Football Governance Bill

Debate between Mike Amesbury and James Daly

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Like many across this Chamber, I thank those from across the political sphere, those within the footballing community and those who led the fan-based review because their work is finally coming to fruition with the Second Reading debate of the Bill. The referee, in the shape of the independent football regulator, will finally be on the pitch. We are beginning that journey. It is particularly fitting that this takes place on St George’s Day, as the English nation gave the world the beautiful game. That nation now needs to put its house in order, for the many and not the few, to ensure that the pyramid effectively works for leagues across the beautiful English game.

As has been echoed across the Chamber, by Members of all political persuasions, we are only in this space because the premier league and those who govern our beautiful game have not got their house in order. That hands-off the pitch and that laissez-faire approach certainly has not worked for our fans, our clubs and, importantly, our communities. That has been mentioned in reference to Bury FC, one of our oldest football clubs in the country, certainly in the north-west of England where I represent. They were expelled from the football league amid rising debts and financial problems. There have been other notable and documented examples at clubs like Bolton Wanderers, Derby County and, recently, Reading football club.

These, and other clubs—we reckoned there were around 60 such clubs—had a number of common factors: unfit owners, greed, asset selling, poor governance and long-standing alienation of the fan base. There was total disregard for history, identity, emotions and communities. This laissez-faire, anything goes approach—the wild west of football—must be brought to a full stop. To drive that, the new, independent football regulator must have teeth, with strong rules to ensure that our great footballing clubs have fit and proper owners. I would certainly like to see more clubs owned and controlled by their fanbase. We have great examples of that in my constituency, including Northwich and Runcorn Linnets, who only this weekend I saw beat our rivals Widnes.

We want to see sustainable financial plans, with fans at the heart and soul of those clubs to protect assets such as stadiums and historical identities. People have referenced that—it is certainly in the Bill—in regard to kits and badges; those things are vital.

I am a long-standing Manchester United fan, so I am familiar with problems of ownership. The Glazers, who have already been referenced, bought the club on the never-never. They were one of the richest football clubs in the world; they are now one of the most indebted, and that really has affected our performance on the pitch, which has been pretty woeful this year, including in the FA cup semi-final. I pay credit to Coventry, who played incredibly well, while we played incredibly badly. But the problems on the pitch come down to some problems with the ownership.

I gave up my Manchester United season ticket long ago—it was a difficult decision to make—because of the Glazers. I echo the clarion call—I did so at the time with my protest scarf and all the rest of it—that the Glazers really must go. Perhaps we are on the start of that journey, with some new ownership.

I am a Cheshire and Merseyside MP, and quite a number of my constituents are Everton fans, who have been aggrieved by recent point deductions. Some of those have been on financial issues—the purchasing of a stadium, and certainly players—but fairness is a real bone of contention. Everton have been deducted 10 points —a high number. That has gone to appeal and so forth, yet they look at other clubs across Britain, such as the Manchester Cities and Chelseas of this world—by the way, Manchester City have had 115 breaches—and see that those who have incredibly deep pockets, financed by sovereign wealth funds, seem to get away with it because they can afford the litigation. Of course, Manchester City are not the only ones—I have referenced Chelsea, and there are certainly others.

We have mentioned fit and proper ownership for our clubs. How can it be right that sovereign wealth funds of foreign states with woeful human rights records own Great British—English—football clubs such as Newcastle United? It has been fairly well documented that one such nation state had managed to execute more of its citizens than a striker for Newcastle United had put balls in the back of the net. That is horrendous.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

The hon. Member—as he knows, I am from the same part of the world as him—is making some excellent points. He touched on Bury FC in my constituency. I am interested in fairness in football. In the FA cup semi-final at the weekend, we saw Manchester United—the winners as a result of about 1 mm in a video call—get £1 million, while Coventry City got £500,000. For all that we in the Chamber talk about fairness in a general way, does he believe that that is a fair share of the moneys in the circumstances?

[Mike Amesbury]

Clearly not, and I think that there is space for the regulator to intervene. As has been referenced, the FA cup can be a lifesaver for grassroots clubs. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is no longer in his place, mentioned Gillingham, and I think that Bristol Rovers were also mentioned. Again, the issue is financial sustainability. The regulator should intervene to ensure that the FA makes the right decisions for all our clubs, right across the pyramid.

Like many Members across the Chamber, I think the Bill is great for the football community, and I credit all those who have been involved. It is very important that we have the fans at the heart of this. There are some issues, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, to do with competition and the parachute payments, which are distorting the footballing community, but overall I very much welcome and support this Bill.

Non-commissioned Exempt Accommodation

Debate between Mike Amesbury and James Daly

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Daly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The desire and policy of this Government is to ensure that we have beautiful homes developed for the benefit of everyone in our country, and there is money behind this: a £12 billion boost for affordable homes, including social rented homes, to help those with physical or mental challenges; and £5.4 million of additional funding for a pilot scheme in key areas, helping us to understand the most effective interventions for future national policy. We are also introducing a higher minimum standard for supported accommodation. So the money and the desire are there, and the policy direction from central Government says that local authorities come to us—[Interruption.] I am answering the point that has just been made. We want to support councils on this. We want to provide the funding that is going to develop those brownfield sites in their boroughs, but what are the Government to do if local authorities do not even have that conversation with the Government? I am assuming that the councils have not had it with the Mayor of Greater Manchester. What is the point if they do not do that? I am known as a collegiate parliamentarian, and I am simply here to encourage my local authority in Bury to work with the Government, who want to work with it to ensure that we get the housing stock that is absolutely needed in our borough. I am proud to be part of a Government who have this strategy, want to support local accommodation and do not take the view of my local authority. This is a difference of opinion. My local authority, in terms of prioritising social need, social housing or social rented housing, believes in the policy document, and believes in building four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses on the green belt. That is its choice, as a local Labour authority. I believe, and support this Government’s intention, that we should be prioritising the development of brownfield sites, and ensuring that people have access to a home and that those support services are in place. In my local authority, over the 18 months of the pandemic, over £180 million was provided, on top of the normal grant funding, to support important services—

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Fewer than 6,000 homes for social rent were built last year. The homes in the “affordable homes” programme are not affordable at all—it is a skewed, vandalised definition of “affordable homes”. Local councils, certainly in Greater Manchester, and up and down the country, have their hands tied behind their back; they cannot build those social rented homes. They cannot do it.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and James Daly

Committee stage & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I concur. There is a school uniform manufacturer in my constituency called Buccaneer, which certainly provides good-quality and very competitive products for the school environment. Its frustration is the limited access that it has in the marketplace at the moment.

Compounding Lisa’s case was the fact that pupils had to buy pullovers and polos with their house colours embroidered on them. That limits the ability of families and friends to use hand-me-downs. Lisa found that many parents she knew, who were often unwilling to discuss the financial difficulties, were worried about how they would afford the school uniforms in the coming school year. That indignity, as I am sure Members across the Committee Room would agree, needs to end.

The current guidance encourages schools to keep compulsory branded items to a minimum, but the issue of excess branding has dominated my inbox since I announced my intention to introduce this Bill. I have come to strongly believe that no more than two branded items are necessary for a school to establish a sense of identity, and I would like to see that included in the guidance. Other elements could, for example, be sewn on or provided as badges. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that issue, as I know that it is not straightforward.

Another key element of the guidance will be how it deals with the issue of single suppliers and the tendering process. The current Department for Education guidance stipulates that exclusive single-supplier contracts should be avoided unless regular, transparent tendering competitions are run whereby more than one supplier can compete for the contract and governing bodies can secure the best value for parents and carers. In too many cases—Members will be familiar with this—that simply is not happening. That is shutting good, competitive manufacturers such as—I will mention it again—Buccaneer in my constituency out of the marketplace. That is limiting choice and increasing costs.

One parent from Bristol emailed me to say that although several suppliers sell a brand of trousers that his son’s primary school requires, the school stated just this summer that the trousers can be purchased only from one particular supplier and must now be embroidered by that supplier to prove where they were purchased. That comes alongside the need for a branded polo shirt and sweatshirt, which, again, can be purchased only from a single supplier. I do not see how this arrangement can stand up to competition laws. Indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority has contacted me regarding the Bill, having long been concerned about the practices of many schools.

Several avenues have been suggested by the Department for Education. One is to do away with single-supplier arrangements completely to ensure competition. Another option, based on the current guidance, is to ensure that regular, transparent tendering processes take place. That part of the statutory guidance should be looked at very carefully. Despite the clear guidance from the Department for Education and the warnings from the CMA, some schools continue with utterly opaque practices that do not ensure value for money or easy availability of uniform for parents. Without clear directions, these practices will simply continue.

Finally, one aspect of the guidance that I know the Minister believes in very strongly is around sustainability. We should encourage people to reuse uniforms and suppliers to make lasting, sustainable clothing. However, I do not want that approach to become an alternative to making sure that school uniforms are affordable first hand to pupils. I have been contacted by many volunteers across the country who run excellent uniform banks in their local areas. I respect their work hugely, but they themselves will say that parents should not have to rely on charity to afford school uniforms, and they strongly support the measures outlined in the Bill. None the less, schools should be required to provide parents with regularly updated information about second-hand suppliers, school swap shops and clothing banks, as well as information on locally available grants. I would like to see that requirement included in the statutory guidance.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and other Members’ contributions, and to working with everyone here and the Department over the coming months.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale said. However, I am afraid that the lawyer in me is coming out with respect to some parts of what has been said.

One is affordability. From what I understand, although the guidance will be provided by the Government, affordability will still be decided by the governing body. If, for example, a parent or whoever it may be believes that the governing body is not acting in line with Government guidance regarding affordability, in that the uniform is still too expensive for many parents, I would be interested to hear how they could challenge the decision of the governing body.

I welcome the hon. Member’s comments regarding affordability, but how do we define it? How does a governing body define it? Is it in respect of the mean income of the parents in the school? Is it in respect of the lowest income of parents in the school? A lot of my constituents and a lot of his constituents are on state benefits, so affordability for them is very different from what it is for parents on higher incomes.

However, those are just questions. I congratulate the hon. Member on the Bill, which is excellent, and I was glad, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, to be there on Second Reading.