Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this important debate.

Railways are a hugely important part of our national story, and an important factor in the economic success of Britain and the region that we are discussing today. The development of the Stockton and Darlington railway was one of Britain’s greatest industrial feats. It pioneered the creation of the modern railway system, allowing people to travel faster than before in a carriage that was wonderfully named “Experiment.”

The existence of the Stockton and Darlington railway helped the development of steam trains, including Stephenson’s Locomotion No. 1, which was the first locomotive to travel on the railway. There followed some of the most incredible feats of engineering, including Stephenson’s Rocket, the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard. It is a testament to the enduring legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway that last year—200 years later, and despite all the subsequent technological advancements —Brits took over 1.7 billion railway journeys. It is right that we pay homage to where it all began, on the original Stockton and Darlington railway, which served as a catalyst for a rail revolution across the country.

As we reflect on the legacy of Stockton and Darlington, we must also ensure that rail continues to deliver for passengers in the 21st century. Today, unfortunately, rail passengers do not always receive the service they deserve, after years of failed privatisation. Services are unreliable and subject to cancellations and delays. When they do run, they are often uncomfortably overcrowded. By contrast, when I travel on my local heritage railway, it is never delayed; it is run by volunteers, but always runs on time. The current situation is particularly challenging to accept on the mainline railways, given the fare rises that we all have to put up with. Meanwhile, fare dodging regularly goes unpunished, as Conservative leadership hopefuls are often keen to point out.

The former Conservative Government planned to use this anniversary to encourage people to take up roles in the railway industry, through education, through tourism, and through the celebration of railway workers and enthusiasts. I hope that the current Government will seize on this anniversary as an opportunity to deliver better railways for passengers, with expanded connectivity, particularly to the north of England, which has had a very raw deal over a very long period. I know that, from having travelled on rail in the north of England. But let us face it—on any rail journeys that are not to or from London, we tend to get a poor deal.

The Government must be far more proactive in the sanctioning of those train operators who cannot provide a high-quality service. Of course, some of them will cease to exist when Great British Railways comes fully on stream, but we should not forget—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member heard what I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). If he could stick to the motion before us, I would be grateful; sanctioning current rail operators is not directly relevant to the motion.

[Max Wilkinson]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. Then I shall skip over my anecdote about the excellent Pullin’s Bakery fruit cake served on Great Western Railway services—I hope colleagues in the north also enjoy such delicacies.

I have spent many hours on heritage railways, and I believe they give us the important points we need to focus on for railways today. The Stockton and Darlington railway that we are discussing today revolutionised our country 200 years ago. Railways still play a central role in our modern economy, but for too long passengers have felt that they are not getting the services they deserve. The best tribute we could pay to George Stephenson and the legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway is to modernise our current infrastructure, bring fares down and expand connectivity. In celebrating 200 years of the Stockton and Darlington railway, let us invoke the spirit of George Stephenson and seek to deliver exactly that.

Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I don’t like cricket—I love it. How could I not love a sport that has given me the joy of the 2005 Ashes series, an England victory in the 2019 world cup and so many long afternoons in the sunshine, sometimes with whites on, sometimes with a real ale in my hand, and sometimes both at the same time? It is a sport that reminds us of patience, perseverance, heritage and tradition, and—rare in a world now dominated by doom scrolling and a 24/7 news cycle—the virtue of delayed gratification.

The English cricket calendar, however, has undergone a major change in my lifetime, particularly in the last few years. The season is now crowded, in large part due to the introduction of the Hundred: a competition focused on the search for a format that would work for that elusive thing, a new audience. We, of course, all applaud the England and Wales Cricket Board for searching for that audience.

At the outset I should state that I am open-minded about different forms of cricket. I enjoy all of it, but it is very strange that we have so many different formats in this country: five days for a test match, four days for the county championship, a 50-over competition, a 20-over competition, and now the Hundred, a new 100-ball contest run to a completely different pattern of play and contested by new franchises with which few long-standing cricket fans have any affinity. But it has brought new people in to follow the game—younger people.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the T20, will he take a moment to congratulate Somerset county cricket club for reaching the finals—I heard the cheering from my garden at the weekend—and will he recognise that county cricket needs all the support it can get?

[Max Wilkinson]

Yes, I will congratulate Somerset. As a Gloucestershire fan, I can tell the room that I was a member at Somerset as a student. It was an excellent deal, and we used to travel from Weston-super-Mare to sit in the ground at Taunton. I spent many fun days there. It is a pity that Somerset triumphed over Gloucestershire this summer, but we will have to look past that.

Let us start with the good news about the Hundred. Although the debate is sometimes shrill and the suggestion is that it has been a total disaster, there have been some good points to the Hundred. It is pretty much the only high-profile cricket available on traditional free-to-air television, although some of the one-day internationals are on free to air too. The model has undeniably helped to fund the wider sport with new income. It has promoted the women’s game and there is more income for disabled cricket as well. The sale of franchises has brought new investment, which has been shared among the traditional counties. That success is to be welcomed, but it has not come without cost—I know that cost is acknowledged in the sport.

Even as somebody who is open-minded, I feel somewhat alienated by the Hundred. There is no team competing in the Hundred that represents my town, my county, or indeed the entire west region. For those who have suggested that the Welsh Fire is the west’s team, I beg to differ. I suspect Welsh cricket fans will be pleased to hear me say that I am not going to attend Sophia Gardens to support the Welsh Fire any time soon.

The creation of the Hundred means four-day county cricket has been pushed to the peripheries of the season, with August reserved for the short form of the game, although this year the amazing end to the final England-India test did just creep into the start of August, into the summer holiday period. As a knock-on effect, it is argued by many in the game that time and player availability for county championship cricket, which is crucial for test match preparation, has been greatly cut back. It is worrying to see the bedrock of the sport being pushed to the margins in that way. The fans who attend their county grounds and many of those involved in the administration of cricket at all levels could be forgiven for feeling overlooked and ignored. I have heard from many of those people.

What of the impact on the choices forced on test match players who deserve opportunities for time in the middle? What about the impact on the One-Day cup, which will never gather as much attention in August as the Hundred, despite serving up some absolutely brilliant cricket?

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that another problem with the lack of four-day county cricket during the August period is that it is pushed to the margins, which impacts on batting development for future test players, as they are playing in the colder conditions of the early season, and inhibits the development of spin bowlers, who struggle at that time of year? We are perhaps inhibiting some player development in both batting and bowling for our future test stars.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points that have been rehearsed by cricket commentators over the last few years. I believe we have to bear that point in mind, and I may come on to it a little later.

It is no secret that this jumble of the calendar has profound consequences. As I said at the beginning, the ECB is doing the right thing by looking for new audiences, increased participation and more cricket on television. It might argue that participation is increasing as a result of the Hundred and the investment brought about by deals with subscription channels for test matches and other forms of cricket. Indeed, there is clear evidence that watching sport leads to increased participation and more money flowing into the game. The ECB reported a 61% increase in amateur cricket club membership following England’s victory at the 2019 world cup. Sadly, however, these days only a handful of free-to-air cricket matches are available each year in the traditional media, and county club cricket takes a variable approach to broadcast.

We should consider the wider consequences of the situation. It is a jumbled calendar with multiple different formats that are confusing to many and a lack of free-to-air broadcast. That cumulative impact risks alienating existing fans while reducing the number of younger people engaging with different forms of the game that are not the short-form Hundred, and making it harder for our test team to thrive. It also puts at risk the long-term sustainability of the county game.

Peter Matthews, chair of Gloucestershire county cricket club, told me:

“Cricket needs to be played at a time when the next generation can be encouraged to go. If this isn’t the case, it will continue to be watched by retired folk and will not grow a new audience. This means that weekends and school holidays are important. Right now, there is very little county cricket in the school holidays, other than ‘The Hundred’ (only at eight venues) and the One Day Cup. Non-hosts have a total of four days home cricket at the height of summer. This cannot be helpful commercially or for developing the next generation of cricket lovers.”

That is a warning from the chair of a club that is doing a lot of good work with the ECB to make cricket more accessible for all through the Gloucestershire cricket talent pathway.

That warning comes as state school cricket continues to suffer decline, bringing about the opposite of the ECB’s aim to increase participation. Peter also told me about the difficulties presented to those counties that retain much-loved out-ground festivals. The Cheltenham cricket festival is the world’s longest-running out-ground festival, having started in 1872. These out-ground festivals bring cricket closer to communities and should be encouraged, but they risk falling victim to ever-higher running costs and an overcrowded cricket calendar.

The Liberal Democrats believe in giving sport back to the fans, which is why we are calling on the Government, the ECB and others to act. We favour taking the more televised fixtures out from behind paywalls. We favour boosting participation by investing in grassroots facilities—I know the ECB is doing that with new indoor domes. We favour supporting community sports clubs too. While the Government clearly cannot interfere in the governance of sport, and I am not suggesting that they should, the nation’s shared interest in cricket should provide Ministers and Members with an important opportunity to engages with the ECB and all others in cricket authority about options that lower barriers to participation, including discussions about the cricket calendar.

Finally, we should consider whether the apparent commercial success of the Hundred might have been achieved by other means. Could the T20 Blast have been adapted to bring new revenues and audiences? Will it be adapted like that in future? Could the Blast and the Hundred be combined or tweaked in a way that protects the traditional forms of the game while retaining new audiences, perhaps with some cricket broadcast via a free-to-air model? The Hundred came about after a well-meaning discussion about participation and audiences, but the challenges that cricket faces as a sport are nothing new. As David “Bumble” Lloyd recently told the excellent “Sports Agents” podcast,

“the game has been dying since I started in 1963.”

That game has constantly adapted to survive. Those with longer memories will recall the fierce debate when limited-overs cricket was introduced in the first place, but at least those formats took the existing pattern of play, making it easier for fans of traditional cricket to understand what was going on. If we can properly balance the cricketing schedule to bring county cricket back into focus, the game can protect its local links and cricket will continue to thrive. We must ask whether the long-term prosperity of the game, the counties and the England team is best served by the continuation of the Hundred in its current form—that is, distinct from the continuation of the Hundred at all.

As part of the discussion we must of course focus on the test game, or we put at risk exactly the sort of moments that cricket fans cherish the most: Shane Warne’s ball of the century, Graham Thorpe batting in the dark in Karachi, the heroics of Chris Woakes coming out to bat with one arm in a sling, the 2019 Headingley test match and my favourite, the 2005 Ashes series—I was there for the day when we won at the Oval. Without those kind of moments, cricket ceases to be the special game it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank all hon. Members for turning up for the debate. I have 12 minutes left, so I will take hon. Members through a rundown of my debut for the Uphill Castle cricket club under-13s back in 1997—it was a special occasion. I jest, of course.

This has been an important and instructive debate and there is a lot of common ground. I will quickly reflect on the point about “free to air”. It was in the title of the debate, but as we have heard free to air and broadcast coverage that is not free to air have a huge impact on how cricket is consumed, participation levels and the cricket calendar. The point I was attempting to draw out about the Hundred is that, although it has been a success in getting more cricket broadcast on free to air, there have been unintended consequences. That is the point that the ECB and everyone with an interest in cricket needs to work to unravel.

Reflecting on the Minister’s comment on cricket books, such as “Michael Parkinson on Cricket”, I can recommend —if she is up for a cricket read—Geoffrey Boycott’s “Opening Up”, which is one of the best, and “Boycott on Cricket”: two excellent summer reads.

I join the Minister in saying that it is good news that the ECB is investing in domes; clearly, with the changeable weather in this country, we need many more of them. Domes are obviously useful for winter nets for young people, too.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), set out the scale of the improvement in participation numbers, but clearly there is a wave here. Although in recent years participation has gone up a little bit—even quite a lot in some years, in which we have seen spikes in participation—the trend over the last 20 years or so has been downwards. That is what I think the ECB is trying to address by increasing participation and interest in cricket via the Hundred.

I will just reflect briefly on what various Members have said. The points about elitism, class, access and the availability of cricket to everyone are not lost on me. I went to a school where we played only one cricket fixture in five years and of course we got absolutely tonked in that one fixture. I do understand those points. I had to get all of my cricket by playing at a local club, Uphill Castle, and I am extremely grateful to all the coaches who gave their time there. Of course, increasing availability will come down to the levels of investment that the Government are making in education, the availability of PE teachers and the availability of sports pitches. Planning was also raised during this debate; it is an important point.

I would really hate for the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) to leave this debate thinking that I am one of those people who spends my whole time ranting about the Hundred and saying that we must abandon the tournament. That was not the purpose of this debate. I have many friends who tell me repeatedly that the Hundred must be stopped immediately, but that is not my view. I have been to watch the Hundred. Indeed, as a Hundred orphan, I had to go all the way to London to watch London Spirit play, because I have no local team.

There needs to be a lot more thought about how the ECB reworks the cricket calendar, so that in a few years’ time, when my daughter goes to school, we will have an opportunity to go and watch some cricket in the school holidays. At the moment, it is really difficult; it will be the Hundred or nothing and we do not have a team in the Hundred. We would have to come all the way back to London, or go to Birmingham, or Wales, or maybe even Leeds—somewhere else.

[Navendu Mishra]

Lancashire, perhaps.

[Max Wilkinson]

Lancashire, perhaps—yes, to Manchester.

Those are real issues that will have an impact on young people’s participation in cricket and so many people’s enjoyment of cricket. We need to think for much longer about how the calendar can work for everyone, whether that means the young people who want to go and watch cricket during their school holidays, or the old gents and ladies who attend games with their cheese and pickle sandwiches and their weak lemon squash, sitting all day in the sunshine watching the sport they love. That is the thing that I think is so special about cricket and it is why I love red ball and county championship cricket.

I thank all the Members who have taken part in this debate for their contributions and I thank you for chairing it, Ms McVey.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation.

Future of Terrestrial Television

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate.

Who can forget the historic moments that we saw on terrestrial television? We watched the fall of the Berlin wall, and the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana. We watched Gazza’s tears. We watched the moon landings. And we watched Del Boy fall through the bar on “Only Fools and Horses”. Such history.

Terrestrial television is a technology that has changed our experience of the world around us in our own living rooms. That is something very special. Despite the pace of technological change, terrestrial television remains the window to the wider world for so many people. It is a means of staying connected to news and culture. It is companionship, particularly for those who live alone. At its best, television is a source of national unity, whether during a royal wedding or on those occasions when our national sports teams do well.

We must, therefore, ensure that Britain’s broadcasting infrastructure is fit for purpose. As things stand, that is not guaranteed for too many households after the switch-off. Around 17% of British households—nearly one in five—still rely on digital terrestrial television, known as Freeview. Those households are disproportionately on lower incomes and disproportionately live in the north of England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland—all nations and regions represented in this debate. They are more likely to be older, disabled, living alone and female. That sets the context for the challenge that faces us and the Government. These are the people who risk being left behind if Freeview disappears without a proper plan for what comes next.

Ofcom’s 2024 report on the future of Freeview found that fewer people are watching television via terrestrial platforms. That is no surprise: many of us now almost never switch on to watch shows as they are broadcast, favouring on demand services instead. That trend is expected to accelerate, and the threats to public service broadcasters from many manufacturers’ approach to prominence are now well known and discussed. However, the very same broadcasters that are worried about that also worry about the cost of maintaining distribution infrastructure—much of it, for terrestrial television, dating back decades. We worry that eventually they will conclude that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.

The Ofcom report sets out three broad choices for the Government: invest in a more efficient, leaner Freeview system; reduce Freeview to a smaller, core service; or prepare for a complete switch-off in the 2030s. Further Ofcom research found that fewer than a quarter of participants believed they would struggle if Freeview disappeared—but a quarter is one in four. Instead, the main challenges reported were the financial barriers that other Members have mentioned today, including the hundreds of extra pounds that people have to pay for a good internet connection; the fact that a good internet connection may not even be available in their area; unreliable internet that already exists; and technical difficulties, which are a barrier to older people.

Like any other sector, the television industry must adapt to new technologies. It is already doing so at some pace, and it should be applauded for that. It must also be placed on a sustainable financial footing. However, although the transition will inevitably run at pace, it cannot be allowed to leave the poorest and most vulnerable without a lifeline.

That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must set out a comprehensive plan that ensures that those who are most reliant on Freeview are not left behind. This is not a controversial viewpoint, and it is one that has been expressed by Members across the Chamber today. It means ensuring affordable and accessible alternatives for those who currently rely on Freeview, or an extension of Freeview itself. It means offering practical support to people who may struggle with digital technology. It also means investing in reliable broadband, so that rural and disadvantaged areas are not cut off.

Those steps would ensure that vulnerable people, particularly the elderly and those living alone, continue to have that window to the world, so that they can see the news and weather, watch chat shows and be entertained—perhaps with their dog or cat on their lap, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. These principles are best illustrated by the BBC’s founding mantra: to inform, educate and entertain. Those words must guide us still today, whether or not we like what the BBC does every day.

This debate is not only about profit and financial sustainability, but about the fabric of our society. Disinformation is a real threat to societal cohesion, as we saw last year with the riots in Southport and elsewhere. If barriers to access mean that television ceases to be a shared cultural space, we will all be the poorer for it, particularly if fewer people are able to access reliable news programmes on regulated public service broadcasters.

For British broadcasting to remain a source of connection and pride, as it is in this country, our Government—whichever party is in charge—must not leave households staring at a blank screen. We must invest in a fair transition that safeguards the vulnerable. Television has defined our culture for generations. With careful planning, proper investment and fairness at the heart of what we do, we can ensure a smooth transition that keeps the most vulnerable in our society connected.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 General Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. The Minister presented these orders as a tidying-up job, but the Liberal Democrats believe they need to be viewed in the broader context of the recent SI allowing up to 15% ownership of newspapers by foreign Governments. We remain concerned about the sale of any portion of UK news media to foreign Governments. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry, raised the issue of cumulative ownership, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that later.

I do not agree with everything written in UK newspapers. Indeed, since my election I have been described by one commentator as a “drab clunker”, and more recently by another as a “pillock” and an “idiot.” I assure the Committee that I have been called much worse in my political career, but at least I can be sure that what is written in the UK press is not written by journalists under the influence of a company part owned by a foreign Government, including those who are hostile to British values, the UK Government, or Britain as a whole.

The Minister knows that my style as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson is firm but fair scrutiny, mostly with a smile, and we have a decent relationship on that basis. I have asked some very clear written questions of the Government on the broader issue of foreign state ownership of UK news, but I regret that the answers so far have left a large grey area and given us cause for concern.

Even if the Government are in favour of the sale of UK media to foreign Governments, the official Opposition are ambivalent about it or in favour, and the plastic patriots in Reform UK are actively in favour, the Liberal Democrats intend to stand up for the independence of our media as a crucial pillar of our democracy. We opposed the initial legislation on this issue a few weeks ago, and unless the Minister can provide the reassurances we seek, we will oppose the regulations today and in future.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We welcome this Bill, as did Members across the House until a few short months ago. [Laughter.] Indeed, some of those Members even came up with the idea. Like many in the Chamber today, we are disappointed that the consensus remains broken, after an apparent direction from the Leader of the Opposition, and that the Conservatives have chosen to turn their backs on the sustainability of football quite so dramatically—perhaps it is time to sack the manager. While their time in government left much to be desired, the Conservatives had the chance to claim a statement win today. After all, as I said, this Bill was their idea: Dame Tracey Crouch initiated the fan-led review, and the previous Government started this process.

Now, however, the Conservatives have spectacularly missed an open goal, much like Ronnie Rosenthal at Villa Park in 1992. If I was generous, I would say their performance on this Bill has been like Man United in 1998—throwing away a massive points lead only to finish with nothing. Instead, I fear for the shadow Minister that they are more like Spurs in 2016, somehow managing to finish third in a two-horse race—although, I suppose coming third is the sort of result the Conservatives need to get used to.

Throughout this process, we have been clear on our position: we are in favour of the principles of protecting the heritage of our national game, of greater financial sustainability, and of greater fan involvement in the game. We applaud the Government’s approach in delivering that, and we will support the Bill on Third Reading later today, because we remain consistent in our view.

None the less, we think that the Bill could go further. Let me begin with the issue of free-to-air coverage. In new clause 3, we are calling for key fixtures from the domestic football calendar to be made available on free-to-air television. This includes a selection of 10 premier league matches each season, the league cup final and the play-off finals in the championship, league one and league two. As a Charlton Athletic fan, the shadow Minister might have an interest in this one, because his team might make the play-offs one day. These would complement the existing free-to-air marquee events such as the FA cup, the World cup and the Euros. This proposal is neither about undermining private broadcasters, whose viewing figures sadly are already declining, nor about devaluing the broadcasting rights on which clubs rely, which are showing signs of plateauing, despite the addition of so many more live games to broadcast packages. Rather, this is an opportunity for broadcasters and the football leagues to innovate and to consider a more direct route to accessing fans without a paywall.

By introducing more free-to-air games, broadcasters could explore wider sponsorship opportunities tied to larger audiences, generate new appointment-to-view moments, and engage fans who are currently priced out of football not just in the stadium, but on television, too. This approach is already proving successful in other countries. For example, La Liga broadcasts one Spanish top-flight match per week free to air, helping to maintain widespread public engagement with the sport. With the rising cost of living and the growing number of subscription services required to watch live football—now totalling around £700 a year—making more matches available without a paywall would ensure the game remains accessible.

[Mr French]

First, Charlton did reach the play-offs and we were promoted to the championship, so I am happy to correct the record for the hon. Member. But on the broadcasting issue, what cost analysis have the Liberal Democrats done on this issue, given that we know that the premier league and the EFL have already signed broadcast deals with the likes of Sky and others? What is the economic impact for those clubs and leagues?

[Max Wilkinson]

A huge amount of money is already going around in football, and we know that when we get to contract negotiations with the broadcasters and the leagues, these things are chunked up into packages. And when the next contracts are up, this would be one of those packages. I do not see that there would need to be any massive economic impact.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It might seem odd that I, as a Scot, want to intrude in this debate, but the health of English football is valuable to us in Scotland as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that if football is to continue on the current scale, it needs another generation to see it, to love it and to want to take part in it. The only really successful way of doing that is to make it free to air to every household in this country at some point every week.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The point here is that Gen Z and people younger than those in the Chamber today consume sport and media in a very different way. [Interruption.] My pronunciation of Gen Z has been corrected. It turns out that I am out of touch. Those of us in the Chamber today grew up watching football as a 90-minute game on television, many of us on free to air. Today, youngsters will be watching social media clips on TikTok. They will be watching clips of people playing games on computers as well. If we are to get the next generation of fans involved, the easiest way to make sure that they are entertained and that they are engaging is by making football free to air.

[Mr French]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He suggests that there would not be a cost impact on the broadcasting rights, but the Liberal Democrat amendment states that a number of key matches would be required to shown on free-to-air TV channels every season. And as I highlighted in my previous intervention, those broadcasting deals are already in place. Does he not agree, therefore, that if Members were to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment today, that would impact the broadcast deals already in play for the EFL and the premier league.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

I do not believe that that necessarily has to be the case, but we will see what happens later on if the shadow Minister votes for our new clause.

[Tim Farron]

In response to the shadow Minister’s point, having free-to-air coverage of premier league games puts the sport in the shop window, which is actually more likely to bring money in for non-free-to-air providers. We should also remember what football is all about. It is about community. A live televised football match is a communal event that everybody watches at the same time, and it brings the country together. Having games accessible on television every week would be good for the sport going forward, and it would mean that everyone can have access to football, not only those with money.

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would reflect that Members’ interest in this point suggests that we are on to something, as does the interest we have seen in the media today for the amendment.

Turning to fan representation, new clauses 4 and 5 would introduce a mandatory golden share for supporters groups to protect clubs’ assets. The Bill provides some protection against some of the most egregious actions of rogue football club owners, but the golden share concept in new clause 4 would add extra protection for clubs by giving a recognised supporters’ trust or equivalent democratic fan body a formal veto over decisions that could fundamentally alter the identity of their club. Such decisions would include relocating the home ground to somewhere outside the club’s home area, changing the club’s name, altering its primary colours or badge or entering competitions not sanctioned by the FA, the Premier League or the EFL.

The golden share concept was included in the recommendations of Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review but appears to have been dropped somewhere along the way. We believe it is time to bring it off the bench, because supporters are more than just paying customers; they are the living, breathing heart of their clubs. They carry the traditions, culture and local identity that connects clubs to their communities. New clause 4 would help to increase accountability and democratic oversight in club ownership and governance. The need for it is obvious when we look at past events. The attempt to rebrand Hull City as Hull Tigers would have been vetoed by fans. A fan-held golden share would have blocked the move of Wimbledon football club to Milton Keynes. The golden share could have stopped Cardiff’s kit being changed from blue to red.

It is entirely right that investors and owners are part of football’s future, and they already have a massive stake in this, but it is just as important to protect the people who built the clubs and supported them through thick and thin. The golden share offers a fair balance of power that protects heritage and ensures that fans are not sidelined by reckless or profit-driven decision. That is at the heart of the aims of the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

This is my third intervention and I have not yet mentioned Blackburn Rovers—I will now break that duck. Would the golden share allow fans to veto something like Blackburn Rovers’ outrageous decision to cease funding for their women’s football team? It meant that the team dropped from the championship down to a league several layers below, simply because the owners—Venky’s—disgracefully decided that they no longer wanted to pay for a women’s team.

[Max Wilkinson]

Women’s football is outside the scope of the Bill, but I believe that the golden share concept would cover that sort of decision. I agree that what has happened to the Blackburn Rovers women’s team is a total disgrace.

Turning to new clause 7, our national game is something we all take immense pride in. Football is one of the cornerstones of British culture, and it should never be used by individuals or regimes to cleanse their reputations or distract from human rights abuses. That is why we have tabled an amendment aimed at strengthening ownership rules for football clubs. Prospective owners and directors should face clear and enforceable tests that include human rights considerations. The tests would help to safeguard not only the values that underpin our national sport, but the liberal and democratic principles that we as a country and all of us in this House stand for.

It cannot be right that we welcome with open arms those who preside over oppressive regimes or are linked to activity that potentially breaches the values we hold so dear. If a football club’s owners are linked to actions that breach international law, can we really say that our national game or this country should be hosting them? We think not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 7.

On player welfare, which has been mentioned, amendment 3 would provide support for former professional footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions. While broken bones and torn ligaments can be fixed, the long-term effects of repeated head trauma often go unnoticed. Kevin Moore, Chris Nicholl, Nobby Stiles and others gave their best years to the sport, and it is a disgrace that many of them are now left facing devastating illnesses without the support that they need. Our amendment would require the football industry to allocate a small share of its considerable wealth to those affected. I also want to acknowledge the work of Michael Giles, John Stiles and the Football Families for Justice. That work must be recognised here today.

Finally, I turn to the issue of gambling in football, covered in new clause 2. Gambling-related harm is widespread and deeply damaging. Fans watching football today are bombarded with adverts encouraging betting—from TV commercials to shirt sponsorships. The influence of gambling in football has become overwhelming and dangerous. Gambling firms spend about £1.5 billion a year on advertising, much of it directed at football fans. It is unacceptable that football fans are having their game irrevocably linked to that trade.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Max Wilkinson]

I am afraid that I have to make some progress. The losses are not just financial; they lead to mental health crises, family breakdown and even suicide. Public Health England estimates that there are around 400 gambling-related suicides annually. We are not calling for a ban on gambling, but on gambling advertising in football. Football must sever the link between the game and gambling.

This Bill is an important step forward for our national game and we welcome it. The beautiful game needs its defenders, not just on the pitch but in Parliament. We must make the game more accessible to fans, protect club heritage and ensure democratic fan representation. We must prevent the sport from being exploited by corrupt regimes, support retired players suffering from neurological diseases and stand up to the gambling industry’s grip on our national sport. That is for the sake of the fans and for fairness, but more importantly, for the future of our national game. Our amendments would do all that and I hope that Members across the House, as well as Ministers, will consider them today and in future. As we are discussing new clause 1, I finish by saying that we will vote for it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I associate my party with the words said about Diogo Jota? It is a tragic loss to the world of football.

A few weeks ago, we stood in this place and talked about the UK-EU reset deal. My party welcomed the moderate progress, but we think the Government should go further, particularly on touring artists. The Minister asked us to talk about this with our European liberal colleagues. We have started those discussions. Can he update us on his discussions and reassure us that this is on the agenda for the next review? If he does not give us any good news soon on Europe, will he admit that we are close to the final countdown?

[Chris Bryant]

I had a horrible fear how that question was going to end. It is really important that we win this battle. This has to be a campaign that we wage across all of Europe—we need to get every single capital city in Europe on our side to make sure that, by the time we get to the next EU-UK summit, we can get this over the line. British acts are desperately wanted, apart from anything else, in lots of different venues and arts festivals across the whole of Europe. I have spoken to the commissioner who is in charge of this. I have also spoken to four of my European counterparts. My intention is to get round every single one of them so that we can get this over the line.

Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Sadly, rather than devoting our attention today to how this House can push for a just and sustainable resolution to the horrors of the conflict in the middle east, we are talking about something else. On this occasion—there have been past occasions, too—it is the deeply inappropriate language used by a shock jock, attention-seeking musician and a public service broadcaster’s apparent failure to fulfil its responsibility to uphold its own editorial standards. Bob Vylan’s chants at Glastonbury this weekend were absolutely appalling. We can never accept hate-filled chants calling for death to anyone in our society, at a music festival or anywhere else, whatever the subject. It is right that there has been widespread condemnation, including from the organisers of Glastonbury festival, and I associate myself and my party with those words.

Of course the UK must push much harder for a ceasefire; of course we must put pressure on Netanyahu’s Government to roll back their military campaign and build a sustainable two-state solution; and of course Liberal Democrats believe that cultural events must be a place for debate. But there can simply be no place for hate speech, antisemitism and incitement to violence, at Glastonbury or anywhere else. It seems that an editorial failing took place in the BBC’s coverage. The decision to proceed with broadcasting this act is particularly hard to understand given the BBC’s correct decision to take a more cautious, but ultimately fruitless, approach to the broadcasting of Kneecap. A cursory look through the social media of Bob Vylan raises the question, “How exactly was this not foreseen?” Of course, we also know that Kneecap has in the past called for the death of Members of this House.

The failure to use delayed coverage effectively and to remove the coverage in a timely manner is baffling. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether, when she asked the BBC about this issue, the subject of charter renewal was raised? Can she give us concrete reassurance that change will happen and we will never have to put up with this dreadful antisemitism appearing on our screens again?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and the tone in which he made them. It is the responsibility of all of us always to stand up to antisemitism. It is sadly a battle that is never won. The lesson of history is that it falls to every generation to fight antisemitism and fight it again, and certainly I can promise that this Government will always do that.

Let me turn to the specific question about the BBC and charter renewal—with apologies to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for not answering his question on this earlier. I have not discussed charter renewal in the context of Kneecap and the other acts broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. We have, of course, discussed charter renewal, and it is absolutely right to say that editorial standards must be part of that discussion. When we release the terms of reference, which we are due to do shortly, everyone in this House will see a clear commitment to that as part of the ongoing conversation we will have about charter renewal.

Finally, I welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) saying that chants of death must not be made to anyone. Chants of death—to anyone—are not welcome in our society. There was something particularly pernicious about chanting, “Death, death to the IDF”. Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means that chanting “death to the IDF” is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew. That is one of the many reasons why we take this so seriously and why it cannot be argued that this did not cross a very dangerous line.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 General Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

Without the free press, democracy cannot function, as the Opposition spokesperson just said. We therefore cannot allow foreign states to use their wealth and influence to hold stakes that threaten the independence and integrity of British journalism. The Government-proposed 15% non-cumulative threshold opens the door to exactly that kind of foreign influence that the draft regulations were initially meant to prevent.

In the Secretary of State’s statement on this matter, she said that the policy intention was that the Government wanted to ensure that state-owned investment vehicles, where they do invest, could not have influence over the business of a UK newspaper. Given the struggles of many traditional media outlets, however, I ask the Minister, why do the Government think that a foreign state might want to invest in UK media? Many organisations are well known to be struggling to turn significant profits, so is it perhaps because those foreign states might wish to exercise some other kind of influence over our public debate? Important lines must be drawn here, and we are interested in what the Government think about those lines.

Would the Government be comfortable with a company owned by the Chinese Government, directly accountable to President Xi, buying 15% of a UK newspaper? What about a consortium involving the Chinese Government and another state, perhaps Iran or any other hostile state, owning 30% or more of a British media brand? We can imagine the Government might not welcome investment by a future North Korean company reporting to Kim Jong Un, but will the Minister confirm whether the proposed legislation will explicitly bar that? Will any other bits of legislation bar it?

As the legislation stands, British newspapers could be fully owned by foreign Governments, opening our press to foreign interference, and interference in journalism and journalists as individuals that would go against the interests of the British people and the liberal democratic values that we hold dear. The Liberal Democrats therefore urge the Culture Secretary to revise the draft statutory instrument immediately, and to remove the right of foreign states to own any part of the British news media ecosystem.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 101 concerns the short title of the Bill. It makes certain that, once it has passed through Parliament, the Football Governance Bill will be cited as the Football Governance Act 2025. Finally, Government amendment 60 is technical and procedural; it removes the privilege amendment inserted on Third Reading in the Lords to clause 101. This was added in the other place to make it clear that they have not infringed on the financial privileges of this House.

Amendment 60 agreed to.

Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3

Proposal stage

“(1) This section applies where mediation under section 60 comes to an end by virtue of the occurrence of an event within section 60(6)(b), (c) or (d).

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the event, the IFR must give notice to the two specified competition organisers.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) must—

(a) set out the question or questions for resolution,

(b) specify the qualifying football season or seasons to which that question relates or those questions relate,

(c) set out any findings in the IFR’s most recent state of the game report that the IFR considers relevant to that question or those questions,

(d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to submit to the IFR and to each other a proposal as to how that question or those questions should be resolved,

(e) require any proposal to be accompanied by supporting evidence (including evidence as to how the proposal addresses the findings set out under paragraph (c)),

(f) specify the day on or before which proposals are to be submitted.

(4) A question for resolution may be set out in a notice under subsection (2) only if it is the question, or one of the questions, for resolution remaining unresolved when the mediation mentioned in subsection (1) came to an end.

(5) Where a notice under subsection (2) sets out a question for resolution that relates to relegation revenue (within the meaning given by section (Distribution orders)(9)), the notice must require the specified competition organisers to explain in a proposal how the proposal will promote the financial sustainability of clubs which operate teams relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser distributing the relegation revenue.

(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on or before the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f), a specified competition organiser submits to the IFR a proposal which the IFR considers is not a qualifying proposal.

(7) The IFR may give both specified competition organisers a notice specifying a later day (falling not more than seven days after the end of the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f)) on or before which proposals are to be submitted.

(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after—

(a) the initial proposal deadline, or

(b) (if earlier) the day on which the IFR considers that both specified competition organisers have submitted qualifying proposals,

the IFR must give a notice under subsection (9) to the two specified competition organisers.

(9) A notice under this subsection must—

(a) state which of the two specified competition organisers (if any) has submitted a qualifying proposal before the initial proposal deadline,

(b) invite each such specified competition organiser to—

(i) confirm their proposal, or

(ii) make any permitted modifications to their proposal,

and submit the confirmed or modified proposal to the IFR and the other specified competition organiser, and

(c) specify the day on or before which the confirmed or modified proposal is to be submitted.

(10) The IFR may specify in a notice under subsection (2) or (9) the form and manner in which proposals and supporting evidence must be submitted.

(11) In this section—

(a) ‘the initial proposal deadline’ means—

(i) the day referred to in subsection (3)(f), or

(ii) where the IFR gives a notice under subsection (7), the day specified in the notice;

(b) a ‘qualifying proposal’ means a proposal which—

(i) explains how the question or questions for resolution should be resolved, and

(ii) complies with the requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3)(e) and (5) (if applicable);

(c) a modification to a proposal is ‘permitted’ unless it results in the proposal no longer being a qualifying proposal.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This new clause substitutes clause 61 with a new clause providing for a revised procedure for the proposal stage of the resolution process.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Distribution orders

“(1) This section applies where the IFR has given a notice under section (Proposal stage)(9).

(2) Before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the notice under section (Proposal stage)(9) was given, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice of the distribution order it proposes to make.

(3) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (2) by up to a further 14 days if it considers it appropriate to do so.

(4) A notice under subsection (2) must—

(a) give reasons for the proposed distribution order,

(b) explain how the proposed order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8),

(c) explain how the proposed order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c),

(d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to make representations about the proposed distribution order,

(e) specify the period within which such representations may be made, and

(f) specify the means by which they may be made,

and the IFR must have regard to any representations which are duly made.

(5) The period specified under subsection (4)(d) must be a period of not less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.

(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period specified under subsection (4)(d), the IFR must make an order requiring relevant revenue to be distributed in a way that the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(a) (a ‘distribution order’).

(7) In making a distribution order the IFR must—

(a) apply the principles mentioned in subsection (8), and

(b) have regard to any proposal submitted under section (Proposal stage)(9)(b).

See also section 7 (in particular the IFR’s general duty to exercise its functions in a way that advances one or more of its objectives and to have regard to various matters).

(8) The principles referred to in subsection (7)(a) are that—

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

(b) the distribution order should not result in a lower amount of relegation revenue being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to the club during that period had the order not been made.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)—

‘relegation revenue’ means revenue distributed by a specified competition organiser to a club in consequence of a team operated by the club being relegated from a specified competition organised by the specified competition organiser;

‘relevant period’, in relation to a distribution order, means the period of one year beginning with the final day of the first football season in respect of which relegation revenue would be distributed in pursuance of the order.

(10) A distribution order—

(a) must impose on the specified competition organisers such obligations as the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements set out in the order, and

(b) may, where a distribution agreement is in force between the specified competition organisers in relation to the same qualifying football season or seasons to which the order relates, provide for that agreement to have effect subject to provision contained in the order.

(11) At the same time as making a distribution order, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice—

(a) including a copy of the order,

(b) giving reasons for the order,

(c) explaining how the order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8),

(d) explaining how the order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c), and

(e) including information about the possible consequences under Part 8 of not complying with the order.

(12) The IFR must, as soon as reasonably practicable after making a distribution order, publish the order or a summary of the order.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This new clause substitutes clause 62 with a new clause providing that the IFR may make a distribution order that distributes relevant revenue in the way that the IFR considers most appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Duty not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling

“A regulated club or English football competition must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. We are not calling for a ban on gambling with the new clause, but we are calling for a ban on advertising it through one of our most culturally powerful platforms. The new clause is a proportionate, evidence-led measure to break the link between football and gambling harm. When we consider that 70% of young people are aware of being exposed to gambling advertisements, is it any wonder, when these adverts are emblazoned on football team shirts and plastered on the side of every pitch for everyone to see?

Gambling firms spend a huge amount of money every year on advertising. They do not lack influence or reach. Gambling has much wider impacts than simply in the football stadium. Since 2011, gambling losses in the UK have risen by 80%, and new data from the Gambling Commission indicates that up to 2.5% of adults in Great Britain may be suffering from gambling harms. Football is unique in its reach and influence. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, gambling is still embedded in the game. Club sponsorships, half-time adverts and pundit discussions all feature it. If we do not act here, we send a message that profits matter more than people’s wellbeing. We understand that the Government think this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is an important discussion for us to have in the context of anything to do with football.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Could the hon. Gentleman give us some sense of his assessment of how much money the new clause would take out of football?

[Max Wilkinson]

It is not about the money that this would take out of football, but the money that is taken out of the pockets of many football fans who are being exploited by predatory gambling companies every day.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. The Government are clear that, wherever gambling advertising and sponsorship appears, it must be socially responsible. The Government do not believe that the regulator should have a role in commercial matters such as sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs and competition organisers. We must be wary of scope creep that sees the regulator straying into matters that should be reserved for the industry, and stepping on the toes of industry authorities such as the FA. What constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely broadly, with significant consequences for clubs, and sport more widely.

For instance, the new clause could be interpreted as meaning that players could not take part in competitions that had gambling sponsors. Clearly, that would have significant unintended consequences for clubs and the sport more widely. All major football bodies have published their joint gambling sponsorship code of conduct, which sets minimum standards for socially responsible gambling sponsorship within football. We are working closely with sporting bodies to review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure that they have a meaningful impact. This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps for gambling sponsorship. The Premier League has already made the decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season.

For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the new clause, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am pleased that this is on the Minister’s mind, and that the Government seem to understand the problem. I think we would all accept that there is a bigger problem with gambling adverts in football which needs to be solved. Whenever we turn on Sky on a Sunday afternoon, it is obvious to all what is going on, as the adverts are often completely unrepresentative of the reality of football gambling.

I have a particular concern about those who are engaged in punditry while encouraging us in half-time adverts to spend our money. That is a clear conflict of interest that needs to be resolved at some point. I accept that at this stage, the Government are not going to take it on. We will not press the new clause to a vote today, as we recognise the numbers in the room, but it is an important discussion that all parliamentarians need to be involved in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Free to air coverage

“(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—

(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,

(b) the League Cup Final, and

(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals,

are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.

(3) In this section “free-to-air television” means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Televising of football matches of national interest—

“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 299 (categorisation of listed events) (2)(d) insert—

“(e) the Independent Football Regulator, established by the Football Governance Act 2024, in relation to televising of football matches between licensed football clubs.””

This new clause adds the IFR as a statutory consultee on the listing of sporting events for free-to-air coverage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

With new clauses 9 and 13, we are calling for an expansion of the crown jewels of sports broadcasting to ensure that key fixtures from the domestic football calendar are made available on free-to-air television. Members will have recently seen some of the coverage about dwindling viewership figures for this year on TNT and Sky. That should give us all cause for concern, particularly those who are involved in the finances of football. Specifically, we are calling for the free-to-air package to include 10 Premier League games a season, the League cup final, and the play-offs for the Championship, League One and League Two, in addition to those already free to air, such as the FA cup, World cup and the Euros.

This is not about undermining private broadcasters, but viewing figures are on the wane. We had a 17% drop in audience numbers last season. At the same time, there are signs that the value of Premier League broadcast rights has plateaued as more live games have been added to recent packages. This is an opportunity for broadcasters and leagues alike to innovate their offering. Our proposals could open the door to new forms of commercial engagement, such as sponsorship tied to mass viewership, broader brand exposure and appointment-to-view opportunities that bring in new audiences. That approach has worked elsewhere across Europe, most notably in La Liga, where one game a week is free to air, keeping the league accessible to all fans, regardless of their ability to pay.

Recent research shows that in general Premier League fans are more likely to come from lower-income backgrounds than those who regularly attend matches. The hon. Member for Spelthorne has referenced the eye-watering cost of his season ticket on a number of occasions in this Committee. For many supporters, attending games is unaffordable, and with the rising cost of living, stacking multiple sports subscriptions is out of reach for too many households. Increasing free-to-air coverage would not just make games more accessible; it would reignite national moments of the kind we see during the World cup or the Euros. Those moments build unity, inspire young people and renew grassroots interest in the game.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling new clauses 9 and 13, which concern the televising of football matches as listed events and free to air. First, I want to be clear that it is not an issue for the Bill or the regulator, but I would like to use this opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the issue.

The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events of national interest are made available to the public as widely as possible. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against that investment, and not risk it.

As for the Bill, there have been strong voices from all sides that the regulator must have a tightly defined remit, and must not intervene in areas where it is more appropriate for football authorities or others to lead. We agree with that, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the bar for statutory, regulatory intervention in any market should be very high. It would not be appropriate for the regulator to intervene in commercial decisions between the relevant broadcasters and rights holders. Decisions relating to the number of matches of specific competitions that are broadcast are determined through commercial negotiation and are subject to factors such as rights costs and scheduling considerations. Additionally, we do not feel it is right to expand the regulator’s remit by including it as a body that must be consulted on listed events.

Decisions relating to the coverage of certain sporting and other events of national interest are, again, a matter for the relevant broadcasters and rights holders. A widened regulatory remit considering broadcasting and commercial decisions would distract from the key responsibility of the regulator and widen the scope of the Bill. The regulator will ensure that there are financially viable clubs for fans to watch, both at their grounds and on television. For those reasons, I am unable to support the hon. Member’s new clause.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Fan representation: mandatory golden share

“(1) A licensed club must, as a condition of holding a licence under section 15, issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan organisation.

(2) The golden share must confer on its holder the right to veto any proposal by the club to—

(a) relocate the club’s home ground outside its current local authority area,

(b) change the club’s name,

(c) materially alter the club’s primary colours or badge, or

(d) enter into or withdraw from any competition not sanctioned by The Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League.

(3) A licensed club must—

(a) consult the holder of the golden share on any material changes to the club’s ownership, governance, or strategic direction,

(b) provide the holder with access to relevant financial and governance information reasonably required to fulfil its function, and

(c) facilitate structured and regular engagement between the club and the holder of the golden share.

(4) The Regulator must monitor compliance with this section and may—

(a) issue guidance to clubs and Supporters’ Trusts on the operation of the golden share,

(b) impose licence conditions or financial penalties for non-compliance, and

(c) take enforcement action where a club fails to uphold the rights associated with the golden share.

(5) In this section—

‘Supporters’ Trust’ means a formally constituted, democratic, not-for-profit organisation that is recognised by the Regulator as representing the interests of a club’s supporters;

‘golden share’ means a special share or equivalent legal instrument issued to a Supporters’ Trust, entitling its holder to the rights and protections described in this section.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause would give fans a veto on club proposals, exercised through a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan body.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 21—IFR duty to provide information and support on golden shares—

“(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act the IFR must publish guidance for recognised Supporters’ Trusts or equivalent democratic fan organisations holding a golden share as specified in section [Fan representation: mandatory golden share].

(2) The guidance published under subsection (1) must explain the purpose of a golden share and advise on how holders of a golden share can engage with their regulated club when utilising the rights bestowed by the golden share.

(3) The IFR must also provide an information support service for holders of a golden share to contact for advice on utilising their golden share.”

This new clause adds a duty for the IFR to support fan organisations in the use of their golden share through advice services and guidance.

[Max Wilkinson]

The spirit of the Bill is rightly focused on ensuring the financial sustainability of the game and, crucially, protecting the heritage of clubs by giving fans a greater voice. As I have said, we support the Bill. In the spirit of the noble aims of the Bill, we have tabled new clause 10, which proposes a simple but powerful safeguard: a mandatory “golden share” for fans. It would require all licensed clubs to

“issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust”

or equivalent democratic fan body. The share would grant fans a veto over fundamental decisions affecting the club’s identity and future, including relocation of its home ground, changing its name, altering its primary colours or badge, and entering or withdrawing it from competitions not sanctioned by the FA, Premier League or EFL.

The golden share was an idea included in Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review, but it seems to have been forgotten. We are simply bringing fans’ voices back to the table. The Committee will, of course, be able to think of many instances where such a veto would have helped. I will raise three examples: the attempt by Assem Allam, the owner of Hull City, to rebrand the club as “Hull Tigers”; the relocation of Wimbledon to Milton Keynes; and the time that Cardiff changed their shirts to red. The new clause aims to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. It would be a positive step; we urge the Government to accept it.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituency, and I am pleased that he has been able to represent his local fan trust. The Bill will require fan engagement at all clubs with the adequate and effective means in place to deliver the licensing requirement. The regime does allow for a bespoke approach to be taken at each club, based on what is best in each club’s specific circumstances. A supporter director was considered by the fan-led review and support for the concept was mixed. The review concluded that

“a fan director rarely delivers on fan expectations.”

Clubs are welcome to introduce any additional engagement strategy that they think will be of benefit to them and their fanbases. Many clubs have already responded to the fan-led review, made decisions to push themselves beyond the recommendations, and implemented fan engagement strategies that they think will work best for their club. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that case.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Protection of assets of regulated clubs

“(1) Where any of the following assets belong to a regulated club, the asset must not be removed from the club’s ownership or used as collateral for a secured loan—

(a) any stadium,

(b) any training facility,

(c) any trophies,

(d) any car park,

(e) any hotel.

(2) But subsection 1 does not apply to a car park or a hotel where—

(a) the regulated club can demonstrate to the IFR’s satisfaction that the asset is causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial sustainability, and

(b) the IFR has provided prior written approval for the disposal of the asset or the use of the asset as collateral.

(3) Where the current owner of a regulated club owns any asset listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c), the owner may not sell the club unless the owner has inserted the asset into the club’s ownership structure.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause would ensure that the club assets listed above are recognised as the inalienable property of the club rather than the club’s owners.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We cannot claim to be reforming football unless we tackle one of its most dangerous long-term trends—the creeping financialisation and asset-stripping of clubs. The hon. Member for High Peak has mentioned this on a number of occasions; he has experienced it in his former role as chair of the RamsTrust. New clause 11 would introduce protections to ensure that core assets such as stadiums, training grounds, trophies and, in some cases, commercial properties like car parks and hotels, remain in the club’s ownership, where they belong. Specifically, the new clause would ensure that assets cannot be sold off or used as security for loans without the prior written approval of the regulator; that the regulator may give its approval only if the asset is demonstrably causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial health; and, critically, that if any of the assets are owned by another organisation rather than the club itself, they must be transferred back into the club’s ownership before any sale of the club can proceed.

The current system allows owners to move critical assets out of a club’s hands with little or no transparency. Once that happens, the club often faces high rent obligations to use its own stadium and training facilities, has weakened negotiating power in takeovers and insolvency, and potentially experiences a complete disconnection from its historical home. Derby County are not the only example of where that has happened. We think this concept is worth taking forward, and we hope the Government are listening.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. He and I have a shared aim to ensure that there are sufficient protections for home grounds and other assets. We have already discussed the issue of protections for home grounds, so I understand the intention behind the amendment. However, the Government do not believe that it is a proportionate measure. The amendment would place significant blocks on any action to alter the financial arrangements of a long list of assets, and would substantially interfere with the property rights of clubs.

Clubs should be able to exercise commercial discretion over the use of wider club-owned assets. For example, the sale or refinancing of assets can sometimes be an acceptable and prudent way of improving a club’s liquidity, if necessary, but the amendment would remove that ability. There are other measures in the legislation to protect against the mismanagement of club assets, including the financial regulation provisions, regulatory oversight of financial plans, and an enhanced owners and directors test to ensure that owners are best placed to be the custodians of a club.

Last Thursday, I set out my understanding that the regulator could prevent the sale of training grounds through the use of discretionary licence conditions. I want to clarify that the regulator cannot directly block the sale of a training ground through licence conditions, but, where appropriate, it can act to discourage a sale and to mitigate any harmful financial impacts of a sale. The regulator can only set discretionary licence conditions in a limited number of areas. As per clause 22, which we have debated already, the regulator can only impose financial discretionary licence conditions that relate to liquidity requirements, debt management and overall cost reductions.

However, the regulator does have the levers to take action to protect a club’s financial sustainability if there ever arises a scenario in which the club intends to sell its training ground. By selling a valuable asset, a club may weaken its balance sheet and increase its financial risk. If there was a problem, the regulator could require the club to take mitigating action. For example, it could place a liquidity requirement on the club. The regulator could also use its powers to discourage the club from selling its training ground in the first place—for example, by indicating that if the club were to sell its training ground, the regulator would have no choice but to impose more significant financial restrictions on the club through discretionary conditions, thereby strongly steering the club away from that course of action. If that scenario were to arise because a bad actor sought to asset-strip the club, the regulator’s owners and directors test would kick in to remove that unsuitable custodian. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw the motion.

[Max Wilkinson]

I have heard what the Minister said. She seems to be implying that this issue can be dealt with by the Bill, and that the regulator will have an eye on these sorts of things. I am somewhat reassured, but I hope that when the regulator is introduced—and we hope it is introduced—it will be given a strong steer that it ought to make sure that the owners of clubs are not stripping assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Duty not to stage home matches outside United Kingdom without approval

“(1) A regulated club must not stage any home fixture in a competitive match at a venue outside the United Kingdom without the approval of the IFR.

(2) The IFR may only grant approval under subsection (1) if the fixture is not part of a specified competition.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a ‘home fixture’ means any fixture where the club is designated as the home team by the rules of the relevant competition.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside of the United Kingdom. It will allow regulated clubs to stage non-competitive fixtures outside of the United Kingdom.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When we discussed this issue on Second Reading, I said that the prospect of Arsenal playing Manchester City in Dubai should have all football fans reaching for the sick bucket—I assume most Man City and Arsenal fans would agree with that. I remain of that view. The new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside the UK. It would allow a regulated club to stage non-competitive fixtures outside the UK.

Football is our national sport but too many fans are already priced out of attending matches. Clubs with large overseas fan bases clearly have a profit motive to schedule games outside the UK. The new clause would erect further barriers to stop that happening. We do not want barriers to local fans, who have supported their clubs through thick and thin, getting to the game.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is pointing to a real fear for fans, particularly Premier League fans. In Europe, Serie A has said it will be playing competitive matches in the United States within two years. The Spanish super cup, its equivalent of the Community Shield, is already played in Saudi Arabia. It is important that we collectively as a Bill Committee keep an eye on this matter, so that the regulator uses its power to prevent that happening. Nothing would bespeak a bigger betrayal of fans than competitive matches played overseas that they could not get to.

[Max Wilkinson]

I strongly agree. This is a real risk that we cannot look past. With the increasing foreign ownership of clubs, many people would clearly look to buy a football club and market it around the world by taking it on tour. We should not put up with that in this country; this is our national game and it should be protected as such. Staging competitive UK fixtures outside the UK must not be allowed. It would dilute football’s links to the communities that it needs to continue to survive. It would act only in the interests of club owners who might not always have the interests of fans at heart.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Member’s comments, but does he think that link to home is diluted for American football or baseball when those leagues play a match in London?

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. The US has a franchise system, so every club can be moved wherever it wants. Someone who is an Oakland Raiders fan would probably also have been an LA Raiders fan. Where else did the Raiders play? There was definitely a third place, at least, in my lifetime, because clubs regularly move around the nation. When there is that franchise problem in America, hardcore elements of a National Football League club campaign against their club moving, and then campaign for it to move back to that city. The LA Raiders are a case in point.

That link between clubs and communities has already been severed in America, so it is less of a concern that the Jacksonville Jaguars are effectively now London’s team. London has taken that club to its heart, just as people across the UK have taken many other NFL and American sports teams to their heart. The hon. Member raises an interesting point, but I am not sure there is a direct comparison.

We risk getting to that point where some English and Welsh football teams go abroad—although Merthyr Tydfil might like the idea of going on tour, if they get up to the level of league where they are regulated. We need to ensure that we do not get into the position where our teams go on tour around the world to play competitive Premier League games. That would clearly be a gross betrayal of what we hold dear as football fans.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling this new clause. I know this is an incredibly important issue for many fans, and I am grateful to be able to address it today, after a number of Members made contributions. FIFA is currently reviewing its position on overseas league matches. It has committed to looking at how that may impact supporters as well as players, along with a number of other valuable considerations.

We appreciate this is an extremely important issue for fans and we do not want to see any developments that undermine the heritage or integrity of the game. It is crucial that fans are consulted and that their view is taken into account on any proposals that would take matches away from the local community in which they usually play.

The Government have spoken about this issue to the FA, which has a right to veto any such future proposals. It has assured us that it agrees that fans’ views must be taken into account when considering this important issue. To be clear, the Bill already ensures that by giving the regulator the power to ensure that clubs consult with their fans on operational and match day issues. We have not tried to list everything that might be considered a match day issue in the Bill, but let me be clear that moving matches abroad would be an operational and match day issue. Fully licensed clubs must have mechanisms in place to adequately and effectively consult their fans about this issue and they must take fans’ views into account when making decisions about it.

Given the importance of this developing issue, the Government will remain in conversation with the relevant governing bodies to ensure that fans’ voices continue to be heard. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Max Wilkinson]

Hon. Members are all waiting for it—this was going to be the moment that we were going to force a vote, but given that the Minister has put on record the fact that this will be considered an operational and match day issue for the regulator, so fans must be consulted on it and would probably have a veto, we are content that we do not need to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17 

Impact on regulator of changes in Government administration

“If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”—(Mr French.)

This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr French]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We believe that new clause 17 is important, given the speculation that the Minister might soon be going somewhere else on a free transfer. On a more serious note, this is a sensible provision, given the legal requirements on the Secretary of State in the Bill. For example, there has been much speculation that if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were disbanded, sport, for example, would end up in the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for Education, which would mean a different relationship with the football regulator going forward. Therefore, it is important to include a review mechanism in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

Were DCMS to be abolished, which Department does she think the regulator would end up reporting into?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I could not possibly speculate on such a hypothetical question.

I will say that clause 96, which we have already debated, mandates a review of the Act within five years of the licensing regime being fully commenced. Among other things, the review will look into whether the regulator has been effectively achieving its objectives, or whether those objectives might be better achieved in a different way. There are also other ways in which the regulator can be scrutinised and held to account by Parliament, such as through Select Committee hearings. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and to be in raucous agreement with the shadow Minister.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Finally.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member suggests that we have not sided in any Divisions with the official Opposition; the record will show that we have.

[Mr French]

The last one.

[Max Wilkinson]

No, several.

I have been to many football matches at more than 50 Football League grounds, and every time I have attended with groups of people who have been in the pub until the last possible moment, forcing down an extra pint—or an extra lucky gin and orange, which was a tradition that a group of my friends used to have—before a game. They did that because they knew that once they got into the ground, they were subject to ridiculous rules that meant they were not treated as adults. These people were very much adults. They were drinking real ale and talking about cricket, sport and things they had done at work that week. They were not football hooligans. We know that the majority of people who watch football matches are not football hooligans.

These rules date from a bygone era when people were concerned that everyone who went to the football was a hooligan. The atmosphere in grounds these days is entirely different from what it was back in the 1980s and 1990s, when things happened that nobody would want to see now. We are drifting in the right direction, back towards standing in stadiums—that is positive—and we need to start drifting back towards a situation in which we treat football fans as adults and recognise that the current ridiculous ban means that people are more likely to be more drunk at football.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. People can sit on the terraces at Twickenham and watch rugby union while having a pint of Guinness. Does my hon. Friend agree that that causes no concern around behaviour, and could easily be transferred to the football stadium?

[Max Wilkinson]

I agree. The assumption that football fans are hooligans is clearly not borne out by the statistics any more. We need to take a real-life, real-world view of what happens as a result of these rules.

As the shadow Minister said, the new clause does not say that everyone must drink at football grounds or that the ban must be overturned. It puts the issue in the context of a review, after which clubs might be able to reintroduce alcohol in stadiums. That is important. I believe that the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) recently suggested such a measure, so there is clearly cross-party support.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I welcome the hon. Member’s support for the new clause. Does he agree that things have significantly changed since the 1970s? The majority of fan trouble is now fuelled by cocaine, not alcohol. We should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time for good, honest fans.

[Max Wilkinson]

I think that we should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time, during the first half and during the second half. I have attended a football match and seen cocaine somewhat brazenly being taken in the loos at half-time. Those of us who attend football regularly will see that, and it is very concerning—more concerning, I would suggest, than people drinking beer during while watching football. I draw my remarks to a close, other than to say that this is a long-overdue debate.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope he forgives me for not being a supporter of a club at which gin is the normally consumed pre-match beverage.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I regularly attend home matches for Dartford football club, where people can drink in view of the pitch and there is no trouble—it is a great, family atmosphere. However, just to be real here, I have also seen situations where alcohol is clearly fuelling aggression, violence and bad behaviour for some of the reasons that have been pointed out. I am a little fearful of very significant consumption in view of the pitch; we still need to be careful of that. Were we to allow limited opportunities to consume alcohol in view of the pitch, in certain parts of the grounds, in the leagues where it is currently not permitted, we would need careful controls to prevent the problems that have been identified.

[Max Wilkinson]

To clarify the point about the lucky gin and orange, I believe that my friends chose that as a pre-match drink because they had already had five pints of real ale and were no longer able to fit in that quantity. Having gin on top of five pints of real ale is clearly not a good idea. There are other opportunities for people to have all kinds of drinks before football. The point is that people force down drinks in pubs because they know that they cannot drink during the game, and that means that they are more likely to be drunk in the football ground. We support the new clause.

[Mr Betts]

This is a difficult issue. None of us wants fan behaviour to get worse, given that it has largely stabilised at most grounds. Such behaviour happens not just before the game but at half-time: fans rush down and get at least two or three pints in during the quarter-of-an-hour break.

I ask the Minister reflect on this proposal; I am not asking her to agree with it. She might talk to colleagues in Europe through UEFA. I have been to a Bundesliga game in Berlin. They serve beer there—in quite large quantities—but it is 2%, so it is weaker. That is one way to do it. It seems to be a regulation, and it seems to work.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

I want to speak to amendment 141, which has been tabled in my name. To some extent, amendments 4 and 5 have been superseded, and I accept what the Minister said earlier about the arrangements in Government new clause 4 being a significant improvement on where we were before with the pendulum arrangements in the backstop. Also, they are a distinct improvement on where the last Government were, because they allow the regulator to look at parachute payments in a particular way. That is really helpful, because we cannot address the massive disparity of funding within football, and the cliff edge that exists between the Premier League and the Championship, without addressing the issue of parachute payments.

I want specifically to look at amendment 141, because it is about timing. I want to go through what I think is the time period that we will now move towards. If the Minister thinks that I am wrong, it would be helpful if she would explain that to me. Hopefully, if we get the Bill through before the parliamentary recess, and it comes into effect fairly quickly, the regulator can begin work next season. I hope that is the intention. In the first season, 2026-27, it is probable that the regulator will be bedding in—having discussions, getting arrangements with clubs, and trying to work towards the beginnings of the licensing system. I am speculating because we do not absolutely know, but it seems to me that is the sort of way we will go.

The regulator will also be starting to work on the state of the game report; hopefully, therefore, the regulator might have it by the end of 2026. Perhaps we could do it a bit quicker—we have encouraged the Minister to make it 12 months rather than 18. But assuming that the report takes 18 months, it will appear towards the end of 2026. When is the regulator likely to be in a position to implement a backstop, if that is deemed necessary? The regulator will be having discussions in the meantime, hopefully trying to encourage the leagues to reach an agreement. Best of luck with that! If the regulator does that in a year when previously it has failed over many years, it will have done a fantastic job and I am sure we will congratulate it. But if there is not an agreement, we will get to the backstop probably at the beginning of the 2027 season at the earliest.

The problem is that because of how “relevant period” is described in new clause 49, there will then be basically two years before the backstop kicks in. On that basis, this Parliament will not see any significant distribution of funding in English football. That will not come in until the 2029-30 season, after the end of this Parliament, because of the two-year gap between the regulator reaching a decision and then the backstop being implemented. Why, if we have gone all through this process?

We know what the problems are in the English football game. We know about the massive disparities of income and about the concentration of money not merely in the Premier League but in the parachuted clubs as well. The regulator has a responsibility to address the soundness and stability of English football and of clubs within English football. We know that the Championship clubs are massively overburdened with debt, as they all try desperately to compete to get into the Premier League. If all that is the problem, and the regulator is bound to address it, does address it, and decides the leagues have not resolved it so comes to implement a backstop, why then do we sit back and wait for two years for the backstop to be implemented? That is the issue. Having failed to stop the regulator and the inclusion of backstops within their remit, it almost seems as if the Premier League has decided, “Well, at least we can stop any of this happening in this Parliament in the hope that after the election another Government will come in and save us.” It is almost as though that is what it is trying to do.

I say to the Minister, kindly and carefully: have a think about this. There is an awful lot of concern—not just in the English Football League, but among colleagues. Clubs throughout the EFL have been speaking to their local MPs and saying, “We know what the problems are. We are electing you to Parliament to resolve those problems, and you committed to do that in your manifesto. Yet with this timescale, the likelihood is that by the time you get to the end of this Parliament you won’t have solved the problem. You won’t even have put anything in place to do so.”

At the end of this Parliament, I would like the Minister to be saying, “I am the Sports Minister who has substantially helped resolve the appalling distribution of finances in English football, which cripples our game and means that clubs are exposed to enormous cliff edges that put them unnecessarily into debt, and which leads to bad practice among owners.” There are many things to stop bad practice, but we could help by resolving the issue now and agreeing on something: not how the regulator should do its job, but that once the regulator has done the job it is at least allowed to implement within a timely period.

I hope the Minister will seriously consider amendment 141 and listen to other colleagues who may want to discuss these issues as well.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak in support of amendment 141. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has made a compelling case for its necessity. The Bill has a clear purpose, and we believe it broadly does the job. That is why we support it. Changing the previous version to include the parachute payments within scope is the right thing to do for redistribution of funds from those who can afford it, down to the smaller and lower league clubs that really need the help. Those are the people the hon. Member for Sheffield South East referred to. Those of us who represent football league clubs are being asked to do the right thing—to back the regulator to ensure that there is financial sustainability in the lower divisions.