Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think, as a society, we want forums such as the ones she reports to close down—they have been harmful. But I recognise that there were others that, maybe pre-emptively, decided to shut down. Perhaps the Minister has further information on how far the reported close-downs were a one-off event, in pre-emption, rather than an ongoing, repeated loss of online spaces.

As I have outlined, we are getting at a more nuanced position from owners and operators of bona fide community forums who are concerned about how to ensure that they are meeting their obligations—in the same way that any person would meet obligations such as those under the Data Protection Act 2018, which has always applied. That is a more nuanced position, far from asking for a full-out repeal of the OSA, but rather asking how the obligations under the Act can be carried out in a proportionate manner.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate—and, as somebody who shares a house with a Newcastle fan, I thank him for a miserable weekend. It is important that we get the safety elements and aspects of the Online Safety Act correct, but does he agree that it should not be used as a blunt tool to stifle freedom of speech online?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I do, but I will come to some of the issues regarding social media platforms in what I am about to say. I certainly would not want to stifle the freedom of speech of Newcastle fans expressing their genuine heartfelt sorrow about yesterday’s events.

I turn now to wider concerns that have been expressed about the Online Safety Act, which, although they are not the motivations of the petition creator, are undoubtedly held by a number of people who signed the petition. The number of petition signatories notably increased in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of age verification requirements that have been applied to significant parts of the internet, from pornography to some elements of social media. Here, I am afraid I find it significantly harder to provide balance in my introduction to the debate, having read the report by the Children’s Commissioner that was published in advance of the implementation of the OSA, which stated:

“It is normal for children and young people to be exposed to online pornography”,

as 70% of children surveyed responded that they had seen pornography online. The report also found:

“Children are being exposed at very young ages…the average age a child first sees pornography online is 13…More than a quarter…of respondents had seen online pornography by the age of 11.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on introducing the debate. He made a particularly excellent contribution to last week’s petition debate on mandatory digital identification; although his party’s leadership may not have thanked him, I am sure his constituents did. He is right that the internet allows unprecedented connection, which is for good, but also for ill. Our job is to balance that inherent tension, while recognising that sometimes there is no balance to be found and that we have to make a choice when it comes to children being served a toxic online diet of extreme content.

When we were in government, that choice was the Online Safety Act, about which thousands of petitioners have raised concerns, believing that its breadth and scope are having too restrictive an effect. I have some sympathy with those concerns, because the Act is large and very complex; although it is proving effective in protecting children in many ways, the implementation undoubtedly comes with challenges, whether that is VPN usage or the inadvertent capturing of no to low-risk sites in compliance duties.

[Peter Fortune]

Childnet has discovered that there has been increased downloading of VPNs by children over the last three months, as adolescents use them to circumvent age verification processes. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said—I presume he was referring to the Open Rights Group. I just had a quick look at the research, and although it says that it is not the youngest children who do that, it is children from the age of 13 up, so these are vulnerable adolescents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the Online Safety Act to be successful, the use of VPNs has to be examined further?

[Julia Lopez]

I agree, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about VPNs—whether they should be age-gated, whether we should look at app store controls so that parents have to consent to children downloading VPN apps, or whether there are other, more effective ways of doing that.

The sites that we have talked about may be smaller community forums, or they may be volunteer-run, but they are often mid-size tech companies that do not have the resources that the social media giants have to navigate the legal risks and intricacies of the Act without diverting precious capacity that might otherwise be used to innovate and expand their businesses. I have talked to some of those businesses. They may have one person who can do legal compliance; if they are looking at the next stage of the OSA’s implementation, they may be pulled off other work that is helping to grow the economy. We have to take that very seriously and look into it. A lot of those sites are effectively no risk whatever, and the OSA is probably too burdensome for them. We do not want the Act to stifle our vital tech sector.

Concerns have been raised about freedom of speech and user privacy. I can understand those concerns in principle; particularly when age verification first came into place over the summer, there were instances where there was a practical impact and posts were restricted. However, it seems that those early examples have been recycled many times to suggest that the Act is having a wholesale dampening effect on what people feel confident saying online, and I am not sure that that is actually the case. Those concerns are often conflated with other issues, such as the policing of tweets, non-crime hate incidents, the application of legislation such as the Public Order Act 2023, and outrageous cases of state overreach, such as that of Graham Linehan. We must also be mindful of those who seek to exaggerate those concerns for the sake of big tech’s commercial interests. I note the comments that the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made about the power that platforms hold.

On the other side of the ledger are worries that it remains relatively straightforward for under-18s to access pornography. There is no foolproof way to age-gate the internet. We have to see the Online Safety Act as a first step in a pushback against the wholly unacceptable situation that we witnessed previously. Of course some children seek out material and will continue to do so with determination, but far too many had previously been stumbling across explicit or illegal material by complete accident.

Studies that have already been cited today suggest that 41% of children first encountered porn on X, rather than seeking it out. If the Online Safety Act has a material impact on reducing that risk, it will have served its purpose. The hon. Member for Milton Keyneps Central (Emily Darlington) provided some truly shocking statistics and rightly said that we are putting porn back on the top shelf. As she was saying that, I thought back to the advent of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts when I was a teenager. They were seen as having dreadfully explicit content that was far too readily available, but they seem quite quaint when we think about what children can access now.

Pornhub reported a 77% reduction in visitors after implementing age verification measures, but it is important to note that the traffic previously going to such sites has not simply disappeared. A chunk of it has shifted to smaller sites that may be riskier because, in some cases, they think they can financially benefit from not implementing age-gating, which is against the law. Those sites need to know that Ofcom fines are coming. No website should assume that it can sidestep its legal duties. The fines are designed to outweigh any short-term commercial advantage gained by ignoring the law.

I do not believe that the best way of dealing with these concerns is to repeal the Online Safety Act, and nobody in the Chamber has advocated for that, but it is for us to review it and to work out how to tighten up child safety while being honest about the aspects of the law that need to change. A very long and winding road led to the previous Conservative Government passing the Act in 2023, but it was one of the first markers on internet regulation to be put down globally that said that the status quo—children having easy access to illegal explicit content—simply could not continue. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) suggested, we cannot have untrammelled freedom for adults in this space, because that status quo caused significant harm to children.

It is right that we now expect more from social media platforms, which were given an opportunity to self-regulate and were found wanting. The Act has driven them to make design changes to help parents, children and teenagers, including Meta’s teen accounts and some aspects of Roblox. Without those protections, more children would encounter harmful content, receive unsolicited contact from adults, and access material that encourages self-harm, eating disorders or even suicide. Families would also continue to face barriers when seeking answers from tech companies following tragedies. Pressure on those companies will continue for as long as we see technology’s pernicious effects on our children, including a chatbot’s recent encouragement of a teenager into suicide.

Despite the criticisms levelled at this law, it remains popular with parents. Parents must remain sovereign in how children are raised, and they must have the parenting confidence to deny phones and social media to their children, but no matter how involved or savvy parents are, they need help with these challenges—challenges that creep into the heart of people’s homes in a way that we have not seen before, and find their way to children through what other children may be sharing with them.

During the years that the Act was being drawn up, we made a lot of changes, including removing the provisions relating to legal but harmful content in 2022. That is good because, as we can see, Ofcom has an enormous job on its hands dealing with some of the biggest online problems, such as age-gating pornography. Had we taken an expansionist approach, we would now be facing far greater problems around free speech, and Ofcom would have an even heavier role—not to mention workload—as arbiter of the public square.

Hon. Members need to think about that carefully: the OSA became a Christmas tree on which everybody hung their niche, individual concerns, and it became unimplementable. If the Labour Government wish to go down a more restrictive route in some of these areas, they have to be mindful of that risk. They need something that can actually be implemented in law and they need to resource the regulator to implement it.

Long before the Act was brought in, the status quo was also having a negative impact on journalistic content. There is lots of discussion about freedom of speech, but I recall having discussions as a media Minister with traditional news content providers that were extremely frustrated by west coast content moderators arbitrarily taking down their content with no opportunity to appeal. With this legislation, we introduced must-carry provisions that would give proper news content providers a greater chance of their content being visible, which is important for journalistic credibility and to make sure that we have truth in online spaces.

As I have said, the Online Safety Act represents the start of a journey as countries grapple to find the right framework through which adults can retain their freedom on the internet while children are treated as children. This debate is particularly timely as a new social media ban was introduced in Australia last week. My party will be watching that closely, but concerns about social media and mobile phones go far beyond the ability to access porn or illegal content.

As a party, the Conservatives are concerned about the impact of social media and smartphone use on children’s mental health, education and social development. I suspect that any hon. Member who has recently been to a school in their constituency will have heard about the challenges to the learning environment, the challenges of the social interactions between children, and the challenges that parents are facing at home, which go way beyond the issue of illegal content. We have also heard other concerns. I liked the way the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) described it as “a veritable chemistry lab of…psychoactive substances”. He also made some interesting observations about safety and how, as a democracy, we must think very carefully about broader harms.

The Act will be statutorily reviewed next year. I would welcome the Minister telling us whether the Government are examining the measures that have been discussed today, including whether GDPR protections on the processing of children’s data might be raised from age 13 to 16. Age-gating also needs attention. Reports of VPN use suggest that children have been circumventing protections, and we must consider whether age-gating should be applied more comprehensively, including to VPN use or via app stores or at device level to close those loopholes. Adults also need to be assured of the privacy preserving nature of the age verification tools that they are using. There are concerns about the volume of sensitive data being collected.

As I have described, we also need to ensure that low-risk tech firms are not being disproportionately burdened. They did a huge amount of work before the July phase of Ofcom’s introduction of age verification, and they are worried that they will need to make a further step change for regulatory compliance, given the burden that will place on them.

Regulation has to remain proportionate, targeting high-risk sites and services without undermining innovation or our competitive position in tech. We also need to examine, as has been discussed many times today, the emerging technologies such as generative AI and chatbots —as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the hon. Member for Worcester. The legal position under the OSA is not yet entirely clear, but children are increasingly exposed to AI-generated content, and we need to know if the Act is flexible enough to deal with innovations of that kind.

As hon. Members have described today, the Online Safety Act is a necessary first step, but it is only the beginning of a much longer fight to protect childhood. We have to create the space for childhood and adolescence away from screens, with all the richness and stimulation that the real world can bring. Parents ultimately can never cease their vigilance. The internet cannot be made wholly safe, and we cannot be naive about that. Ultimately, parents have to remain the ultimate backstop to make sure that their children are safe online—but they need help. It is our role as legislators to provide some of those tools and that assistance to help children through their childhoods.

I hope that we look back at the time before the Online Safety Act and wonder how we ever allowed children to be exposed to the unbridled internet culture that has hitherto been the norm. To return to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, the internet has led to the creation of new bonds and a huge multiplication of opportunity, but simultaneously the opportunity for harm. Sometimes we need to make a choice, and while the Online Safety Act is undoubtedly imperfect, the imperative to protect children will always take precedence. If social media platforms are held to greater account, so be it.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 General Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Jardine. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks in outlining the regulations. The Opposition broadly welcome the regulations, to which His Majesty’s Government committed during discussions on the No.1 regulations before the summer recess.

My first question is on the 5% carve-out. In the other place, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee quoted the correspondence it has had with the Minister’s Department about the carve-out and the way in which it will be used. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said:

“Our judgment is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote”.

We can appreciate where the Government are coming from. Even though the scenario that the previous Government initially looked at—of multiple countries getting together and each seeking to acquire a 15% stake—was perhaps a little far-fetched, it was not entirely implausible. So it is right that this Government have listened and now acted to close that loophole.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I welcome the statutory instrument, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that this is about ensuring not just the future of the free press and editorial independence, but the financial stability of the industry? It is vital that any state-owned investors do not deter legitimate investment or the capital investment that the news industry needs.

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. I agree with his sentiment, and I will come on to explain why. The approach that the Government are taking, of carving out holdings of 5% or less in quoted companies, reduces the risk further. However, will the Minister tell us about the work that has been done by her Department to ensure that even in the unlikely event of foreign-state investors seeking to circumvent the rules, this has been ruled out?

As my noble Friend Lady Stowell said in the other place last week, the path to getting to this point has been rather longer than any of us expected or would have wished. Delay has a price for investors and vendors, as well as for the readers and journalists of our newspapers. My noble Friend took the opportunity to ask about whether and when we might expect a conclusion to this for the sake of The Daily Telegraph, and more broadly, whether His Majesty’s Government will look again at the Enterprise Act 2002 regime to ensure that future scenarios do not have to play out at such length.

We are all aware of the underlying need for investment in our newspapers, national and local, if they are to continue to flourish and perform the job that they do, which is vital for public discourse and democracy in the UK. That is why it is important that we get the rules right in the regulations before us, and that we maintain a framework that properly protects this essential part of our democracy, while still giving room for responsible investment. We need a regime that safeguards independence and free speech, but that also ensures that our newspapers and media organisations have the ability to grow and thrive for years to come.

BBC Leadership

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with the hon. Member. If the BBC did not exist in the times that we live in, we would seek to invent it.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour?

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with the hon. Member. That is why this Government will also resist recent attacks on the institution itself by Members from across the House. The local democracy reporting service that he talks about is a vital part of our local democracy. It also helps to create the next generation of journalists who might not otherwise have the opportunity to work in journalism and tell the stories that matter so much to all of us across this House.

Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 General Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Today’s statutory instrument prescribes the top five flights of the men’s English football pyramid as “specified competitions” for the purposes of the Football Governance Act, and brings them into the scope of the Government’s new regulator. Although I think we all understand and support the desire for stronger governance and transparency across football and sport more broadly, I and many others have concerns about the impact that the statutory instrument will have on smaller clubs. Last week, I spoke to the National League and some of its clubs about their 3UP campaign and their broader concerns about the state of the game. Many were concerned about their ability to comply with the new regulatory demands and paperwork that will soon be coming their way.

The Premier League and its clubs, and, to a certain extent, the Championship and its clubs, can meet the new burdens of red tape the Government’s new regulator will bring, but the smallest clubs—those closer to the foothills of the football pyramid—will struggle. The truth is simple: many of these teams just do not have the capacity, the officials or the financial resources to cope with the new layers of bureaucracy and the increase in costs that the Government’s regulator will bring. That is something I warned the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), of during Committee stage of the Football Governance Act.

In that Committee and in the Chamber, I have said that football is one of England’s greatest success stories. From grassroots pitches to packed stadiums, it embodies our values of teamwork, fair play and community pride, but it is also a fragile ecosystem. If the Government keep layering on costs and compliance demands at the bottom of the pyramid, the Government risk hollowing out the very base that sustains the sport. Every £1 spent on regulatory compliance is £1 not spent on improving an ageing stand, an overgrown pitch or introducing a new generation of local youngsters to the game. It is an evening of paperwork instead of an evening coaching the under-12s, potentially depriving us of the next Harry Kane or Jordan Pickford.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend strongly that the regulation will impact clubs both large and small, such as Bromley FC in my constituency. The financial impact will be quite onerous, with very little benefit. Would my hon. Friend agree that we should have a review of the impact of the regulator on smaller clubs such as Bromley?

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend is right that we should have a review of the impact on smaller clubs. He will know from his club, Bromley FC, just how difficult it is to get out of the National League and into the English Football League. Bringing these clubs into scope will make it even more difficult for teams seeking promotion—especially to the National League, and then on to the English Football League—as they go from a successful but unregulated club to a heavily regulated club at the bottom of a higher division in fewer than 60 working days. Clubs already struggling to balance the books could find themselves in breach of regulations simply because they do not have the manpower to meet sudden new obligations placed upon them.

I would also like to talk about the timing of the statutory instrument. First, it has come months into the current season, and will come into force in less than a month’s time—not the Christmas present that many lower league clubs were looking for. Secondly, and most importantly, the Government have laid the statutory instrument before us in the full knowledge that there is an ongoing investigation into the Secretary of State’s decision to appoint a Labour crony to the chairmanship of the regulator. Will the Minister tell us why the Government think it is appropriate to appoint their Labour crony to the chairmanship of the regulator while there is an ongoing investigation into the process? Will the Minister also please tell us why he thinks it is appropriate to lay the statutory instrument while that investigation is ongoing?

The Football Governance Act was thought up as a way of protecting football clubs as community assets, not just businesses. We all know that these clubs are organisations that do so much more. They give young people a sense of belonging and purpose, provide an economic boost to local businesses and, most importantly, bring entire communities together. If the Government, however, make it too difficult for smaller clubs—such as Bromley FC, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—to operate, we risk losing them forever. As we know from recent memory, when a club disappears, it does not just take the team with it; it takes away an often major piece of local identity, history and pride.

It is because of the Government’s gung-ho attitude to the burdens it is placing on the smallest clubs—I warned it would—that we will vote against the statutory instrument today. As we have set out previously, we welcome stronger tests for owners, and I am grateful to the Sports Minister’s letter to me yesterday outlining some of the steps being taken on this. We support giving fans more of a say over their clubs, but we do not support state interference in our sports or burdening them with more red tape.

Mandatory Digital ID

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this timely and important debate, as well as his characteristically forceful and measured speech. It has been a fun debate with lots of contributions. I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities going forward, but I want to draw out a few particularly powerful contributions.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the issues around the prevalence of digital exclusion and the use of the veteran card. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) rightly pointed out the issues that the gov.uk One Login has had. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out the problem of the prevalence of digital poverty among the elderly. Finally, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who always speaks with great wisdom in these debates, spoke about the issue of multiple NHS logins.

This plan will make Government-issued digital ID compulsory to access work. Ignore the piffle—this is de facto mandatory. Given the contentious history of mandatory ID schemes in this country, one might have expected a policy of such weighty constitutional importance to appear in the Government’s manifesto, but it was conspicuously absent—like most current Government policy.

Earlier this year, I stood across the Dispatch Box from the previous Minister, debating the digital verification system brought in by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That scheme created a trust framework for a register of approved providers of digital identity verification services. Building on the competitive ecosystem established by the last Government, private sector companies are already providing right to rent, right to work and many other identity checks.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Talking about the difference between the public and private sectors, does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply concerning that, at a time of rising taxation and increasing Government debt, this Government cannot even tell us how much a digital ID scheme would cost?

[Dr Spencer]

The point is that we have a sector that is already developing voluntary ID schemes. It is now being let down by the Government, who are bringing in their own mandatory scheme. Not once in the course of previous debates did the Minister mention that the Government intend to launch their own mandatory digital ID system for the right to work or anything else, but the concerns with this policy go beyond questions of democratic legitimacy.

The National Audit Office’s report on Government cyber-resilience, published early this year, contains a number of concerning findings about serious gaps in cyber-security amongst Government Departments and public sector bodies. One of the most concerning is that the Cabinet Office does not have a strategy for how Government organisations could become cyber-resilient by 2030.

There is no current plan to secure the Government’s cyber-resilience over the very same timeframe that this mandatory Government-run identity scheme, which will host the data of every working person in the UK, will be rolled out. We are yet to hear from the Government a clear timescale for bringing their cyber-security and resilience Bill forwards.

Digital inclusion remains a challenge for many across this country and impacts vulnerable groups, such as those on low incomes and those with disabilities, the most. The Government’s policy of making digital ID mandatory to access work flies in the face of digital inclusion. The consideration given to digital exclusion being, “Well, we are going to consult on what to do,” as an afterthought is frankly shameful.

Digital inclusion was at the heart of the previous Government’s levelling-up ambitions. The Government published their own digital inclusion plan in February, which will be implemented over several years. Why not concentrate on putting that plan into effect, rather than diverting resources towards their own costly digital identity programme? Universal digital inclusion and robust cyber-security must be conditions precedent to any Government-run ID scheme. At the moment, we have neither.

We are left with a number of pressing questions. Why was this flagship policy not part of the Government’s election manifesto last year? Why has it been brought forward now? Why should it be mandatory rather than optional? Why are the Government pursuing a costly, Government-run ID scheme when the private sector infrastructure for digital ID services exists already? What is the Government’s plan to keep citizens’ data secure? Can the Minister guarantee that no one lawfully eligible to work will be excluded from employment by this scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

No, it is not. I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman made the point about over-75s not being digitally excluded. I do not know many over-75s who are looking for work, so if they do not want to have this, they do not need to have it. And for people who are particularly challenged in terms of mental capacity or otherwise, there will be a different system—

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me finish the first point. There will be available a system that is non-digital for people to use in those particular circumstances. In terms of the way the law works now, it is illegal for an employer to employ someone who does not have the right to work in this country. There is already a process for people to use passports or driving licences to prove their identification. If the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) wants his passport or driving licence held in some dusty filing cabinet and photocopied 400 times, rather than just proving his right to work in this country on his digital ID, I would suggest that that is less secure than having it on a smartphone.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Peter Fortune Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

As has been mentioned, only one Football League club is represented by a Conservative MP, and that is the mighty Bromley football club. My efforts to bring about a chant of “You’ve got the only Tory” across opposition stands in league two are ongoing, and I will keep the House informed of how well they proceed.

Hayes Lane, the club’s ground since 1938, stands proudly in my constituency. Bromley FC is a football fan’s dream. We have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Earning promotion to the conference south league in 2006, the club was crowned champion eight years later. We climbed the national league, reaching the FA trophy final in 2018 and earning promotion in 2021, but our rise did not stop there. Bromley faced Ryan Reynolds’s Wrexham at Wembley for a second shot at the FA trophy in 2022. It was an amazing day, and one that I remember well. While we may not have had “Deadpool”, we did have Michael Cheek—Cheeky, the Maradona of Bromley—who secured the silverware with the game’s only goal. I love Michael Cheek, and I congratulate him on being named league two player of the year last night; it is well deserved. Last year, a moment 132 years in the making arrived as Bromley was promoted to the English football league for the first time in its history.

Why is this story relevant? Bromley’s football dream was realised thanks to sound management, private investment and raw talent, not a state regulator, and I congratulate Robin Stanton-Gleaves, Mark Hammond—Hammo—and Andy “Woody” Woodman on all that they have done for the club. As a Ravens fan, when I look at Labour’s supposedly independent football regulator, I have to ask whether it would help Bromley FC or aspiring clubs like it, and in its current state, the answer is a resounding no. When the Bill was first proposed, it was proposed with the right intentions. It would protect cherished community clubs from bad owners, and would prevent a breakaway European super league. However, Labour’s regulator is morphing into a meddling, costly political deadweight for English football, because the regulator will be neither independent nor impartial. This is cronyism at its worst.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is a football fan. Does he recall hearing any fan group saying, “What we really need is a Labour donor crony regulating the beautiful game”?

[Peter Fortune]

What fans tell me is that they want the money to move more freely through the sport. I shall say more about that in a moment. The cronyism is what we are concerned about. With political leadership, the risk of mission creep is greater. More state intervention would threaten English football’s independence, and UEFA warns that without independence, English clubs could not compete in European leagues. The Government know that their Bill could torpedo English football, and I wonder whether that is why Ministers refuse to publish UEFA’s letter about it.

The regulator will also cost clubs a small fortune. The levy to pay for the new bureaucracy will cost them nearly £100 million, and the regulatory burden will cost them nearly £35 million more, hurting the smallest clubs, such as Bromley, that do not have the staff to handle yet more red tape. For clubs it means higher taxes, more paperwork, and staff working on state demands, rather than football. For fans it will inevitably mean higher ticket prices, especially in view of the new jobs tax that Labour has instigated, and employment red tape. We should be focusing on getting money to the league clubs, not tying their hands with bureaucracy. That is what the clubs need.

Football is about risks and aspirations. Teams win or lose, are promoted or relegated. This is not banking; it is football. While I recognise that smaller clubs need support, a partisan regulator is not the answer. English football’s independence is worth protecting.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing forward the debate.

I want to speak about the impact that the jobs tax will have on my community. One excellent charity working in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is South East London Mind. It faces a £190,000 increase in its tax bill, which is the equivalent of hiring five mental health advisers who could support 1,000 people a year. However, instead of working hard fundraising or reworking NHS contracts to expand, staff will be working to pay tax, and in all likelihood to do less. That is not a unique case. Another fantastic charity working in Bromley and Biggin Hill is Aurora Nexus, which employs 240 people right across London, supporting people with autism and learning disabilities. It faces a £194,000 tax grab.

Every Member present will know of a local charity that Labour’s jobs tax will hit hard. This is a poor policy, and quite frankly an attack on the most vulnerable in our society.