Football Governance Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), as I have been watching Reading since 1965 and the last two years have been as miserable a time as any—even if supporting Reading is often through thick and quite a lot of thin.

Like everyone else in the House, I welcome the eventual arrival of the Bill. I pay tribute to Ministers for finally getting to this point, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for her work on the fan-led review. Much of the Bill is welcome and necessary, but it is worth putting it into a historical context. As I say, I grew up watching football in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, when it was terrible. It was described at the time as a slum game in slum facilities. Grounds were crumbling, the fan experience was terrible and there was a huge amount of violence. Because some football fans behaved like animals, all fans were treated like animals, and it was altogether miserable.

Today, however, the top end of football is regarded around the world as one of the best things about this country. I remember a former tourism Minister telling me that the three things that make people like Britain and want to come here are the royal family, the BBC and premier league football, so it is important to put the various legitimate criticisms of things that happen in football into that context. The premier league has done some great things for English football, but this Bill comes from a fan-led review, and every proposal should be assessed as to whether it serves the interests of fans at all levels of the game. We need an independent regulator because the leagues, and therefore the clubs, cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and I were both there in 2006 when Reading won the championship, putting four past Derby. What a moment that was. I do not know whether he agrees, but I think the current players and manager are doing a cracking job just to keep the club alive.

[Damian Green]

I echo that. The fans, the players and the staff have formed a bond of survival against Dai Yongge, which shows the strength of feeling that all football fans have for their club. That is what we want to enhance.

There have been debacles such as the European super league and the increasing number of clubs whose fans have suffered—it is not just Reading, although Reading has featured a lot in this debate because it is the latest example. We hope that no more fans will have to suffer in the way that we have suffered.

The question is whether the Bill will be effective in practice. One issue at the heart of the Bill is financial distribution. How do we distribute the enormous sums generated by the Premier League without killing that golden goose? It is a difficult balancing act. The regulator cannot be a panacea, and it will have to be both tough and smart.

There are specific questions that need answering. First, are the backstop powers sufficient? In the end, the regulator has to choose between a Premier League offer and an EFL demand, and there is certainly an argument to be had about whether the regulator should have powers to make its own settlement, possibly involving other bodies in deciding on what the settlement should be.

We have debated parachute payments, and I confess that I am still slightly confused as to the Government’s attitude and desire towards parachute payments, which are the key to why the championship is a very skewed league. I have been looking at the figures provided by Fair Game, a very good lobbying group. Currently, for every £1,000 of the broadcasting deal, £882 goes to each premier league club, £73.48 goes to championship clubs in receipt of parachute payments and £32.85 goes to championship clubs not in receipt of parachute payments. More than twice as much goes to the clubs with parachute payments as goes to the clubs without parachute payments. That is how we got a skewed league.

The great disparity between the premier league payment, which people might say is fair enough because it attracts the broadcasting money, and the championship payment does not reflect attendances. For every 1,000 people who attended football matches in the 2022-23 season, 497 attended premier league matches and 234 attended championship matches. Championship crowds were just under half of premiership crowds, but the distribution of money to premier league clubs is more than 10 times as much, so it does not reflect what fans are doing.

The next question is how we solve the problem of people like Reading’s owner. He is a reckless owner who is immune to sanctions because he is not in this country. He spent money, broke rules, incurred penalties, lost interest and went away. The only penalties left, because he is ignoring the financial penalty, are points deductions. I agree with the EFL on parachute payments but, frankly, it has been a bit of a chocolate teapot on protecting Reading’s interest. All the EFL has done is deduct points, which just punishes the fans.

What in the Bill will help that? I think the licensing regime will help, because a competent regulator clearly would not let someone like Dai Yongge own a football club in the first place, even though the EFL did. The question still remains of what happens if an owner’s circumstances change, such as if they lose a huge sum of money and cannot afford to support their club any more, or if they just lose interest. They might die, and their family or business associates who take over might not care about the club. What happens then? I would make one suggestion to Ministers, which would involve only a small tweak to the Bill: clause 52 allows the regulator to levy money from every licensed club, so why should some of that levy money not be used to set up a survival fund? Where a completely reckless owner is walking away and leaving a club to go out of business, as Dai Yongge has done in two other countries, such a fund would allow the regulator, over the few months when a club needs to find a new owner, to pay things such as the national insurance that has not been paid at Reading or the wages that were not paid for a couple of months. I accept that would not be a long-term solution, but having a short-term solution would make a huge difference. As the Bill already sets up the possibility of a levy, I suggest extending its possible uses to set up this survival fund, so that if something like this happens again, the new system of regulation will explicitly be able to cope with it.

The introduction of the Bill marks a big step forward and I hope that it survives largely intact. As I, like others, have said, there are improvements to be made, and I urge Ministers at all times to keep the interests of fans at the front of their consideration, because without the fans, there is no point to professional sport.

Listed Buildings Protection

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 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 Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for securing this debate and for highlighting such an important issue. He spoke passionately about not only his own constituency but the heritage ecosystem. I am also particularly impressed that he spoke eloquently and passionately about my own constituency. He was right to highlight the issues and concerns.

I thank those who have participated in today’s debate, because we all care passionately about our nation’s heritage, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend has outlined. It is heartbreaking when parts of our history are wiped out because of ignorance or stupid decisions. I can assure him that I and the Department take our heritage responsibilities incredibly seriously, because we do not want to repeat the many mistakes of the past. However, we need to make sure that systems and processes are in place to minimise the chances of that happening, both at central and local government levels.

I recognise the rich heritage in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys. We spoke before the debate about how many sites are there and right next door. Blackpool is Britain’s favourite seaside resort for very good reasons and each year millions of visitors come to walk on its piers and beaches. The north pier, which is grade II listed and within the town conservation area, is just one of Blackpool’s iconic and much-loved structures. Many are listed, including the Winter Gardens and the Blackpool Tower, so my hon. Friend is right to be proud of the heritage in his constituency and nearby.

I start by setting out where we are on heritage protection, especially the process of listing buildings. My hon. Friend mentioned the strengths and some of the challenges and weaknesses. The listing process is a celebration of buildings of special architectural and historical interest. It plays a vital part in helping to safeguard the legacy of our built environment. Listing protects a diverse range of buildings in this country—nearly 380,000—from grand palaces to private houses. Any member of the public may apply for a building they consider to be potentially of special architectural or historic interest to be considered for listing. Applications come through Historic England, the Government’s heritage advisers, who assess the application and then make a recommendation to the Government. I note that my hon. Friend is very familiar with Historic England and has engaged with them in the past, as has the all-party parliamentary group for listed properties. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for his contributions as well.

The final decision on listing then goes to the Secretary of State, often via myself as heritage Minister—the junior Minister in the Department. On average we get 1,000 applications each year, many from local planning authorities, amenity societies—such as the Twentieth Century Society, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is a member of—and individual members of the public. Most of the remainder originate from a strategic programme of listing properties from Historic England—it proactively tries to identify potential sites for listing.

All listing applications are considered; they are assessed in accordance with the polices set out in the Secretary of State’s “Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings”. If a building is deemed to satisfy those principles, it is listed and formally recognised as a heritage asset of national significance. The factors taken into account when assessing a building’s historical or architectural significance include its age, rarity and aesthetic appeal. It could also be considered significant due to its national interest. Thus it is the building itself, but also what happened in the building, that could be important. If there are relevant grounds for doing so, anyone can challenge a listing decision, requesting a review within 28 days of the decision’s being published.

I will respond directly to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys made about the 30-year rule. It is not as hard and fast a rule as it may appear. The reason why buildings less than 30 years old are not normally considered to be of special architectural or historic interest is because we usually expect listing to stand the test of time—a phrase that my hon. Friend used. It is not a hard-and-fast rule, and some buildings are listed despite being of relatively recent construction, although it is usually one of outstanding quality or particular historic interest. There is a degree of discretion here.

Once a building is listed, it is a criminal offence to demolish it or carry out works, alterations or extensions that affect the special architectural or historic interest without having first obtained listed building consent from the relevant local planning authority—usually the local council. The protections in place to determine changes to listed properties are robust; local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to policies on conservation or enhancement of the historic environment, set out in the national planning policy framework. It is important to recognise that listing does not prevent a building from changing use, nor does it protect the businesses, large or small, that may operate from such buildings. New users can sometimes help sustain historic buildings for the future. Indeed, many of our historic buildings have changed purpose over, in some cases, many centuries and that has enabled them to survive.

On enforcement powers, while the current protections are robust, they can always be strengthened. That is something I pay particular attention to. The debate is timely given that the Government are currently taking through Parliament the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which contains enhanced heritage protection measures. I will respond to the points made by my hon. Friend about that. There is a lot in the Bill, but I will give some highlights. The Bill will make it simpler for local planning authorities to step in and protect at-risk heritage assets through the use of new temporary stop notices for listed buildings. The Bill also strengthens urgent works powers, where urgent works notices can be served reasonably to a building that is in occupation. Previously, it was parts of the building not in use, as opposed to the whole building. The Bill includes the removal of compensation in relation to building preservation notices, which will encourage local authorities to serve those building preservation notices more effectively.

On interim protection, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, my Department already has a mechanism to step in where a building is deemed to be at risk. An emergency listing can happen at pace if the building is at risk of demolition or alteration. Building preservation notices can be served on such buildings for a period of up to six months to preserve them in their current state. Blanket interim protection for all buildings that are assessed for listing is an extreme measure, and we deem it to be an unbalanced approach for owners and developers. Providing interim protection for all buildings that are put forward for applications would potentially delay the planning system process, and we believe that our measures are a more balanced approach.

On the diversity of buildings on the list, many listed buildings are the result of strategic designation projects. In general, the list has grown organically over the years in response to individual applications—often in response to threats posed to particular buildings. Consequently, it is recognised that some types of buildings and some periods are better represented on the list than others.

With Historic England, we recognise that there may therefore be an under-representation of early 20th-century buildings, as my hon. Friend identified. Of course, an under-representation is to be expected, given that the 20th century ended only a short while back, and therefore the public tend to be divided on some of the buildings from that era. I can reassure him that many of the proposals that come across my desk tend to be more modern buildings, ranging from brutalist architecture, on which opinion is divided in this House and in the country, to Palladian mansions and so on. Most of the very historic buildings are already listed and have been for some time, and therefore it is not surprising that the bulk of the new listings that come across my desk are more modern, so I see quite a lot of the proposals.

My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet mentioned local listings. Locally important heritage buildings, of course, really do shape our sense of character and distinctiveness—the sense of place that they mentioned. Local planning authorities can formally identify such buildings through the compilation of local heritage lists, which, prepared with input from local communities, complement the national listing and can ensure that due regard is given to the conservation of buildings included on them in relevant planning decisions. The significance of locally listed buildings can be further highlighted through their inclusion in the relevant local historic environment records.

The Government are looking to place historic environment records on a statutory footing through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and that will hopefully overcome some of the inconsistencies that my hon. Friends mentioned. They are right to mention the inconsistency of the resources and the attention paid to our historic buildings. I see that as I travel around the country, but generally I am very impressed by the attention that most local authorities pay to their heritage assets.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys for securing this important debate. As heritage Minister, I think it is right and important to highlight the Government’s policy for listing and protecting our most loved heritage assets across the country. I have taken on board the points raised by my hon. Friend and others, and I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that the Government intend to strengthen heritage protection in the planning system through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will support our efforts in doing so.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), in his excellent speech, mentioned cricket ball manufacture. Does the Minister find it encouraging that the original cricket ball manufacturing factory in Penshurst for the Duke ball is, in fact, listed?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am very pleased indeed that it is, and I am very pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that in the final moments of the debate. I am also Sports Minister, and we could not have a debate without including some element of sport in the discussion.

I am certainly open to having a debate about intellectual assets. At the moment, we have some reservations about what can be included, because it is not clear how far it goes, but there is some merit in looking at such things. Our heritage assets are not just buildings; they also include the countryside. UNESCO listings are increasingly landscapes, not just old buildings and areas. As we progress this debate, options including intellectual property are worthy of discussion. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Superfast Broadband: North East Hertfordshire

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I asked for this debate to enlist the Minister’s help in getting North East Hertfordshire up to speed with superfast broadband. My constituency contains towns such as Letchworth and Royston, which already have good broadband speeds, but there are also many small rural hamlets that do not yet have superfast broadband.

North East Hertfordshire is, geographically, by far the largest constituency in Hertfordshire, yet we have a far lower level of superfast broadband coverage than other parts of the county. I ask the Minister to help me push coverage in my constituency up to the Hertfordshire average of 95% this year, and then to complete the job of reaching the target of close to 99% in 2019.

I have been pressing hard on this, and in the last year, according to the House of Commons Library, coverage in my constituency has gone up from 67% to 77%, but that is far from good enough. We need sustained efforts from Ministers, Openreach and Hertfordshire County Council’s delivery organisation, Connected Counties, to push the figure higher and quicker.

In the last few months I have discussed this matter personally with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; the managing director of Openreach, Mr Steve Haines; and the previous and present leaders of Hertfordshire County Council, the late Rob Gordon and David Williams.

Long ago it was agreed by the Government and this House that the Government would have to fund the roll-out of superfast broadband in non-commercially viable areas such as my local hamlets. Indeed, I was one of the MPs who persuaded the Government that they had to be involved. I remember lobbying Secretaries of State, including my right hon. Friends the Members for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), for such funding and being pleased with their recognition, in successive phases, of the strong case for such coverage being essential infrastructure akin to other utilities. Money was made available.

Despite my part in securing that funding, it has been disappointing and frustrating to watch the lack of progress in connecting up my rural areas. Although successive Ministers have assured me that the county as a whole has achieved first 92% and then 95% coverage, it has only recently been acknowledged that the coverage in my area has edged up at a snail’s pace to the current 84%. It is galling for my constituents to learn that ultrafast broadband is being piloted in Bishop’s Stortford when they are languishing with no coverage or with a few crumbs, such as 0.8 megabits per second. To give an example, 61% of the village of Little Hadham, which is three miles from Bishop’s Stortford, is receiving under 10 megabits per second.

It should not be forgotten that this is not a remote area. Some of the places with the worst coverage, such as those in the Hertford Rural South ward, are less than 20 miles from London. Many people now work from home for some of the week, which is encouraged for London workers to take the strain off the transport system. My constituents, particularly those with caring responsibilities, would like the opportunity to work from home, but they cannot do it without broadband.

There is also a high number of small businesses in those areas, many encouraged by the offer of office space in former farm buildings. Diversification on farms is encouraged by our local councils and by the Government. To give another example, the villages of Weston and Sandon lie close to Stevenage. Stevenage has download speeds of close to 70 megabits per second, whereas 83% of Weston and Sandon is unable even to receive 10 megabits per second.

I am grateful to the Which? organisation for pointing out to me that recent data from Ofcom showed that the average download speed in North East Hertfordshire is 47.8 megabits per second, whereas neighbouring constituencies are at the 60 megabits per second mark. However, Which? analysis of speed tests found that the median download speed in North East Hertfordshire is only 13.9 megabits per second and a quarter of speeds recorded were less than 6.8 Mbps.

I would like to offer the Minister my analysis of the problems in the roll-out process. Connected Counties has operated with Openreach to identify areas that might not be commercially viable, with Connected Counties then offering Openreach subsidy to do the works. When take-up turns out after all to be commercially viable, Openreach returns the subsidy to Connected Counties and it can be used for less commercially viable areas. I am told this return of subsidy has happened in about 50% of cases. It seems to me that it clearly demonstrates that the subsidy has been used for many areas that are in fact commercially viable, meaning that less viable areas have had their roll-out delayed. This overcautious assessment of commercial risk has meant that those like me who pressed for subsidy for areas that are not commercially viable, such as the North East Hertfordshire hamlets, have seen it delayed and been disappointed.

Have Ministers met the chief executive of Openreach, Clive Selley, and the chief finance officer Matt Davies to discuss this and tighten up assessment procedures? Since my latest push on speeding up broadband roll-out, further progress has been made, and it has continued since the last House of Commons Library information became available. The leader of the county council has told me this week that the latest assessment puts coverage in my constituency at 84%, but it is all by fibre to the cabinet, rather than the fibre to the premises that is needed in many small hamlets.

I was staying with friends this weekend in a very rural location in deepest Suffolk and was surprised to learn that they have fibre to the premises with high speeds, when my constituents 20 miles from London have none. I have already taken up with Ministers, Openreach and Hertfordshire County Council the particular case of Wellpond Green and Westland Green, near Standon, whose residents petitioned the House about their situation. In early 2016, many residents signed up with Gigaclear, a competitor of Openreach, for superfast broadband to be installed by March 2017. In about June 2016, Connected Counties, along with Openreach, announced that it was to install superfast broadband in those hamlets by March 2017. The effect was that many residents withdrew from Gigaclear, which decided not to go ahead.

Then in January 2017, to the anger and dismay of residents, Openreach announced that the roll-out had to be re-mapped, and in June 2017 a timetable of 2018-19 was given for superfast broadband. That caused understandable outrage, as the residents had only decided not to proceed with Gigaclear because Openreach had offered the same timetable of March 2017.

I have discussed that unacceptable situation with all those involved and was pleased that Steve Haines of Openreach agreed to bring forward the start of works in the hamlets to June 2018, but the Minister should be aware of the great unhappiness locally with what has happened. Anything she can do to encourage Openreach to bring forward the works even further would be very helpful.

I recognise that the national roll-out is an enormous undertaking with a limited number of providers in the field. Nationally, a great deal has been achieved. However, the subsidy for which I campaigned was designed to ensure that areas that were not commercially viable were connected up. In the past year we have seen coverage in my constituency driven up from 67% to the current 84%, up 17%, but I want to see us hit the county average before the end of 2018 and the national target as soon after that as possible. In this day and age, people living in rural locations near London expect superfast broadband, and it is in the Government’s interest to achieve it. I hope the Minister will ask Openreach, Connected Counties and Hertfordshire County Council to do all they can to ensure that North East Hertfordshire comes up to speed this year and that the unfairness for Wellpond and Westland Greens is addressed now.