English Rugby Union: Governance

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the governance of English rugby union.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, for what I hope is the first of many times. I come to this place as a rugby union fan, an ex-coach and ex-referee. I also declare an interest—my brother is a long-standing director of rugby at London Cornish rugby club. I am delighted to see the west country, an excellent servant of English rugby union, well represented here today.

As a Cornish MP, it is hard for me to adequately express just how important our grassroots rugby clubs are to the fabric of our communities. Some of the communities in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in my constituency suffer from extremes of poverty and deprivation. Life for many is a day-to-day struggle to feed the kids, heat the home and balance challenging working hours. For many, it is a case of muddling through. The one constant is our grassroots rugby clubs, offering children from all backgrounds that life-enhancing schooling in discipline, respect, teamwork, the joy of winning and how to bounce back from defeat. For many children, our clubs offer a vital controlled outlet for pent-up frustrations from challenging home and school lives.

I have used the word “grassroots” several times so far, and I do so intentionally. While others may wish to contribute by voicing governance concerns relating to clubs in higher leagues, I am focusing largely on the concerns that have been expressed to me from dozens of clubs below the first two tiers of the English men’s game. I am focusing on the men’s game because, in my view, the health of the women’s game—although still under-represented in terms of grassroots facilities—has come a huge way over the last 10 years. Credit where credit is due—those responsible for its development should be commended, although there is still much work to be done to support the women’s game.

I am acutely aware that while there are profound concerns with the financial state of some clubs in the premiership and the championship, grassroots rugby is facing an existential crisis. I will focus on three areas: governance, player welfare and funding. Although I refer to examples, the entire focus of the debate should be on how we work together, cross-party, looking forwards, to create the sustainable environment for our great game to not just survive, but thrive.

On governance, I noted with interest the recent Rugby Football Union consultation and the resulting document, “Our track record and areas of focus”, which was circulated to RFU members. I have to admit that it left me slightly bemused. It seemed to be suggesting that all is pretty hunky-dory with English rugby—a little bit of tinkering here and there, and we are all good. There was not the slightest hint of contrition or even an acceptance that many clubs are on the brink.

Maybe I have been talking to the wrong clubs, but in my conversations—admittedly, considerably fewer than the 400 that are reported to have been consulted for the RFU document—there are profound concerns about the direction of grassroots English rugby, the voices of which have for too long been drowned out by muscular lobbying from vested interests. There is no better indication that all is not well than the number of grassroots clubs right across England that I spoke with that, although happy to talk to me in detail about their own club’s circumstances, wanted to remain anonymous.

Let us look more specifically at governance. Part of the problem is the almost total lack of recent grassroots men’s coaching or administration experience on some of the key governance bodies. Of the nine members of the RFU board, only one has had experience in the past five years of either coaching or administering an adult men’s 15 side. On the RFU council, only a handful of members have recent experience of the adult men’s game below the national leagues. That means the largest single group of clubs is simply not adequately represented on either of those bodies, which are essential to the health and wellbeing of the game nationally. There is a community game board, although it is very hard to work out who they are, but I very much hope that they are taken from the current administrators and coaches of clubs beneath the national leagues. Their remit and responsibility should be made much clearer to all stakeholders.

Why is the representation so important? Let me give Members a couple of graphic examples. Three seasons ago a league reorganisation was imposed by someone that did not have a rugby union background. The failure is perhaps best demonstrated by the 12-team Counties 1 Surrey/Sussex league where seven teams could go down at the end of the season. If a team was promoted, they could land in one of four different leagues, stretching from Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire to Thurrock in Essex and Bournemouth down on the south coast. This is for amateur clubs, where players have to balance work and family life. With no clear lines of promotion or relegation, club administrators simply cannot plan ahead and nor can the amateur players who are also, as I have mentioned, trying to balance the day job and family commitments. I talked to one club that is already in its fourth league in four seasons, having been relegated during that time just once.

Turning to player welfare, I would like to cite the contentious changes to the tackle height law, which was introduced in July 2023 for the start of the 2023-24 season, just two months later. It allowed almost no time for amateur players to adapt from lifelong tackling habits. It should be deeply concerning to all of us who love the game to learn that no data has ever been made public that acts as a baseline against which to measure success. Perhaps even more worrying still is that data is not routinely collected from across the grassroots game to provide proof as to whether the change is helping in terms of concussions, with only a voluntary submission being rolled out.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about welfare, but there is a wider issue when it comes to rugby union in terms of participation. If the rules are constantly changing and the game is different every time we watch it every season, why would people join if there is a risk of the rules changing and of injury? As a rugby enthusiast, I want to see young people joining because of what it gave me. Does he share the same concerns about the wider implications of not understanding the game being played?

[Perran Moon]

Yes, I do, and I thank the hon. Member for that point. It is absolutely the case that the rules and laws of rugby are constantly being reviewed. I can understand to a certain extent that the game is trying to find a formula that is as attractive as possible to ensure that more and more people come to watch, but it makes it very hard for players, administrators and coaches to manage when there is a constant change in the rules. He makes a very good point—I should say the laws, not the rules.

Anecdotally, some clubs are experiencing an increase in concussions. Worse still, the concussions are more severe than previously, because players are now required to put their heads against knees and hip bones, and the tackle area has been much reduced. Two-player tackles mean head-on-head collisions appear to be increasing. As I say, because we are not routinely collecting data, this is anecdotal, so we must start routinely collecting that data. The situation would be significantly mitigated through competent and sympathetic implementation and governance from people with experience of the grassroots game.

On funding, I was pretty shocked to learn that our grassroots rugby clubs are largely left to fend for themselves while funding is held at the very top of the game. There is a massive financial premium placed on the success of the England rugby team. This is a high risk strategy over which the grassroots game has no control. If the last 14 years taught us anything at all, it is that the theory of trickle-down economics has been debunked. Poorer organisations that are required to value every single pound are far more likely to spend wisely than bloated and complacent functions at the top of the game. The crumbs from the captain’s table approach of providing tickets to England matches as a means of raising revenue is simply not one that provides the financial security that grassroots clubs need.

The only point I will raise about championship clubs is the deeply concerning issue of the covid loans. Over the last five years, championship teams had funding unilaterally cut from £625,000 per championship club, to the current level of £103,000. In plans introduced in the weeks before the first lockdown, a reduction to £288,000 by the beginning of the 2022-23 season was imposed, but a one-year emergency cut to £150,000 was imposed later in 2020 because of the impact of covid.

Championship clubs fully expected and were promised a reinstatement of the pre-covid phased reduction, but that funding has failed to materialise, with authorities claiming a lack of available cash. Championship clubs were not consulted on those changes, despite the severe impact on the chances of survival for many. Having spoken with several championship clubs, there is now a clear and present danger that several of them will not survive.

Competent governance is essential to the safeguarding of the game that we all love. That includes proper consultation and communication; relevant experience at the top of the game; a coherent and transparent funding model; and sympathetic implementation of law changes, which consider the practicalities of the amateur game and the safeguarding of players.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

If you were to come to Hinckley to watch the rugby, Sir Desmond, I would suggest going to the Union Inn. When you walk in, especially given it is Six Nations weekend, you will see lots of rugby quotes along the top of the room. The first that catches my eye is:

“The relationship between the Welsh and the English is based on trust and understanding. They don’t trust us and we don’t understand them.”

I am able to say that because I am half-Welsh and half-English. The fight that will ensue this weekend will be interesting.

I should declare an interest: until recently, my brother was the sports and exercise doctor for Bath Rugby and had been there for many years. I should also declare that my father is a Bath Rugby season ticket holder. I too am a Bath Rugby fan, which makes it all the more difficult to represent a constituency in Leicestershire—especially during the pandemic, when I was hit with 150 emails from Leicester Tigers fans asking for support. What I love about rugby union is being able to write back to those constituents and say, “I will give you support, provided that Bath are above you in the table when it comes forward.” I am pleased that at this time Bath is sitting pretty at the top of the premiership, above Leicester. Long may that continue.

This Saturday, I am heading to Hinckley rugby club, which is a fantastic community club and a great feeder for some of the great players we have seen in Leicester and also in England colours. The club has done an incredible job of bringing multi-sports places together. That is a testament given the travesties we have seen with the pandemic and what it has done to the sport.

It becomes more personal and professional as a MP, given that Wasps was just down the road from me. As has been mentioned, we have lost Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and the Jersey Reds. The question is why. What is going on? As has rightly been talked about, this storm has been brewing for a while. It is a combination of how to grow the game; player welfare; where the revenue comes from; who will buy clubs, and in the case of Worcester, why they have bought it and what they will do with it; and what the future of our game will be.

In the light of the storm that has been brewing, I asked the Government in December whether they would conduct a review into the governance and finances of rugby. The Minister answered that, while rugby union

“has a vital role to play in our national identity”,

there was no intention

“to conduct a review into the finances or governance of rugby union at this time.”

Fast forward to this year and, on 9 January, the BBC reported on grassroots representatives of rugby calling for a petition to sack the RFU board chief executive. According to the BBC article, this resulted from concerns about the £1.1 million compensation package for the chief executive, record financial losses for the governing body, job losses, perceived leadership failings to save liquidated clubs such as London Irish, Wasps, Worcester and the Jersey Reds, the calamitous roll-out of new rules on tackle height in 2023, money spent paying out contracts to fire England coaches, and a climate of lost confidence and trust from thousands of volunteers in the game.

The RFU initially rejected the calls for a summit meeting because the no-confidence petition lacked the required signatures, but it was later reported that a special general meeting will take place on 27 March. Strikingly, I attended a similar debate last week about football governance. When the Minister spoke—I have picked out a few bits—she said:

“Despite bigger revenues than ever coming into the game, too many loyal fans have had their attention forced away from the pitch and into the troubles of malicious ownership, mishandled finances and ultimately the worry that their cherished clubs might be lost.”

She went on to say:

“Being an appropriate owner means that club custodians must be suitable; we are protecting fans from irresponsible owners. Having a sensible business plan means that clubs will need clear financial plans, with detail on risk management and resource plans for owners. Having proper engagement with fans on key issues means setting a minimum standard for fan engagement. We are ensuring protections on changes to club crests, home kit and club names and giving fans a voice in the day-to-day running of their club.

Clubs will need a licence to play. They will not be able to join closed-shop breakaway leagues or move around without proper consultation.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 228WH-229WH.]

If anything, the RFU is seemingly in an even more precarious position than our football colleagues. I am not trying to pit one against the other; I am simply saying that there is a similarity when it comes to managing sport.

If Members do not believe me, they only have to look at the proposals by an American company for a touring premiership or touring clubs. A breakaway league is a serious proposition. What would happen then to the domestic game? What would happen to the regional game, including the competitions across Europe? How would that fit? I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am simply saying these are the realities. People are trying to make sport profitable, but at what detriment? If it is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander?

There is an argument for looking into what is going on. It seems like the grassroots do not trust or understand the chief executive and the RFU team, and vice versa. Therefore, it seems paramount that the Government ask for a review of the governance and finances to ensure that the game we all love in this room is on a sustainable footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for leading today’s debate. It is fantastic to listen to Members’ representations on the governance of English rugby union. The hon. Gentleman has close ties with the game, and I think he has been a poacher and a gamekeeper, both a referee and a player—well done.

It is important that we do more to protect local sport and listen to local perspectives. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) referred to the ambitions of Bath and Leicester. I have a Leicester Tigers rugby shirt. I was given it many years ago. Believe it or not, I sent away for a Leicester City football shirt and received a Leicester Tigers one. I was not quite sure—I knew the colour scheme was not quite right. I still treasure it, even though it was not what I originally wished to have.

There is an ongoing debate in England about how rugby clubs are regulated and sustained. The game has faced financial challenges, and some clubs in England have gone into administration or have been on the brink of doing so. We must ensure that provisions are in place so that does not occur.

Rugby union in Northern Ireland is governed by Ulster Rugby, which has responsibility for the sport’s oversight and development. It is doing a fairly good job, and I give it credit for its work. Ulster Rugby is responsible for all levels of rugby in Northern Ireland, from schools and the grassroots level to professional rugby.

I went to boarding school for five years, and the school game was rugby. We could not play football—well, we could play football, but we had to play it down the bottom, near the river, where nobody could see. That was the way it was. It was a long time ago, in the ’60s and early ’70s. It is probably very different today, and pupils can probably play football or any other sport they want. Rugby was the game. I played out-half or wing forward, and I enjoyed it. It is quite a physical game, and maybe that was the attraction.

Ulster Rugby oversees the Ulster rugby team, which competes in the United Rugby Championship and European competitions such as the champions cup. Rugby is incredibly popular in Northern Ireland, and its following is incredible. It is promoted through schools and clubs across Northern Ireland. So many schools in my constituency play rugby regularly—High School Ballynahinch, in particular, and Regent House school have done incredibly well in the schools competition and still play great games of rugby. Glastry college is another example, and I sit on its board of governors. Although it was not originally a rugby school, a couple of teachers came in and rugby has become one of the college’s games.

We have Ballynahinch rugby football club and Ards rugby football club, and what they do for the participation of children and people of all ages is ginormous. Some 300 children take part in rugby every Saturday morning, and sometimes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays too. Women’s rugby is also promoted, and it is gathering speed in Northern Ireland. The Ulster schools’ cup fosters competition for so many young men, and their love for rugby stays with them all their lives. Northern Ireland’s many rugby league clubs are enjoyed by people of all ages, and Ulster Rugby’s women’s team is going from strength to strength, which is wonderful and tells us that the sport is reaching beyond its previous parameters.

As with any sport, finances are an issue. There are many cases where the sport’s financial sustainability has been brought into question, and it is clear that effective regulation is needed to protect the clubs, the players and the supporters, and to ensure the future success of rugby unions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We must ensure that, for all rugby unions, there is an even spread of finances from the top tier of United Kingdom rugby right down to local teams and schools. There must be better regulation and support to ensure that we do not witness more well-known clubs going into administration.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and other hon. Members have called on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to engage further with counterparts across the United Kingdom. I always ask these questions of Ministers, but I ask because it is important to do so. We want to continue the tradition of great rugby in Northern Ireland, but this debate has raised some of the challenges to rugby and what needs to be done. Does the Minister intend to engage with Gordon Lyons, the responsible Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, to relay the outcomes of our discussions so that we can go forward together?

[Dr Luke Evans]

I thank the hon. Member who, as always, is making a fantastic speech. He is always a champion for the Union, and rugby union is also suffering in Wales and Scotland. Does he have a view on whether we should have a sit-down discussion? Rugby union is devolved, but it is important to ensure sustainability across all four nations so that there is an abundance for future generations.

[Jim Shannon]

Rugby is loved everywhere, across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is unfortunate that Ireland did not do better against the French on Saturday. It was a bad game, but we look forward to better games ahead. The hon. Member is right that we need to work together to share those experiences.

Again, will the Minister engage with the Minister in Northern Ireland on the proposals and recommendations raised by this debate so that we can all learn together? Our love for the game brings us all together, and as we love the game, we want to make it better for everyone.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate. He speaks with great passion and knowledge, and I commend his recommendations.

Nothing can beat rugby as a gladiatorial spectacle, from the high-scoring, ping-pong, side-to-side and end-to-end champagne rugby played in the sunshine, to the grinding, no-tries, mud-fest battles for the purists only. The genius playmaker, able to see and exploit a gap for a game-changing individual try. The 16 phases of pick-and-go forwards grinding out the inches—or doing the hard yards, as I would describe it. The last-minute drop goal that wins or loses a match. Rugby is a game of wonder and joy. It is a sport built on discipline, respect and unity, which defines the game at every level, from local grassroots clubs to the highest of international competitions.

While I would love to spend some time lauding my own playing abilities, I am afraid there is too much evidence to the contrary. As a lifelong fan, I watch as many matches as my new schedule allows. And every weekend I take my son to play at one of our brilliant clubs in West Dorset, because it is not just a game but a community, and it is enjoyed by thousands up and down the country every weekend.

Rugby union, which according to legend was born in 1823 when William Webb Ellis picked up a ball at Rugby school, is one of Britain’s finest exports, and it is important to so many, not just in the UK but around the world. In the English premiership, we have one of the best and most competitive leagues in the world, and if the Chair will allow me a moment of self-indulgence, it is great to see my club, Bath, back at the top of the league, where it belongs. If the Chair will allow me a further moment of indulgence, I will annoy my political researcher by saying it is great to see Northampton so far down the league.

This year, we are proud to host the women’s rugby world cup, which will be a fantastic celebration of sport and an opportunity to see the Red Roses hopefully triumph. The growth of the women’s game is an extraordinary success story, with record-breaking attendance and a surge of participation. The Red Roses’ domination on the international stage, with their groundbreaking winning streak, has inspired a new generation of players and showcased the strength of women’s rugby. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Impact ’25 funds from the Government, with £28 million of investment to support England hosting the 2025 rugby world cup, including £14 million of legacy funding, which is needed to grow the women’s grassroots game.

However, while there is much to celebrate on the pitch, English rugby also faces a governance crisis off it. The financial state of the game is deeply troubling. Since rugby in England turned professional in 1995, the business model has remained unsustainable. Many premiership clubs operate at a loss, dependent on wealthy owners who can withdraw their funding at any moment, leaving clubs in financial ruin. In 2023, we saw the historic and legendary clubs of Wasps and London Irish collapse, as well as Worcester. The consequences have been devastating. Players and staff lost their livelihoods, and fans lost their beloved teams. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the time called it

“a stain on the reputation of the RFU”.

Despite these failings, successive Governments have taken a hands-off approach, hiding behind the excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body and allowing financial mismanagement to continue unchecked. The RFU receives significant public funding. Since 2020, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided loans through the sports survival package amounting to more than £123 million for premiership and championship clubs, with little oversight of how that money is used. Worcester received the largest loan, borrowing £15.7 million, but its administrators repaid just £9.8 million. Wasps’ administrators returned just £300,000 of its £14.1 million loan, and London Irish is yet to repay any of the £11.8 million that it received. Across the English game, we know that a staggering £30 million of these loans remains uncovered, with a further £11 million in unpaid interest. The RFU itself posted a record operating loss of more than £40 million last year and made more than 40 staff redundant while, as has already been mentioned, its executives awarded themselves £1.3 million in bonuses. How do the Government justify such recklessness when clubs are struggling to survive?

Premiership clubs collectively lost £30.5 million in 2022-23, and have net debts in excess of £300 million. Despite some financial reforms and a new £3.3 million per club funding deal, concerns over clubs’ sustainability persist. Seven out of 10 clubs are financially insolvent, surviving only on owner handouts. Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it was only a matter of time until another premiership club goes bust.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech about the financial impact, but with all these clubs it is about the fans and the jobs that go out into the community. Does he agree that when we saw this situation in football, we had the fan-led review? Would it not therefore be wise for the Government to consider doing something similar in rugby? By having a look, they could lift the stones, pull the cover back and see what is actually going on with the state of rugby union in England.

[Edward Morello]

I 100% agree with the hon. Member. It is incredibly important that the Government step in and start looking at the governance of the game, otherwise there will not be a game to govern.

Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it is only a matter of time before another premiership club goes bust. That is an appalling state of affairs for a sport that should be thriving, and it has been confirmed that London Irish will seek a place in the United Rugby Championship. A team’s decision to prioritise the URC over the premiership serves as a damning indictment of the mismanagement within the premiership and the broader state of our amazing sport. If a normal business operated in that way, it would have been restructured years ago.

I have received responses from the Government stating that the governance of rugby union is a matter for the RFU, referring to the RFU and Sport England as their arm’s length bodies. Yet, despite the substantial public funding it receives, the RFU appears to operate with little oversight or accountability to the Government. If a private business was in receipt of that much taxpayers’ money, there would be demands for a public inquiry.

We have also seen injustices in the league system, as has been outlined. The championship contains strong clubs such as Ealing Trailfinders, which have proved their quality by excelling in the premiership cup. Yet, due to outdated capacity rules, they are denied promotion, while some premiership clubs fail to sell out their stadiums week after week. The entire system must be reformed to reward financial prudence and on-field performance rather than the entrenched and unfair status quo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) has already outlined the alarming fact that rugby’s biggest stars are leaving for more lucrative contracts abroad. The loss of players such as Courtney Lawes to the French second division is a damning indictment of our commercial model. The RFU must do more to retain our talent and create a financially competitive environment.

At the same time, we face the threat of losing the Six Nations from free-to-air television. The proposed £100 million deal to move the tournament behind a paywall would be disastrous for the sport and net the competition just £10 million more than the existing deal. A TNT Sports subscription costs up to £30 a month, pricing out many fans and reducing viewership. The Government must ensure that the Six Nations remains free to air, to inspire the next generation of players and supporters.

Despite these challenges, rugby’s future can be bright. The upcoming women’s rugby world cup will showcase the extraordinary growth of the women’s game, with record-breaking ticket sales at Twickenham. Research in Scotland has shown that grassroots rugby delivers an economic benefit of at least £159 million a year, with a social return of £7.71 for every £1 spent. Investing in grassroots is not just morally right, but economically sound, yet funding cuts, declining participation and referee shortages have led to nearly 300 match walkovers in a single season.

The RFU must do more to support community clubs, which are the bedrock of the sport. The RFU’s leadership has lost the confidence of both grassroots and professional rugby stakeholders due to financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency. The Liberal Democrats call for an independent review of the RFU’s governance, with structural reforms to improve financial oversight and club representation. A more democratic system, or even an external regulatory body, would restore trust and stability to the game. It is time for the Government to step in. The governance of English rugby is at a crossroads. The RFU must address the concerns of clubs and stakeholders to ensure the sport’s long-term sustainability. The Government must ensure that public money is spent wisely and intervene when financial mismanagement threatens the integrity of the game.

The travesty of this mismanagement of the game is not just its current state; it is the missed opportunity—the failure to realise the premiership as a premium global product, create superstars of our best players, fill stadiums, grow participation and monetise the game. Rugby is a national asset. We cannot allow it to be undermined by poor governance. The passion of players, coaches and fans remains unwavering. However, unless decisive action is taken, we risk further financial crisis and erosion of the game we love. The excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body cannot be sanctioned any longer. We can argue over whether the RFU deserves a red or a yellow card, but I hope we can all agree that it is time for an off-field review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate that, and that is why the Government continue to monitor the situation. I am not able to comment on the repayments of individual borrowers or leagues, given the commercial sensitivity, but we encourage any SSP borrower with concerns about repayments to speak to the Sport England team dedicated to managing the loans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth raised concerns about the levels of funding from the RFU to grassroots rugby clubs. I appreciate that some rugby union clubs, and many members and fans, feel that grassroots funding is not sufficient. The Government recognise the importance and value that a financially sustainable rugby pyramid offers to players, fans and the wider sporting community. Following the collapse of several premiership clubs in 2022 and 2023, the previous Government appointed two independent advisers to produce a plan to stabilise rugby union. The independent advisers worked with the RFU, the premiership and the championship on the Men’s Professional Game Partnership, and we welcome the progress made on a funding framework for the future of the sport.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Minister is right that the last Government appointed two people to look at this issue, but we are three years on and still the clouds are coming. Will she commit to a review of the finances and governance, a bit like the fan-led review, to ensure transparency and open up this debate so that the fans, the volunteers, the players and the Executive can all see the state of play? We as a country can then make a judgment about the best way to handle that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of and interest in this subject. I noted that he quoted extensively from my speech on the Football Governance Bill. I gently remind him that we have been in many a debate together in which he has been less than enthusiastic about that piece of legislation. If he is now in favour of a similar thing for rugby—

[Dr Evans]

A fan-led review.

[Stephanie Peacock]

He says “a fan-led review” from a sedentary position. I suggest that he speaks to his leader, who has obviously U-turned on football governance. As I said in my written answer, my Department does not intend to conduct a review at this time, but we keep everything under review. I will now make some progress.

The RFU is independent of Government and is responsible for the governance of the sport at all levels, including how it distributes funding. I understand that it has now committed to £120 million to support grassroots rugby over four years. It is worth noting that it has said that it is exploring offering sizeable loans to clubs for critical projects, including infrastructure, to support the financial sustainability of grassroots clubs for the long term. Supporting grassroots sport, including local rugby clubs, is a key priority for this Government, and that is why we are investing in grassroots sport. The DCMS provides the majority of funding for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body, Sport England, which annually invests more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money to support people to get active.

Sport England has awarded the RFU, the governing body for rugby in England, £13 million for the period 2022 to 2027, as one of Sport England’s long-term system partners, to invest in community rugby initiatives that will benefit everyone. We continue to work with the RFU, representatives of premiership and championship clubs and the wider sport sector to support the ongoing sustainability of elite and community-level rugby union.

That support for grassroots rugby union, as well as other grassroots sport, is vital to helping people get active. Sport and physical activity are central to delivering the Government’s health mission, which is why we are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter their age, background or ability, has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities.

In addition to men’s rugby, we should celebrate the growth of women’s rugby union in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth acknowledged how far the women’s game has come. I am delighted that England will be hosting the 10th edition of the women’s rugby world cup this year between August and September. The tournament provides a significant opportunity to showcase women’s rugby, provide a world stage for female athletes and drive the visibility of the women’s game.

In January, I met with the chief executive officer of the women’s rugby world cup to understand the long-term impact of hosting this exciting event. The record-breaking ticket sales, which already top 220,000—double those sold at the previous tournament—highlight the massive appetite for women’s sporting events in this country. The tournament’s Impact ’25 programme has already had a transformational impact in cementing rugby as a game for all, with funding being allocated to 850 clubs across the country.

This debate has been a fantastic opportunity to highlight the contribution that rugby makes across our country. Some real questions and concerns have been raised, but I hope that, through collaboration and rebuilding faith, the RFU will listen and move forward. I thank all hon. Members for taking part.

English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Wherever people go in the world, whichever bar they walk into, the one thing we can guarantee is that they will see a premier league game being played. That is the strength of the United Kingdom�s export and the stranglehold that we have on football across the world. Any other country would want to topple us from that position, so we must be very careful when we look to regulate in this space. That does not mean that I do not have sympathy; just down the road from me is Coventry City, which to say the least has had a turbulent time in its dealings with the premier league and now with its rebuild.

I want to concentrate on one area that I think is really important. When sentence is passed on a criminal, there is a mechanism through which the Government can ask the Parole Board to have another look. That would work really well in this situation. We need an independent regulator to satisfy FIFA and UEFA, but Parliament also needs to be able to hold people to account. To find an example, we need only look at when FA cup replays were taken away last year. The public were upset, the clubs were upset, but the decision was taken. I argue that a parole board mechanism would allow the Government to say to the regulator, �Have another look.� If it still decides to do it, fantastic, but at least we will have had our say.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing this important debate. I begin by acknowledging that English football is world-leading. As well as sitting at the heart of communities up and down the country, English clubs have fans in every continent, and attract the best players from across the world. The premier league is one of our country�s best exports. Along with the EFL and the national league, it contributes billions of pounds to our economy and supports thousands of jobs, as has been outlined across the House in this debate. Its success and infrastructure support and inspire the next generation of footballing talent in English towns, villages and cities. It is because of this success that the Government want the sport to thrive for generations to come, securing the financial sustainability of the football pyramid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley, who represents Reading football club, has been a vocal supporter and campaigner on the governance and sustainability of football. She is right to raise those concerns. Reading, like so many of the other clubs that have been spoken about today, is an example of why this debate and the legislation are so important. Calls for change to secure the sustainability of football in this place date back to the cross-party Select Committee report of 2011. We then saw the ill fated super league attempt that resulted in the fan-led review. The review, led by former Conservative Sports Minister Dame Tracey Crouch, identified the need for an independent football regulator. I thank and pay tribute to her for her commitment and work. I have been pleased to be part of the women�s parliamentary football team with her, alongside so many other amazing women.

The previous Conservative Government published their Football Governance Bill�their legislation on this matter�on 18 March 2024, just less than a year ago. How time flies! That continued the cross-party consensus that existed until very recently. Members on the Government Benches and Conservative Benches were elected on manifestos that committed to bringing forward an independent football regulator. We on the Government side of the House are following through on that commitment and are on the side of football fans.

I will take this opportunity to address some of the specific questions put to me in this debate; if I cannot go into much detail, I will be happy to meet hon. Members. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) has taken a great interest in this subject. He asked about a second look. A new Government Lords amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the whole regime after five years. More specifically, if an owner were found to be unsuitable by the regulator, they would have the right to request a review of that decision. That review would be taken by the board. There is also a right to appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The decision to take FA cup replays away, for example, was taken by the FA itself without any consultation; that is the difficulty. That is a prime example of the heritage of the game being taken away, and that mechanism would not quite address that. I will be happy to meet the Minister to talk through an idea that may well fit.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Great; I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and I am really sympathetic to his points, but the Government cannot and do not want to be involved in all issues, and the regulator will not be able to cover them all. However, let us meet after the debate to discuss his ideas.

My hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and Bracknell (Peter Swallow) mentioned non-league football. I visited Basingstoke during the general election. Non-league governance is for the FA, as I set out in the Adjournment debate secured last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I appreciate all the challenges that have been outlined as I have seen them first hand in my own constituency. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), posed a number of specific questions. I will not comment on individual cases, but I was pleased to meet him before Christmas and will address some of his points later in my speech.

To answer the shadow Minister�s specific question, I have met UEFA, we have a good relationship and it has not raised any issues. We do not publish private correspondence, just as his Government did not. Growth is central to this Government�s aims.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

There are growing storm clouds in rugby union. At the grassroots, clubs are up in arms about what is going on in the leadership. They called for a general meeting, which was denied. One has now been agreed and will happen in March. When asked in writing whether there will be a review of the finances or governance of the Rugby Football Union, the Government said that there are no plans for one. In the light of what I have set out, will they reconsider whether there should be a review of the governance, and do they have confidence that the RFU will be able to solve this issue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is an honour to stand at the Dispatch Box for the first time, although I have to admit that it is not how I pictured it. I will do my best not to be a pain in your neck, Mr Speaker.

In a nutshell, the creative industries are worried that the Government will essentially give away their intellectual property. I am pleased to hear the Minister’s response, but the growing concerns were raised by the Chair of the Select Committee following comments by a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. With that in mind, will the Minister confirm that he will not give away IP through an exemption? Will he assure the House that he will not implement the EU’s approach, given its flaws? Finally, will he commit to holding a summit between the tech and creative industries to explore licensing and other models?

[Chris Bryant]

It is absolutely essential that we protect intellectual property, which is one of the key things this country has to sell. We have already had two meetings with representatives from the creative industries and tech companies, and we are keen to move forward.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman on his décolleté first appearance at the Dispatch Box. However, I gently push back on his suggestion, as I think the previous Government had embraced Bucks Fizz more than anything else:

“Don’t let your indecision take you from behind.”

The previous Government did absolutely nothing in this territory. We are determined to get to a proper resolution that satisfies the needs of both the creative industries and artificial intelligence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

No one wants to see people caught up in problem gambling, but equally, no one wants to see businesses struggle and jobs lost. As the Secretary of State said, we want this industry to thrive, yet this week that was threatened after it was rumoured that the Treasury is planning a £3 billion tax raid. That has already seen £3 billion wiped off the value of bookies. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether she supports the industry or the Treasury? Did she raise her concerns about the rumour, and when will we see the gambling reforms brought forward with a timetable for scrutiny by this House?

[Lisa Nandy]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he should know, as we do, that we cannot believe everything we read in the papers. As he will have heard in my previous answer, we are determined to strike the right balance. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) a moment ago, we are aware of the value of this industry and of its importance, and not just for the UK economy but for the joy it brings to many people and the employment prospects it offers in every nation and region of the United Kingdom. We are also aware of the problems that can be caused by problem gambling. Like the previous Government, we are determined to talk to the widest range of partners and ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting people from the problems that can ensue and supporting a growing industry.

Football Governance Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am sure that over the course of this debate many Members will raise issues of concern to them and their constituents. I emphasise that the Bill is about financial regulation, although I am very pleased that the Premier League has taken action on gambling advertising on the front of shirts, which is something we looked at very closely, and that the Government are taking action on vaping and smoking more broadly. The Bill is tightly defined and addresses financial regulation, and I am very pleased that we have introduced this legislation.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is exactly right about the financial aspects of this Bill, but we have to make sure that we get the balance right. We do not want to kill the golden goose that is the Premier League, and we want to make sure that we have growth in the sport, through the championship and the EFL. We have to consider the crowded calendar of European matches, too. Does she believe that the regulator will have the ability to chart that very fine line between UEFA, FIFA and her proposal? That is going to be pretty tough.

[Lucy Frazer]

We do not want to do anything that damages the world-leading Premier League, which is worth £7 billion. People across the world look to the Premier League, and we have worked very closely with the Premier League, the EFL and others to try to get the balance right. I have met the executives extensively during this period, and I have met all the clubs in the Premier League and the EFL to try to get the balance right. We are trying to get a light-touch regime that allows the leagues to do what they are already doing, but with a regulator. The Bill is all about financial regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I will press on, as I have now answered five times on parachute payments.

We will achieve our goal through the new licensing regime, under which all clubs in the top five tiers of English men’s football will need a licence to operate as professional football clubs. The regulator will have powers to monitor and enforce requirements on financial regulation, club ownership, fan engagement and club heritage protection, as well as setting a corporate governance code of practice and having the power to prohibit clubs from joining breakaway competitions.

[Dr Luke Evans]

It is fantastic that the top five leagues will have to have a licence. Will the Secretary of State comment on the resources that will be necessary to put that in place for the season? This is a big undertaking, and considerable resources will be needed to monitor what is going on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I know that some colleagues who are intervening might not be seeking to catch my eye later. I remind colleagues that if they do intervene, it is customary for them to stay for the entire speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Like other colleagues, he is so knowledgeable about the detail of this Bill. I urge the Government to consider what has been said in a constructive spirit. Everybody present wants to get to the bottom of this confusion. We want to make sure that football and the regulator have the tools they need to grow sustainability—a key word which the Government have themselves used. The confusion about parachute payments is worthy of further attention, because there is so much money involved. They also have the distorting effect that the Government’s White Paper rightly identified.

If we do not look at this issue, we risk distorted competition in the championship by encouraging greater financial risk taking by the clubs that do not receive those payments. We know that that can result in an over-reliance on owner funding, which again is simply not always sustainable. As my hon. Friends have mentioned, clause 55(2) excludes parachute payments from any order by the regulator on revenue distribution. I gently say to the Government that, as there seems to be some contradiction or possible confusion, we would like that cleared up. I would be grateful if the Minister could say more in his summing up about how the money currently used for parachute payments could make more impact and perhaps be shared more widely, whether he has examined that in detail and to what extent he feels the current terms of the Bill are satisfactory.

[Dr Evans]

Part of the problem is that football is inherently risky; the very nature of what a club does is in order to get promoted. If, in trying to engineer some sustainability from the point of view of people investing in a club, Derby County had been promoted, the model would have been deemed to have worked, but it failed and so did the club. How would Labour facilitate individuals from across the globe investing in the best leagues in the world, while making sure that clubs such as Derby County were protected?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I gently point the hon. Gentleman to his Government’s White Paper, because the Bill comes from there. Yes, of course the game is inherently risky—that is part of what makes it thrilling—but we need to be thinking about whether that is a calculated risk that is part of the thrill of the game, or an unintended consequence of a possible market failure. We really need to look at whether there is distorted competition. I gently suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman has not read his Government’s White Paper, he should.

[Dr Evans]

I have.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Then we really need further discussion in Committee on this issue; it is worthy of such consideration. On calculated risk taking, we need to be clear about when we are taking unnecessary risks and when there are unintended consequences of the way finance is distributed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

It is great to be able to contribute to this debate, because although they say the Black Country was built on coal and metal, we were also built on football. I straddle the two clubs at the heart of the Black Country derby—namely, West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers.

This is a pertinent Bill and a pertinent debate for my communities in the Black Country. We went through absolute hell with the financially precarious situation surrounding West Bromwich Albion. At one point, the club was having to borrow £20 million just to keep the lights on. An independent regulator stepping in to ensure ultimately that fans of football clubs—cherished parts of the community—can keep that club and that entity there, can enable that sustainability and can put these people, who are often behind the scenes, under the cosh and under scrutiny is absolutely the right way forward.

I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for his work on the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), who has been an absolute champion in this space. She should be so proud of what she has achieved; the Bill is a real testament to her work.

We have covered a plethora of issues in the debate, not least the football pyramid. What I perceive at times is the inequity of the system we have got. I deal a lot with fantastic grassroots football clubs, which many Members have talked about. Sometimes the narrative and discourse about the need for regulation involves a top-down approach, and of course we must highlight the important work that our premier league clubs do, but let us not forget that the pipeline to many of those clubs is first and foremost through grassroots football, which a lot of the players we talk about—those stars and talents—come through. My fantastic local football clubs, such as Tipton Town football club in my constituency, constantly share their frustration that they are ignored, left out or put under ridiculous burdens that they often have to meet without resources.

Everyone has touched on the replay issue. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it is a complete kick in the teeth, particularly for clubs that are further down the pyramid and rely on the revenue from getting people through the gate. Again, it just seems that the FA is only listening in its echo chamber, quite frankly.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Government have a tricky line to tread in ensuring that football is independent and adheres to UEFA and FIFA rules on Government interference. On FA cup replays, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a role for a reconsideration mechanism, so that Government can bounce the decision back to the regulator and ask, “Have you potentially got this wrong, and will you think again?”

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend is almost asking for a replay of the replay—that is sort of where the question is. I get the point that he is trying to make about balance and the fine-line argument on Government interference. The point has been made quite strongly, as we have all seen—the FA’s own survey found that 70% of fans wanted to retain replays—and with that level of public pressure, there is a role for the Government in facilitating the pressure on the FA. I think that that is the point that he is hammering down on, although obviously the FA must ultimately be independent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

We share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about grassroots music venues, which is why we have a specific fund set aside to help save some of the most treasured community venues. We also have the Localism Act 2011, which allows communities to designate a particular community asset of value, giving communities time to raise funds to save those kinds of assets. It is something that we are talking about a lot with music venue groups, and we are also looking at giving them help to buy the freeholds of properties so that those kinds of assets can stay within communities and remain a talent pipeline, as he suggests, for many years to come.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

14. What recent discussions she has had with the Premier League and English Football League on the financial stability of football clubs.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Football Governance Bill was introduced to Parliament last month, and it will help with the financial sustainability of football as a whole. I have met the Premier League, the English Football League, many stakeholders and parliamentarians to ensure that the legislation is appropriately drafted. I have met over 90 clubs and senior executives from the leagues many times.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. We do not have to look too far across the east midlands to see that clubs such as Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Coventry City and Leicester City have found themselves in some form of difficulty, so I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce a regulator to bring some stability to the football pyramid. However, how do we ensure that we strike a balance so that we do not strangle and over-regulate the best league in the world, the premiership?

[Lucy Frazer]

As my hon. Friend mentions, the Premier League is world leading. It is worth £7 billion, and we absolutely want to ensure that it stays first and world class. That is why the legislation takes a proportionate approach. It takes on board the fact that the regulator will have to work very closely with the leagues, including the Premier League. We call it an advocacy-first approach, and having worked very carefully with the team, I am very confident that the legislation takes a balanced and proportionate approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I invite the hon. Member to read a speech I gave on youth, which is a massive priority of mine. We are funding significantly through DCMS and through the National Citizen Service as well as through a number of Departments. There are Home Office funds, Justice funds, and funds through the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

T6. For me, as a massive Bath rugby fan, it is difficult to represent a seat in Leicestershire, what with the Tigers being there. With that said, the nice thing that brings all rugby fans together is the ability to watch the game. There is concern, though, about the governance of premiership rugby and how it is run. Could the Minister update us on where we are up to on that? I know that he has taken a special interest in trying to get that organised.

[Stuart Andrew]

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this, and he is absolutely right that we need to see improved governance. That is why we appointed two special advisers, who have been working with both the premier league and the Rugby Football Union to come up with solutions. We are having meetings with them constantly and will ensure that they progress.

Online Safety Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only is it incumbent on companies to use that technology should it exist; if they hamper Ofcom’s inquiries by not sharing information about what they are doing, what they find and which technologies they are not using, that will be a criminal liability under the Bill.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

To take that one step further, is it correct that Ofcom would set minimum standards for operators? For example, the Content Authenticity Initiative does not need primary legislation, but is an industry open-standard, open-source format. That is an example of modern technology that all companies could sign up to use, and Ofcom would therefore determine what needs to be done in primary legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I be helpful? We did say that our discussions should be within scope, but the Minister is tempting everybody to intervene out of scope. From his own point of view, I would have thought that it would be easier to keep within scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I absolutely echo my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I again thank him for his work.

We are also taking steps to strengthen Ofcom’s enforcement powers, which is why we are giving Ofcom a discretionary power to require non-compliant services to publish or notify their users of enforcement action that it has taken against the service. Ofcom will be able to use this power to direct a service to publish details or notify its UK users about enforcement notices it receives from Ofcom. I thank the Antisemitism Policy Trust for bringing this proposal to our attention and for its helpful engagement on the issue. This new power will promote transparency by increasing awareness among users about breaches of the duty in the Bill. It will help users make much more informed decisions about the services they use, and act as an additional deterrent factor for service providers.

[Dr Luke Evans]

It is fantastic to have the data released. Does the Minister have any idea how many of these notifications are likely to be put out there when the Bill comes in? Has any work been done on that? Clearly, having thousands of these come out would be very difficult for the public to understand, but half a dozen over a year might be very useful to understand which companies are struggling.

[Paul Scully]

I think this is why Ofcom has discretion, so that it can determine that. The most egregious examples are the ones people can learn from, and it is about doing this in proportion. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that if we are swamped with small notifications, this will be hidden in plain sight. That would not be useful, particularly for parents, to best understand what is going on. It is all about making more informed decisions.

The House will be aware that we recently announced our intention to make a number of other changes to the Bill. We are making those changes because we believe it is vital that people can continue to express themselves freely and engage in pluralistic debate online. That is why the Bill will be amended to strengthen its provisions relating to children and to ensure that the Bill’s protections for adults strike the right balance with its protections for free speech.

Online Harms

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered online harms.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to serve in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship—[Interruption.] In a debate about technology, this was always going to happen. It is great to see the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), in his place. He is enormously respected by Members on both sides of the House. He came to this role with more knowledge of his subject than probably any other Minister in the history of Ministers, so he brings a great deal to it.

This is an important and timely debate, given that the Online Safety Bill is returning to the Commons next week. Obviously, a great deal of the debate will be in the House of Lords, so I thought that it was important to have more discussion in the House of Commons. The Online Safety Bill is a landmark and internationally leading Bill. As a number of people, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), can attest, it has been a long time in gestation—five years, including two consultations, a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill, prelegislative scrutiny, 11 sessions of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, and nine days at Committee stage in the Commons. It is complex legislation, but that is because the subject that it addresses is complex.

Some want the Bill to go further, and I have no doubt that on Report and in the Lords there will be many attempts to do that. Others think it already goes too far. The most important message about the Bill is that we need to get on with it.

Technology is a big part of children’s lives—actually, it is a big part of all our lives. The vast majority of it is good. It provides new ways of keeping in touch, and ways of enhancing education for children with special educational needs. Think of all the rows in the car that have been done away with by the sat-nav—at least those rows. My personal favourite is the thing on my phone that says, “The rain will stop in 18 minutes,” so I know when to get my sandwich. Technology changes the way we live our lives. Think about our working lives in this place. Thanks to Tony Blair and new Labour, the pager got all MPs on message and disciplined, and now WhatsApp is having exactly the opposite effect.

In particular, in the Bill and this discussion we are concerned about social media. Again, most of what social media has given us is good, but it has also carried with it much harm. I say “carried with it” because much of that harm has not been created by social media, but has been distributed, facilitated and magnified by it. In the last couple of weeks, we have been reminded of the terrible tragedy of Molly Russell, thanks to the tireless campaigning and immense fortitude of her father, Ian, and her family. The coroner concluded that social media companies and the content pushed to Molly through algorithmic recommendations contributed to her death

“in more than a minimal way”.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I entirely agree that the Bill needs to come forward now. The algorithm is the key part to anything that goes on, in terms of dealing with online problems. The biggest problem I have found is trying to get transparency around the algorithm. Does he agree that the Bill should concentrate on exposing the algorithms, even if they are commercially sensitive, and allowing Ofcom to pull on those algorithms so that we do not get into the horrible situation that he has described?

[Damian Hinds]

I absolutely agree about the centrality of the algorithms and about understanding how they work. We may come on to that later in the debate. That brings me on to my next point. Of course, we should not think of Molly’s tragedy as a single event; there have been other tragedies. There is also a long tail of harm done to young people through an increased prevalence of self-harm, eating disorders, and the contribution to general mental ill-health. All of that has a societal cost, as well as a cost to the individual. That is also a literal cost, in terms of cash, as well as the terrible social cost.

Importantly, this is not only about children. Ages 18 to 21 can be a vulnerable time for some of the issues I have just mentioned. Of course, with domestic abuse, antisemitism, racist abuse, and so on, most of that is perpetrated by—and inflicted on—people well above the age of majority. I found that the importance and breadth of this subject was reflected in my Outlook inbox over the past few days. Whenever a Member’s name is on the Order Paper for a Westminster Hall debate, they get all sorts of briefings from various third parties, but today’s has broken all records. I have heard from everybody, from Lego to the Countryside Alliance.

On that subject, I thank some of the brilliant organisations that work so hard in this area, such as 5Rights, the Children’s Charities Coalition, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, of course, the Carnegie Trust, the City of London Corporation, UK Finance, the Samaritans, Kick It Out, and more.

I should also note the three e-petitions linked to this subject, reflecting the public’s engagement: the e-petition to ban anonymous accounts on social media, which has almost 17,000 signatories; the petition to hold online trolls accountable, with more than 130,000 signatories; and the e-petition for verified ID to be required to open a social media account, with almost 700,000 signatories.

Such is the interest in this subject and the Online Safety Bill, which is about to come back to the Commons, that someone could be forgiven for thinking that it is about to solve all of our problems, but I am afraid that it will not. It is a framework that will evolve, and this will not be the last time that we have to legislate on the subject. Indeed, many of the things that must be done probably cannot be legislated for anyway. Additionally, technology evolves. A decade ago, legislators were not talking about the effect of livestreaming on child abuse. We certainly were not talking about the use of emojis in racist abuse. Today, we are just getting to grips with what the metaverse will be and what it implies. Who knows, in five or 10 years’ time, what the equivalent subjects will be?

From my most recent ministerial role as Minister of State for Security, there are three areas covered in the Online Safety Bill that I will mention to stress the importance of pressing on with it and getting it passed into law. The first is child abuse, which I have just mentioned. Of course, some child abuse is perpetrated on the internet, but it is more about distribution. Every time that an abusive image of a child is forwarded, that victim is re-victimised. It also creates the demand for further primary abuse. I commend the agencies, the National Crime Agency and CEOP—Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command—and the brilliant organisations, some of which I have mentioned, that work in this area, including the international framework around NCMEC, the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, in the United States.

However, I am afraid that it is a growth area. That is why we must move quickly. The National Crime Agency estimates that between 550,000 and 850,000 people pose, in varying degrees, a sexual risk to children. Shall I repeat those numbers? Just let them sink in. That is an enormous number of people. With the internet, the accessibility is much greater than ever before. The Internet Watch Foundation notes a growth in sexual abuse content available online, particularly in the category known as “self-generated” imagery.

The second area is fraud, which is now the No. 1 category of crime in this country by volume—and in many other countries. Almost all of it has an online aspect or is entirely online. I commend the Minister, and the various former Ministers in the Chamber, on their work in ensuring that fraud is properly addressed in the Bill. There have been three moves forward in that area, and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) may speak a bit more about that later. We need to ensure that fraud is in scope, that it becomes a priority offence and, crucially, that advertising for fraud is added to the offences covered.

I hope that, over time, the Government can continue to look at how to sharpen our focus in this area and, in particular, how to line up everybody’s incentives. Right now, the banks have a great incentive to stop fraud because they are liable for the losses. Anybody who has tried to make an online payment recently will know what that does. When people are given a direct financial incentive—a cost—to this thing being perpetrated, they will go to extraordinary lengths to try to stop it happening. If we could get that same focus on people accepting the content or ads that turn out to be fraud, imagine what we could do—my hon. Friend may be about to tell us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

If it was not intimidating enough to be with the great and the good of the Online Safety Bill, trying to say everything I want in three minutes is even more of a challenge.

I will be brief. I came to this issue through body image; that is why I learned what I have on this subject. I simply ask for two things. In his speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said that this is about frameworks. I have two suggestions that I think would make a huge difference in respect of future-proofing the legislation and providing a framework. The first is to build on the fantastic work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). We are talking about having authenticated anonymous and non-anonymous accounts. Giving the end user the choice of whether they want to go into the wild west is fundamental.

Now that, through the Content Authenticity Initiative —to which 800 companies around the world have signed up—the technology exists to have an open standard of transparency in respect of how images are taken, from the camera to how they are put in place, we have a framework that runs around the world that means people can make the same choice about images as about accounts. If we future-proof that in legislation, we simply allow the user to choose to switch on that tool and see images that we know are verified on an open source. It is not about someone making a decision; it is simply about understanding where the image comes from, how it got there, how it was made and who passed it on. That is an incredibly powerful and incredibly simple way to create a protective framework.

That leads me to my second, possibly more important, point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). Algorithms are king when it comes to social media. Controlling them is very difficult, but someone should be responsible. In schools we have safeguarding leads for dealing with vulnerable people, and in councils we have financial named people, so why on earth do we not have a named person legally responsible for the algorithm in a company? We have it with GDPR. That would allow anyone in this debate, anyone in the police force, anyone in Ofcom or any member of the public to go that person and say, “Why is your algorithm behaving in the way it is?” Every time I have tried to do that, I have been told that it is commercially sensitive and that there is a team somewhere else in the world that deals with it.

I know that Ofcom has the power to deal with this issue, but it is a one-off notice when it is requested. I simply think that stating that there is a named person legally responsible for the algorithm would change behaviours, because their head would be on the chopping block if they got it wrong. This is about responsibility. That is what the Bill provides, and that is why I am advocating for those two points.

Online Safety Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I must make some progress, because I am almost out of time and there are lots of things to reply to.

I particularly thank previous Ministers, who have done so much fantastic work on the Bill. With us this evening are my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), but not with us this evening are my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who I think is in America, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), all of whom showed fantastic leadership in getting the Bill to where it is today. It is a Bill that will stop illegal content circulating online, protect children from harm and make social media firms be consistent in the way they handle legal but harmful content, instead of being arbitrary and inconsistent, as they are at the moment.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

rose—