and across the country.

What has been clearly established is that heading a football does an awful lot of harm over time to the brain of a human being. We accept that this is possibly outside the Bill’s scope, and we also accept the numbers in the room. However, I rise to speak to amendment 1 because it is really important that, as part of these debates on football regulation—when we are talking about billions of pounds sloshing around the football system—we understand that we could do so much with a tiny proportion of that amount to ease the pain and suffering of these footballers’ families.

Let us face it: the families of Kevin, Ray, Dean, Jeff, Nobby and Chris are around and speaking today, and there will be more families in the future. While it is very unlikely that we will be able to solve the issue with this Bill, it is important that every Member of Parliament with an interest in football takes an interest in this issue. We simply must push to get justice for the families of the footballers we have heard about today, and for those whose family member might suffer the same difficulties in the future.

[Mr French]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving amendment 1 so that we can have an initial conversation about this very emotive and important issue facing ex-players, and about the campaigns on these well-known health challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot be part of these discussions because she is a Deputy Speaker, but I have agreed to meet and listen to the group in the Southampton area.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the new clause we have tabled on player welfare, as we believe there are strong links to the arguments made on amendment 1. I will park those for now, as I am conscious that I am close to a red card following my initial yellow card—I will not go too far on that, Sir Jeremy.

Clause 6 defines the core objectives of the independent football regulator as

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs… to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football…to safeguard the heritage of English football”.

Amendment 1 seeks to add another subsection that would clarify this particular issue, and I understand the arguments that have been made.

We have already engaged with some of the leagues on this issue, and I draw the attention of the Committee, and of anyone listening at home who may be seeking assistance and support on this issue, to the funds that are available. I am not taking a particular position; I just want to highlight the existing scheme to support former footballers in this regard, as I think it is very important for those families around the country. My understanding is that the scheme was set up in 2023 by the Premier League and has distributed over £1.4 million to date. If this Bill Committee can achieve anything, we will be performing a good public service by advertising that the fund is available for ex-players to ensure those families can get the support they desire.

I will return to our player welfare new clause, but my understanding is that the drafting of the Bill, however well intentioned, does not look to include either the PFA or the LMA, both of which are key stakeholders in how we protect the rights of footballers and managers, who are under a lot of pressure. I think we all recognise that as politicians, because we have a lot of pressure placed on us in our duties in the workplace. With an increasing fixture list, as clubs look to add more fixtures to be more commercially viable, there is broader concern about player welfare. That is why I am keen to have that debate later in our considerations.

It is key that once this football regulator is established—and we know that it will be established—it considers the welfare of players. It is important that it does that with the bodies that represent both players and managers. I look forward to debating this further, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment for discussion.

[Mr Dillon]

I rise in support of new clause 1, which starts by saying:

“The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing…support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition”.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to an existing scheme run by the Premier League, which initially put £1 million into the pot, and I accept that £1.4 million may have been spent. However, Nobby Stiles’s care was £125,000 a year, so that fund would help only a handful of players.

If we look at the money in the game, there is £10 billion in Premier League TV rights and the PFA has £50 million in cash assets. John Stiles, Nobby Stiles’s son, is on record as saying that the PFA is not working with them enough. The PFA union derives an income of £26 million a year, and shirt sales in this country generate £200 million a year. The money already exists within the game to fund this at an appropriate level—more than the Premier League agreed when it set up its fund.

This scheme also has the support of the Football Supporters Association. We know from evidence that footballers are four to five times more likely to suffer devastating conditions such as Alzheimer’s, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which was found to be the cause of death in Nobby Stiles’s post-mortem.

[Mr French]

To be clear, I was not taking a particular side. I was just explaining that funding is already available. I understand the hon. Member’s point about whether the funding is adequate.

On Nobby Stiles, the footballs that people play with are materially different from the ones that were played with in 1966. I ask in good faith: is the hon. Member leading this conversation to a potential ban on heading the ball in games, or is it just about the distribution of financial support for players?

[Mr Dillon]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to refer particularly to clause 6(c). When we finally get to the football issues in the Bill, I am sure a lot of them will be about the ownership of clubs and how owners behave. Just in passing, and without going into detail, the EFL has once again taken action against the owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri, for failing to pay the players’ wages. I have said before that he does not have the resources to run the club, but we will come to that later. The other major issue we will come to will no doubt be the financial distribution within football.

However, let us remember why the Crouch review was established. It was actually kicked off and stimulated by the suggestion that there might be a European super league, with certain clubs going off and playing by themselves and detaching themselves from the rest of football. The then Prime Minister got rather upset about that and decided that action needed to be taken. So the review was essentially about protecting the integrity of the established football competitions—the leagues, the FA cup and the League cup.

Clause 6(c) refers to the need to

“safeguard the heritage of English football”,

or the heritage objective. Our objective is to protect the Premier League and the EFL—what has been the English league game and the pyramid for a long period—together with the FA cup and, more recently, for the last 50 years, the League cup. That is the heritage that needs protecting.

[Mr French]

I absolutely understand the hon. Member’s argument, and as I said earlier I have full respect for the work he has done as chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. However, a story in the press yesterday highlighted that there could be a breakaway league in rugby union. A lot of the arguments he is making about the creation of the Bill are about why the heritage part is so important. Given that commonality and that we are talking about a similar risk, does he believe that the Government should set up a regulator for rugby?

[Mr Betts]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me down that road; if he did, I am sure you would stop me fairly quickly, Sir Jeremy. Let us stick to the matter in hand and look at the heritage of the game.

It is absolutely right that the Government acted. The Bill, through a clause retained from the previous Bill, acts to stop clubs engaging in competitions that are not accepted by the regulator. That is an important part of the Bill, and it comes from the European super league suggestion. However, there are other developments in the game that I think are undermining its heritage.

--- Later in debate ---

The lifeblood of clubs that are never going to get into Europe is playing in the league and cup competitions—playing great games against bigger sides. They are being denied and their heritage is being undermined—the heritage of all supporters is being undermined—by the devaluation of those competitions in order to allow fewer clubs to play in a certain number of competitions in the European leagues.

[Mr French]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech about the heritage elements of cup competitions, and a genuinely important point about fixture scheduling and how the international teams impact that. We are talking about Club World cups and tours of Asia—we have just seen Man United go straight to Asia. However, to try and spin a positive on the situation—I am not defending certain clubs—would the hon. Member agree with me that it is a good thing that this year the underdogs have won those cups? There is value again in those cup competitions, whether that is Crystal Palace winning a tournament—the hon. Member for Dartford is nodding at that—or Newcastle winning.

[Lincoln Jopp]

And Tottenham.

[Mr French]

Indeed. We could keep going. That proves the value of the cup competitions. Many more clubs should take our traditional cup competitions more seriously.

[Mr Betts]

That is a fair point, and it does not happen often enough these days. We can think back to how often the cup is won by someone different, and in past years it has been almost the same teams playing each other all the time. I think Crystal Palace were underdogs; I am not sure that Newcastle and Tottenham can really classify themselves as underdogs. But it was a point well made.

There is a point I want to emphasise and ask the Minister to have a look at. Does she accept that the regulator, with the powers that it has to safeguard the heritage of English football, can look at the impact on domestic competitions and on all the clubs within the pyramid—the clubs that play in the FA cup and the League cup—from other competitions, where the calendar fixtures of a small number of clubs detrimentally affects those other clubs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I will make my comments brief, because the hon. Member has made a number of excellent points that need to be addressed by the Minister rather than by me. The objectives under clause 6 are the promotion of the financial soundness of regulated clubs; protecting and promoting the financial resilience of English football; and the safeguarding of heritage assets, which is the main point the hon. Member for Sheffield South East just made. He spoke well about how those different issues interlink between clubs of different sizes, and the impact it has on lower league clubs that value the financial benefits of a replay.

I remember, as a Cheltenham fan, when we were in what was League One then, but now is the Championship, going to Bolton, where we lost in Bolton’s new stadium, and going to Coventry where we beat a Premier League team. It is incredible for fans to go to grounds that they would not normally get to experience. We must not lose that aspect of this. There is also the financial impact of the smaller club getting a replay, which is absolutely crucial. Welling United, one of my local clubs, has sadly just been relegated from the Conference South. I remember—I think they had got to round two in the cup a few years ago—Carlisle had come to visit. Welling United fans would never normally have had the opportunity to watch them play that club, or to visit their stadium and see all the characteristics of stadiums at that level and professional players perform there. That is an important part of the fabric and the love of the FA cup, which we all share.

I am talking about the EFL cup as well, but the FA cup in particular is incredibly powerful. I spoke about the soft power asset of English football around the world—people understand the value of the FA cup and what that means for competition across the whole pyramid. We know clubs in the lower leagues play a number of qualifying rounds to try to get to round three when the Premier League clubs normally come in. We must not lose sight of the impact of replays, and I would be genuinely interested to see what the Minister says in response to the point made by hon. Member for Sheffield South East on those.

We had a long debate earlier about what we thought were good ambitions to try to expand the scope of the objectives of the IFR in clause 6, and I appreciate that Committee members have had their say already on whether that is the wrong thing to do. I encourage the Minister, again in good faith, to consider the point about the growth of the game. We are concerned that, as drafted, the objectives of the regulator do not fulfil the potential it could have to try to look at the growth of the game. In other Departments I know the Chancellor has urged Ministers to write to their regulators to ask for growth examples, but at this point in the Bill we can mandate that to be a part of the regulator’s considerations. I urge the Minister to think about that point.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to once again, and possibly finally for today, serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—but we will see. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for all his work in the all-party group and for his long-standing interest. I completely appreciate his points. I would say that the regulator will have a number of ways to safeguard heritage, including to be able to prohibit competitions, and require consultation on matchday operations. Clause 8 encourages the regulator to engage with both players and fans on relevant matters. The regulator has a tightly defined scope and purpose focused on protecting and promoting the long-term financial sustainability of the game for the benefit of fans and local communities. It will not intervene on sporting competition matters, such as the footballing calendar.

To address the point by my hon. Friend for Sheffield South East about the FA cup and replays, I remember that just as the previous Bill was published, it was in the news and a real debate. I completely appreciate that one could argue that it is very much part of the heritage of the game, but it is also a competition matter, and therefore it is out of scope of the Bill. I will take away the comments by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate Members from across the House for putting theirs on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Louie French Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am a member of the Robins Trust at Cheltenham Town.

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

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first, while the Minister will be called first for clause stand part debates. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote —including a new clause in a group—they will need to let the Chair know. My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Purpose and overview

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect the financial sustainability and success of English football.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 96, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this Act, English football is sustainable if it—

(a) continues to meet the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club;

(b) continues to contribute to the economic and social welfare of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated;

(c) increases TV viewership;

(d) increases overall match attendance;

(e) improves international sporting competitiveness.

(3A) English football meeting the requirement in subsection (3)(a) includes all clubs continuing to operate teams in club competitions in a way that represents the unique heritage of the club as recognised by its fans and respecting the interests of those fans.

(3B) English football meeting the requirement in subsection (3)(b) includes all regulated clubs continuing to have a positive impact on economic and social factors that contribute to the welfare of the local community. This includes, but is not limited to, direct or indirect positive effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment, or the reputation of the local area.”

This amendment creates a more precise definition of the sustainability of English football.

[Mr French]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to be opening the first sitting of this important Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. It is right and proper that we begin by considering the most fundamental questions of all: what is this Bill actually for? What is its central aim, or its core principles? What will it actually do? And why are the Government looking to establish a regulator for football at all?

As we consider those fundamental questions, I want again to put on the record my thanks to all the clubs, fans and leagues, and those in the wider football community, who have engaged positively over many years, highlighting a range of challenges, experiences and opinions in the game. It would be remiss of me not to thank Dame Tracey Crouch again for all her work on the fan-led review of football. I am sure she is very happy that Spurs have finally ended their European trophy drought.

Moving on to the future of football, clause 1 states that the purpose of the Bill is

“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football.”

The Opposition believe that that is something of a missed opportunity. Why should our ambition for our national game be limited merely to its surviving? We have much higher ambitions for the future of English and British football than mid-table mediocrity. As the creators of this beautiful game, we want these isles to continue to be home to the best leagues, the best clubs, the best players and managers, and of course the best fans, both here and overseas.

Although the focus of the Bill is the English game, I want to be absolutely clear that the Conservative party has the same passion for seeing all British football clubs thrive and the sport as a whole continue to go from strength to strength. Football is a national sport rooted deeply in our communities, but we must not lose sight of its global reach, evolving international competition and the importance of our game to millions of people around the world.

Amendments 95 and 96 in my name seek to provoke exactly that discussion. They also seek to ensure that there is a specific definition of the “sustainability of English football” that is more than just the preservation of the status quo, and that sustainability means the sustainable growth of the game. Given that the Government’s stated core mission is growth, let us see whether Government Members support them. Without the amendments, there is a real and growing risk that Labour’s football regulator will stifle the growth of English football at all levels, whether by overzealously adding more burdensome regulations and costs on clubs throughout the pyramid, or by increasing its scope beyond that originally intended. That is why my amendments seek to ensure that the regulator has a clear objective actively to support growth of the game.

As we heard on Second Reading, English football has a proud and unparalleled heritage and is now an economic powerhouse for this country on the international stage. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere, as was the English Football League. In the inaugural 1888-89 season, Preston North End went undefeated in the league and the FA Cup, making them the original invincibles—that is something a member of my team, Matthew Comber, will not let me forget. So long is the history of English football that it predates the Labour party by almost two decades. The deep-rooted identities of our clubs have been passed down through generations and inspire deep passions across England and around the world.

Those emotions are not captured by the word “sustainability”. The love of a home ground, the pride in a club’s colours, the hope of a promotion push and the agony of a relegation battle are deeply human attachments. Some of that is recognised in the clauses on heritage assets, but if those elements are important enough to warrant specific provisions, why are they absent from clause 1, which sets out the Bill’s purpose? We must be careful that, in striving for sustainability, we do not risk entrenching stagnation. A regulator whose primary remit is to preserve the status quo risks falling behind and becoming rigid and resistant to positive evolution of the game, and that creates significant risks given the increasing international competition.

It is sometimes said that the Conservatives fear change. I reject that characterisation. We value our history, but we are not stuck in it. We embrace change where it is well thought out, positive for the future and rooted in our values. That is exactly the mindset we should bring to the regulation of football. The Government’s new regulator must be forward looking. It cannot simply aim to keep the wheels turning. It must support the growth of the game, including in attendance, participation and commercial success. Anything less risks relegating English football from its current position of world leader.

That is why my noble Friends in the other place tabled amendments to build on sustainability with ideas such as success, growth and aspiration. Those are not just slogans; they are principles that clubs and communities live by, and they reflect the very spirit of English football. We should not be afraid to put those words in the Bill. Doing so would give the regulator a true north—a clear, unapologetic mission not just to preserve English football, but to help it flourish.

Let me be clear about what is at stake. Football is one of our greatest national industries. The Premier League alone accounted for £1.4 billion in TV exports in the 2019-20 season. It is watched by more than 1.5 billion people across 189 countries. This is not just sport; it is a key part of our cultural identity and one of our nation’s most powerful soft power assets, with all leagues, including the English Football League and the National League, highly ranked around the world.

The women’s game has been clear that it does not want a regulator as it wants to be able to grow. The men’s game, in many parts, is the same. It should be allowed to continue to grow, to do the great things it does in local communities and to employ thousands of people across the country to support football, not to perform Whitehall-imposed box-ticking exercises.

Football is deeply local. Clubs are the beating hearts of our towns and cities up and down the country, as Members know. If the House gets this Bill wrong— if we give the regulator an inadequate remit—we risk weakening that fabric. We cannot let that happen. I urge colleagues to support these amendments and the broader principle behind them, namely that we must aim higher. The Government’s majority means that it is almost certain that the Bill will pass and a regulator will be created, so let us give that regulator a purpose worthy of the game it is being created to protect. Let us ensure that the Bill is about not just survival, but the long-term success and vibrancy of English football.

[Jim Dickson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to be part of this Bill Committee. I again declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Crystal Palace for over 35 years, which has given me a chance to see the ups and downs of a football club and the perils of clubs going into administration. That has happened to Palace twice in just over 25 years, but that shows that clubs can sometimes bounce back. I hope, Sir Jeremy, that you will tolerate me briefly putting on the record my joy at having been at Wembley two weeks ago to watch the mighty Eagles win the FA cup—a high point in my time as a fan. I promise the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I will not turn the Committee into a clash of the south London giants over the next month or so.

I warmly welcome the Bill. Fans and all those who value clubs as integral parts of local communities will fully support the establishment of the independent regulator and the three primary objectives of sustainability, resilience and protecting heritage. The enhanced owners and directors test; the club licensing system, which is proportionate and puts advocacy first; the oversight of financial distribution; and the backstop powers in the Bill are very important. Fan organisations are particularly pleased by the provisions requiring clubs to meet the fan engagement threshold.

Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill and defines sustainability. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup seeks to change that definition. I am curious why the Opposition want the definition of the sustainability of English football to be tied to, for example, its increasing TV viewership. Although I am sure that is well intentioned, I fear that it conflicts with other parts of amendment 96. While growing a TV audience is obviously important, if it is considered critical, I am sure that clubs will argue for even more late changes to fixture schedules to produce the best kick-off times for TV, or, as has started to happen in other leagues, to begin playing games abroad. Those things create major expense and inconvenience for fans and therefore will not meet the needs of present or future fans, which the amendment refers to.

The amendment misses the point in another important respect by muddying the waters between success and sustainability. Across their history, the Premier League and the English Football League have been very successful in generating revenue. According to the football finance expert Kieran Maguire:

“Since the Premier League was formed in 1992-93, its revenues have increased by 2,857%, whereas the Championship is at just over 1,000%”—

also very healthy. Given that prices have doubled, from a consumer prices index perspective, that is great business.

However, that has come alongside an inability to control costs. The most significant costs in the industry are wages. While Premier League revenues are up by 2,857% since 1992, wages have increased by over 4,000%. Mr Maguire also said:

“Similarly, as far as the EFL Championship goes, if we take just one division, wages are up 1,400% compared with revenue of 1,000%...As a consequence, if we look at the figures for 2022-23…the 20 clubs in the Premier League lost a collective £836 million. In the Championship, on average the clubs were losing £20 million: League One, £4.1 million, League Two, £1.4 million; and in the National League, £970,000. All those clubs have been part of a spectacularly successful industry, of which we should be proud.”

He added, as the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has also said:

“It has globalised the game of football as coming from the UK. There has been a collective inability to control costs.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 5, Q1.]

One of the results is that since the start of the Premier League, roughly 40% of clubs in the top four leagues have gone into administration, which further underscores the problem. It is little wonder that, according to Dr Christina Philippou from the University of Portsmouth:

“More than half of the clubs in the top five leagues are technically insolvent, so if they were any other business, they would not be in existence.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 7, Q4.]

So why is it right for the Bill to focus on the broad definition of sustainability? It is because the fans and communities need these clubs to exist. Unless we root the definition of success in sustainability, rather than the other elements that the Opposition are trying to introduce, we will not see that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I begin by welcoming the Committee; it is a real pleasure to be here. It is just over a year since I was sitting on the other side of the room debating the Bill’s previous iteration. I look forward to working with Members from all parties. The Bill was in both the Labour and Conservative party manifestos. It is an important piece of legislation and we will spend a lot of time on line-by-line scrutiny.

I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for tabling amendments 95 and 96. I will also respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.

Amendment 95 was debated at length in the other place. Unsurprisingly, the Government’s position on it remains the same. We do not agree with its intent to narrow the purpose of the entire Bill specifically to financial sustainability, or to add to its purpose the vague and undefined words “success of English football”. I was a little confused by the contribution from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He said he was concerned about “narrow financial metrics”, but the amendment in the shadow Minister’s name actually would narrow the purpose simply to financial sustainability. I will outline why we do not agree with that.

The Bill’s purpose is sustainability, as defined in clause 1. It is about the continuation of service. I draw Members’ attention to subsections (3) and (4), which say that sustainability means continuing to serve the interests of fans and to contribute to the wellbeing of the local communities that regulated clubs serve. Of course, financial sustainability is an important part of that. If a club suffers financial collapse, it cannot continue to serve its fans and the community. However, we believe there is more to it. If a club’s balance sheet remains healthy, but it ups sticks and moves 60 miles away, or changes its name, badge and shirt colours, that is not continuity of service. That is precisely why the Bill covers aspects such as fan engagement and heritage, as well as financial issues, and why the Bill’s purpose needs to be overall sustainability, not just financial sustainability.

I understand the desire to ensure the continued success of English football as one of this country’s greatest exports—Members from throughout the House have outlined the huge contribution that it makes globally —but that is already achieved in the Bill. As part of its secondary duties, the regulator must have regard to avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football. That includes domestic sporting competitions, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, financial growth, and investment in football. Rather than the undefined concept of “success”, those specific elements represent the building blocks on which English football’s success has been built. Actively pursuing those outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry, rather than the regulator, but the regulator will avoid unduly harming them while it strives for sustainability.

If, as part of the Bill’s purpose, the regulator were required to protect the success of English football as well as its sustainability, there would be a significant widening of its scope. The regulator would need to be actively involved in anything that relates to the success of English football, such as the commercial and sporting sides of the game. Government Members have been clear that we do not want scope creep, which brings me to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about the National League’s three up, three down campaign. I have met representatives of the National League a number of times and I am completely sympathetic to their aims, but that does not fall within the Bill’s scope. I think we can all agree that it is not something that we, or organisations such as the Football Association, UEFA and FIFA, want the regulator to interfere in.

Amendment 96 seeks to add further detail to the definition of “sustainability” for the purposes of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for largely copying and pasting the Government’s explanatory notes to clause 1; however, the purpose of the explanatory notes is to provide that sort of additional, illustrative detail about the intention behind the legislation that is not appropriate for the face of the Bill.

The amendment also seeks to add criteria on TV viewership, match-day attendance and international competitiveness to the definition of “sustainability”. We have significant concerns that that would expand the scope of the regulator and put in place a much more interventionist regime than this Government propose and, indeed, than the previous Government proposed. The regulator would be required to concern itself with issues such as match-day attendance and TV viewership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned. It would not be able to have a direct impact on those issues without actively intervening on issues such as ticket prices and broadcasting. At best, we would have a regulator without the powers to achieve its purpose, and at worst, we would have mission creep into areas that do not warrant statutory regulation. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendments.

[Mr French]

I wish to press the amendments to Divisions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

The clause sets out the Bill’s purpose, which is to promote and protect the sustainability of English football, as well as summarising what each of its parts provides for. It explains that English football is sustainable if it continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs and continues to contribute to the economic or social wellbeing of local communities with which regulated clubs are associated. The Bill’s purpose is crucial as the regulator will be obliged to act in accordance with it at all times, so far as is reasonably practical.

The fan-led review made clear that the pre-eminence of failure in the market is unsustainable, with football clubs unable to continue to provide their service. It is unacceptable that fans and local communities could witness their clubs no longer operating. We know the huge impact and contribution that clubs make to communities up and down the country, which is why we are making good on our manifesto commitment and have introduced the Bill.

The clause defines “sustainability” for the purpose of this legislation as the continuation of service in the interests of fans and for the wellbeing of local communities. We will debate and explore the Bill’s purpose in detail over the course of the Committee. At a basic level, the Bill asks clubs to consult their fans, to be a fit and proper owner and to have a business plan. In essence, clubs should continue to belong to their fans and communities now and in future, which means there should not be financial collapse, relocation of stadiums or new breakaway competitions.

[Mr French]

It is an honour to speak again under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I promise the Committee that I will not say that every time.

The Opposition do not disagree with much of the sentiment as we are all passionate about football and understand the role of clubs in our communities, as I acknowledged earlier. Our concern, which is why we tabled the amendments, is that the opaque definition of sustainability could have significant unintended consequences for the regulator’s direction of travel.

The Minister said of our amendments that the considerations we were trying to put in the Bill were secondary—or words to that effect; I apologise if I have slightly misquoted her—but my concern is that those considerations are primary in their focus. It will take many months to get the new regulator up and running, but if it does not understand the message that the House is sending it—that it should be focused on trying to improve football—it could be a lost cause before it has even got started.

Our concerns are clearly articulated in our amendments. We accept that we have lost the vote—the Government have a massive majority, so that is not surprising—but we urge Ministers, in their work going forward, to be clear with the regulator and the people who work for it that the ambition of this House is not to limit the scope of the regulator to just the clauses before us today.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, but I simply do not recognise their premise in terms of the definition of sustainability being vague. In the Bill’s previous iteration, the Government did not make the amendment that the hon. Gentleman proposed. I will not repeat my previous speech. We think that sustainability is much broader than simply finances. There is a procedural issue around not necessarily secondary considerations; the explanatory notes provide additional illustrative detail, and obviously what we say in Committee will give a clear indication to the regulator, and indeed to clubs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Key definitions

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 132, 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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

“(3B) The competitions specified by the Secretary of State must include the National League North and the National League South (but see section [Opportunity for levy exemption for clubs below the Football League] which provides for a process by which clubs in these competitions may apply for an exemption from the levy established under section 53).”

This amendment extends the scope of the regulator to National League North and National League South.

[Mr French]

As promised, I will leave out the pleasantries, Sir Jeremy, but you can take it as read that it is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship.

[The Chair]

Just let me know if it stops.

[Mr French]

I will. It depends on how long we go on for today.

In all seriousness, the Government have not been specific in this clause regarding their key definitions, and have clearly left open the door to scope creep by the regulator and the Secretary of State, whoever they might be in the coming weeks and months. That should concern all Members who value Parliament’s role of holding the Government to account, regardless of political affiliation. That is why I tabled amendment 132, which would clearly specify the leagues that are to be classified as a “specified competition”. That would ensure that, should the Bill pass, the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, could not unilaterally decide that they wished to expand the regulator’s scope without first consulting Parliament.

Without the amendment, the Secretary of State could, without oversight or accountability, decide that they wanted a particular competition to be included, and for the clubs involved to face the costs of that decision. We know that representations from the women’s game highlight a desire not to be included, but the Bill as it has come from the Lords would allow the Secretary of State to bring the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super League 2, the FA Women’s National League North and the FA Women’s National League South under the regulator’s control. It is also unclear why the Government have drafted the Bill to specifically reference consulting the Football Association but not other bodies such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. Will the Minister please explain why that is, as the question has been raised with me, and I suspect with other Committee members?

It is important to clearly define what competitions will be under the regulator’s scope so that the wider football world can understand the direction of travel for clubs and leagues, which will ultimately impact long-term investment and budget decisions. Uncertainty is not helpful for clubs or fans, and the regulator will already impact clubs and leagues in different ways, let alone if the Government expand their reach further. Unsurprisingly, the Government do not like the amendment, as it would remove powers from the Secretary of State to decide which competitions are under the scope of their regulator. We know the Government are a big fan of scope creep, but we want to prevent it, and to ensure that any attempt by the Government to add more trophies to their cabinet is subject to the approval of Parliament and the democratically elected representatives of fans in our constituencies.

On the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I will listen to his arguments carefully but in my experience the last thing that clubs at that level need is more red tape and costs that will stifle their growth. The amount of paperwork that the Government’s regulator will likely require of every club is a concern. For smaller clubs, it will mean a shift in focus from what happens on the pitch and from fans to form filling—bureaucracy over the beautiful game. I can see what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do—even if, true to form, it is not very liberal—but it would create more costs than rewards. Yes, there is an exemption from having to pay the levy, but it will have to be applied for, so the clubs would still be liable to pay the levy, alongside other costs the regulator will put on them, until the application was approved, which will likely take time.

[Max Wilkinson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; I will come to debate some of the points that he has made later in the Bill. We are very clear that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill and that the England national team do not fall foul in any way of this legislation.

I move on to the amendments. I understand the desire for up-front clarity in the Bill about which competitions will initially be in scope. There is a sound policy rationale for the approach that we have taken in clause 2. By delegating to secondary legislation, we are merely following the precedent established by other, similar, sport-related legislation, including the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future-proofs for future innovation and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.

As mentioned, the intended scope of the regulator is well known and has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes in the future would again require consultation and would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

[Mr French]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments about why she believes we should not specify the leagues, but what is unclear in her language is whether she believes that the Committee should have the opportunity for scrutiny; these measures have been scrutinised in the other House and by a previous Parliament. I believe passionately that when it comes to future-proofing the Bill it is the role of elected Members on the Committee to scrutinise and have a proper debate. I appreciate that the issue has been debated elsewhere, but we need to have a proper debate here, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying not to be too political in my comments.

My other point is about the consultation exercise with clubs. From the feedback we have had from clubs, it is unclear why they were not invited to give evidence to the Committee. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not want clubs to give evidence to the Committee?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points. I very much welcome parliamentary scrutiny, and hon. Members will know that we intend to make some changes to the Bill following the debate in the House of Lords. Of course, it is the role of the Committee to scrutinise the legislation, but we must recognise that calls for change date back to 2011 in this place, with the cross-party Select Committee report and the fan-led review. We had extensive evidence sessions a year ago where we heard from clubs, fans and lots of different stakeholders, and indeed over the last year as the sport Minister I have done extensive consultations. The Bill remains largely the same as the one we previously debated. We believe that we have made some changes to strengthen it, and that is what we are here to debate.

[Mr French]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

No, I will make some progress and then take another intervention in a moment.

On the point about consultation and it being appropriate for parliamentary scrutiny—this comes to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—currently, National League North and South are not in scope, but clearly it would not be feasible for the regulator to oversee the entire pyramid and place requirements on clubs all the way down to grassroots.

On the basis of extensive consultation, we believe that the top tiers are the most sensible and proportionate place to draw the line; below that, the regulatory burden would outweigh the potential benefits. However, if circumstances change and the Secretary of State feels that the National League North and South might benefit from being within scope of the regulator, the Secretary of State could conduct an assessment and make regulations to include them.

[Mr French]

I might have jumped the gun, particularly given what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, but I want to understand the Government’s thinking about that exact classification and the difference between the National Football League and the National Leagues South and North. What are the Government fundamentally looking at in defining what leagues should be in scope of the regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a fair question, but there was exactly the same cut-off under the previous Bill.

[Mr French]

I am asking for your opinion.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am going to answer the question. It is largely—not exclusively—about where teams tend to be full time. It is not a perfect cut-off, and the Liberal Democrats have made a perfectly clear argument, but there has to be a cut-off somewhere and we believe, as the shadow Minister’s Government did, that the top five tiers is the best cut-off.

I want to respond to the shadow Minister’s points about the women’s game and how it could be brought into scope. Karen Carney’s review of women’s football recommended that it be given the opportunity to grow and self-govern rather than move immediately to statutory independent regulation. We are not saying in any way that it should be brought into regulation; we are simply giving that option so that we would not have to return to primary legislation. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr French]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but in the feedback we are receiving there seems to be inconsistency not only about what leagues should be under the powers of the regulator to ensure certainty and clarity, but about the powers of the Secretary of State. As I said, there is a massive issue about the role and power of Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account, which we all should believe in regardless of what party we represent.

I note to Labour Members that their party will likely not be in power for ever—I am not making a point beyond that—but this legislation will be in place until another Parliament seeks to change it. Whatever the colours of the Government of the day, Members should have an opportunity to scrutinise what they bring forward. Our amendment 132 seeks to ensure that that happens, by giving hon. Members a clear ability to have a vote whenever the Secretary of State wishes to expand powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

This clause, as is standard procedure, sets out the key definitions used throughout the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State power to make a statutory instrument to specify competitions, as we have just debated. Those specified competitions can then define the regulated population.

Defining the scope in this way is an important part of future-proofing the Bill, as was seen when the old First Division became the Premier League in 1992. Before making any changes to the specified competitions, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment on whether it would be appropriate to do so. In carrying out that assessment, the Secretary of State must consult the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders who the Secretary of State considers relevant. A report of that assessment must also be laid before Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr French]

I will pick up on a couple of my previous comments that have not been answered by the Minister, as we will shortly conclude debate of this clause. Why have the Government decided to specify the FA in the clause but not the other leagues? That point has been raised with me by those other leagues. Why are the Government not specifying the other regulatory bodies involved in football? I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and will happily give way if she would like to give it.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the FA is the national governing body of the English Football League, and that is why it is specified.

[Mr French]

I welcome that comment, but the FA has a quite different role than the leagues themselves, which are currently responsible for various regulatory aspects of English football—whether in the Premier League, the EFL or the National Football League. The FA’s role is alongside those bodies. That is why—these are not my words—there is uncertainty about why the Government have decided to only specify the FA, given that there are clearly other governing bodies involved in English football. That is currently a bit of a mystery.

On the Minister’s other comments, the Government are unclear on the direction of travel of English football and on what the Bill will and will not do. It has been suggested that the regulator will be able to solve all problems, but we have to be honest with the public and say that that is not going to be the case. If a club is badly managed—and I know we are about to discuss ownership—there is little that the regulator will be able to do to stop a club from going bankrupt, as an extreme example. We all have to acknowledge that that is a real risk for football, regardless of what the regulator looks like. I will end my comments there.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I said in my intervention, the FA is the national governing body: there is only one governing body, and that is why it is specified. We expect the regulator—this provision is in the Bill—to consult all relevant parties, including leagues and fans. In the previous debate, we were clear that the leagues will be specified by statutory instrument.

The shadow Minister just said that it has been claimed that the regulator will solve all problems, but that absolutely has not been claimed, either by this Government or the previous one. We are debating the purposes of the Bill this morning; it is about the sustainability of the football game, having not been able to do that itself over the last decade. There have been calls for change in this place dating back to 2011—the ill-fated super league, the fan-led review and his Government’s previous Bill. This Bill will not solve all problems, but we hope it will put football on a sustainable footing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Meaning of “owner” etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 3 is about the owners of football clubs, who play a pivotal role in the sport. Without their efforts and investment, English football would not be the success it is today. Owners have an immense responsibility to not just their club, but fans, local communities and businesses in the surrounding area. Although current league rules outline a requirement to declare who controls a club, there are concerns with their application. That applies particularly when clubs are owned or controlled by offshore entities or complex company structures.

Fans have also expressed concerns about the opaque nature of who owns their clubs. They deserve to know who has ultimate responsibility for the club they support, and the clause ensures just that. The clause signposts to schedule 1, which defines when a person is an owner of the club. The clause also defines a club’s ultimate owner or owners. The ultimate owners of a club are those who have the highest degree of influence or control over the activities of the club. When a club applies for a provisional operating licence, it has to identify its owners and ultimate owners to the regulator in a personal statement. Defining the ultimate owners of a club and requiring clubs to declare them will be a crucial step to improving transparency and accountability in the game.

Schedule 1 defines owners for the purpose of the Bill and equips the regulator to apply that definition in different real-life circumstances. It is crucial that owners are suitable so that the sport is placed on a more sustainable footing. An ownership chain may be long and complex, with many links; to ensure clubs have sustainable custodians, the regulator needs to identify the human being with actual control at the very end of the chain—rather than the holding companies or other legal structures, which are just links along the way. That is why, under the Bill, the definition of an owner focuses on identifying individuals, except where clubs are owned by registered societies.

Registered societies are specific legal structures defined in clause 91; they must be run as co-operatives or for the benefit of the community. When used for ownership of football clubs, they are typically one-fan-one-vote organisations where control is split equally among hundreds or thousands of members. That is why ownership chains can end with registered societies, without needing to identify named individuals behind them.

The Bill’s definition of an owner draws heavily on precedent from other legal regimes where ownership can be complicated or opaque, including the “persons with significant control” regime in the Companies Act 2006. The Bill’s definition is designed to capture those who have significant shares or rights, or other forms of significant influence or control over the club. It also includes owners who meet one of these conditions at arm’s length, such as via a trust or a similar body. That approach means that owners cannot simply evade regulation by creating ever more complicated ownership structures. Having a clear definition of an owner means that owners can be identified, tested and held to account as custodians of the club.

Clause 4 is about officers and senior managers. The Bill will introduce two key things: transparency for fans and accountability for decision makers at clubs. The clause defines an officer and a senior manager of a club for the purpose of the Bill. Those definitions have been drafted in recognition of the existing legislative precedent, including the Companies Act 2006 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as well as the definitions currently used in the football industry. The clause’s purpose is to appropriately define the people who run, or have a significant level of direct influence, over the day-to-day running of a club.

Officers of a club are subject to legislative requirements, including the owners and directors test. The regulator may take enforcement action against a senior manager— a subset of officers who carry out specific management functions at the club. If a club commits a relevant infringement connected to a senior management function carried out by that individual, the individual can be held liable. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr French]

I will start with clause 3, which deals with the broad definitions of an “owner” within the context of this legislation, as the Minister has just set out. While it may appear technical on the surface, this clause lays the groundwork for the regulator’s ability to properly identify and engage with those who hold real power and influence within our football clubs. Getting these definitions right is absolutely essential. For too long, fans have felt that football governance has been undermined by opaque ownership structurers, shadowy investment vehicles and individuals who exercise effective control without proper scrutiny or accountability.

The clause also ensures that the regulator is not hamstrung by narrow or outdated definitions of ownership. It gives clarity on who can be held responsible, whether through legal ownership, executive authority or de facto control. That clarity is vital if we are serious about improving transparency and strengthening the fit and proper person test regime. At the same time, it is right that this is done in a proportionate and legally precise manner. We must avoid unintended consequences that could dissuade responsible investment or penalise legitimate business structures. Definitions must be robust but not overly broad.

On that point, I will pause for a second. As Members, we have to recognise the international nature of club ownership, both in the EFL and the Premier League. We are talking about English football, but there are only four or five clubs in the Premier League that have an English majority owner these days. We have to be very clear in our work, and in our discussions on the Bill, that we do not want to deter inward investment in the game. We need to understand that there is increasing international competition for these owners to effectively move their assets into other countries. In particular, there is the rise of the Saudi league, which is growing in competition versus the more traditional heavyweights of the European sector.

In seeking to strengthen the ownership test, which I support, we have to be mindful of not deterring investment. Could much of this work on ownership structures and tests have been done appropriately through the current governance structures of English football? Yes, I think it could have been done better already, and I personally would have preferred that to be the direction of travel, rather than through the Bill. However, we are where we are, and I will not oppose clause 3 for the sake of it.

Clause 4 defines the roles of an “officer” and “senior manager” within football clubs, and again seeks to improve transparency on accountability, roles and responsibility. This provision, as outlined by both the Minister and the Premier League in some of its comments, seems to mirror banking regulations, which I was familiar with before coming to Parliament nearly four years ago—time flies when you’re having fun.

The language used in this provision is similar to that used by the Financial Conduct Authority. When the Minister speaks again, I would be quite interested to understand why the Government have chosen banking regulations as the model for football, because I want to understand their thinking on the future of the regulator and football. We are talking about both a business and a sport that differs in many ways to financial services and in the positive impact that it has on this country. While football creates many jobs, it also has an impact on communities around the country and grassroots clubs, where we like to see young boys and girls participating in football.

Schedule 1, like clause 3, is foundational to the Bill and thus to the future of English football in providing a detailed meaning of an “owner”. Where the clause provides the broader meaning of an “owner”, this schedule details the conditions for being an “owner” and rightly looks beyond just legal shareholders. It captures those who influence clubs through formal or informal control, whether that is through a boardroom presence, financial influence or complex ownership structures.

The inclusion of the 25% ownership threshold is rooted in established legal standards, but equally important is the provision to capture those who may fall below that line but wield significant power. We have seen far too many clubs come to harm because of murky ownership arrangements and a lack of transparency. I am confident that other hon. Members will speak to the goings-on at Reading in recent months and years, if previous debates are anything to go by. I know more about Reading than I ever thought I would, as a football fan, but a lot of hon. Members have mentioned the example already.

That said, I must also raise the example of Charlton Athletic, a proud and historic club just outside my own constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup. It operates in the Greenwich borough next door to mine, with the training ground literally on my constituency boundary and the home ground, the Valley in Charlton, a bit further away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Portsmouth.

[Mr French]

Yes, we also have Portsmouth.

This rivalry—the kind of blend I mentioned—is obviously true of my own family: half blue, half red. To be clear, that is only in football terms, especially as the current Government continue to use the famous Millwall “No one likes us, we don’t care” chant as political inspiration. That rivalry will be reignited next season, as the mighty Addicks have been promoted back to the Championship, where they will play Millwall twice. Hopefully, both will be battling it out for promotion to the Premier League—Millwall, of course, just missed out on the play-offs.

On a more serious note of regulation, it has not only been on the pitch where the fortunes of both clubs have differed significantly in recent years. So I was not just rambling on about fans for no reason; there is a clear point about ownership linked to all this.

[Max Wilkinson]

I was enjoying it.

[Mr French]

Great.

While Millwall fans have enjoyed the success of international ownership through the Berylson family and the late John Berylson, who tragically passed away, those who support Charlton Athletic next door have endured a series of damaging ownership disputes, including periods where it was unclear who truly was in control, or whether those individuals had the long-term interests of the club or its supporters at heart.

It is precisely that kind of instability that schedule 1 is designed to prevent, even if we must highlight that it will not be bullet-proof against an owner taking bad investment decisions that fans may not agree with—both today and in the future. However, there is a gaping loophole in this legislation, which shows either the Government do not understand English football as part of a delicate international eco-system, or that they admit the regulator will not be able to live up to the hype that many Labour MPs are suggesting. I would happily give way to the Minister if she can answer this crucial question now: do the ownership tests also include multi-club ownership structures? I shall carry on.

We are seeing an increasing number of ownership groups acquiring stakes in multiple clubs—often across leagues and even countries—raising concerns about conflicts of interest, sporting integrity and transparency, but also about the effectiveness of the Government’s regulator. A clear example is 777 Partners. As hon. Members may know, it is a US-based investment firm that recently attempted to take over Everton, despite already holding controlling interests in clubs across Europe, which I understand to be Standard Liège, Hertha Berlin, Genoa and, further afield, Vasco da Gama in Brazil.

As far as I can see, there is still no mechanism in the Bill—which is why I have asked the Minister to comment on this—to allow the regulator to properly assess the cumulative risks of such widespread, multi-club control. In such instances, if one of those clubs runs into financial difficulty, it will surely draw resources away from others. That is the risk I am trying to highlight.

[The Chair]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that we come to the suitability of ownership later in the Bill. This clause is specifically about definitions, and I know he will keep to that as closely as possible.

[Mr French]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy; I appreciate your steer. My point is about definitions, but I appreciate that we will talk later about the scope of the Bill and the suitability of owners. The point that the official Opposition are trying to make is that the definitions should be more prescriptive about the multi-club ownership model. I hope you will allow me to carry on in that vein. I am sure I will make similar comments when we come to suitability.

If one of the clubs in a multi-club ownership runs into financial difficulty, it will surely draw resources away from the other clubs and put their financial stability at risk. As the Bill stands, the descriptions give no regard to that; rather, they seem to encourage that sort of behaviour as an obvious way to operate outside the scope of most of the regulator’s powers.

The City Football Group, which owns Manchester City, has stakes in clubs in Spain, France and Italy, and as far afield as Australia and Uruguay. Although that group is often held up as a successful example of the model, it raises legitimate questions, which we are seeking to ask today, about competitive fairness. In its own rules, UEFA has already sought to restrict clubs from competing in the same European competitions.

Not including multi-club ownership in this part of the Bill negates the Government’s claim that the Bill will promote competition. If anything, it seems that it will provide an open goal for the richest clubs.

As a football fan first, I know that supporters are frustrated by the tactics that the wealthiest clubs already use to avoid the financial fair play rules, and I am afraid the Bill will likely make that worse. We have seen UEFA act to ensure clubs such as RB Leipzig and FC Red Bull Salzburg restructure their ownerships to avoid breaching rules on clubs with shared control competing in the Champions League. UEFA recognises the risk to competitiveness, and the Government should too. The Minister must accept that UEFA is protecting competition across Europe, but she and the Government are actively putting competition at risk by not including accommodations for multi-club ownership in this part of the Bill.

I appreciate that giving the regulator complete carte blanche over the multi-club ownership model would likely violate UEFA’s rules. We know that UEFA has written to the Secretary of State about the Bill—she will not publish that correspondence—so why are the Government picking which bits they agree with UEFA on and which bits they do not? To be clear, we are not seeking to increase the regulator’s scope; instead, we want to apply consistent conditions to all owners, whether they own a newly promoted League Two club or some of the biggest clubs across multiple countries.

I am sure we will see more and more discrepancies between what the Government say and what the Bill will actually do as we continue through this Committee, but the fact that we have got only as far as schedule 1 in our first sitting and have found a glaring omission is proof that the Government need to look very carefully at how the Bill will operate.

[Jon Pearce]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will attempt to respond to the various questions from the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North and for High Peak, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The Opposition spokesperson broadly welcomed the provisions, but he asked some specific questions. He made points on financial regulation, and I think he used the word “banking-style”. The Bill draws on precedent from a range of previous regulation. Some elements are from financial regulation. A previous amendment of his dealt with financial sustainability, and the Bill, as drafted, is all about that. We would not term it as “banking-style”, but it does draw on previous legislation and existing regulation.

The hon. Gentleman broadly welcomed the provisions on owners and directors. He mentioned that it has been four years since he was elected to this place, and in 2023, he asked the then Sport Minister to strengthen the ownership test, so I am really pleased that he welcomed the changes that we have made. He also said that he would prefer this to have been implemented without legislation. Of course, we all would, but we are where we are, and that is why both parties stood on a manifesto to introduce a football regulator Bill.

The Opposition spokesperson made some broad points on the owners and directors test, and we will have a further debate on that when we come to part 4. ODTs have to be applied clearly and consistently. If the owner has appropriate financial resources and meets other aspects of the test, our ODT would not prevent multi-club ownership. Concerns around multi-club ownership are to do with conflicts of interest and competition, which is why the leagues and UEFA have rules around multi-club ownership. Clubs competing in those competitions will be required to abide by any applicable rules, but we can come back to that point on part 4 when we will debate this issue at length.

[Mr French]

I want to flesh out the point that I tried to make, although I appreciate what the Minister said about coming to this later. Why this is not defined at this point is key, because, as I am sure all Members will agree, we do not want to accidentally create an open goal for wealthy clubs to get around the Bill. There is a real risk coming through from the football community that, if we do not tackle the issue of multi-club ownership up front, the Bill will create just that open goal.

In the comments from across the Committee today, there has been a consensus about what we hope the future of football will look like and around fairness; I think that that is all we can seek to achieve as a House. However, I am concerned that we are not putting the multi-club issue in the Bill. It is difficult to understand the reason why, because it is so pertinent to the ownership test. I accept that the Minister has said that she does not want to block it—that would not be wise, given that a number of clubs have that structure already—but I urge her to address the point about the risks to football. There are major risks, as we have seen already. The Minister’s reference to leagues and competitions was pertinent; we saw the press story yesterday about Crystal Palace and its European future. How will the Minister define the multi-club issue and how will it interact with the Bill?

[The Chair]

Before the Minister responds, I remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief. There are plenty of opportunities to make longer speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

This clause formally establishes the regulator as an independent corporate body and refers to schedule 2, which contains further details on the structure, set-up and governance of the regulator. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr French]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

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

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Schedule 2

The Independent Football Regulator

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 117, 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.”

This amendment would ensure that the political interests of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the Chair are made public before the appointment is confirmed.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 118, in schedule 2, 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 114, in schedule 2, page 88, line 3, at end insert “including the Chair.”

This amendment makes it explicit that there must be a system for the declaration and relevant interests of the Chair of the Board.

Amendment 115, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) “relevant interest” will always include donations to political parties.”

This amendment makes it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest.

Amendment 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—

“7A The Chair of the Board must not

(a) be a member of a political party,

(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or

(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”

This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.

Amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, 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.

[Mr French]

I have tabled a number of amendments for Members to consider, and I believe the theme of the amendments is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East alluded to some concerns that we Opposition Members have about the independence of the regulator, and particularly the perception of independence. We are concerned about the structure outlined in schedule 2, and we believe that it could be improved to ensure that all fans and all people involved with football have greater trust in the regulator and in any decisions that he or she may make in the future. I say “he or she”, because this is much broader than just the chairman that has been appointed at the helm of the regulator; it runs through every action the regulator will take. That is why I believe it is so important to ensure they are independent.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, sought to make a comparison with other public bodies. I understand the point that he was trying to make, but the independence of football is important from a wider sporting perspective. We are talking about something quite different from other public appointments and bodies, which have a closer relationship with Government. By default, this regulator is defined as independent.

[Max Wilkinson]

How might the shadow Minister compare the relationship between the IFR and the Government with the relationship between the BBC and the Government, for example?

[Mr French]

That is a well-made point. I have said in previous public comments that the BBC is an important example of how this can go wrong. I thought that the Government might have learned from that because, whatever the merits of the candidate, he or she—I will be less specific than to talk about individuals—has been marred by affiliation, in some cases probably wrongly. That is the point that I am trying to make. Every decision, going forward, could easily create a situation in which the same accusation will be—[Interruption.] No, it is not about double standards. I am making the point clearly that every decision on something as important as this—the first time that the country has established a regulator for a sport—will be marred by accusations of non-independence.

[Max Wilkinson]

I have a lot of sympathy with the point that the Opposition spokesperson is making, and the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East earlier. The problem is that we know that the Conservative party has, in the past, appointed lots of party members, donors and activists to public bodies. Therefore, although I have some sympathy with the point, I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps on weak ground when making this argument.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I will say that, though the Liberal Democrats like to avoid this point, they were in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, so some of those decisions would have been made by—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dartford want to intervene?

[Jim Dickson]

indicated dissent.

[Mr French]

The hon. Gentleman was chuntering, but I did not hear what he said so I cannot comment on it. The amendments tabled in my name are important to ensure that there is transparency, and to ensure not only that the regulator has independence in everything that it does but that the perception of its independence is not brought into question, because that is important.

I will talk through the grouped amendments. Amendment 117, to schedule 2, would insert that :

“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.”

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

Will the shadow Minister propose changes to the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments, which is where this decision sits?

[Mr French]

I am not clear why the hon. Member disagrees with the point that I am making about transparency of political donations.

[Melanie Onn]

I was not disagreeing or agreeing. I was simply asking a question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

As I said, I am not sure what the argument is against the point that I am making, which is that donations should be made very clear.

[Melanie Onn]

I think it is important to understand whether this is a general point of principle, as the hon. Member acknowledged in his comments about the previous Government’s decisions on the BBC, or something specific and unique to the Bill. He cannot have it both ways.

[Mr French]

I am not trying to have it both ways. I am talking about football and the Bill in front of this Committee. I have answered questions openly and willingly, where others might have ducked them.

[Max Wilkinson]

What about Ofqual?

[Mr French]

This is turning into whataboutery whinery, and I fear that I am already testing your patience, Sir Jeremy. I am trying to stick to the Bill in front of us, and why we tabled these amendments. We can have a lot of whataboutery around different regulators. The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned Ofwat.

[Max Wilkinson]

Ofqual.

[Mr French]

Ofqual. I will stick to football.

I will reiterate what we are trying to do with the amendment: any political interests and political donations made by the prospective chair of the board must all be declared as part of the appointment process and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That is important because, if we are to value the role of this House in making informed decisions, we must have the appropriate information. I do not believe that asking for political donations to be registered and declared transparently is unfair—it is not. It is to do with decision making by this House.

I have already put on the record that I believe that what has happened in recent months has been a great discourtesy not only to all Members of this House, but specifically to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That Committee sat to make its decision on the nomination of Mr Kogan by the Secretary of State yet, at that point, at the time of the meeting, my understanding is—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—that the Committee did not know of the donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, not until they were disclosed in the live Committee hearing. Regardless of the political arguments that people might want to make, and of the whatabouteries again, that is not fair on right hon. and hon. Members of this House. They were not provided with that information to do their work, which is the valuable work of Select Committees of this House.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Member cast his mind back to when the Education Committee rejected the person proposed to be put in charge of Ofsted, and the Government went against the Committee’s opinion. Sometimes Select Committees are not given all the information, and sometimes a Committee’s decision or recommendation is not followed by the Government. We can surmise why that might have been when we look at that person and her links with the Conservative party at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Again, I think we are broadening what I am talking about to a slightly different point—[Interruption.] Hold on! The hon. Lady’s point is whether Select Committees have the right to disagree with the Government and vice versa. That is not the point I am making. My point is that members of the Select Committee should have the information to make their decisions. What I am talking about here is clear: I am trying to ensure that all Committee members, of all different parties, have the information that they require to make informed decisions as elected Members of this House.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. In essence, with this amendment, we are trying to set the regulator up for success. Presumably the question mark about whether someone appointed was the best person for the job—as opposed to any extraneous influence that donations might have had—should be the primary consideration.

[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—

[Jim Dickson]

The shadow Minister represents a political party and the Opposition’s view has a wider perspective on the work that we are doing today. To try to carve this Bill out entirely from the wider appointments process seems odd when he represents a party with a Secretary of State and a party leader who take a wider view on these matters.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for Dartford, one of my new neighbours. He has not mentioned Dartford football club—I am sure they will be unhappy about that.

[Jim Dickson]

It is not in the scope of the Bill.

[Mr French]

There we go! He might wish that the hon. Member for Cheltenham had moved his amendment. This is quite painful, because my local club, Welling United, were relegated this season. It is quite painful as the local Welling-Dartford rivalry plays out.

I understand the point the hon. Member for Dartford makes. Of course I represent a party and of course I am the shadow Minister for Sport, but my job today is to focus on the Bill. The job of this Committee is to focus on the Bill. I respect the fact that hon. Members may have different opinions about whether we should be considering other aspects of public appointments but when we sit here today, having seen the news last night that an independent inquiry has been called into the appointment of the chairman, that strengthens the point of why the amendment is needed.

In government, parties have to make difficult decisions. That is undoubtedly true, regardless of who is in power. We have already seen such a huge own goal, which has undermined the regulator so much, and it was an own goal that could have been avoided. That is why it must be clear and transparent that, whoever is in power, political donations of any kind—particularly when they are to the Secretary of State and Prime Minister, which creates a lot of issues—must be properly declared so that Select Committees have the analysis to make proper, informed decisions.

I am not saying that the Select Committee might have reached a different decision, but it should have had the information on donations. The fact that an inquiry is taking place creates difficult issues for this Committee. At this point we are unclear, given that the story broke only yesterday—that was the first time I was aware of the inquiry—but we have an independent inquiry into the appointment of the chair of the football regulator when we are seeking to discuss the legislation for that regulator today. That creates concerns about the Bill and how it is drafted—I am trying to stick to the Bill rather than the person. I urge Members to accept amendment 117, because it would make the rules on donations clear and it would apply to all parties in government.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Another counterpoint to the whataboutery argument is that this proposal will cut through massively with the British public and the football-supporting public. We had the appointment of the director general of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, who was a Labour donor, and the director of investment at the Treasury, who was a Labour donor. Those things matter to us here, but they do not cut through to the public in the same way that the football regulator will. It has to be cleaner than clean to instil the confidence of the footballing public.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will not get into what the public are more interested in or not, as that is dangerous ground for a shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport to get into—obviously, I have to meet a lot of different bodies, and people have different interests. My hon. Friend’s point about the independence of sport and why it is so important has not been missed. I am sure that as the Bill progresses we will debate the question of why independence is so important.

We have spoken about public perceptions, and about the political process in this House, but what we have not spoken about yet so far is the role of international regulators, including UEFA and FIFA. We will make the point, as I said on Second Reading, that independence is crucial to that. For English clubs to continue playing in European competitions, the regulator must be independent. That is very clear.

We have urged the Government on multiple occasions to publish discussions with UEFA—again, I am happy for it to be on a private basis—so that all Members of this House can make informed decisions about the risk to English football if an independent regulator either expands its scope, through scope creep of the Bill, or is perceived by international bodies to not be independent. That is so important, because the international football community has made it increasingly clear that it will not accept Government interference with the running of the sport.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Member is talking about correspondence with UEFA. As I understand it, the previous Government also had correspondence with UEFA, and the current shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), was the sports Minister at the time. So, to give an example of what should be done, will the shadow Minister now agree to publish the correspondence that the previous Government had with UEFA?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a very well-respected Member of this House and of the football APPG. Obviously I was not a Minister in the previous Government, so it would not be possible for me to publish correspondence. I can speak only on my own behalf, and I do not have any UEFA correspondence. Again, I understand the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but, on the question of what I have urged the Minister to do, I am happy for that to be done on a private basis, so that we can have those reassurances as Members of this House.

This situation is clearly pertinent to the Bill, because, as Members of this House, and as football fans—a number of people have outlined their local clubs and who they support—we surely have to have confidence that what we are putting into law through this House does not conflict with the ability of English clubs to participate. This is not me trying to scaremonger; I just need to know the information.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am interested about the shadow Minister’s idea of “publishing” something privately; that is a new concept to me. I have said in this House more than once—in this Committee, on Second Reading and in Westminster Hall—that the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State makes it very clear that there are no concerns with this Bill. I am obviously confidently saying that in Parliament; I am very much not going to mislead Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East pointed out, the shadow Minister’s Government did not publish any correspondence. I sat in a room like this with the right hon. Member for Daventry, and he did not publish it, so why is the shadow Minister asking us to when he knows that Governments do not publish private correspondence?

[Mr French]

I recognise what the Minister is saying, and I understand the comparison she is making, but my understanding is that, if a Minister refers to a letter between the Government of the day and an international body that has important structures, there are rules within “Erskine May” that would allow—and sometimes force—the Minister to table that letter in the House of Commons Library for all Members to see, so I would urge the Government to do that.

Sir Jeremy, because this is very important, I seek your advice on whether, now that the Minister has referred to that letter, it should now be published under the rules of “Erskine May”. Can the Clerks clarify that, because the Minister has referred to it in her comments? It is in “Erskine May”—I checked on Second Reading—but I just want the guidance of the Clerks on whether that letter should now be published so that Members of this House can have an informed discussion about the risks to English football linked with the independence of the football regulator, because that is critical to all the work that we are going to do today.

[Melanie Onn]

I wonder whether the shadow Minister could indicate in which section of “Erskine May” that information can be found. If that applies to this letter, it will apply to all letters to previous Governments as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I believe the hon. Member has slightly misunderstood the point I was making; it is about what happens if a Minister of the Crown refers to a private letter of correspondence with the Government. The advice from Clerks on Second Reading was that there is a part of “Erskine May” that talks specifically about that. That is the difference. My understanding is that—[Interruption.] There was not—we cannot talk about the work of previous Parliaments. We are talking about today. That has just happened. It is a piece of information that I believe is important to this discussion, and it is a piece of information that has been referred to, so I would ask for guidance from the Clerks.

I appreciate that we are about to break, Sir Jeremy, so I would appreciate it if, when we come back, or over the break, we could have some guidance on that letter and whether it should now be published by the Government—in good faith, for transparent reasons—so that all Members of this House can be as informed as possible, in the same way as we have discussed in relation to donations and the Select Committee.

We need to understand the risk to English football’s participation in European competitions. We have seen more clubs qualify for European competitions this year, which is great—that means they have been successful in Europe—but we need to understand that there is no risk to future participation, whether that be next season or beyond, from anything in this Bill, and I would like that certainty from the Government. I ask again that this letter be published, and I seek the guidance of the House.

[The Chair]

It now being 11.25 am, the Committee will in any event now be adjourned until 2 o’clock. I hope for the assistance of the Committee. The shadow Minister has raised a point on which the Chair may be able to assist—I will not say “will be able to” at this stage—but we will investigate, and at 2 o’clock we will give the Committee what information we can on the point he has raised. Then, of course, the hon. Gentleman will be able to continue his speech and speak to this and other amendments.

Youth Services

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate. I know that she has regularly championed this issue since coming to this place. As Lord Cameron famously said,

“I was the future once.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 294.]

Although I am no longer viewed as one of the younger Members in this place, I am grateful for the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and in the limited time available, to close today’s important debate on the long-term funding of youth services. This subject goes to the heart of how we support the next generation to thrive, contribute and belong, and it is crucial to the future of our great country.

In government, we allocated £560 million over three years to the national youth guarantee, which ensured that every young person in England aged between 11 and 18 had regular access to clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home, and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing over 300 of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) always made sure that young people were around the table when we made decisions that would affect them. We made sure that young people were not just talked about but listened to, and next week the shadow ministerial team will host a youth roundtable as part of our wider policy renewal.

I want to be clear that Conservative Members believe passionately in the power of civil society. We believe in the social fabric that holds this country together—not just the big institutions of state, but the small charities, volunteers, faith groups, sports coaches and mentors who give their time not for profit, but for purpose. They include such organisations as the National Citizen Service, which the Labour Government have cancelled. More than 750,000 young people participated in that programme over 13 years, and it had a 93% satisfaction rate, which is something that this Government can only dream of.

We recognise the vital role of youth workers, who are often unsung and under-resourced, but who are always on the frontline. We must be honest: money alone will not solve all the challenges facing young people. A cheque from Whitehall, however large, will not guarantee that a child finds a mentor, stays off the streets or gets a first step on the ladder. However, since coming into office, this Government have made it more difficult for every single charity in this country to provide their essential services. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) recognised that in his speech, and he was the only Member who spoke about the national insurance hike.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as the Chancellor knew when she made her decision, youth charities, like all employers, pay national insurance contributions, and they need to find additional funds to cover the rise in those contributions. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion per year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and limited core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. Yesterday, we heard from representatives of Place2Be, a leading children’s mental health charity that has provided expert, school-based mental health support over the past 30 years. They told us that thanks to this Labour Government’s national insurance hike, they now have to find an extra half a million pounds every single year, just to pay tax. As a direct result of this Government’s decisions, it is likely that fewer children will receive the care and support that they need in an environment that is familiar to them.

That is why we supported exempting charities with an annual income of less than £1 million from the national insurance rise. However, Labour Members cruelly voted against that, and they must reflect on that, now that they are in government; they are in control. When the Conservatives were in government, we did not just talk about aspiration; we built the conditions for it. We empowered local communities and launched countrywide programmes, such as the National Citizen Service, which had a proven track record of success before this Government closed it down. The Labour Government are dismantling the NCS. In doing so, they are actively and deliberately limiting the life chances of this generation and generations to come, without giving us any answers on what comes next.

I hope that this Government will start to think properly about young people. Instead of making young people’s lives more difficult, the Government should put them at the heart of policymaking, and should reverse their callous tax on charities, youth organisations and businesses, which will likely mean a rise in youth unemployment this year. It is time for actions, not words.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Louie French Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

I certainly do, and that should be the goal of the regulator. Fan engagement is great at York City, but it is not a given elsewhere. That is why the IFR should have a fan advisory board of its own feeding back on its own effectiveness, just as I saw at the FCA with its advisory panels.

Moving on, there is no greater problem in football that needs fixing than ticket pricing and I think the football regulator should look at it in future. This is all about giving back to the ordinary working people of this country: the grafters who pay their taxes, working hard all week, just waiting for those 90 minutes on a Saturday. Some championship clubs charged away fans £45 this season, and some league two sides will be charging over £30 a ticket next season. York could be playing in that league next season and it is just not on, so in my view the IFR should have a greater role in relation to pricing.

[Mr French]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Charters]

I am going to make some progress and allow other Members to speak.

Let us roll out an away ticket cap across the EFL and national league, like the one that already exists in the premier league at £30. That is up for review this year. It should not only be kept, but expanded across all divisions as a ceiling, not a target for clubs. I understand the careful balance to be struck on the regulators’ remit, but with prices climbing and no controls we must do something before it is too late.

The regulator will cover men’s football, but we should also consider how revenue could be shared to boost women’s football and foundation clubs. Perhaps that should be considered too. The IFR will cover the top five divisions, recognising the great progress the national league has made in recent years. Take Wrexham, who won a third successive promotion, to the championship, over the weekend. The problem, though, is the cap on promotion places, with only two teams going up this season from the national league. There has been a debate for some time about introducing a third promotion spot. In my view, with the IFR, now is the right time. I should declare an interest as York City would be all but promoted by now. This is about opening our wonderful pyramid up, not closing off competition.

If I may, I will finish by sharing a further idea about English football. It is 40 years since alcohol was banned in view of the pitch. Perhaps it is time for a modern approach to a modern game. The days of hooliganism are gone. Fans of other sports can drink in the stands, but football fans cannot. Limited trials of designated drinking zones in view of the pitch could be an interesting idea. For me, we should always keep family areas free of that, but let us give fans who want to drink in the stands the chance to do so responsibly, or at least let us have a conversation about it.

To conclude, fan engagement has to be at the heart of the reinvigoration of English football. This moment should kick-start a broader conversation about what fans want. It is this Labour Government leading the charge for the hard-working fans of this country. Today is about protecting the fans to inspire the generations of tomorrow and to protect the sport we all love.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I put on record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and everyone who has engaged with the process outside the Chamber. Like in politics, in football there is always a risk of scoring an own goal, and the Government have just done that with this Bill. It is plain common sense that a Labour donor and a key crony cannot lead an independent football regulator. It is yet another spectacular own goal by this Labour Government—so bad that one has to question whether match fixing is in play.

Is that highly controversial appointment the reason that it has taken so long for Labour to bring the Bill back to this place? For months, this Labour Government have held the ball in the corner, counting down the clock as the Prime Minister enjoys his free prawn sandwiches in a suit paid for by Lord Alli in his free box at Arsenal. So delayed is the Bill that Liverpool have already won the premier league, Leeds and Burnley have already been promoted to the premier league, the Toon Army have ended their long wait for a trophy, Birmingham and Wrexham have been promoted to the championship and a Labour MP has been sent off for punching a constituent in the street.

Introducing the Bill in the other place was an attempt to avoid the issue here for as long as possible, and the question that fans across the country will want an answer on is why? Was it because of Labour Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or because they would not know a football if it hit them in the face?

We Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game. The review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association. Having spoken to a great many football fans across the country and in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football.

As we have heard, the Government are putting our football clubs’ participation in UEFA-licensed competitions at risk. Does the Minister recognise that one particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football? Those are not my words but those of UEFA. Reports also suggest that UEFA has made it clear that it has specific rules to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition, the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding any federation from UEFA and teams from competition. Are the Labour Government prepared to be the reason that English football clubs risk being banned from the champions league, the UEFA league, the conference league, the super cup or—even worse—national competitions?

Moreover, UEFA, like the Conservative party, reportedly has concerns about scope creep from the Government’s regulator. Our Bill intended that the regulator would oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and help protect fans and heritage assets. However, this new Bill makes it more likely that, once established, the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond those areas and amount to Government interference. If Labour has nothing to hide, it should publish the letters.

There are already obvious ways in which the Government’s regulator will increase its own scope. The Minister in the other place was unable to provide a clear answer to questions asked on the following two matters. First, on a concern raised with me by serious and senior football people, where does the Government’s new Bill leave Newcastle United’s Saudi majority owners in relation to the regulator’s powers to investigate club owners? Are the Government saying to all those Newcastle fans who have seen cup glory for the first time in a generation that that will have to stop? Where will the Labour Government’s interference end? Labour and Liberal Democrat peers have voted down Conservative protections for such investment, risking the withdrawal of billions of pounds in investment from clubs.

Fans will have heard the comments today from MPs about scope creep in the ownership test. Could the Minister also clarify where this will leave clubs that are involved in multi-club models? For example, Manchester City head a worldwide group of partner clubs, and in 2023 Chelsea acquired a majority stake in the French ligue 1 club Strasbourg. How will the regulator assess these clubs? Will they assess the whole ownership group, in which case they suddenly become an international football regulator, or will they assess only clubs in England, in which case the super-wealthy clubs will simply hide losses in other jurisdictions, as other Members have pointed out. This could directly impact the flourishing women’s game, given the multi-club model in English football.

The own goal is already so much bigger than this place and politics. We on this side of the pitch understand football and we know why the independence of a football regulator is so important. The Labour Government do not. Apart from their donor, this Government already have 38 civil servants working on their regulator, making it clear that there is already political and Government interference in the function of football. This legislation and the Government’s action in proposing their own donor, David Kogan, as the chair explicitly and deliberately compromise the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England. It is also clear that this compromises the competitiveness of English football in its purest form: using your jumpers for goalposts in the local park and standing on the terraces with family and friends to support your local club.

We cannot lose sight of the business side of professional football and the delicate international ecosystem that sees fans from around the world enjoying English football. For example, only a handful of owners in the premier league are actually English these days. This country is a football global powerhouse, and every single one of us benefits, with billions of pounds for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country and tens of thousands of jobs. A phenomenal export, our beautiful game is watched across the world, with the premier league a true British success story that attracts the most fans and the best players and managers. The EFL and the national league are also fantastic competitions enjoyed by many across the country.

Football clubs up and down the pyramid are at the heart of our communities and are a force in many people’s lives, so much so that they even have the ability to split family loyalties. That is the case in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency, where historically you tend to be either a Millwall or a Charlton supporter. But as any football fan will know, competition across the world is rising fast, not just across Europe but in America, the far east and, of course, the new Saudi league, all of whom want a slice of the premier league’s success. Let’s be honest today: if this Labour regulator had been created many years ago, the premier league and all the benefits that Labour talks about would not exist. Let’s be honest with the fans about that.

I understand that the premier league is the first and only domestic competition in the United Kingdom where the international media rights strip out those of the domestic rights deals, and the Government are hitting it hard. As we have heard, the premier league alone will be hit across the course of this Parliament by £250 million of costs by this Labour Government’s Budget of broken promises. All clubs will see their costs increase, first from the Chancellor’s tax rises and secondly from the ever-increasing amount of red tape introduced by this Government and exemplified by this Bill. Football might have changed over the years, but the Labour party has not.

A Bill touted as reducing costs for fans does nothing of the sort. In fact, plain as day, it will increase the costs for every fan across the country. The Government can stand at the Dispatch Box today but they know full well that this regulator will increase the cost on fans, so much so that Labour peers voted against an amendment that would have disclosed the true cost of this regulator on football ticket prices. What are the Government trying to hide? I ask the Minister: why is she blocking transparency over ticket prices? Not one Labour MP has been able to say how their regulator will reduce ticket prices for fans across this country.

I will conclude, as I am conscious of time and want to give the Minister a chance to speak. This shameful Labour Government have once again put their party first—cronies over clubs, favours over fans, greed over the beautiful game. It seems that the Government have taken inspiration from John Barnes and taken his lyrics too literally when he sung,

“They’ll always hit you and hurt you”.

I am sure he did not mean that the Government should hit fans with increased ticket prices and hurt English football. The Conservative party is under new leadership and will not shy away from telling the fans the truth. Labour has shamefully cut grassroots sport funding across the country, including the Lionesses fund, and its regulator will mean even higher ticket prices for fans at every level of the game. As every Conservative knows,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

We are calling full time on Labour’s shameless power grab over English football, which will certainly see them relegated in the minds of voters and put English football at major risk internationally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to call the shadow Minister, but I am not sure whether he should declare an interest as a former apprentice of London Broncos.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am happy to declare it. We lost a lot of games back then.

The return of the ashes is welcome news for rugby league, but while the next generation will be inspired by the series, the Labour Government have dropped the ball. Encouraging grassroots participation is key to the future of all sports and community clubs across the country, but Labour has cut the £57 million opening school facilities fund, £21 million of investment in multi-sports grassroots facilities, and ended the £25 million Lionesses futures fund that invested in facilities to support women and girls’ sport. Arguably, the biggest owngoal for grassroots sport is the removal of planning protections for sports pitches across England. Why is it only the Conservatives who will protect grassroots clubs and the sports pitches that Labour wants to concrete over?

[Lisa Nandy]

The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to see economic growth but, on the other hand, they are not prepared to take the necessary steps in order to achieve it. The truth is that the Government take grassroots sport incredibly seriously. I am really proud that Sport England is able to provide financial support to clubs across the country through the £160 million movement fund with support of up to £15,000 for grassroots sport organisations. I have to say to the shadow Minister that it takes some brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and lecture this Government in the light of the mess that his Government left to us.

English Rugby Union: Governance

Louie French Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate.

Both rugby union and rugby league are games with proud traditions in this country. They bring together communities, inspire young athletes and represent the best of our national sporting spirit. I had the personal pleasure of playing both codes of rugby as a teenager and getting my coaching badges, and today I am proud to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which has two flourishing rugby clubs, Sidcup and the Dartfordians. Each club represents what rugby is really about: community, friendship and playing sport in the spirit of healthy competition, open to all, regardless of background, with thriving teams across all age groups. I look forward to wearing my half-and-half scarf next month, when the battle of Bexley takes place between the two senior first teams of my local clubs. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Mizen Foundation to promote schools rugby in my community.

Yet as we all know, the national game is at a crossroads, with major headwinds, including competition from other sports, club finances, as we have heard, and player welfare. Performances and results on the pitch have thankfully improved, with the men’s team having a strong Six Nations—sorry, fans of Wales and Scotland—and the Red Roses continuing to inspire girls and women across the country ahead of this year’s world cup, but the governance of English rugby union has been brought into the spotlight in recent months.

I want to be clear from the outset—I am sure Members across the House will agree—that this is not a criticism of the players or fans, or of hard-working individuals in clubs and the wider rugby community. It is about how we improve the governance structure of English rugby to ensure the long-term sustainability of the game, from the grassroots to the elite level. With the Six Nations under way, it is a good time to look at reforming the governance of the Rugby Football Union to ensure accountability, transparency and a long-term strategic vision for the sport.

Critics have argued that the governance structure of English rugby union has failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of the international game and, as a result, the game is beginning to suffer. Sir Bill Beaumont and the RFU board have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent months, but I am pleased that they have been out meeting clubs across the country and engaging on a range of concerns ahead of their special general meeting on 27 March. As a result of roadshow feedback, the RFU is planning to take action in the following areas: governance reforms, financial sustainability, continued growth of the community game, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying and modernising competition structures, investing in community club infrastructure and improving communications. It is ultimately up to union members to vote on proposals, but I believe that those are the right areas of focus and hope that the game will tackle these important issues in the months and years ahead.

First and foremost, we must ensure that the RFU is accessible and accountable and operates transparently. The days of a top-down approach to the governance of rugby are over. Rugby is a community game and its leadership structure must reflect that. We need a range of voices at the decision-making table, including people from the grassroots who understand the challenges faced by our local clubs and understand the game itself. I am sure that Members in this place and members of local clubs are pleased to hear that the RFU has promised more control over our community game. I appreciate that that is an olive branch from the RFU in the wake of a chorus of criticism from the game, but it should be welcomed none the less, alongside the £120 million of investment in community rugby promised over the next four years.

The RFU is beginning with a review of how the community game is run, which it expects will encourage

“a shift to a regional structure where more decisions can be made locally, with greater flexibility achieved in competition management and devolved funding to help local decisions to be made to drive participation growth, aid player retention and support club sustainability.”

I think Members here and fans across the country will welcome that.

We must also continue to ensure that financial decisions are made with the long-term health of the game in mind. We must not continue to see short-sighted financial choices that damage the sport’s infrastructure and leave our clubs struggling. There have been many media reports about the RFU’s record-breaking loss last year, and it has been mentioned during the debate, but what has not been reported on is the four-year financial cycle in which the RFU operates, which follows the fixture list. During half of the cycle, the RFU makes a profit; in one year it breaks even; and one year results in a loss. It announced a record-breaking loss last year, but the loss was actually less than it had planned. Having looked into the details and met the RFU, it is clear to me that there is a financial plan in place, but it is not always sufficiently headline-grabbing to be made clear to the public.

[Edward Morello]

I have also heard the RFU explain its four-year business plan. It is nearly impossible to imagine a business running on a four-year plan under which it makes a loss three years out of four. Given how long the RFU has been in charge of the game, I find it staggering that it has not found a way to create a business plan with a more even distribution of income and outgoings. If it is ever going to get on to a sustainable footing and provide cash to the game, it needs to find a way to be profitable in every single year.

[Mr French]

I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead.

Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure.

The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows.

The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish.

The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup.

From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that.

I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address.

Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility?

What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?

English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important debate. As we all know, football is more than just a game. It is a passion that unites millions across the country, from all backgrounds and communities. It is woven into the fabric of many communities, from grassroots clubs such as Foots Cray Lions and Welling United in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, to the premier league giants and those seeking to rival them.

Football and rugby were key to my own development as a teenager and although I do not get to play as often as I would like any more, sport taught me key life skills such as communication, teamwork and leadership, and taught me the positivity that comes from healthy competition. When I talk about football, it is personal to me. I want our beautiful game enjoyed for generations to come in the spirit of healthy competition. Football is nothing without its fans and the people who make football work throughout the year.

Although there are many debates to be had about the independent regulator in the months ahead, when the governance Bill finally returns to the Commons it is imperative that Members across the House do not lose sight of what a success story the evolution of English football is, in both the men�s and the women�s games. The premier league, for example, is the most watched competition in the world, attracting the best players and managers, and generating significant economic and cultural benefits to the United Kingdom. The EFL is also thriving, with attendances in the championship, league one and league two surpassing many European peers. But with the immense popularity and influence of this great British success story comes a responsibility for both the clubs and the governing bodies to ensure that the game remains viable, fair and open for future generations. In recent years, some clubs have suffered financial distress or, in the case of one of my local clubs, Charlton Athletic, they have been owned by someone who clearly did not have the club�s interests at heart.

Although we must be realistic about the global economics of football and the fierce competition from rival leagues, including the Saudi league, we cannot ignore the consequences on fans, communities and the wider football pyramid when clubs are run badly. I have great sympathy for Reading football club and the fans in the Public Gallery, because I see many similarities with the challenges that Charlton has faced in recent years. That is why the previous Government introduced a more measured, balanced and proportionate Football Governance Bill, which sought to ensure that English football was more financially sustainable for the future and more accountable to fans. It also sought to stop the breakaway European super league.

However, football clubs must live within their means. Clear and responsible financial frameworks are already in place within the premier league and the EFL, and are supposed to be overseen by the FA and the leagues. However, the FA is often overlooked in debates in this House�it has hardly been mentioned today�and in the other place, as many seem to forget that there are already many football regulations in place and that the FA and the leagues are the regulators. That is even before we consider the role of the likes of UEFA and FIFA, and we understand that UEFA has raised concerns with the Government about interference in our national sport.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Gentleman said that the previous Bill introduced by the Conservative Government was measured, and the Conservative party now opposes this version of the Bill. Could he state, really clearly for everyone here, what measures have changed that his party does not agree with?

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that question. The Bill is still changing in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but amendments from the Conservative party have been accepted by the Government; I will come on to one of those amendments on growth of the game. I appreciate the enthusiasm of new Government Members as they try to please their Whips and the Government, but amendments are still being made to this Bill in the other place. I understand their eagerness, but we have not seen the final Bill.

There are challenges in football, but we must not lose sight of the importance of the independence of the sport. We must prevent Government interference, which will assuredly diminish the unique nature of the game and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. A careful balance must be struck: regulation must not address just short-term issues; it should serve the sport�s long-term interests and it should not deter vital investment.

We should also acknowledge the progress in football governance over recent years. The Football Association, the Premier League and other key stakeholders have worked tirelessly to address issues such as financial fair play and racism and to improve safety standards at grounds. If we as legislators impose a blanket, top-down regulatory framework, we risk stifling the innovation and flexibility that has helped football to evolve. It was this innovation that allowed the premier league to come into existence in 1992, and that has provided world-class football in United Kingdom for more than three decades. It begs the question: would the premier league now be banned by this new Bill coming from the Labour party?

We cannot risk a return to the football of the 1980s, when English clubs were banned from Europe. Members may not be familiar with a letter from 2 September 2024 from the UEFA general secretary to the new Secretary of State raising concerns about the Bill. When we have requested sight of these concerns, the Government have denied us access. What are the Government hiding from football fans? Are there risks that our clubs, and even our national teams, may not be able to compete? Please can we have sight of this letter from UEFA raising these concerns? We have written to request it, and we have requested it in the other place. Members of Parliament must have complete transparency on what they are being asked to vote on and the risks of the Bill.

But it is not all own goals from the Labour party. It is welcome that this Government have now accepted some of the Conservative amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked a question about that, and I have an example for him: the Government�s regulator must now avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football; we will closely monitor how it does that as the Bill develops. Equally, we have to be mindful of unintended consequences on clubs, fans and ticket prices. The Bill will increase the regulatory burden on all clubs. One football chief executive has already said:

�We�ve two choices with those costs. We either stop doing some of the things we�re already doing, whether that�s academy, women�s, girls� football or whatever, or we pass those costs on to fans.�

Members must acknowledge that football is a delicate international ecosystem that is at huge risk if the Government get this wrong. As we look around at the various challenges facing football today, from financial stability to governance issues and from player welfare to fan engagement, one thing becomes clear: football is at a crossroads. The time has come for us to empower the sport�s governing bodies to use their expertise to lead the way and chart a course that puts the game and fans first. As the official Opposition, we will continue to closely scrutinise what the Government�s expanded new Bill does, and try to limit the number of own goals they score.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is right: the Government are on the side of football fans. That is why we have introduced the Football Governance Bill: to put fans back at the heart of the game.

[Mr French]

Given the last intervention and the ongoing auditions for Parliamentary Private Secretary roles among Labour Members, I must push the Minister: at what point will introducing a regulator and the measures that she is discussing lower ticket prices for football fans?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman should know that that is a commercial decision, but we have made a change so that fans will be consulted. We think that it is the right change. Our Football Governance Bill will put fans back at the heart of the game. It will protect club heritage, take on rogue owners and secure the financial sustainability of English football.