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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is topicals folks, thank you. I call the shadow Minister.

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

At the end of last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) stated the importance of greyhound racing to the nation’s culture and economy, but last week Labour in Wales announced its intention to ban greyhound racing as soon as practicably possible. Will the Secretary of State tell us who she agrees with, her Sport Minister or the Deputy First Minister, and will she make clear whether she is planning to ban greyhound racing across the UK?

[Lisa Nandy]

I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly: I agree with the Sports Minister. We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.

Draft Community Radio Order 2025

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 General Committees

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Community radio serves a vital purpose in society, and especially for local communities, by providing services for the good of members of the public or particular communities. They have a specific role and community radio stations’ focus as not-for-profit is to provide social gain, not serve commercial interests.

We have some concerns, however, that the draft order, although well intentioned, risks restricting competition and weakening the very principles of community radio. For example, the extension of licences for community radio stations could come at the expense of new entrants. For new entrants, the order is a barrier to entry and cements the status of current operators.

When the media landscape is evolving, with urban and rural communities wanting culturally relevant radio, does the Minister agree that the order potentially limits growth in the sector? Not only does it restrict new entrants, but it fails to offer any review process on the service that community radio stations currently provide. Has the Minister therefore considered the benefits of a relicensing process, as well as a review of existing licences, to ensure that community radio stations are fulfilling their purpose to deliver social value and serve their communities? If the Minister does not intend to conduct a relicensing process or to review existing licences, what action will she take to ensure that community radio stations are delivering social benefits and providing community-focused broadcasting?

I am aware of issues relating to coverage, with many community radio stations reporting DAB coverage issues. This means that stations are being prevented from serving their communities and fulfilling their purpose as community radio stations. What assessment have the Minister or her officials made of coverage as a result of phasing out analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB?

I will end how I started: by highlighting the good work that community radio stations do. I hope that the Minister can see that for this sector to grow and thrive, competition should not be restricted, and effective checks should be in place to ensure that community radio stations are fulfilling their purpose to benefit society.

Gambling Harms

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue.

As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission.

However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation.

Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years.

Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year.

I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons.

As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity.

Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact.

First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly.

We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating:

“On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.”

If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members.

There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play.

I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?

Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?

I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her that I would like very much to allow Alex Ballinger two minutes to wind up at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response.

The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year.

On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us.

We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years.

In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.

Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Almost a year ago, the previous Conservative Government, having commissioned the Gambling Act review in 2020 and published the White Paper in 2023, announced the introduction of a new £2 maximum stake for under-25s playing online, as well as a £5 limit for those aged over 25. The previous Government took that decision following a specific 10-week consultation period in which most respondents agreed with the proposals in the gambling White Paper to introduce statutory limits for online slot games. That was, as Members know, to help counter the specific increased risk of harm and life-changing losses from online slot games that had developed since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005. It was also to help level the playing field between land-based operators and those based online, as the Minister has acknowledged.

After more than a decade and a half, all parties recognised that the Gambling Act was analogue in a digital age and that reforms were needed. Unlike what the Labour Government are announcing today, the reforms proposed by the Conservative Government were relatively modest and sought to balance the need to better support those at risk of gambling harms with the safe enjoyment of gambling, as experienced by millions across the country in a sector that is a key contributor to our economy. That is the point in which I want to press the Minister with this first set of regulations.

It appears that the Government are continuing to miss the opportunity to promote growth in the sector and to engage in the modernisation of casinos more broadly. I have raised the issue previously, and, trying to be constructive in opposition, I do so again now. As the Minister knows, the White Paper set out a number of modest but important modernisation measures for land-based casinos to allow operators to continue to deliver a first-class leisure and entertainment experience offer to their customers. That included reforms to the formula of what type and quantity of machines venues could have, as well as allowing sports betting for all casinos, which I know from my own travels is common in other countries.

I have met a range of operators from across the across the country already and it is clear that there is still a desire to invest in those businesses, despite the significant headwinds and operational costs coming from the Chancellor’s Budget, which is pushing many into the red. Are the Government planning to reintroduce the draft instrument on casino modernisation, which I understand had already been drafted by the Department before the election? If so, when can we expect that, and if not, why not?

On the same theme of growth and investment, in light of the Chancellor’s rather strange comments that the Government will be reaching out to state regulators for ideas for growth, what discussion has the Minister’s Department had with the Gambling Commission on ideas for growth? Finally, what review mechanism will the Government put in place to ensure that these changes to online stakes do not further fuel the growth in the online black market? I know that many Members will share my concerns about this growth in the gambling black market, which I am afraid to say I did warn about both before and since taking up this brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. Unfortunately, that pleasure does not extend to the regulations that we are now discussing. The Labour Government have spectacularly managed to take a set of draft regulations that were largely settled and agreed on, after significant engagement by the previous Department for Culture, Media and Sport ministerial team prior to the election, and got them to the position we are in today, where there are major concerns across the sector about their impact and unintended consequences.

Before I highlight some of those concerns to the House today, and in the spirit of trying to be constructive in opposition, I urge the Government and the Minister, who I have a lot of time and respect for—I know she is covering today—to address a clear structural problem with how they are approaching this important policy area. As has been highlighted in some of the responses already, having the Minister for Gambling in the other place working part-time on major gambling reforms is clearly not working. While most Governments will face criticism at times for not listening, it is remarkable that in almost every conversation that the shadow DCMS team has with people across the sector, we are being told consistently that the Government are not even engaging, let alone listening. That major concern keeps coming up and is a constant theme. The Government have successfully, and remarkably, managed to unite the anti-gambling and pro-gambling sides of the sector, and everyone in between, in their concerns about the lack of engagement. Separate to the regulations we are discussing today, I ask the Minister to take that away and feed it back, perhaps through the Whips, because it is quite a feat.

Sadly, that failure to engage properly is why I believe there are a number of issues with the redrafted regulations in front of us today. First, in the broader economic context, Members might have seen the recent “Sunday Times Tax List 2025”, which highlighted what many of us already knew: the gambling industry already pays a lot of tax. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that in the year 2024-25, betting and gaming duties alone will raise £3.6 billion. That represents roughly 0.3% of all receipts, and is equivalent to £124 per household and 0.1% of national income. The Betting and Gaming Council estimates that its members contribute £6.8 billion to the economy each year, as well as supporting more than 109,000 jobs across the country. Although I understand that some might wish to bash the bookies, we must have a sensible debate about the collective impact of Labour’s tax rises on the sector, the thousands of jobs across the country now being put at risk and the potential unintended consequences for charities, sports such as British horseracing and the growth of the black market, as I have referenced already.

Betting revenues from horseracing are evidently falling because of flawed affordability checks, and the economic backdrop today is fundamentally bleaker because of Labour’s Budget, which adds to the broader sector concerns as the Government seek to squeeze even more money out of firms. We all must be clear that the levies being discussed will further push up costs for businesses and, when taken with Labour’s tax rises as a whole, will severely restrict or even remove the viability of smaller gambling operators and important community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses across the country.

That brings me to my next point: the scope of the amended draft regulations, which has been expanded from the previous proposals. There are deep sector concerns about who this Labour Government are targeting by expanding the scope of the regulations. For example, regulation 2 brings into scope trackside betting at greyhound and horseracing racecourses, while regulation 3 sets the minimum levy payment threshold, which had previously been agreed at £500,000 a year. However, the Government have gone much further, reducing the minimum threshold to only £10 for small operators, after which point they would need to start paying the mandatory levy and doing the administration that goes alongside that.

Unsurprisingly, the move has caused great alarm among independent and smaller firms, which are being brought into the scope of liability for levy payments for the first time. Independent bingo hall operators have also been brought into scope. Under regulation 4, these businesses will be charged at 0.2%, which I understand is double what had been proposed previously. If I am interpreting the proposed regulations correctly, they will see small independent bookmakers at courses around the country charged double the rate of pooled betting operators, such as the Tote. Can the Minister confirm whether my understanding is correct on that point?

The Government’s new proposals have also lumped independent high street bookmakers with a land-based retail rate of 0.5%, which is also up from the previous proposal of 0.4%. That means that small independent betting shops will pay an additional £1,000 a shop and an additional £500,000 in total. The Betting and Gaming Council has said that it is a real “hammer blow” to the 500 small independent bookmakers in the UK, which employ more than 2,500 people, undoubtedly leading to closures and job losses.

As if it is not bad enough that important community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses are facing a Labour battering, community lotteries are also expressing concerns about the risk of being charged the levy twice, because of how it has been drafted. That would negatively affect distributions to good causes.

I understand that the Department considered charging the levy at 0% for society lottery operators but concluded that that would amount to an exemption and would carry significant legal risks. Has a new impact assessment been carried out to analyse in greater detail the risks and concerns that are being expressed? Even if some Members are comfortable with bashing the bookies, they surely cannot be comfortable with the unintended consequences and risks resulting from less funding for good causes and a loss of jobs and community assets.

My final concern is about the potential impact on the charities and organisations that are already doing fantastic work to support those suffering with gambling addiction. As Members should already know, through the existing voluntary scheme, although it is far from perfect, hundreds of millions of pounds of contributions from gambling firms have been invested to help to fund a network of specialist charities and organisations that support those who need help. I understand that that network currently cares for roughly 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain, but there are major concerns and great uncertainty about how and to what extent that care can continue as the Government seek to change the system from voluntary to statutory.

First, on short-term funding, our understanding is that the regulations will lead to some firms paying a double levy this year. Ministers have been clear that they expect the industry to pay voluntary contributions this financial year, and that if these regulations come into effect, the industry will also be required to make payments on profits backdated to 1 April last year. The Minister must know that, faced with being charged twice in the same calendar year, many firms in the industry will look to minimise their voluntary payments for this financial year.

Moreover, according to regulation 4(6), the levy due this October for the first period is 33% higher than usual, so the Government not only are asking firms to pay twice in a year, but have added up front, in the fine print, an extra third on to the statutory levy. That clearly risks removing millions of pounds in vital funding from the treatment network before October when the first statutory levy payment is due. In the Minister’s response, can she tell us what risk assessment her Department has carried out on that potential drop in voluntary contributions and funding in the short term, and how many people she thinks will lose out on treatment in that time?

The new statutory levy also raises many questions and great uncertainty about how the money will be spent and the process behind the decision making, which has again been fuelled by a lack of engagement by the Government. The Minister might want to get a pen out—I can see she has one now. Who in Government will be setting the strategic direction and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?

Can the Minister please confirm what target percentage will be spent on prevention, treatment and support services, and what percentage the Government expect to be spent on research? How will the Government ensure that research is not duplicated at the cost of treatment and prevention? How will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy and will the Government ensure that all views are being heard rather than just those of vested interests?

Will the Government ensure that charities funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment, currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not have carte blanche for its approach, which will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?

Those are all serious concerns. I could go on, which highlights the scale of uncertainty hanging over the sector and, sadly, the lack of engagement and clarity from the new Labour Government to date. They are a loose horse with bad form and no jockey to give them strategic direction. On many of these issues, the Government are now asking us to take a leap into the dark with them—comparable with jumping Becher’s Brook blindfolded knowing it is odds on that there will be a very painful landing.

I am afraid that without some meaningful answers today, without evidence that a thorough and up-to-date impact assessment has been carried out on all these issues, and without changes to the draft regulations, we cannot support these policies. We know that they will do further damage to jobs and the industry, put community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses at risk of closure, and risk harming the very people and charities that the statutory levy is supposed to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

This has been a useful debate. The statutory levy has previously had cross-party support. I will respond to some of the shadow Minister’s questions, and then I will respond to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. In response to the shadow Minister’s opening point about the Minister for Gambling sitting in the other place, I think it was unkind to refer to her as working part time; she merely sits in the other place, and I gently remind him that the previous Government’s Foreign Secretary did the same. Perhaps we could put the political point scoring to one side.

[Mr French]

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Foreign Secretary, so I understand what the Minister is trying to say. I am not questioning the motives of the Minister for Gambling; the point is that she is tied up, as we all know, on the Football Governance Bill, because the Government have decided to put the Bill through the other place first. Hence, she can only work part time on the gambling reforms. That is the feedback we are getting consistently, and that is the challenge I am trying to make.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not recognise the logic of that argument. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman served as a Minister. He perhaps does not know that a Minister has to juggle a number of pieces of legislation, and a number of different issues. The Baroness is committed to being the Minister for Gambling, and she engages with a range of the sector, and as indeed did I when I was the shadow Minister, and I continue to speak to the sector when appropriate.

As for the economic picture, I will take no lessons from the official Opposition, given the state they left the economy in. Now I want to move on to discuss the actual statutory instrument.