English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Given the nature of an urgent question, does the Minister want to come in or shall I take this?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

The hon. Member may be confusing two points. I am aware that there is a petition being processed at this moment in time, but today’s response was to an urgent question. I am sorry that I was unable to be at the Dispatch Box because I had other business scheduled in the House. The Charities Bill had been scheduled for a long time and, by just a few minutes, time did not allow me to be here.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for standing in for me. As I hope I have proven over the past two years in this role, I am always open to discussion with any colleagues, on any side of the House. I have had many conversations with colleagues relating to Derby County FC, and I would happily speak to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) . There is nothing party political about the issue and we all need to work together.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not think I need add anything further to that response.

We should now have the presentation of a Bill, but I do not see the Member present, so we will move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Dormant Assets Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates, and the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on any or all of the amendments within the group. A Member can also speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate to me whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.

Clause 1

The dormant assets scheme: overview

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani. I am sure you will keep us all in order.

I thank colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, and indeed in the other place, for the co-operative and constructive way in which we have proceeded so far with the Bill. There is broad support across the House for the Bill, and although there are some areas of disagreement, I am aware that they tend to be on details of implementation, rather than on the substance, purpose or intent of the Bill. To that extent, I will commit to moving at speed on the non-controversial parts of the Bill while ensuring that there is opportunity for discussion. Indeed, hopefully I will be able to address colleagues’ questions and concerns, some of which I am aware of already. I am sure that others will come up during the course of our discussions.

Clause 1 provides an overview of the operation of the scheme, which enables eligible participants to transfer money from dormant assets to an authorised reclaim fund. Having determined how much it must retain in order to meet any future reclaims, the reclaim fund distributes the surplus to the national lottery community fund, in accordance with part 1 of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The clause confirms that the scheme will be expanded as a whole, encompassing the new assets alongside bank and building society accounts while ensuring that this does not affect the continued operation of the provisions in the 2008 Act.

Subsection (3) sets out the main features of the dormant asset scheme, which mirror those specified in the 2008 Act. For example, beneficial owners can always reclaim the full amount owed to them. Participants transfer the dormant money to the reclaim fund, and owners therefore engage with participants, rather than the reclaim fund, in order to make a reclaim. The clause also confirms that relevant activities can be undertaken by anyone acting on the institution’s behalf. For example, an insurance provider can outsource tracing exercises to a tracing agency working to find the owner on its behalf.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be able to respond to this important Bill on behalf of the Opposition, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington.

I remind colleagues that it was a Labour Government who in 2007 first brought forward two consultations into unclaimed assets residing in banks and building societies. This led to subsequent legislation that would allow for the release of these assets after efforts were made to find their owners. The scheme was first established in 2008 by Labour through the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The scheme has proved to be a huge success, with around £745 million being distributed to good causes across the UK, with funding for the devolved nations being distributed through the Barnett formula.

Currently, 24 banks and building societies participate in the scheme. It was always intended that the dormant assets scheme would broaden the financial products to which the legislation applies. Although the Bill makes some progress and Labour supports the need for consultation, we urge the scheme to go further. With the right safeguards in place to find the owners of assets, unclaimed winnings from gambling, pension assets and physical assets could be considered in the future too.

Labour supports the measures to ensure that all efforts are made to identify asset owners before moving on to the more robust Reclaim Fund Ltd—a public body. The independence of the fund demonstrates confidence in the process, and Labour supports this framework. However, we believe that more can be done to tighten timelines around consultation during the next stages of the Bill, and that greater scrutiny can be brought to assess the rigor of the Reclaim Fund Ltd to prevent it going into any deficit. Robust financial modelling set up under Labour has protected the fund so far, but it must be kept under review.

Labour believes that a community wealth fund should be able to benefit from the fund. Labour is also grateful for the proposed new section 18A in clause 29. This important provision will enable dormant assets to go on to create community wealth funds. These funds are able to make grants and other payments to support the provision of social infrastructure to further the wellbeing of communities suffering from high levels of deprivation. Community wealth funds are integral to levelling up, and the potential for funds generated through dormant assets to transform lives is huge.

The most deprived areas across the country often have the worst third sector infrastructure, and proposed new section 18A in clause 29 paves the way for increased governance and organisation too. Labour believes that the principles of the Bill and the 2008 Act are too broad to provide such a framework without proposed new section 18A and that the principle needs to be framed in primary legislation. We do not need further pilots of consultations, as there are already 150 projects at various stages of development. These projects will continue to be evaluated, whereas clause 29 brings forward the opportunity to pour investment into funds centred around social transformation. I know that many colleagues feel passionately about the benefits that these funds can bring to their constituencies, and hopefully we will hear some of these contributions later. In the meantime I urge the Government to support clause 29, which is absolutely central to their levelling-up agenda.

Labour firmly believes that further scrutiny of the Reclaim Fund Ltd is vital if we are to ensure that assets are used for good causes. New clause 1 is central to ensuring proper scrutiny and calls on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually. New clause 2 has the potential to improve how funds are reviewed and distributed to good causes, a move that could see more funding made available to the causes that need it most.

Finally, I am sure that Members will share my thanks to the organisations that have shown their support and have been pivotal in taking the Reclaim Fund Ltd forward. The same sentiments go for those participating in the dormant assets scheme. Their contributions and engagement have ensured that the fund has been made available to a huge range of good causes. Labour has always supported moves to multiply the fund’s benefits and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair again, Ms Ghani. There is a saying that we would all do well to remember every day of our political lives; it is amazing what we can achieve if nobody cares who gets the credit. I do not hesitate to give credit to a Conservative Government, who I will often oppose vigorously, for improving what was already a good piece of legislation introduced by a former Labour Government.

Some 20 or 25 years ago, a young SNP councillor and local GP in my home town of Glenrothes picked up on this issue through the work she was doing with constituents and patients—in particular with the families of recently deceased patients. She started pestering all the banks and buildings societies in Glenrothes. Crucially, she started asking officials at Fife Council what they could do about it. It may be a complete coincidence that it was a Labour MP, as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister, who eventually took those concerns and sorted them out on the statute book, because it was Gordon Brown who, as Prime Minister, effectively drove this legislation through. It may be a complete coincidence; it may be that that young SNP councillor and GP had nothing to do with it, but given that I have been married to her for the best part of 40 years, Members may forgive me for saying she had part of the credit.

As I said, the 2008 Act was a good piece of legislation, and the Bill carries out welcome improvements and extensions. We have to realise that the days when most people kept most of their money in a bank account have gone. Even people who do not have significant amounts of money to their name will sometimes spread it over a number of different kinds of places. That means that if someone cannot be traced for whatever reason, it is important that any assets that they had are used for a good cause—if the original owner has no purpose for them.

Probably the biggest administrative burden in the Bill comes from the fact that we have to recognise that this money still belongs to somebody. We might not know if they are alive or dead. We might have no idea where they are. But they have to be allowed at any time to come back and reclaim what is theirs. Some of the quite complicated requirements that are put on the funds will sometimes be a nuisance to administrators of the fund, but they are important because this is not money that has been seized or forfeited due to any wrongdoing. It is money that legally and morally still belongs to someone else.

It is appropriate for Parliament to legislate to attempt to use that money for a good cause if all indications are that the person who originally owned it has no further interest in it. On that basis, I will have a few brief comments to make on particular parts of the Bill, but I welcome it and hope it will be given a speedy passage in its remaining stages.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will briefly respond. The hon. Members make some important points about why there is such broad support for the Bill. It is because it has such a fundamental impact on improving people’s lives across the country on a day-to-day basis. It is therefore very important, and it is not surprising that it has such support.

It is good to hear from the hon. Member for Glenrothes about not only the political support, but the emotional support that exists for various reasons. He raises an important point about the Bill’s fundamental underlying principles, of reuniting and repatriating the money first and foremost to owners—the principle of always being able to reclaim the money; of course, it is a voluntary scheme and we therefore thank the participants—and of additionality. Those core principles are still pervasive throughout the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Transfer of eligible insurance proceeds to reclaim fund

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 3 and 4 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 2 to 4 define the insurance assets and participants in scope of the scheme. They also set out an owner’s right to reclaim and the definitions of dormancy for insurance assets. Clause 2 provides that an insurance institution can transfer dormant insurance proceeds to an authorised reclaim fund. It also defines the type of insurance institutions that are not eligible to participate in the scheme.

Clause 3 defines the insurance assets in scope of the scheme. These are dormant proceeds of a long-term insurance contract, provided that it is not a with-profits policy, an industrial branch policy, or a policy that is the subject of a trust. They also cannot be held in a lifetime ISA.

Clause 4 defines dormancy for insurance assets. Insurance assets are classed as dormant if any of the following four conditions are met: first, that the person whose life is insured is deceased and the participant is satisfied that there is no owner; secondly, that at least seven years have passed since the participant was notified that the person whose life was insured has died, and there has been no communication from the owner, anyone acting on their behalf, or anyone administering the deceased person’s estate; thirdly, that records indicate that the person whose life was insured would be at least 120 years old; or, fourthly, that at least seven years have passed since the end of the contractual term and there has been no communication from the owner or anyone acting on their behalf since that time. I therefore beg to move that clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As there seems to be agreement, Minister, do you wish to respond?

[Nigel Huddleston]

indicated dissent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Transfer of eligible pension benefits to reclaim fund

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

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to consider clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 5 to 7 define the pensions assets and participants that are in scope of the scheme. They also set out an owner’s right to reclaim pensions assets and the definitions of dormancy for pension assets.

Contract-based defined contribution personal pensions will be included in the scheme, in line with industry’s recommendation, with the exception of any products in which the policyholder has been automatically enrolled. Income withdrawals as a stand-alone product, as well as when they are owed as part of a personal pension scheme, are also included. Occupational pension schemes are out of scope of the Bill.

Clause 5 provides that a pension institution can transfer dormant pension benefits to an authorised reclaim fund. Clause 6 defines the pension assets that are in scope of the scheme, which are: dormant income withdrawals that have become payable; personal pensions with money purchase arrangements that have become payable; and personal pensions with money purchase arrangements available to become payable.

Personal pension schemes whose owners were automatically enrolled are excluded, as is any scheme with sums invested in with-profit funds. As I have mentioned, occupational pension schemes are out of scope of the Bill. Personal pension schemes are only in scope of the scheme if the conversion to cash happens because the owner is deceased.

Clause 7 defines dormancy for pension assets, in a way that is consistent with the principles that I outlined in my previous speech.

I therefore beg to move that clauses 5 to 7 stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these clauses. We welcome the first step towards inclusion of pension assets in this legislation. However, I will press him on the potential for expansion of the clause to include further pension assets, as he has outlined. After all, broadening the Bill to include further pension assets will allow further funding to reach the huge range of good causes that are currently benefiting from this process.

As the Minister knows, pension assets were recommended for transfer in consultation. However, the Government have instead decided to restrict the Bill to just cash assets for the time being. I understand from exchanges on Second Reading and in the other place that the Government are reluctant to make this expansion while we wait for the pensions dashboard to be properly up and running, but given the long delays around the introduction of the pensions dashboard, I would be grateful if he could make some commitment as to the timetable for the further widening of this scheme with regard to pension funds.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Very briefly.

Of course, further on in the Bill there are processes in place, which I am sure we will come to, to enable the further expansion of additional assets into the scheme. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. On Second Reading and elsewhere, the potential expansion to other schemes, including to non-cash and non-financial assets, has been proposed. There is a mechanism to enable that expansion to happen in the future. Therefore, this Bill will enable that to happen. However, I am afraid that at this moment in time we cannot make a commitment to that in the Bill. Nevertheless, I certainly understand the hon. Lady’s intent. Again, I think that there is cross-party support for us to investigate those options in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Transfer of eligible amount owing by virtue of a collective scheme investment to reclaim fund

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 9 to 11 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 8 to 11 define the investment assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 8 provides that an investment institution can transfer a dormant eligible amount owing by virtue of a collective scheme investment to an authorised reclaim fund. Clause 9 defines the investment assets in scope of the scheme. These are dormant proceeds of shares or units in collective scheme investments, and distributions, redemption proceeds and orphan moneys attributable to collective scheme investments. Client money is also in scope, but is covered separately in clauses 12 and 13.

Clause 10 defines dormancy for investment assets. Reflecting market practice and Financial Conduct Authority rules, this clause provides that share or unit conversion proceeds can be classed as dormant if the shareholder has been “gone-away” for 12 years. The clause defines “gone-away” broadly to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time.

Clause 11 defines the right to payment that the owner of a dormant investment asset has against an authorised reclaim fund.

[Peter Grant]

I have no objection to these clauses standing part of the Bill, but will the Minister clarify one query? The Bill excludes lifetime ISAs, if their transfer would incur any kind of tax liability to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is understandable. Will the Minister explain in what kinds of circumstances that might happen? On the face of it, there appears to be an inconsistency in that a lifetime ISA might be liable to tax on transfer, when the whole assumption is that the person who owns that lifetime ISA is probably dead, although we cannot prove that for certain. Is there an inconsistency there? If not, what are the circumstances in which there might be a tax liability that would emerge from the transfer of an asset belonging to somebody when, in the eyes of the law, that person is probably dead?

[Nigel Huddleston]

There was extensive consultation on what should and should not be included. The hon. Gentleman raises the point that some assets may in the future be potentially included. We want to be careful at this stage and not include things where potential liabilities could incur. We got to this point after extensive consultation with industry, and I think we are comfortable with it. As I said to the hon. Member for Pontypridd earlier on, there is potential scope to change what assets and financial products may or may not be included, but given the advice of the industry, at the moment, we are being cautious; I think that is the appropriate approach.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Transfer of eligible client money to reclaim fund

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 13 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 12 and 13 define the client money assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 12 provides that an investment institution can transfer dormant client money to an authorised reclaim fund. Client money is only captured by clauses 12 and 13 if it is held by an investment institution and cannot be transferred to the scheme under any other provisions in the Bill.

Clause 13 defines dormancy for client money assets. Again, this clause defines “gone-away” broadly to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Transfer of eligible proceeds or distribution to reclaim fund

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 14 to 16 define the securities assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 14 provides that a traded public company can transfer dormant proceeds or a distribution relating to a share to an authorised reclaim fund.

Clause 15 defines the securities assets in scope of the scheme: dormant share conversion proceeds; cash distributions from a share; and proceeds from corporate actions. As practice varies, share conversion proceeds in the securities sector are in scope only on the condition that the terms governing them enable a gone-away shareholder to reclaim the price of the share at the point at which it was converted to cash.

Clause 16 defines dormancy for securities assets. Share conversion proceeds or a distribution can be classed as dormant if the shareholder has been defined as “gone-away” for at least 12 years. This clause defines “gone-away” broadly, to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time, as with other products.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Transfers: general

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

The proceedings so far may have seemed very dry, but I can assure hon. Members that actually what we have done is to enable potentially hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds to be expended from the scheme to go to good causes. The clauses may sound dry, but actually that was a fundamentally important aspect of the Bill.

Clause 17 makes cross-cutting provisions on transfers into the scheme. This clause provides that a transfer into the scheme is not in itself a breach of trust or fiduciary duties. The clause also confirms that the right to reclaim accommodates situations in which that right has been passed on after the previous owner has died. Finally, if an institution has been succeeded by another—for example, through a takeover—following a transfer into the scheme, the transfer provisions in clauses 2, 5, 8, 12 and 14 will apply to the successor.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Interpretation of Part 1

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

[The Chair]

I call Minister Huddleston—delivering without being dry, I believe.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will try, Ms Ghani. Very simply, clause 18 defines and clarifies terms used in part 1 of the Bill that are relevant to more than one section.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Power to extend the dormant assets scheme to cover new dormant assets

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

[The Chair]

The pressure is back on you, Minister Huddleston.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you, Ms Ghani. Clause 19 is an important clause. It provides a power to the Secretary of State or the Treasury to bring additional asset classes within scope of the scheme, as we alluded to earlier. That might include ones that have already been proposed for inclusion but whose suitability needs further exploration, new ones, or ones where dormancy has not yet been identified as an issue. The power also enables the Secretary of State or the Treasury to amend the current asset classes so that they can cover new types of assets, and make consequential amendments.

This clause allows the Secretary of State or the Treasury to amend part 1 of the Bill or the 2008 Act by regulations for that purpose, and makes further provision about what such regulations must and can include—for example, identifying when dormancy exists and ensuring that the owner has a right to payment against an authorised reclaim fund. It provides that the Secretary of State or the Treasury may make regulations to enable participants to convert a dormant non-cash asset into cash in order for it to be transferred into the scheme where the asset’s terms do not provide for this. It then makes further provision about the use of this power—for example, that it can be used only with a view to the cash being transferred into the dormant assets scheme.

The clause also ensures that all assets currently in scope cannot be excluded or have their associated definitions of dormancy altered using this power. Finally, it provides that any regulations made under the power must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

[Jeff Smith]

As the Minister says, this important clause goes to the heart of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve with it, and we supports its aims. Like the Minister, I welcome the millions of pounds that could go to good causes as a result of the assets that we have just agreed, as well as those that could be agreed as a result of the clause.

Having seen the success of the scheme, we want to build on and expand it. We agree that it makes sense to give the Secretary of State or the Treasury the ability to expand the potential of the fund not by bringing back primary legislation, but by consulting—that is important—and proposing new assets to add to the scheme by regulations. We welcome the approval and the important oversight of those regulations by both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, the clause has the potential to save future generations of MPs from sitting in a future Bill Committee for another dormant assets Bill. [Laughter.]

We particularly welcome the measures as a first step towards the potential inclusion of future pension assets in the legislation. May I press the Minister a little more on that? I think the Minister agreed in principle to the inclusion of additional pension assets, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd asked for an indication on when those might be included, because we are keen to expand the fund appropriately. The Minister talked about a mechanism for that inclusion, but he did not want to put a commitment on the face of Bill. It would be nice to know what sort of timescale we are looking at for including future pension assets.

The clause really goes to the heart of the Bill’s purpose: how can we expand the good work the scheme has done, and what other assets can we use to benefit good causes? People have talked about all kinds of different assets that could be included in future, including foreign currency cash balances, empty properties, national savings, proceeds of crime, trust funds and lifetime ISAs, which the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned.

We are keen for all those ideas to be explored to build on the good work of the scheme, and we hope to hear in future suggestions that we have not yet discussed. We agree that the Government should be free to explore them, and we believe that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards and oversight, so we welcome this clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

As discussed, the Bill includes a provision to allow expansion into new asset classes by secondary legislation in the future. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes suggested, it will not therefore require primary legislation; therefore we may save colleagues from some painful processes in the future. However, it will still have the scrutiny of both Houses, which is really important.

Before any power is extended, further work will need to be undertaken to identify new asset classes and facilitate their inclusion, and regulations are subject to draft affirmative procedure, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny. I cannot commit to a particular timeline at the moment, but of course the overall operation of the Bill will be reviewed three years and five years after Royal Assent. However, that does not preclude ongoing activity or review; when we debate later clauses and proposed new clauses, we will discuss in detail the scrutiny and review, annual reporting and so on that can take place. Those will enable review to happen, and therefore proposals for change could happen organically.

I cannot outline a specific timeline at the moment, because of course that will depend on what is proposed by the House and others, but there is a mechanism for ongoing review in the Bill for the important reasons that hon. Members have outlined. There may well be future asset classes, perhaps products that we are not even aware of or do not even exist at the moment, that should and could be included in future versions of the dormant asset scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Return of surplus alternative scheme assets

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 20 introduces a means for the reclaim fund to transfer additional surplus money from the alternative scheme back to the participant to be distributed to its chosen charity, in accordance with section 2 of the 2008 Act. The alternative scheme enables firms with balance sheets below £7 billion to transfer an agreed proportion of dormant account funds to the reclaim fund, and nominate a local or aligned charity to receive the surplus. As it has with the main scheme, Reclaim Fund Ltd may review, in time, the proportion of assets it reserves from the alternative scheme on an ongoing basis and, where prudent, reduce reserve rates to release surplus funds.

Currently, such surplus funds from the alternative scheme can go only to the National Lottery Community Fund. Clause 20 will ensure that the funds are directed to charities of the participants’ choice for the benefit of local communities, in line with the principles of the alternative scheme. Aside from this, the alternative scheme will remain as it is. I commend clause 20 to the Committee.

[Jeff Smith]

Labour supports the provisions in clause 20 relating to the alternative scheme, which enables eligible smaller building societies and banks to support local causes of their choice. It is right that, if an authorised reclaim fund remodels the proportion of funds that it reserves for reclaims, any surplus money should go back to organisations participating in the alternative scheme, to be distributed to their chosen local charities.

We actively encourage authorised reclaim funds to assess whether a greater proportion of the fund could go to good causes, based on what we now know about how many people are likely to reclaim their assets and how they can manage their funds. That is the intention of Labour’s new clause 2, which we will discuss later. We support measures in the Bill that will allow that to work in practice.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do not have much further to add. I know that this topic will be debated later in Committee, but I completely agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman outlines.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Unwanted assets

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

The dormant assets scheme requires participants to have attempted to reunite an asset with its owner before it can be classed as dormant and transferred to the scheme. When reunification efforts are successful, the owner may decide that they no longer want their asset. That could be, for example, because the asset is of low value and the owner does not want the administrative effort of reclaiming it—such as, say, £5 in a deposit account, a share worth £2 and so on. Clause 21 enables these unwanted assets to be donated to the scheme. The owner must declare that no other person has a right in or over the asset, and an authorised reclaim fund must consent to the transfer. Finally, this clause provides that unwanted assets cannot be reclaimed from unauthorised reclaim funds, given that they have been donated by the owner.

[Jeff Smith]

I am starting to do what I said I would not do. We agree with the clause, and think that it will encourage more charitable giving, resulting in more money going to the scheme and meaning more money for good causes. We support the clause—I am going to stop repeating and agreeing.

[The Chair]

Agreement is good, Mr Smith.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Third party rights and interests

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 22 ensures that third-party rights and interests are preserved when an asset is transferred into the scheme. A participant or the reclaim fund will not always know whether third-party rights or interests exist in relation to an asset. Therefore, if a third party legitimately asserts their rights or interests in relation to a dormant asset following transfer, they will have an equivalent right of reclaim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Arrangements between reclaim fund and institutions

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have no problem with the Opposition agreeing on things—it is quite nice to hear. I think that it speaks to the broad support for the Bill, and therefore it is important that we get on record that there is such agreement in so many areas of the Bill.

Clause 23 introduces requirements on the reclaim fund and participating institutions to have appropriate arrangements in place before the transfer of funds into the dormant assets scheme. The Government want to ensure—as do the Opposition—that only genuinely dormant assets are transferred into the scheme. The clause therefore specifies that the agreements must require participants to take steps to reunite asset owners with their lost assets. The requirement is not new, but making provision for it in the Bill will strengthen existing practices that have ensured the scheme’s success over the past decade.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Effect of insolvency etc of institutions

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 24 sets out the effect of a participating institution becoming insolvent on an owner’s right to reclaim. The reclaim fund will be liable for meeting a reclaim for an asset it receives, even if the participant that transferred it becomes insolvent or winds up. However, in those cases, an owner’s entitlement will be limited to the amount that they would have received from the participant in its insolvency. That may result in the owner’s entitlement being reduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Disclosure of information

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

Very simply, clause 25 provides that common law or other obligations relating to confidentiality do not prevent the disclosure of information.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Meaning of “authorised reclaim fund”

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 26 names RFL as the authorised reclaim fund and provides the Treasury with the power to add, substitute and remove the name of reclaim funds from the Bill in the future, should that be required.

[Jeff Smith]

We accept the definition of authorised reclaim fund and Reclaim Fund Ltd being conferred with that status. It makes sense, I guess, for the Treasury to be able to add or remove companies as appropriate or as required. Can the Minister clarify as to whether he foresees that being used only in the event of Reclaim Fund Ltd ceasing to function or becoming insolvent, or whether he would wish to give several companies at a time the status of an authorised reclaim fund? If it is the latter, what are the merits of that process?

The clause also gives the Treasury the power to specify which assets a reclaim fund can manage through secondary legislation. We agree that is necessary but believe that any changes must be made following a proper and timely consultation and in line with the overarching principles of the Bill. That is the intention of amendment 5 to clause 29, which we will discuss shortly.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is right; we will discuss some of those features later on in the Bill. The definition of an authorised reclaim fund came into effect under the 2008 Act. Since then, RFL has been the only company to fulfil that function and therefore plays an integral role in the scheme’s success. In recognition of that and given RFL’s new status as a Treasury arm’s-length body, the clause names RFL as the only current authorised reclaim fund for the purpose of the dormant assets scheme. Naming RFL as the only authorised reclaim fund in that way prevents additional competing reclaim funds being set up without Treasury consent and ensuring that the reclaim fund for the scheme is fit for purpose and is essential in maintaining the principle of customer protection.

The clause allows the Treasury to remove RFL as an ARF in the future, in case RFL ever became unable or unwilling to fulfil the function of a reclaim fund. It also enables the Treasury to add the name of a new reclaim fund to the Bill, should another reclaim fund ever need to be set up in the future for circumstances which, again, we may not be aware of at the moment. The clause also gives the Treasury the power to specify which assets a reclaim fund is responsible for managing. As for some of the other features mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, we will discuss them later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Treasury loans

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

In recognition of Reclaim Fund Ltd’s new status as an NDPB of the Treasury, clause 27 enables the Treasury to provide a loan to RFL or any authorised reclaim fund that may be established in the future, as just discussed, if it ever becomes or is likely to become unable to meet its reclaim liabilities. That would support the reclaim fund until such a time as it is able to cover its cost with its own income. At that point, the Government would look to recoup their costs. That will ensure that customers continue to reclaim their assets in full at any time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Exclusion of repayment claims from financial services compensation scheme

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

[Nigel Huddleston]

In the light of the Reclaim Fund’s establishment as an NDPB, it is no longer appropriate for RFL’s activities to be covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Clause 28 therefore removes repayment claims from that compensation scheme and clause 27 replaces that protection with a Government guarantee in the form of a Treasury loan.

[Peter Grant]

If we take the two clauses together, it is clear why clause 28 is there. My concern is that clause 28 in isolation may be seen to be removing protection from investors. I know the answer to this question, but for the purpose of the record, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that clauses 27 and 28, taken together, do not create any circumstance in which an investor’s money would be any more at risk than it would be if it were left in the original investment. Can the Minister give that assurance?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Treasury loan replaced the protection established through clause 27 of the Bill, which RFL can use if it becomes, or is likely to become, unable to meet its claims. Therefore, that protection is in place between clauses 27 and 28.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Distribution of dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure

[Jeff Smith]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 29, page 22, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) An order under subsection (1) must be consistent with criteria published by the Secretary of State setting out the principles to be used when making a determination as to whether restrictions, or no specific restrictions, are to be applied to distributed dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure.

(1B) Prior to publishing the criteria under subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must consult on the purposes for which the dormant assets money may be distributed, and the criteria to be applied therein.

(1C) A consultation under subsection (1B) must conclude not more than 3 months after it is announced.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish and apply criteria to be used when determining the purposes for which dormant assets money can be distributed. The criteria must be the subject of a consultation which must last no longer than 3 months.

I will also speak briefly to amendment 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd; to Government amendment 1; and to amendment 3, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North.

Amendment 5 is a probing amendment to test the nature of consultation. The Secretary of State is committed to consultation on the social and environmental focus of the English portion of the funds before making changes to the causes that could be supported by the scheme via secondary legislation. Labour supports the need for consultation: we want to ensure that it is carried out thoroughly and properly, but also promptly. Progress on expanding the dormant assets scheme has been slow over the years. The scheme has worked well, but given that it was set up in 2008, it has taken a long time to come forward and be expanded. We want to make sure that more good causes can benefit more quickly, so we do not want further delays, which is why we support a quick, broad-based consultation when there are proposals to bring new assets forward. We think that the consultation should conclude no longer than three months after it has been announced.

We are also conscious that “social and environmental causes” could mean a number of different things to different people. It could be argued that the lobbying work of a political think-tank could be defined as advancing a social or environmental cause and so, too, could the spending of a Government Department, but I think we would all agree that those would not be appropriate uses of this money. To clarify those issues, amendment 5 requires that the Secretary of State uses the consultation period to define criteria for future uses of the fund, and publishes and keeps to those criteria. We agree that specific causes should be decided upon based on consultation and responding to need, but those decisions can be focused and guided by set principles that will ensure that inappropriate causes are not set up to benefit by the Government of the day, whoever they may be.

Labour is conscious that the four organisations that have so far benefited from the scheme in England, which are Big Society Capital, Access—the Foundation for Social Investment, the Youth Futures Foundation and Fair4All Finance, have all done a really good job. We want those organisations to be able to continue carrying out their important work, so can the Minister assure us that in the event of the Government making future changes to how the money should be spent, those organisations would have nothing to fear, and can he put on record that the broad aims of the scheme remain the same?

I also want to address Government amendment 1. We are disappointed that the Government are proposing to remove the sections relating to community wealth funds. The amendments that were made in the Lords allow the Secretary of State to include community wealth funds—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I feel a bit of a charlatan: after debates on 28 and a half clauses, we finally come to a vote, but it is on something that, ethically, I should not vote on, because it applies to England only. I will make a couple of comments by way of friendly advice to colleagues from all sides of the House before they consider this amendment and others.

First, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned, a fixed amount of money is available to distribute, so any additional purposes can only be implemented if the existing purposes get less money. Allowing new organisations to bid for money can only mean existing organisations run the risk of less funding. That does not mean that that should not be done, but we need to understand the implications. Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the good purposes for which the funding is used and the interests of the organisations that will either deliver the services or administer the funds. Understandably, someone involved with an organisation will think that organisation is the best in the universe at doing a particular thing, but that will not always be the case; there may sometimes be circumstances where a different organisation could deliver the benefits more effectively.

As I say, I do not intend to vote on clause 29 or any of the amendments. I am quite happy now to sit back and watch my friends from England decide on the best way for England to copy the excellent practice that has been in place in Scotland and Wales for a number of years.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Manchester, Withington for tabling amendment 5. I hope to be able to reassure them that the Bill, as introduced, already broadly accomplishes their desired effects, and therefore that the amendment is not necessary. I also appreciate the comments from the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who highlights that Scotland does indeed have greater flexibility at the moment. One purpose of the Bill is to rectify that, so that England can also have some flexibility in how future moneys are disbursed.

I should probably give the warning, or caveat, that while we all expect—in fact, we are very confident—that large amounts of money will be raised through the expansion of the scheme as proposed in the Bill, we of course cannot commit 100% that entities will receive a certain amount of money. We do not currently know how much will be distributed. No individual entity can bank on having a specific amount, although historically the scheme has raised more money than forecast. We cannot plan on that, but I think we are all confident that significant amounts will be raised.

I will give a brief overview of how the scheme works, in the context of amendment 5. The current system works by industry participants voluntarily transferring funds to the dormant assets reclaim fund, the body that administers the scheme, which reserves 40% of these funds in order to meet any future customer claims, with the remaining 60% of surplus then released for social and environmental purposes via the National Lottery Community Fund, the named distributor of dormant assets funding in the UK. It apportions the money among the four nations and then distributes it in line with legislation and any directions given to it by relevant Ministers or Departments.

The devolved Administrations can decide on the focus of their funding so long as it is within the parameters of social or environmental purposes, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned. In England, expenditure is ringfenced for initiatives focused on youth, financial inclusion and social investment through section 18 of the 2008 Act. Currently, funding flows from the National Lottery Community Fund to four independent specialist organisations that work across the three areas. Clause 29 introduces new section 18A to be inserted into the 2008 Act, replacing the current section 18, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned, which will enable the Secretary of State to consult on the purposes of the English portion and to then set the purposes through an order.

Amendment 5 has three core objectives: first, that there should be considered thought behind choosing the future purposes of dormant assets funding in England; secondly, that the public should be consulted before those purposes are set and should be able to have their say on the logic behind the purposes; and thirdly, that the consultation should not push progress into the long grass but must be proportionate and efficient. I understand the intent of the amendment.

Over the last decade, the scheme has been working to level up the communities that need it most,, supporting frontline organisations to tackle deprivation, developing strong social infrastructure and initiatives at local level, and directing funding to some of the most left-behind areas of the country. Those are some of the broad criteria by which the scheme has distributed funds in England. Those principles have operated successfully within the overarching three purposes set for the English portion to date: tackling youth unemployment and financial exclusion and investing in the nation’s charities and social enterprises. Part of the unique strength of the scheme in England is that the funding has been distributed through four specialist organisations. Within the boundaries of appropriate governance systems, those independent organisations have been free to determine the most impactful and appropriate ways to deliver on their missions, including deciding what criteria to apply and when. We are proud of the impact they have had, and echo the numerous supportive comments made by hon. Members on Second Reading.

The scheme has built a compelling evidence base for these types of intervention and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to benefit the people and communities who need it most. We are also committed to affording everyone a fair opportunity to have their say on the purposes for which funds can be distributed. Proposed new section 18A(6)(a) of the 2008 Act provides that the Secretary of State must consult the public about

“the purposes for which, or the kinds of person to which”

the English portion should be distributed before an order can be laid. The first of those consultations will be launched as soon as possible after Royal Assent; we estimate that it could be as early as this summer. The Government will set out our thinking in that consultation document, and we are committed to inviting all those with an interest to have their say.

In the other House, noble Friends of the Member for Manchester, Withington pressed the Government for a commitment to open the first consultation for at least 12 weeks. We agree that is a proportionate amount of time and have already committed to that. I assure hon. Members that we share the ambition to ensure that the money is released as efficiently as possible. We have no intention of delaying the impact we all want the scheme expansion to have. I am grateful for the spirit of collaboration the House has shown in helping us to achieve that ambition. For the reasons I set out we are not able to support the amendment.

[Jeff Smith]

I thank the Minister for his comments and his reassurance that the Government will continue to uphold the principles and “unique strength” of the current ways of working. Given those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 29, page 22, line 12, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

This amendment removes provisions relating to community wealth funds that were added to the clause at Report stage in the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in clause 29, page 22, line 37, at end insert—

“specifically consult on the merits of establishing a community wealth fund or funds under the dormant assets scheme, and”.

This is a probing amendment intended to ensure the scope of any Government’s proposed consultation process also encompasses full consideration of the merits of establishing a community wealth fund or funds under the dormant assets scheme.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I acknowledge the support expressed by many in the House for using the English portion of dormant assets funding to support, through community wealth funds, the left-behind communities, which experience high levels of deprivation and low levels of social infrastructure. Amendment 1 is not intended to disregard the support for that approach; instead, it is designed to protect the integrity of the consultation process, which offers the most appropriate route to make that a reality.

I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for tabling amendment 3, seeking a commitment to consult on community wealth funds. I thank hon. Members for taking the time last week to meet me, alongside local trusts, to discuss the proposal. We are content to place on the record our commitment that the first consultation under this clause, which will be launched as soon as possible after Royal Assent, will explicitly include community wealth funds as an option to consider for the English portion.

The scheme has spent the last decade working to tackle systemic social challenges and to level up communities who need it the most, particularly by targeting and benefiting left-behind areas. In England, the impact is delivered through four independent organisations that distribute funding to tackle youth unemployment and financial exclusion, in addition to growing a thriving social investment market. To date, more than £465 million from the scheme has been invested in charities and social enterprises, often in areas or communities that may not have benefited from sustained investment in the past. For example, the growth fund is a £46 million partnership between the National Lottery Community Fund, Big Society Capital and Access. It has significantly expanded the reach of investment to charities and social enterprises that are unlikely to have taken on social investment before. The largest number of investments have been made to target support for vulnerable young people, those not in employment, education or training, and people experiencing poverty, financial exclusion and long-term unemployment. A quarter of all growth fund investments have been in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to hearing whether I have been able to persuade the Minister to accept amendment 3. That would give great reassurance to those of us who care about this matter that the Government are serious about committing to community wealth funds.

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I mentioned earlier, this may be an area where we share the intent and end goals but disagree, albeit slightly, on the route by which we get there. I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying and I appreciate the work that she and others have done with the APPG. I have met many members of the APPG, and I appreciate their work, but I hope that the Committee is reassured to hear the commitments that I have made today, including on an explicit option on community wealth funds in the consultation, which will launch as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I know that the right hon. Lady is asking for that to be on the face of the Bill, but I hope she is reassured that the commitment I have made is on record. As I have noted, depending on the passage of the Bill and its commencement, the consultation could be launched as soon as this summer and will be open for 12 weeks.

We have heard the strength of feeling, both here and in the other place, about the community wealth fund and the important proposal to assess it when determining the best use of the English portion under the scheme. We agree that it should be given due consideration, not only by the Government but by the public and the industry participants that underpin the scheme’s success, but we do not believe it is appropriate to include it in the Bill. We have consistently committed to the consultation being fair and open, and we have reiterated the importance of not pre-empting the outcomes.

The scheme has enabled long-term systemic change to be effected in tackling youth unemployment and financial exclusion and growing a thriving social investment market to support our nation’s charities and social enterprises. Those causes have enjoyed public, civil society and industry support for the past decade, and it would not be right to name any new cause in legislation before we consult them on doing so.

Although we cannot accept amendment 3 for those reasons, I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance about our commitment to ensure that community wealth funds will be given full consideration. I therefore hope the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North will be minded not to press the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government’s amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 29, page 22, line 41, at end insert—

“18B Distribution of money for meeting English expenditure: Requirement to report annually

(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report detailing how dormant assets money has been distributed in England.

(2) The first report under subsection (1) will be laid 12 months after—

(a) any restriction imposed under section 18A(1)(a) of that Act comes into force, or

(b) the provision in section 18A(1)(b) of that Act comes into force,

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) how much dormant assets money has been distributed,

(b) the causes to which money has been distributed, and

(c) the Secretary of State’s assessment of the value for money of the expenditure.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually on how monies from the Reclaim Fund have been spent in England, including an assessment of the value for money of this spending.

This is another probing amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to report annually on how moneys from the Reclaim Fund have been spent in England, including an assessment of the value for money of the spending. The Labour party believes in the values of transparency and good value for money. Annual reporting on the spend would help to demonstrate whether the funds were being used effectively and for good causes, as intended. It would allow better scrutiny of which causes were being supported and the impact they were having. It could also help to inform future changes that the Secretary of State might want to make through secondary legislation, and would clearly show what is being delivered in practice. We urge the Minister to take this suggestion on board.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington for the amendment and his contributions to the debate so far. As numerous reports are already conducted on the distribution of dormant assets funding, including annual reports from the National Lottery Community Fund and each spend organisation in England, I hope to reassure the Committee that amendment 4 is not necessary.

To date, in England, dormant assets funding has been distributed through the National Lottery Community Fund to four independent specialist organisations. The spend organisations’ operations are regularly reviewed by the Oversight Trust, an independent organisation that ensures accountability and transparency around each of the spend organisations’ activities. The Oversight Trust commissions quadrennial reviews of each organisation to examine their effectiveness in delivering against their respective missions.

As the main distributor of dormant assets funding across the UK, the National Lottery Community Fund already publishes annual statements on the impact of the scheme, alongside annual reports conducted by each of the spend organisations and the quadrennial reviews published by the Oversight Trust as the parent body. There are also annual reports by Reclaim Fund Ltd, the scheme’s administrator. Another review will be published as part of the overall scheme within three years of the Act passing and every five years thereafter. That is on top of the annual reporting I have outlined.

We feel that that is the most appropriate route to avoid placing repetitive, cumbersome and unnecessary further requirements on the organisations entrusted with dormant asset funding. With that explanation of the existing reviews, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.

[Jeff Smith]

I thank the Minister for his comments and I appreciate the fact that he has outlined the number of reviews that currently take place and the excellent work of the Oversight Trust and the various organisations involved. The Bill does give Parliament flexibility in terms of a way forward. We think that these reports should directly inform Parliament, which is why we proposed annual reports to Parliament. However, having listened to the Minister’s comments and assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Periodic review and report to Parliament

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 30 provides that the Secretary of State must review and report on various aspects of the dormant assets scheme on an ongoing basis. That will ensure momentum for further scheme expansion, greater transparency over the use of funds, and reporting on how the principle of additionality has been met. The results of the review must be laid in a report before Parliament within three years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and every five years thereafter. The report must also include information about the uses of dormant assets money, including the principle of additionality, and will build on reports already published. I commend clause 30 to the Committee.

[Jeff Smith]

We do not oppose the broad principle of reviewing the scheme. We support a wide-ranging review of all aspects of the scheme, which is why we tabled amendment 4 regarding annual reviews. Holding a review more frequently than the proposed three and subsequent five years would be beneficial, and I ask the Government to look at that in future. However, we will obviously not oppose the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 31 makes further provisions about the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Repeals in the 2008 Act and other minor or consequential amendments

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 32 sets out the provisions in the 2008 Act that are repealed by the Bill. It introduces schedule 1, which makes minor and consequential amendments as a result of the Bill. I therefore commend clause 32 and schedule 1 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 33

Index of defined terms

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 33 introduces schedule 2, which presents a table listing various terms defined or explained in the Bill and the sections in which they are set out. I therefore commend clause 33 and schedule 2 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 34

Extent, commencement, construction as one with 2008 Act and citation

[Nigel Huddleston]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 34, page 26, line 3, leave out subsection (8).

Clause 34 sets out various final provisions, such as the geographic extent of the Bill, when the provisions come into effect and how the Bill may be cited. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Authorised reclaim funds: Duty to assess and report

“(1) The Secretary of State must make an annual assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaim funds. The assessment must be reported to Parliament.

(2) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid 12 months after—

(a) any restriction imposed under section 18A(1)(a) of that Act comes into force, or

(b) the provision mentioned in section 18A(1)(b) of that Act comes into force,

(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must include an evaluation of the risk of insolvency of the fund.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the health and governance of reclaim funds regularly in relation to the risk of insolvency, and to report on this annually to Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

Briefly, we can all recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny over the spending of funds, and it is vital that the Government are held to account on the health and governance of reclaim funds, especially in relation to the potential for insolvency. At the moment, there is no such formal process. New clause 1 is therefore vital to ensure that a regular assessment of authorised reclaim funds is undertaken.

It is our job in this place to scrutinise and ensure that funds are fit for purpose, and I hope that colleagues of all political persuasions can see the benefit of an annual report brought before Parliament. Such a report, with a thorough assessment and prediction of the future of the fund, would be a step forward for transparency, which is crucial to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in relation to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaim funds and to report the assessment to Parliament annually. As we have discussed, RFL publishes its audited annual report and accounts on its website annually, and proactively raises awareness and increases transparency of its work by engaging with industry through stakeholder events and its online presence. Now that RFL is an arm’s length body, Parliament will have greater oversight of its operations and final information. RFL is now directly accountable to Parliament by virtue of its new status. As such, RFL’s chief executive officer has been designated as accounting officer.

RFL has been consolidated into HM Treasury’s accounts, which are laid before Parliament yearly. In July 2021, RFL was included in HM Treasury’s 2020-21 annual report and accounts for the first time. Furthermore, it is standard practice for the annual report and accounts of ALBs, together with any report of the auditor on them, to be laid before Parliament by the sponsor Department. That will happen for the first time this year. Therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to review RFL’s full statutory accounts, and RFL, like all ALBs, cannot publish its accounts until they have been laid before Parliament. I therefore do not believe that there is any need for a bespoke arrangement for RFL in the Bill. I hope that that explanation demonstrates that Parliament will have greater oversight of RFL’s operations and financial information, so I ask the hon. Member for Pontypridd to withdraw the motion.

[Peter Grant]

It is no great comfort that the accounts will be assimilated into the accounts of HM Treasury because they will get lost in there. We regularly see instances where Government Departments will point to failures in a specific part of their operations that are almost invisible as a percentage of their overall expenditure but can have a significant impact on people’s lives. Any serious problem with this fund will start to have such an impact. That is why, certainly in the early days, it is reasonable for Parliament to want to be a bit more actively involved in its oversight than it would normally be for a long-established fund, particularly given that the fund has been established through an Act of Parliament for a specific purpose. I hear what the Minister says, but for a temporary period of two years, until the House can be reassured that the new arrangements are working well, something a bit more than the usual scrutiny and oversight provisions would be perfectly reasonable.

[The Chair]

Minister, you do not have to respond, but do you wish to do so?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have nothing more to add.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment on increased parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. I still feel that an annual report being brought to Parliament as a written statement, or to the Treasury Committee or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, would be welcome to ensure oversight and parliamentary scrutiny; however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Authorised Reclaim funds: Apportionment of expenditure

“(1) An authorised reclaim fund may conduct a review of the proportion of dormant asset money that may be spent on particular causes.

(2) Following a review under subsection (1), an authorised reclaim fund may make an assessment and recommendation as to whether this proportion should be increased.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by order, make regulation to change the proportion of dormant asset money that may be spent on particular causes, in line with any recommendation made pursuant to subsection (2).”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause would allow reclaim funds to review the proportion of funds they are able to give towards good causes, and make an assessment and recommendation as to whether this proportion should be increased. It would also give the Secretary of State power to implement such a recommendation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Grant]

This is not made explicitly clear in the wording of the new clause, so would the hon. Member clarify whether the intention is that it would apply only in England or to the devolved Administrations as well? There is acceptance throughout the Bill that anything in the Bill that directs or indicates how money is to be apportioned applies in England and that the devolved Administrations have the autonomy to take their own decisions. The wording of the new clause as it is now would appear to change that and give the Secretary of State the right to give direction that would apply to the devolved Administrations as well. That would clearly be something that I and, I think, a lot of my colleagues would be uncomfortable with.

[Nigel Huddleston]

To allow sufficient time for my official to provide me with a direct response to the hon. Gentleman’s response, I will comment briefly on this area. I understand the intent of the proposal from the hon. Member for Pontypridd. Determining what it is prudent to release to the National Lottery Community Fund and what must be retained to meet reclaims has been intentionally separated from the processes and institutions around distributing funding, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. It is a matter for Reclaim Fund Ltd: it is responsible for determining the appropriate proportion of funding that it can prudently release. As I mentioned, it currently holds 40% of the dormant account assets that it receives and distributes 60% of the surplus funding to the National Lottery Community Fund. The amount that RFL reserves for future repayment claims is rightly based on actuarial modelling and assessment of appropriate risk factors, following guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority.

There is no reason why this should not continue, as RFL is best placed to determine what it is prudent to release, and it is only right that RFL makes its decisions independently of Government and on the advice of those with professional expertise. None the less, RFL continuously assesses and reviews its reserving policy over time to ensure that it is releasing as many funds as possible to good causes. When RFL was established, there was no historical data on which to base its model. As RFL has built its experience of handling dormant accounts, it has reviewed its reserving rate, with a view to releasing more money to good causes, which is what we all want. For example, in 2016, Reclaim Fund Ltd decreased its reclaim provision from 60% to 40%. The fundamental principle that underpins RFL’s current approach to its reserving rate is that it is required to meet reclaims in perpetuity and therefore has to account for any future stress scenarios that may occur and model those accordingly.

The Government agree that as many dormant funds as possible should be channelled onwards to good causes, but this amendment would perhaps set an unhelpful precedent and risk the scheme’s reputation. Industry stakeholders might be less willing to voluntarily participate if they felt that RFL’s reserving policy was unduly influenced, so there would be a risk to the scheme’s continuation should the Government encroach on RFL’s operational independence by having the power to decide what portion of funding it should release.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, the amendment as drafted would have an impact on the UK as a whole. RFL releases all surplus funds to the National Lottery Community Fund, and only then is it apportioned. However, it would not change the proportion contributed to each nation, which is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Hopefully that explanation provides him with reassurance. As I said, RFL has reviewed and will continue to review its reserving policy on a regular basis, to ensure that it is fit for purpose. In fact, RFL is currently undertaking a review of its reserving policy, also known as the reclaim—

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. It seems to me that he is responding to a different new clause from the one that has been introduced. My reading of the proposed new clause is that it is about decisions as to how the available distribution money is distributed to particular good causes. The Minister is talking about the decision as to how much of the total fund can be made available. That to me would seem to be a professional judgment matter and not a matter for the Secretary of State. Can he perhaps clarify what the actual meaning of this new clause is? I do not think the new clause says anything about how much should be reserved to cover any reclaims. I think it is about deciding how the available money is allocated across individual causes or, potentially, across individual organisations.

[The Chair]

Mr Grant, I do not think the Minister’s response was out of order. He may not be responding to the point that you raised, but I do not think he was not speaking on the new clause. Minister, would you like to clarify the matter?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, Ms Ghani. In terms of the distribution of funding, as I think we discussed earlier, Scotland has flexibility, and flexibility is changing for England. As I understand it, the new clause is proposing some points about transparency and the proportions of expenditure, so the points that I have raised are relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am grateful for the good nature and speed of the debate, which was meant to run for four sittings. There is still a bit of formal business to get through, and the Minister and the Opposition may wish to say some quick words of thanks.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Briefly, Ms Ghani, may I thank you, the Clerks and officials for all your work on the Bill, as well as all colleagues across the House and in the other place for their contributions? I also thank industry and many other stakeholders.

As I said at the beginning of the sitting, there is broad support for the Bill. I understand and have taken on board many of the comments that hon. Members have made today. I hope that I have provided reassurances where they were sought, and that we can continue to work productively and co-operatively on this really important Bill, which will make such a big difference to so many people’s lives. I really appreciate the support that it has received so far.

[The Chair]

If the Opposition do not have any comments to make, we will proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the effect on the tourism industry of the covid-19 Plan B advice for people to work from home where possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the vital tourism sector. He is right that some of the new rules, including the guidance to work from home, can be difficult for the tourism sector, because movement of people and social interaction is pivotal to a thriving tourism industry, but we have committed to provide support and over £35 billion has already been provided to tourism, hospitality and leisure businesses.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response and his recognition that the advice is causing problems for a number of businesses. He is quite right. People who go out to work often use cafés, restaurants, pubs and shops outside their normal working hours. I know the Chancellor has brought in a package of measures to help businesses, and I do not advocate that businesses be closed, but when they are open but suffering from lower trade, how much they are losing is intangible and difficult to assess. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor again to see whether any further help can be given where it is necessary?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my constituency neighbour again for raising these important points. We have ongoing dialogue with the Chancellor and the Treasury. The new grants the Chancellor announced just before Christmas will be very important in helping the businesses affected. Many will get the grants automatically. I encourage others—perhaps those on the edges of supply chains—that do not get the grants automatically to apply for the additional restrictions grants. The impact on them may not be obvious, and I appeal to local authorities, which have discretion in the allocation of those grants, to be sympathetic to such claims by the businesses affected in the way my hon. Friend describes.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The theatres, festivals and live events that are such an important part of our tourist offer have all been hit by the uncertainty around plan B, and Government support is not working. The live events reinsurance scheme was meant to protect the music, theatre and live events sector from the impact of covid, but it has been a total flop. It does not cover cancellations due to covid outbreaks, nor does it provide support outside a full national lockdown, which no one wants to happen. Given the demand that will be caused by the continued uncertainty well into the new year, will the Government urgently review the scheme and repurpose it to give businesses and workers the support they need now?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Of course the scheme is really important. We do want to make sure that it works as intended, but it is part of an overall support package for the arts sector, which includes the theatre tax reliefs that were announced prior to Christmas and the all-important culture recovery fund. Again, more money has been released from that. I am confident that the overall package will be of great support to this vital sector.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

4. On what date she last held discussions with the BBC on the enforcement of TV licence fee payments for people aged over 75.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

T4. Last month, I was lucky enough to attend Keighley’s very own rugby league world cup, organised by Joe O’Keeffe and his brilliant team at the Keighley Cougarmania Foundation, which involved 12 local primary schools each representing a different country. The energy and enthusiasm was absolutely fantastic, but we can do much more to support grassroots sport. What more can the Department do to support primary schools and grassroots sports foundations?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on organising what sounds like an incredibly successful event. He and I know just how important sport and physical activity is for our physical and mental health.

At the recent spending review, the Chancellor announced an additional £205 million for up to 8,000 community football pitches and multi-use sports facilities across the country. Every year, our arm’s length body, Sport England, distributes millions of pounds to support grassroots sport right across the country, including more than £180,000 in my hon. Friend’s constituency since 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On Monday I visited Harefield United football club in my constituency, which told me, as many other grassroots football clubs do, of its frustration at being unable to access excellent facilities in local schools. What discussions have taken place between the Department and the Department for Education about opening up those brilliant facilities to a wider range of grassroots sports clubs?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have to open up school facilities for more sporting activities. I have already had several conversations with DFE Ministers about opening up school facilities. We are also working together on the school sport and activity action plan, and in the spending review additional money was allocated to support the opening up of school facilities and the teaching of PE in primary schools. My hon. Friend is raising a really important point; more action will be taken.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

We know that over Christmas children and young people would have been watching mainly streaming services rather than terrestrial TV, so can I press the Minister? Would it not be an easy and quick win to require all streaming services to use the British Board of Film Classification age verification system? We know that Netflix does, but Disney does not, which causes confusion for parents. This would be an easy, quick win for the Government, as well as everyone else.

Concussion in Sport: Government Response

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published their response to the report by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee into concussion in sport.

Sport is a central part of our national identity and culture. The welfare and safety of everybody taking part in sport is of paramount importance, and the Government are committed to taking action to reduce the risks involved. The actions set out in this report do not represent the final word on the subject and we recognise there is more work to do to continue to make sport as safe as possible for all those who participate in it.

The Government are grateful to the DCMS Select Committee for undertaking its extensive inquiry into concussion in sport. The Committee’s report has reinforced the importance of the topic and provided valuable insights that have helped inform the Government’s thinking.

Our response outlines the Government’s approach to reducing the risks associated with concussion and head injuries in sport. This will involve working with partners from across the sport, health, education, academic and technology sectors.

A full response to each of the Committee’s recommendations is also provided in a separate annex to the report.

Within the report, the Government have committed to:

Commission a set of shared high-level protocols around concussion in sport across the UK.

Write to UK Sport and Sport England to explore ensuring funded bodies make use of these shared protocols.

Work across Departments to improve the protocols and pathways for use in treating concussion in sport injuries in NHS A&E settings.

Direct sports to work with Player Associations on training protocols for players’ long-term welfare.

Convene a sports concussion research forum of experts to identify the priority research questions and improve the coordination with research funding bodies.

Write to National Governing Bodies to emphasise the importance of player welfare (including concussion) when formulating their governance procedures.

A copy of the Government response to the DCMS Select Committee report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS465]

Mavisbank House

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this debate on the important topic of Mavisbank House.

As the hon. Member said, there was indeed something for everyone in his speech, which highlighted a good smattering of famous names from our history and acknowledged, quite rightly, that not all of our history is glamorous or uncontroversial. We have some challenging facts in our history, which we also need to face head-on, as he quite rightly articulated. As he clearly laid out, Mavisbank House is testament to a unique aspect of Scottish and British history and is one of the most important at-risk heritage sites in the country. The Government share the hon. Member’s concern that this unique piece of Scottish and British history has fallen into such disrepair.

The hon. Member rightly mentioned the importance as Scotland’s most pre-eminent small country house and first palladium villa. It was built by two towering figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, Sir John Clerk and William Adam. Sir John Clerk was a poet, politician, musician, classicist, mathematician and philosopher, which puts us all to shame, and he played a vital role, as he mentioned, in the Act of Union. The house Sir John built at Mavisbank was a testament to the man and his time. Mavisbank would go on to become an iconic landmark, not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom.

I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Mavisbank, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s offer and would like to take him up on it at some point. I have seen pictures of the site, which are quite alarming, and I share his concern at the potential loss of this important historic monument. I also share his sentiment that it is a vitally important heritage asset for the local community. Mavisbank House is a fine example of the power of heritage and culture to create a sense of place. Heritage sites such as Mavisbank House are also vital for the local economy, attracting visitors and providing high-skilled jobs, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member mention the importance of those important skilled jobs in the heritage sector.

The hon. Member mentioned his understandable disappointment and frustration at the National Lottery Heritage Fund’s decision not to fund the scheme through the heritage horizon award. The National Lottery Heritage Fund is an arm’s length body of the Government, as I am sure he will know. It is for the fund rather than me or Government to decide or dictate which of the many worthy bids receive funding. Since its formation in 1994, it has awarded more than £3 billion to almost 10,000 areas, historic buildings and monument projects across the UK. In Scotland alone, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has distributed more than £890 million to 4,727 projects since 1994. In the hon. Member’s constituency of Midlothian, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has invested £17 million in that time, of which more than £12 million has funded built heritage projects such as the Penicuik heritage regeneration project and many more important historic places and assets across Midlothian. The hon. Member mentioned Penicuik in his speech, so we see the importance of that name in his local area.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has worked tirelessly to support the heritage sector through several alternative funds. However, I share the hon. Member’s disappointment that Mavisbank House was not able to secure heritage horizon funding. I have been assured that all due processes were followed—I do not think he was questioning the process—but the harsh reality was that the heritage horizon award was a highly competitive fund designed to revolutionise the UK’s heritage through investment in “ambitious, innovative and transformational projects.”

I am told that, fortunately—or unfortunately, depending on perspective—other schemes matched those objectives even more clearly than Mavisbank, leading to the difficult decision to reject its bid for funding. Although Mavisbank also met those criteria, limited funding can only go so far. An example of a successful bid in Scotland was the Cairngorms national park authority, which was awarded £12.5 million. That award will fund an ambitious seven-year programme to achieve transformational change for people and nature in north-east Scotland. It will bring together 45 different partner organisations to look at cultural heritage, environmental protection, climate change and biodiversity, and deliver meaningful improvements to people’s health and wellbeing. Though that is a great example of a project, it does not distract from the hon. Member’s compelling arguments about Mavisbank, covering many of those areas as well.

I understand that the National Lottery Heritage Fund has been in contact with the hon. Member, as well as with Historic Environment Scotland and the Landmark Trust, which I acknowledge play a pivotal role in securing our national heritage. I understand that the National Lottery Heritage Fund has provided feedback and is looking at alternative options for Mavisbank House. I urge him to explore all available options—he is clearly doing that—to save Mavisbank House, including the National Heritage Memorial Fund, a funder of last resort for assets of national importance in the UK. I am sure that, as one of the most important at-risk heritage sites in Scotland, Mavisbank House would have a strong case. Of course, any decisions are at the discretion of the National Heritage Memorial Fund board, but I am sure that, given the case that I have heard articulated today, he would get a strong and sympathetic hearing. As hon. Members will be aware, heritage is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government, and I also therefore urge the hon. Member to continue conversations with the Scottish Government and Historic Environment Scotland.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for bringing the house and this fascinating piece of history, which his speech articulated so well, to our attention. I am happy to continue conversations with him, the Scottish Government and any other stakeholders. It sounds as though he is already engaging with a very large number of stakeholders, and Mavisbank House is fortunate to have him bringing so many people together and supporting this bid with such passion. I am happy to help in any way I can—with the caveat that I cannot promise funding that is not directly under my control—with this really important project. I wish him and everyone involved the best of luck in securing funding for this unique heritage site.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Fan-led Review of Football Governance

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the independent fan-led review of football governance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

First, may I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), the advisory panel of experts and the thousands of football fans up and down the country who have contributed to this report? Football clubs are at the heart of our local communities, and fans are at the heart of those clubs, but there were problems in football governance and the voice of fans was not always being heard. That is why we committed to the fan-led review of football governance in our manifesto. The events seen at Bury and at Macclesfield Town, and with the European super league, made it vital that we looked at what reform was needed to protect those fans, and we triggered the review back in April. My hon. Friend has today presented her final report, setting out her recommendations. A copy has been made available in the Library, and of course the Government will formally and fully respond to the independent report in the new year.

The review is a comprehensive examination of English football, founded on more than 100 hours of engagement across the game and the views of more than 20,000 fans. I am grateful to all those who have given evidence, but most importantly to the fans who have had their voice heard. That voice will remain at the heart of our thinking in assessing the recommendations. The final report is a thorough and detailed examination of the challenges faced by English football. It shows the problems in football and is clear that reform is needed to solve them. I will not go through the 10 strategic recommendations and the 47 detailed recommendations here, Mr Speaker, but they are wide-ranging and comprehensive, addressing the need for an independent regulator, improved financial sustainability, better governance and a proper role for fans.

The report shows that fundamental change is needed in our national game, and fans deserve that. We are at a turning point for football in this country. The review is a detailed and worthy piece of work that will require a substantive response and plan of action from across government. However, the primary recommendation of the review—that football requires a strong, independent regulator—is one that I, and the Government, endorse in principle today. The Government will now work at pace to determine the most effective way to deliver an independent regulator, and any powers that might be needed. That is what the fans want, and this Government are on the side of fans.

[Jo Stevens]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and her panel on their work, and thank the Football Supporters’ Association and every fan who took part in the review. We have known for a very long time that football is broken—this is not a new thing—and we on this side of the House have called for years for an independent regulator to fix it. We are therefore delighted that that is the report’s key recommendation, and I anticipate there will be a great amount of consensus across the House on that. We would like to see a bit more fan involvement, so just as the Football Association will be allowed observer status on the independent regulator board, we believe the FSA should too.

I was somewhat concerned to see the Secretary of State’s tweet this morning. She said she is

“endorsing in principle the primary recommendation’’

of the review. Will the Minister allay my fears and confirm that the Government accept both the principle and the detail of the review’s recommendations on the independent regulator, and that they will enshrine that in primary legislation? The Secretary of State’s words in that tweet and the Minister’s words just now appear to suggest something less than that.

Does the Minister agree that there is no need to delay further? Will he commit to bring forward a Bill in the new year? If not, when are we going to see the Bill? As the review makes clear, the recommendations should be taken as a package, not as a pick ’n’ mix—anything less could leave us with a botched job—so will the Minister commit to accepting all the recommendations of this very thorough review?

On the golden share and supporters’ shadow boards, does the Minister agree that any proposals for a breakaway league must be discussed with those supporters’ shadow boards, regardless of any confidentiality agreements that might have been signed by the clubs involved?

Finally, have the Government had discussions at any point with the Welsh Government about the reform of football governance in respect of Welsh clubs that also take part in the English club structure?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and for the cross-party approach to the issue of football governance taken by the Opposition Front-Bench team and, indeed, the whole House. I hope that that tone and co-operation will continue throughout, because our goals and intentions are absolutely aligned.

I am sure the hon. Lady understands the process. This is an independent report and if anybody knows my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford—she is behind me—they will know that she has taken a robust and independent approach. The Government need to respond formally, and I am sure that the hon. Lady and everybody else will understand that I cannot today pre-empt every single element of the Government’s response to the conclusions. I only saw the full report myself just a couple of days ago. We take the recommendations incredibly seriously, and I am well aware of the strength of feeling behind many of the proposals, but I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot commit 100% to all the proposals today.

On how we go forward, I intend to proceed at pace—in fact, I had a meeting this morning with my officials to discuss how we move forward and how fast we can move. The whole House wants us to move quickly; please, watch this space.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Tracey Crouch. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I recognise that it is quite unique for the chair of a Government review also to be a sitting Member of Parliament and do not intend to abuse that position by—you know—urging the Minister to accept the recommendations as a whole package and advising that, obviously, if he says so in the Chamber, it has to happen. But will he join me in thanking the thousands of fans who took part in the fan-led review? Without the input of the fans who served on the expert panel, the fans of the 130 clubs across the whole of the pyramid who gave oral and written evidence and, of course, the 20,000-plus fans who contributed to the survey, the recommendations would not be as they are in the report.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Absolutely—I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I again offer sincere thanks to her, not only on my behalf but on behalf of the whole Government, for the work she has done at incredible pace. The work done has been extensive: she has travelled up and down the country and been involved in Zoom calls and so many other calls and, of course, 20,000 fans contributed online submissions to the review in an incredibly short period of time. We all need to recognise that we have already moved at pace and that my hon. Friend moved at pace. I respect everything she has done and look forward to continuing to work with her as we formulate the Government’s response. I am hopeful that we will all get a positive outcome, because football needs it.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am immensely proud to be a supporter of Scotland’s most successful team in the past decade: having waited 130 years for their first major trophy, St Johnstone have won three in the past seven years and are currently the holders of both cups.

I am also proud that the SNP Scottish Government’s recent changes to club-ownership governance have been based on the development of a fan bank to help supporters to take control of their clubs. Fans already have a controlling interest in a quarter of the top flight: the three clubs being Hearts, Motherwell and, of course, the mighty Paisley St Mirren. By contrast, English football is now fully awash with blood money from dictatorships and oligarchs—similar to the Tory party conference, it must be said.

The Scottish Government fan bank will support more fan ownership where the supporters want it. Does the Minister agree that such a move in England would help to freeze out the spivs, gangsters and murderous regimes that are trying to sports-wash their image and are now running and financing many English clubs? What further actions do the Government plan to take to counter investors such as those now at Newcastle United?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman knows of course that sport is a devolved matter. I am sure that there are many learnings from the review for English football that the Scottish football ecosystem would perhaps take on board and consider. The clear message that I would like to send to Scotland and to football in the UK is that the report has made many recommendations, some of which may require legislation that we are likely to pursue, but there are many other things in the report that football itself can do anyway, and, as I have said, that applies in both England and Scotland.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I welcome the excellent report that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has prepared and I welcome as well the fact that the Minister has said that, in principle, the Government accept the creation of the independent regulator. Obviously, it is vital that the independent regulator, when created, has the powers that it needs to do the job. Can he confirm that, in principle, the Government accept that that must include real-time access to financial information about the clubs if we are to prevent more club failures?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend as well for his commitment, interest and insight into football and, indeed, into sport in general over many years and I appreciate what he is saying. Yes, I can say that, of course, we could not have an effective regulator without also having adequate powers, and the elements that he has considered will, of course, be part of that package. When I say that we accept in principle and are therefore considering moving forward with legislation that includes not only the regulator itself, but the powers that the regulator may have.

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

I thank my honourable football friend, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for the report that she has produced. We look forward to further discussions with her at the football group meeting next week. Richard Caborn, a previous Sports Minister, convened a group of football parties in Sheffield, and we put forward a submission to the review, promoting the independent regulator, the golden share, and important elements of the review that have now been published and supported by the hon. Lady. That is really welcome. Does the Minister accept that, at the end of the day, the regulator must have real powers to redistribute the funding of football to do away with the cliff edge between the premiership and the championship and the cliff edge within the championship that is caused by parachute payments?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have had many discussions about football and I know of his interest. In fact, most people in the House today have shown great passion and enthusiasm for football over many, many years and have all contributed to the review. He is right to point out that the regulator needs adequate powers. That is exactly the kind of thing that we are looking at and he will be well aware as well that, in the report, there are recommendations about flow of finance. I do not believe that we can completely divorce governance from financial flows, so, in our response—and I cannot pre-empt the response today—those will be exactly the kind of things we will be considering.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I welcome this report and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). As the review states, Bury FC was founded in 1885,

“existed through countless economic cycles, several wars and 26 different Prime Ministers”—

but—

“ceased to exist in 2018-19 with a devastating impact on the local economy and… a devastated fan base”.

So although I fully support the recommendations—they are our vision for the sport going forward—the town of Bury should not be left behind. Does the Minister agree that, as Bury FC is mentioned 15 times in the review, one thing that should come out of this is that all stakeholders should work together to ensure that the community buys Gigg Lane for the people of Bury, allowing football to continue in our historic stadium?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. We have had many conversations about the situation in Bury. Indeed, I support the goals of trying to get Bury back again in some form, as it is so important. One of the underlying principles and thrusts of this very review is to make sure that another Bury situation never happens again. I agree with what he is saying and I would be happy to provide what support I can to him directly.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The 15th of May 2010 is etched in my memory as the sad day that Ross County was beaten by Dundee United in the cup final. Football is for everyone, particularly in Scotland, as the SNP spokesman, hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), has pointed out. Will the Minister have the closest possible negotiations with Ministers in the Scottish Government, and will he think about consulting the Scottish fan base, because the fans will have a lot to say?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am sorry that that date 11 years ago is still scarred in the hon. Gentleman’s memory. Indeed, he is right; we have constructive meetings at both ministerial and official level with the Scottish Government. Just last week or the week before, I met Scottish sports Ministers and sports Ministers from across the devolved Administrations precisely to share learnings, experiences and best practice. The fan-led review will be part of future discussions. I understand that fans from Scotland—I am not sure how many—have already contributed to the review through online submissions. We appreciate their involvement.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend has said, football clubs are at the very heart of local communities, including the mighty Leicester City, which has its training ground in my Loughborough constituency—and I am very proud about it too. Does he agree that the fans are at the centre of the national game, so it was absolutely right that the review was fan-led, and that it is what the fans deserve?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Absolutely. It is always a pleasure to talk all things sport with my hon. Friend, who represents one of the sportiest constituencies in the country, which appropriately has an incredibly sport-loving Member of Parliament. She is right to praise Leicester City and to focus on the fan-led aspect of the review, which is precisely why we had such levels of engagement from fans across the country. The outcomes of the online survey show overwhelming support for many of the measures outlined in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, and we need to take that very seriously indeed.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I also join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who I call my hon. Friend in this case.

The reports of the report are extremely promising, but if we are going to create the post of a regulator, that regulator must have not simply legal power, but the resource base needed to do the job. The same is true if we are going to give some control to supporters. Will the Minister guarantee that the supporters will have both the resource and the legal capacity to exercise that kind of control? Importantly, will it be clear that the objectives of the regulator will include the fact that football is a sport belonging to the community, not simply a commodity to be bought and sold like my club Manchester United or my other club Rochdale, which recently fought off a malicious takeover?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I recognise that the report is rather hefty at 160 pages, so perhaps not everybody has yet read every single element of it, but the summary reports are broadly accurate. I would not misread my comments; in principle, we support the regulator, but of course the details need to be worked on, including the scope, powers and resources, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has articulated. That is why I cannot come here today and say, “Absolutely, 100%”. We need to work on some elements, including the ways of working. In principle, we absolutely accept the idea of a regulator. It has overwhelming support in the country, and I hope that everybody watching can see that it has overwhelming support in this House.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on this review.

The English football pyramid includes five Welsh football clubs, including Wrexham football club, which is the fourth-oldest professional side in the world. Therefore, if my hon. Friend is going to take forward the proposals into legislation, will he assure the House that he will be liaising closely with the Welsh Government and obtaining all necessary legislative consent?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, indeed; I can give my right hon. Friend that confirmation. He is absolutely right that we need to consider the clubs in Wales. I was delighted last year to visit Wrexham, which has some interesting and enthusiastic new owners, but we also need to consider the other clubs. Any changes in the English system would have implications for a limited number of clubs in Wales, and that would be taken into account in any forthcoming recommendations.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a brilliant report by a colleague of ours that everyone regards as their friend and a brilliant Sports Minister in the past. However, everyone knows that there is something not quite right at the heart of football, and it has to be sorted out. With a team and a club like Huddersfield right at the heart of the community, it is much bigger than just where it comes in the league; it is what it puts into the community. Real fans in Huddersfield and elsewhere will welcome this report. For too long we have had rich Russian oligarchs and rich Americans who do not really care about our communities doing what they will. As a Co-operative Member of Parliament, I would like all the clubs to be co-operatives and mutuals, but I know that is not in the report. This is a good report and I hope the Government will support it.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the pivotal role that our football clubs, and indeed many sports clubs, play in their community on an ongoing basis—and boy, did we see during the covid crisis how pivotal they were to their communities. I thank them for all the work they have done up and down the country in that regard. He is right that there are many elements in the report, some of which will require legislation. However, I repeat the appeal to the football authorities and football clubs: there are many recommendations in the report that make a lot of common sense, and they do not need to wait for legislation in order to move forward with changes on, for example, heritage, financial flows, aspects of governance and other things. In fact, I encourage them to start working and moving now.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She and I share a passion in that we are both season ticket holders at Tottenham—and you have to be passionate about football if you are a season ticket holder at Tottenham at the moment. Yes, absolutely, the part about the regulator and all the other bits and pieces in the report are important. I agree a little bit with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) with regard to the money. One of the areas that is really critical is that a successful league attracts money. As co-chair of the all-party Magnitsky sanctions group, I want to make sure that in the end, when the Government implement those, at the heart of it is an ability to stop people bringing money into our sport that actually degrades it and comes in very dangerous and dodgy circumstances.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments; he is absolutely right. There are, understandably, recommendations in the report on the owners and directors test, which is also right. There is an inherent instinct for not really liking too much regulation, but in this case, with football being so unique and so special, because it has shown itself to be incapable of reforming itself, we have to move, albeit reluctantly. Ideally we would not have had to take these measures. He is also right about the huge success and the important economic value of football to this country. A report recently came out that said, for example, that inbound tourism of people going to football matches was worth £1.4 billion alone to the UK economy, with 1.5 million people coming to the country just to watch our football matches. We really do appreciate that value and want to make sure that football is even more successful in the future because it is so pivotal to our communities but also our economy.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her work on this. Newport County is a club run by and for the fans and a stellar example of the benefits that supporter ownership can bring on and off the field. As part of the Minister’s response to this much-needed review of football governance, will he look at the Newport County model of community ownership as an example of how the game should be run—from the ground up?

[Nigel Huddleston]

We should be playing a game of football bingo today and see how many clubs we can tick off. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am sure I speak for the author of the report and everybody else in saying that we do not want to give the impression that all of football is bad. There are many, many examples up and down the country of incredibly well-run clubs and models of engagement with fans that are admirable and that we really need to applaud. Indeed, we would like to see more of these successful co-operative models adopted in other parts of the country. She is absolutely right to point out the positives as well.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on producing such an excellent report and doing so at pace. Kettering Town football club is a popular local football club with a proud and long heritage and historical footballing success. It has scored more goals in all rounds of the FA cup than any other football club in the country and was the first club in the country to have sponsorship on its shirts. We need to get more money into grassroots football clubs like Kettering Town. Will the Minister therefore look favourably at the recommendations on the levy on transfer fees, which are currently astronomical? More of that money needs to go down to grassroots football.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that piece of trivia—we learn something new every day. He is right that the flow of football finance is pivotal and it is important for the ecosystem that the grassroots succeed as well. We have already seen some changes and movement from the top tiers to grassroots and lower tiers, and the message today is that we would like to see more. Through the arm’s length bodies of Government and indeed football itself, we want to see more money flowing through to the all-important grassroots levels.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Some premier league footballers get paid more for a single match than the entire balance sheet value of clubs such as my local constituency team of East Fife. That indicates the gulf in resources. Can I press the Minister on what action he intends to take to prevent entirely unsuitable individuals or organisations from swallowing up more and more football clubs? Does he agree that it is too important to be left purely to self-regulation? Does he agree that it is time for legislation to prevent people who are unfit to be given a licence to run a pub from taking over football clubs in England, Scotland or anywhere else?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the future regulatory environment needs to look at a whole host of things. We will therefore consider the powers, responsibilities and resources of any regulator. He is also right that—I have said this before, and it is clear in the report—we cannot divorce financial flows from governance. The financial flows within sport, including purchasing and acquisition, are an important part, and we will respond in detail in due course.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her excellent report. In my constituency I have Worksop Town—the Tigers—who are the fourth oldest club in the world. Worksop Town faced oblivion not too long ago but were saved by the fans and the community all pulling together to raise funds. We also had a generous benefactor as part of that. I am also a very long-suffering supporter of Notts County, who are the oldest professional club in the world, which I admit is hard work. Once upon a time, I was technically an owner of Notts County as I was a member of the supporters’ trust that took over the club. It was very well meaning and seemed to be a great model, but it was a fairly unmitigated disaster: we did not really have any money to invest and that caused problems down the line. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, as is emphasised in the report, we must concentrate on a partnership between fans and owners and that, unfortunately, one cannot exist without the other?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree completely. It is really important that all clubs take their responsibility to their fans incredibly seriously. Unfortunately, as we saw with the European super league proposals, that relationship had broken down with some clubs. However, in the lower leagues in particular, we see much better relationships between owners and fans. Again, one of the important messages is that many owners have a great relationship with the clubs and the fanbase, including some of the international owners. It can work. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of ensuring that that relationship is pivotal in any future business model.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her work on the issue and for championing the cause. The Minister has said many times to hon. Members across the House that he and the Secretary of State agree with the principle of the recommendations, and he has talked about legislation possibly next year. May I push him further for the detail of the Department’s formal response to the report as soon as possible? Millions of fans across the UK are waiting to know what the Minister and Secretary of State will do on timescales. It cannot be that, in a year’s time, we are still here debating it through another urgent question.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I absolutely appreciate the sense of urgency, because one basis of the report was to ensure that some of the crises that we have seen in the sport do not happen again, so there is an urgent need for action. On the process, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is an independent report that the Government need to respond to formally. I do not want to pre-empt those conclusions today; we need to do some work. I can tell him, however, that my first meeting to discuss the response to the report happened this morning. I will then need to have some conversations with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting next to me, about the process and where we go forward as well—I am sure that he also heard the comments of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore).

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for all her work on this excellent report. In my constituency, I have a series of very small clubs, such as Didcot Town, Wantage Town and Wallingford Town, which are often run on a shoestring by volunteers who put in their own money to keep them going. Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that, when he considers the report’s recommendations, he will think about how we can protect clubs such as those, not just clubs in the top two divisions? If they go, the community loses something important.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the pivotal role that clubs such as his play in their communities, as we have seen particularly in the last two years. It is vital that we put them on a sustainable and sound footing, so financial flows within the football ecosystem were part of the review. There is a lot of money in football, but it is not always in the right place.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

The report suggests that the ban on drinking alcohol in the stands could be lifted. Although that may help to bolster club finances, it could have huge consequences for antisocial behaviour, particularly at big games when team rivalries can cause tensions to run high. Have the Government considered the impact that the ban’s removal could have? What measures would they put in place to mitigate that?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady will be aware that one of the recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is a pilot programme, rather than a full, wholesale removal in one fell swoop. In responding to the report we will consider all the aspects that the hon. Lady and others have mentioned, because there are many stakeholders with views and opinions about that.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Blackpool football club has suffered greatly over much of the past 10 years because of the actions of an irresponsible owner. Thankfully, the club is now in much better hands under its new chairman Simon Sadler and success is following on the pitch. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the new owners and directors test for clubs that the review outlines, which will hopefully help to avoid the situation we saw in Blackpool being widespread among other clubs?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes some important points. Without pre-empting our conclusions to the report’s recommendations, everybody is aware that the current owners and directors test has not fulfilled all of its expectations. Many issues and concerns have been raised about it, so my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has made recommendations in the report that we will seriously consider. I praise the new owners because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) has shown, a change of attitude and ownership can change a club’s position in its community overnight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Like the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), I am a Leicester City supporter, which proves that the fanbase for the club transcends not only the Chamber politically, but the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her hard work and endeavours. The Minister is aware that the beautiful game can turn ugly when money becomes the only consideration for clubs. How will the reforms allow a structured approach without removing the ability for club governors to be innovative and make new calls? It is a delicate balance, as he has said, but does he believe that the Government have reached that point?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. We always need to ensure that the balance is right. The principle is that we want football to be even more successful and sustainable in future, which means encouraging and supporting innovation and investment. We need to make sure that that signal is out there, but that needs to be done responsibly. It is fantastic that he is a Leicester City fan. It is amazing how many new fans come out in this place when clubs are successful.

[Mr Speaker]

We must not forget the mighty Bolton Wanderers either.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

2. What steps she is taking to help support LGBTQ+ inclusion in sport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that sport is for everyone and inclusion is vital. We continue to see some progress in this area—for example, I pay tribute to Josh Cavallo for his leadership in becoming the first top-league male footballer to come out as gay while still playing professionally. I hope that we see others follow his lead.

At the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we work closely with Sport England and UK Sport to ensure that people from all backgrounds feel included in sport. As part of that work, the updated code for sports governance will soon require sports governing bodies to agree a diversity and inclusion action plan. That will further support LGBT+ inclusion in sport throughout the country.

[Hannah Bardell]

I very much share the Minister’s sentiments regarding Josh Cavallo, who has bravely come out, but he is still the only male gay footballer in the professional game in the world. Given the fact that we still do not have any other openly gay male footballers, what message does the Minister think it sends that Qatar—a country that strictly represses homosexual people, with homosexual acts punishable by a decade in prison for non-locals and death for local Muslims—is set to hold the next World cup? Does he agree that nations that treat LGBTQ people in such an abhorrent way should not be gifted international competitions like the World cup?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady will be aware that we have frank conversations at international level with our counterparts around the world on issues such as human rights and, indeed, gay rights, and we will continue to have those conversations. I would also like to focus on the power of sport to highlight inclusion and diversity and to bring us together. I will focus on the positive things that sport can do over the major sporting events in the coming year, as will, I am sure, the whole House.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Inclusivity applies not just to the LGBTQ+ community, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) rightly highlighted, but to people of south Asian and, in fact, all minority heritage. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend share my consternation that the former chair of Yorkshire county cricket club had not even read the seminal Fletcher report on the lack of inclusivity at the county? Does he agree that the response to Mr Rafiq’s brave testimony given in this House must be not only to clear out the Augean stables at Yorkshire but to ensure that the institutionally racist blocking of minority-community talent is stopped forever? We need a Kick It Out for cricket, right now.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes some very important points. I applaud his Select Committee’s work this week in giving Azeem Rafiq a platform to make the comments that he made. It was difficult to hear because it was harrowing testimony. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Fletcher report, which is pretty old, was clearly not acted on and should have been. I assure him that we have had frank conversations over the past couple of weeks with the England and Wales Cricket Board and others involved in cricket. I have had reassurance that the ECB takes the issue seriously and will act, and Tom Harrison has promised me that, with every fibre of his being, he will take action. But he and I know that we will judge the ECB on its deeds, not its words, and if it fails to act appropriately, we will not hesitate to intervene further.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am sure the Secretary of State will join the Minister in congratulating Josh Cavallo, the only top-tier footballer in the world currently playing to have come out publicly as gay. He will be an inspiration for LGBT kids everywhere who love football. Does she agree that it is a damning indictment of football in this country that no professional player in the game who is currently playing has felt safe enough to come out publicly? Will she join me in calling on football bodies on these islands to look urgently at why that is and to do all they can to create an environment in which players feel safe to come out and be the role models we all need?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we investigated these very issues when we worked together on the Select Committee. It is a sad indictment of football that there has been an environment in which so many people do not feel they can express who they are—that is a terrible situation to be in. I agree that we all need to work together across all sports, not just football, to ensure that people feel comfortable in who they are.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

3. What recent steps her Department has taken to help support bids from sports bodies to host major sporting events.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

The Government are fully committed to working with event organisers to bid for and host major sporting events. Over the past 15 years, some of the world’s most iconic events have taken place in the UK. That has cemented our position as a global home for these events, and we have an exciting programme of events in 2022, including the Commonwealth games, the women’s UEFA European championships, and something close to your heart, Mr Speaker, the rugby league world cup.

[Craig Tracey]

I thank the Minister for that response. It was great to see that the Department was successful in two of the bids in the spending review, but, as the Minister is aware, there was a third unsuccessful bid, which was to bring the Ryder cup back to England for the first time since 2002. Will the Minister confirm that it is still very much his ambition to continue with this 2031 Ryder cup bid? If it is, would he like to visit the Belfry in my constituency, which would be a perfect location for the event, so that he can see for himself the fantastic facilities that are on offer there?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for all the work that he does with the all-party group for golf. As he mentioned, there is ongoing work to explore the potential of a possible English bid to host the 2031 Ryder cup for the first time in England since 2002. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and UK Sport are in close contact with the key partners and venues, and our collective teams continue to work together to conclude this feasibility work and decide on the next steps. It is about the work as well as the finances here, and we will continue to work on this matter in every way that we can. I would be more than happy to visit his constituency and the Belfry and perhaps get round quite a few holes, including the last one.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you and I both support major sporting events coming to the UK, but I want to return briefly to the situation in cricket. The lesson for all sports is that those who fail to deal with cultures of racism and prejudice will ruin our country’s reputation, not build it. I know, Mr Speaker, that you and I, and all Members, Ministers and shadow Ministers in this House were heartbroken listening to Azeem Rafiq yesterday, but, as the Minister has said, it is deeds not words that will make a difference, and that goes for the Government as well. Will the Minister place in the Commons Library any and all correspondence that he has had with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and can he tell the House what discussions he has had with it about its powers and resources and whether they are enough to deal with what we know, and have known for a long time, are chronic problems in sport?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady and I are at one in terms of the intent and what she said there about the abhorrence of what we have heard in cricket this week and, indeed, over a period of time. She is also absolutely right about issues in broader sport. I will happily place whatever documents are appropriate in the Library—I cannot promise to do so with every single document or discussion, because, as the hon. Lady knows, there are sometimes confidentiality and frank discussion concerns that inhibit our ability to put out every single piece of correspondence, but I will happily talk further with the hon. Lady, one to one, about this issue.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

4. What progress she has made on introducing legislative proposals to establish a new regulatory framework to tackle harmful content online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Up and down the country, local councils are setting their budgets for next year. Due to the lack of help in this Government’s Budget last month, there will be more closures of leisure centres and swimming pools. When will the sports Minister step in to provide funding to stop these devastating losses?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we have stepped in to support sport to the tune of £1 billion during the pandemic, with £100 million specifically to support leisure centres, to enable them to survive during covid and then remain open. We are always willing to work together with local councils, which also have skin in the game and responsibilities for the delivery of local leisure facilities, to ensure that everybody can swim.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Last night I met the national Girl Guide advocates, who spoke passionately about the need to tackle online abuse and cyber-flashing, which is made much more scary when it is anonymous. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cares deeply about these issues. Will she meet me to discuss the ten-minute rule Bill I am introducing next week to look at choice of verification?

Walter Smith OBE: Contribution to Scottish Football

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this debate today about a true Scottish footballing great, and for the moving contributions that he and many others have made today. I know that many others would have liked to contribute, but are not able to be in the Chamber today. I also send my condolences to Walter Smith’s wife, Ethel, and the rest of his family and close friends and pay tribute to an absolutely incredible ambassador for football in this country. The fact that a diehard Celtic fan has tabled this debate to celebrate a Rangers legend is testament to Walter Smith’s legacy, his reach across football and so much more.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

That legacy is not just about Rangers and Celtic, but Everton. What a fantastic manager Walter was at Everton. On this side of the House, we wish to say to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) that Walter cut across all divides. He was just a very good man and a very good manager. I think that is a lesson to us all in this place and beyond. We should celebrate his life and perhaps in future we should just understand, given how he cut across all divides, that we are all one in that respect. He was a great football manager. From my friends at Everton football club, I know he was an absolutely delightful man in many respects.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I could not agree more. While Walter is best known for his managerial career, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, he did play more than 100 times for Dundee United. Aside from a brief spell in Dallas, he played his entire career in the Scottish league. His greatest impact though, as we have heard, is when he made that all-important transition to management. Over more than two decades, he took charge of teams at the very top of the elite game in this country. As we have heard, there was his incredible performance at Glasgow Rangers, where he won 10 titles, multiple Scottish cups and Scottish league cups, including the domestic treble in 1993. He also completed a record-equalling ninth league title in a row near the end of his first spell at the club—a record that still stands to this day. To have established such dominance at the top of the Scottish game, given the ever-changing nature of our domestic leagues, is a true testament to his managerial prowess.

Smith is also remembered for his activities further south; as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) just mentioned, he was at Everton for four notable years. Some may recall he then briefly spent time in the dugout with another Scottish great, Sir Alex Ferguson, at Manchester United. Everton may have regretted that move across the M62 though, after an example of Smith’s eye for talent, which I have heard a lot about, benefited his new side. Smith had spotted a certain Wayne Rooney when he was just 14 years old and scoring regularly for the under-19s. Some 559 appearances and 253 goals a few years later, it is clear that Smith was on to something. That is just one example of his scouting and coaching prowess. Former Everton and Rangers captain David Weir once claimed that Smith had a “sixth sense” when it came to the needs of his players.

During Smith’s spell at Man U, he was credited with playing a key role in the development of no less than one Cristiano Ronaldo, helping him emerge arguably into one of the best players who has ever played the game. Smith’s success in club football was rewarded ultimately with the men’s Scottish national team job in 2004.

Smith did not just produce one-off performances. Scotland rose a remarkable 70 places in the FIFA world rankings during his time at Hampden—a truly incredible feat. It is not just what he achieved with Scotland, which of course was remarkable, but how he did it. That has been a very clear theme in what we have been hearing this evening. In appointing Tommy Burns, a rival from his time as Celtic manager, as his assistant, he helped to unite a nation of football fans.

Smith would, I am sure, have been delighted with the progress of the national team on Friday, after they confirmed a place in the World cup qualifying play-offs with the 2-0 victory in Moldova. I am sure that hon. Members, particularly on a certain side of the House, will join me in wishing Steve Clarke and his exciting young squad the very best of luck for the play-off campaign.

Off the pitch, it was fair to say Smith did not suffer fools gladly. It has been interesting to do some background reading on Walter, and it is probably true to say that he would occasionally have used some unparliamentary language that I am not allowed to repeat this evening, tempted though I am.

As we have heard again and again, Smith was not just a great football manager, but a great man. That was illustrated by the awarding of an OBE for services to association football in 1997. He clearly made a huge impact on all those he worked with, and will be remembered fondly by his colleagues and supporters at club and national level. He is yet another example of the positive influence that our sportspeople and sport can have on the many lives that sport can touch.

I would like to sign off this debate with another thanks to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for enabling the House to celebrate an incredible life. It is one that made such an important contribution to the national game in this country, and to many millions of Rangers fans and beyond. Rangers chairman, Douglas Park, summed him up perfectly when he said that

“he was much more than just a football manager. Walter was a friend to many, a leader, an ambassador and most of all a legend.”

I could not agree more.

Perhaps most importantly, a message to Ethel and Walter’s family is what a remarkable legacy it is that Walter has left because, even this evening, he has managed to unite the House of Commons. Thank you, Walter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Brendan, in my experience, no one has been paid more touching tributes in an Adjournment debate that I have heard. Please could you send our deepest condolences to Walter Smith’s family from all of us at the House of Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is, as others have said, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I commend the right hon. Member for Central Devon for bringing the Bill forward. It is limited in scope and effect. It extends existing powers, and we had a good discussion on Second Reading about the principles that sit behind it. As such, at this point, we have nothing further to add.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, which has strong Government support. I also thank the outstanding former Minister for Digital and Culture, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, for eloquently setting out that Government support on Second Reading and for being a much-valued Committee member.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon mentioned that the Bill passed Second Reading with supportive remarks from hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is testament to the positive impact that the Bill will have on museums right across the UK. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed Government funding of £850 million for cultural and heritage infrastructure, which will help to safeguard national treasures and boost culture in local communities and on high streets. An additional £150 million investment was also announced for national museums and other Department for Culture, Media and Sport public bodies to help them recover from covid-19.

That funding recognises the important role that culture and heritage sectors play in our society. Our museums and galleries must be able to operate as effectively as possible in order to continue to carry out the enriching and educational work that they do for the public. The Bill seeks to make a practical, sensible change to existing legislation that will make the exhibition planning of our museums and galleries easier, and reinforce good relationships with international lenders and overseas partners. It is therefore a timely proposal that reflects the Government’s continued support for cultural sectors.

It has been emphasised that the risk of seizure of cultural objects while they are on loan in the UK is small, but the contribution immunity from seizure makes to the core activity of museums is evidently great. This weekend, the V&A will open its latest exhibition, “Fabergé in London: Romance to Revolution”, showcasing a host of fascinating artefacts, many of which are on loan from Russian institutions. Without immunity from seizure, those loans would not have gone ahead, nor would National Museums Scotland have been able to borrow some of the objects featured in last year’s exhibition, “Tyrannosaurs”, and China’s terracotta warriors would not have made it to National Museums Liverpool the year before that.

Museums are critical to the UK’s £75-billion tourism industry and the 4 million jobs that the sector supports, and the ability to put on international blockbuster exhibitions is a huge selling point of many of them. Borrowing objects allows museums to stage exhibitions and displays that would not otherwise be possible, and enables them to further contextualise their own collections. These loans create opportunities for museums to attract new audiences, but also to re-engage their existing visitor base.

We must not forget that underpinning many of these successful exhibitions is an understanding with international partners that, subject to conditions being met, the objects will be fully protected from seizure during their stay in the UK. Opportunities for immunity from seizure protection to be extended, where justified, will alleviate potential unforeseen obstacles. The proposed opportunity for a three-month extension is more than a useful contingency for when things do not go to plan; it is a recognition that the partnerships our museums build with international institutions are very much worth maintaining. The extension of that protection will come as a welcome measure to the many foreign lenders who insist on immunity from seizure protections when they loan their precious objects. By reinforcing their confidence, the Bill will help to ensure that the UK continues to host some of the finest cultural objects from across the globe. I urge the Committee to support the Bill.

Licensed Standing in Seated Areas: Early Adopters Programme

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

On 22 September, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority announced an early adopters programme for licensed standing in seated areas at football stadia. The programme will be implemented in the second half of this football season between 1 January 2022 and 31 July 2022. I can confirm today that the football clubs that will act as early adopters are Cardiff City, Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur.

The early adopters programme represents a significant step towards fulfilling the Government’s manifesto commitment to work with fans and clubs towards introducing licensed standing in seated areas at football grounds. It will enable the Government to evaluate how successful licensed standing areas could be as a strategy to manage persistent standing across five different football grounds with varying challenges, before it considers making any substantive policy changes or wider implementation. It will be subject to a formal independent evaluation.

I have today laid a statutory instrument which directs the SGSA to amend the “all-seater condition”, which requires stadia to provide all-seated accommodation, in any licence to admit spectators issued to these five football clubs under the Football Spectators Act 1989 by the SGSA. This will allow the five specified clubs to admit spectators to their home grounds to watch designated football matches from a standing position, provided certain conditions are satisfied. This means doing so in areas of the ground where the seating accommodation has been adapted so there are seats incorporating a barrier or seats with an independent barrier. The SGSA has produced supplementary guidance (SG01) providing further information about the standards-requirements which must be met. This guidance is available online. These modern—non-terraced—stands or areas with seats therefore still allocate one person to one seat.

The selection of these clubs followed an expression of interest process which was conducted by the SGSA between 22 September and 6 October 2021. The SGSA invited applications from football clubs in the top two tiers of professional football in England and Wales currently subject to the all-seater policy to become early adopters of licensed standing in seated areas. The SGSA analysed the applications against the published early adopter criteria, which are available online, before providing written recommendations to DCMS. This advice was carefully considered before receiving final ministerial approval.

In addition, prior to their publication, the early adopter criteria and licence conditions for standing in seated areas were subject to a six-week consultation—28 July-6 September 2021—with key stakeholders. This included safety committee members—the Premier League, English Football League, Football Association, UK Football Policing Unit, Football Supporters’ Association, Football Safety Officers’ Association, Safety Advisory Group Regional Chairs Lead and the National Counter-Terrorism Security Office—local authorities, football governing bodies and licensed football clubs. DCMS worked closely with the SGSA to ensure that consultation responses were used to inform the final criteria clubs were required to meet to become early adopters, which are available online.

The Government’s approach is driven by safety considerations. Given the wider context and background to the current all-seater policy, it is right that we carefully consider any wider change in policy, looking at all the evidence and assessing the potential safety impacts of any change. The Government are not complacent about spectator safety, nor are we complacent about the safety policies that have served spectators well for many years. We will continue to work closely with the SGSA, football clubs, the football governing bodies and local authorities to ensure that spectator safety remains paramount.

[HCWS376]