Football Governance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 20 and schedule 5 provide us with the building blocks of a licensing regime. The Minister set out the mandatory licence conditions that all clubs must comply with in order to obtain a provisional or full licence. That will ensure that base-level requirements are fulfilled on key areas such as finances, corporate governance and fan engagement. I will speak briefly to each area in turn, and then address the amendments.

The first condition relates to financial plans. I will not spend too much time on it as we have already discussed financial resources. However, I believe that the requirement to submit a financial plan would be fundamental for clubs wanting to exercise best practice.

The second requirement is on corporate governance. As we just discussed, good corporate governance can help to deliver better business outcomes, improve the efficiency of decision making and demonstrate to stakeholders that a club is well managed, to the benefit of both fans and investors. Furthermore, as the Government’s White Paper says, poor governance can exacerbate financial issues, allowing reckless decisions to be made without challenge or scrutiny. Many clubs already engage in good corporate governance, and for those that are not, the introduction of requirements should genuinely help to move them towards best practice.

However, I have some questions about the content of the corporate governance code of practice, which will be published by the regulator and reported against by clubs. In particular, Fair Game and Kick It Out have questioned whether issues such as equality, diversity and inclusion will be included in the code. Indeed, the Government chose not to pick up the recommendation of the fan-led review to mandate EDI action plans through the licence regime, pointing instead towards enhanced industry assessments in that area.

I understand the need to ensure that existing structures that are working well are not disrupted, and to give the regulator a well-defined scope. Given the explicit focus that the regulator will have on good governance, however, it seems slightly odd to divorce the concept from the issue of EDI. The fan-led review said:

“Aside from a clear moral case, improving diversity is also a key aspect of driving better business decisions by football clubs. Diverse companies perform better”.

A football that welcomes everyone, then, is a football in which clubs have the best possible chance of success. But change is needed at almost every level for that to happen.

Kick It Out’s reporting statistics from last season show that it received a record 1,007 reports of discriminatory behaviour across the professional game, including a 400% increase in reports of sexism and misogyny. Meanwhile, in 2019, the law firm Farrer & Co found that across all professional football clubs only 7% of board directors were female. Just one club met the 30% target set for other industries, and only 7% have a woman in a leadership position on the board. Work must be done to address the problem across the board. I am keen to hear from the Minister about how whether issues such as EDI will form part of the governance code will ultimately be decided, and whether he has a view on whether they should.

I have spoken about fan consultation in detail during our discussions on schedule 4, so I will save repeating how important it is. However, I would like to raise some further concerns. Namely, I am disappointed that the Bill makes no provisions regarding supporters’ trusts, as noted by my amendment 19 and amendment 7 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby.

At the time of the fan-led review, 73 clubs had a community benefit society in the form of a supporters’ trust. Community benefit societies are incorporated co-operatives that conduct business for the benefit of their community. They must follow certain rules, including operating on a democratic basis and ensuring that any profits gained by a trust can only be reinvested into the club or returned to the community. Those minimum standards mean that CBSs in the form of supporters’ trusts operate with a broad level of consistency and reliability. Many of them have a long legacy of connecting with the local area, liaising with their club and organising on behalf of fans. Many trusts should therefore be viewed as an asset to the community that clubs can learn from and engage with positively. We saw that at first hand in our evidence sessions, with the insight that Action for Albion, Supporters’ Trust At Reading and Arsenal Supporters’ Trust brought us in respect of their clubs and the view of their communities.

I understand why the Bill has sought to ensure that fan engagement measures are not a one-size-fits-all. However, where trusts are established, I believe that clubs should consider them when forming their consultation processes. Amendment 19 would ensure that where a club’s fans have established a legally registered supporters’ trust, that body is considered for representation in the club’s fan consultation process. Clubs would not be bound by any hard-and-fast rules, but would be encouraged to consider the benefits of engaging relevant existing trusts.

That brings me to the broader issue of how fans will be selected for consultation. Amendment 7 suggests that fans are given a democratic mandate if they are to be consulted by the club regularly. That way they would have the backing of fellow fans, helping to avoid scenarios in which the fans are seen as a mouthpiece for the club directed at fans, rather than the other way round. I am keen to hear how the Minister thinks we can ensure that fans are both selected and treated fairly. Will there be standards or guidance on that specific issue?

Finally, I am pleased to touch on the annual declaration condition. Given that there is no requirement for licences to be renewed, it is right that there is a touchpoint for clubs with the regulator to ensure that everything is in order, but I have one brief question. The schedule outlines that the annual declaration must contain a summary of any “material change” at the club over the year. That phrase is used 11 times throughout the Bill, but its definition is not clearly set out. Will the Minister provide a working definition today, or write to me with one?

Overall, I am broadly happy with the contents of the clause and schedule, albeit with a few questions that I would like answering on governance code and on supporter involvement.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on an important Bill. I would like clarification on a few points with regard to schedule 5, particularly—following the excellent remarks made by the shadow Minister, with which I wholeheartedly agree—paragraph 7(4), which states:

“Before publishing a code of practice or any alterations to the code, the IFR must consult…the Football Association, and…other such persons as appear to the IFR to be representative of persons likely to be affected by the code.”

Can I seek assurances from the Minister that fans and fans’ representative groups will be included as people who are likely to be affected by the code? They will take a deep interest in the corporate governance of their clubs, which is why we are here with this piece of legislation. Similarly, I would like to press for clarifications on reporting on equality and diversity and inclusion matters, which are a really important aspect of good corporate governance. Once again, I add my support to the remarks made by the shadow Minister.

[Ian Byrne]

I wish to support the excellent remarks by the shadow Minister, who gave a very comprehensive overview of why we need amendments to the Bill. There is a real worry, as I have outlined, that the clubs will seek to dilute the power of the supporter’s voice by filling the boards full of stooges, shall we say. We need some sort of system to ensure that boards are appointed through a democratic and independent process. Supporters trusts are a ready-made option. There are over 130 of them in the football world. They are democratic, independent organisations that have the trust of the wider supporter base, mainly. It would be foolish not to utilise that expertise and the system that is already in place.

If a club has not got a supporters trust we need to have some sort of oversight to ensure there are independent fan voices holding clubs to account, which will be a crucial part of the independent football regulator. We have got to ensure that those boards are fit for purpose and, as I said, not diluted by clubs that want to disempower supporters and supporter voices.

Football Governance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

Second time lucky, Ms Nokes! I am delighted to talk about this part of the Bill and the important owner and director test, and I want to support clause 37(3) and (4). The current Premier League and English Football League owners and directors test requires that any prospective owner must not have been subject to two or more bankruptcy events—so the current position is that someone could have been subject to one bankruptcy event, and in theory still own a football club. I am pleased to see that the clause removes any minimum number of events; obviously, that will place further emphasis on sustainable management and stewardship, and is much to be commended.

For context, I should say that Southend United Football Club in the National League has had 19 winding-up petitions in the last 25 years; the last one was last Wednesday. During the course of this Bill, the club was in court and was given a further six-week adjournment—hence my interest in making sure that no other clubs in future suffer the same fate as Southend United and its loyal fans.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I want to carry on the debate about clause 37 and reflect on honesty and integrity as set out in subsection (3), on “matters relevant to determinations” of the “requisite honesty and integrity”, and subsection (3)(g), which talks about

“such other matters relating to honesty and integrity as may be specified”

by rules. I would be interested in a little clarity from the Minister about that. Some of the other prerequisites or matters to be considered, such as whether someone is financially sound, can involve hard evidence, and someone’s competence can be tested by qualifications; integrity, however, is a bit of a subjective matter. It is more about things that are not against the law but are certainly not in the spirit of the law, and it is often behavioural.

Does the Minister have any examples that he might want to see in those rules? Someone might have used poor employment practices, for example, as we have seen in other industries, some of which are regulated and some of which are not. The issue would not reach a tribunal so it would not be a piece of hard evidence, but it would bring into question why an owner or officers of a club, in a different business, deployed fire-and-rehire tactics, for example, that were detrimental to their workforce and local community. Similarly, in a positive sense, would there be any consideration of what high integrity might be: for example, owners and officers who championed equality and diversity—an issue that we have been speaking a lot about in this Bill? I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

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

I will be interested in the Minister’s remarks about amendment 1. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is making, in seeking to create a bit more flexibility for the regulator. We would all hope that the integrity checks against an individual owner could ultimately “trump”—if she does not mind my using the word—any positive trading relationship. If the person were not considered a good and proper owner, the fact that we had a good trading relationship with their country should make no difference: they should not be able to avoid the checks simply because they come from a trusted trader nation.

However, on the other hand, I can see that having “must” would be helpful for the regulator in two ways. One is that if a would-be owner of a club met all the criteria and therefore should be allowed to acquire the club, but the only block on them was that they were a sanctioned individual, the regulator would have the certainty of knowing that it could not let the deal go through. There would not be grounds for challenge, say, at the Court of Arbitration for Sport over whether an appropriate judgment had been made. There would be no question of the sanctioned person’s suitability on any other grounds. In that particular circumstance, the provision could be helpful.

I imagine that it would be reassuring for the regulator to know that, as was the case when Newcastle United was acquired, if another Premier League club was acquired by a country that was not sanctioned—we did not have a trade embargo with it—but was nevertheless controversial, the regulator would not have to consider that, whether people wanted it to or not, because no Government policy would be saying that we could not trade with or allow investment from that country. The regulator would have the certainty of knowing that it was acting purely within the confines of its role.

I appreciate the intention of the amendment and the reasons behind it, but perhaps the Minister could give us some guidance on whether “must” may be better than “may”.

[Stuart Andrew]

The Government absolutely recognise the intent behind the amendment to ensure the independence of the regulator. We have been extremely clear that the independence of the regulator is vital. That is why the regulator will be set up as a new public body to ensure its full operational independence.

Clause 37(2) does not diminish the regulator’s independence. It does not mean that the regulator needs to consult the Government about the suitability of an owner, nor can the Government interfere with the regulator’s decision. If the regulator determines that an individual does not have the requisite honesty and integrity, or is not financially sound, or that the individual has any source of wealth connected to serious criminal conduct, that individual cannot be determined to be a suitable owner of a regulated club. Clause 37(2) does not override those fundamental requirements. Nor can any individual, fan, league, club or Government influence override them.

The purpose of clause 37(2) is to ensure that the regulator has to have regard to the UK’s foreign and trade policy objectives when it makes a determination about any new or incumbent owner. That will ensure that the regulator cannot make unilateral moral judgments on which countries it may consider unsuitable when it tests owners. We do not want to allow for a scenario where that happens and in effect a regulator, as I said this morning, sets the Government’s foreign policy.

The effect of the amendment would be to increase discretion for the regulator to decide when it will have regard to the UK’s foreign and trade policy objectives when making decisions about owners. The Government believe that their foreign and trade policy objectives are a relevant matter for the regulator to have regard to whenever it makes a determination about the suitability of any and all owners, not just some. Increased discretion for the regulator may risk it making unilateral judgments that stray into foreign policy.

To be clear, requiring that the regulator must have regard to the Government’s objectives does not mean that that must be a decisive factor. It might have limited relevance in a particular case and, if so, the regulator will not have to give that undue weight. The fundamental basis for a regulator’s determinations about owners will be honesty, integrity, financial soundness, source of wealth and, for new owners, sufficiency of financial resources.

I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said and we will continue to reflect further, ahead of Report. But for the reasons that I have set out, I am not able to accept her amendment and I hope she will withdraw it.

Clause 37 lists the matters that the regulator must take into account when it conducts owners and directors tests, including what it must consider when determining whether an individual is financially sound and whether they have the requisite honesty and integrity and, for officers only, the competence needed to fulfil the role, and ultimately to determine whether they are sensible—sorry, suitable.

[Rachel Hopkins]

And sensible.

[Stuart Andrew]

Absolutely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the hon. Member for Luton South made important points. As a public body, the regulator must act fairly when it makes decisions. As set out in the White Paper, it will make an evidence-based objective judgment to assess whether an owner or a director is a suitable custodian of a club, and it will apply its tests consistently and fairly to every person.

The fitness element of the test will assess an individual’s honesty, integrity and financial soundness, as well as, for directors, competence. That draws on the fit and proper person test applied by other regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The regulator will set out in its rules and guidance further detail on how it will conduct its tests.

The factors I have outlined are specified because they have a real bearing on whether an owner or officer could have a significant detrimental impact on a club’s financial sustainability. Listing specific matters provides greater clarity to the industry about what will be tested. It also constrains the regulator. The matters listed in the clause are the only things that it will take into account when considering honesty, integrity, financial soundness or competence. To ensure that the fitness test remains effective in the future, the clause gives the regulator the power to use its rules to add further matters that it will need to take into account when considering someone’s honesty, integrity or financial soundness. Before using that power, the regulator must consult the leagues.

Football Governance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

Overall, however, I am pleased to see the regulator established as an independent body, so I support what these clauses are trying to achieve.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I would like to build on the comments made by the shadow Minister, particularly on the appointments to the independent regulator and the expert panel. We heard much in the evidence sessions around equality, diversity and inclusion, and I seek assurances from the Minister that there will, in the usual way with public appointments, be a desire for the board to be reflective of society. We have heard, sadly, that we do not see people with a range of diverse characteristics coming through to senior levels in all aspects of football, across the game—there are very few such referees, and so on.

On appointments to the expert panel, I would like a little more clarity from the Minister on the fact that the chief executive officer must exercise the power to secure

“the range of skills, knowledge and experience of the members of the Expert Panel”,

which includes skills, knowledge and experience relating to

“the operation, organisation or governance of clubs or competitions, and financial or other regulation.”

Reflecting on what we already know about the game, could we have some assurance that this provision merely includes that range of skills, and that we could, in fact, have a wider range of skillsets? We want to ensure that we recognise equality, diversity and inclusion in appointments to the expert panel and the board, so that we are not restricted only to people who have experience of the operation, organisation or governance of clubs or financial or other regulation. Other regulators often have a lay person, for example; they may be a senior professional, but they bring a sort of objectivity to the table that others who are very involved in the industry sometimes cannot see. I hope we can have some clarity from the Minister on that.

[Mr Betts]

Can I just raise two issues? The first is about appointments to the board. Does the Minister feel that the issue of conflict of interest is important? Does he feel that he ought to be setting down somewhere what conflicts of interest may amount to, and what may disqualify someone from being a member of the regulator’s board? Secondly—this issue arises in Select Committees from time to time—will the regulator’s chair be subject to a pre-confirmation hearing by the Select Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. I know the amount of work that he has done with his local football club and with fan groups.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I, too, mentioned this point on Second Reading. Does my hon. Friend agree that not including groups such as fans, players or staff of clubs would be like the health regulator regulating hospitals but not talking to patients or doctors?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Again, we are attempting to be as helpful as we can. We are not giving a veto; we are simply saying that the regulator should have a good, constructive working relationship with these groups.

I will make a little progress. My final point, as I said, is that the Bill does not currently recognise that there are cross-governance structures that work well within the game and with which it could be beneficial for the regulator to work constructively. The PFA provides an example of that in the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee. This mechanism is used by the league’s union and governing body of football to provide a backstop on players’ rights, ensuring that substantive changes to player contracts and conditions cannot be made unilaterally. Where collaboration works well in the football ecosystem, it is important that the regulator can work constructively with the bodies as well as clubs, governance structures and competition organisers. Has the Minister considered that? I would welcome his thoughts on that today.

It is great that the independent regulator will be tasked with working constructively, but we must make sure that there is a comprehensive list of those that should apply to so that co-operation exists in the new landscape wherever possible. I tabled amendment 9 to broaden the scope of constructive working. I hope Members across the Committee will lend their support.

Amendments 20 and 2, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby and for Sheffield South East, mirror my amendment, demonstrating that there is a wider recognition of the need to expand the list. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I listened to what the Minister said, but a number of regulators have statutory consultees, including groups of people who are involved in that industry or the service that they receive. I am coming from that point, which is why I would like to see them on the face of the Bill.

[Stuart Andrew]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I do feel confident, and I am trying to make this as clear as possible, that I cannot envisage why the regulator, where there is an issue that affects the fans, would not be looking at that. We will continue to look at this very carefully and make sure that we have got it right. I want to make it very clear, as the Minister, that we expect fans to be very much part of this process. That is why I said that clause 1 was so important in making that point right at the very outset.

Football Governance Bill (First sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

The last question is to Rachel, because I think you are repeating yourself.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Q I will summarise my question, so each of you can reply about the state of the game report. How important is it? Are there any specific topics you think it should cover? Should it be initially within a certain timeframe, and subsequently, at what sort of intervals?

Richard Masters: It is critically important and we look forward to playing our part in it. The key issue we have is in relation to its regularity. It should come as quickly as it can, and be done properly and efficiently. However, after that, we believe it should not be at three-year intervals, which would lead to almost perpetual discussion about the state of football. There should be a longer period of time. We are suggesting that five years is the appropriate time for the regularity of those reports.

Football has had a lot of uncertainty—through covid, and through the regulatory interventions that we are now talking about. I believe that football does better when it has certainty. Our commercial deals are becoming longer, so we are doing four-year commercial agreements. I think the EFL’s are five years. Most of our international revenue is tied up over six-year agreements. If you look at other industries, Ofcom’s review is every five years. I think the telecoms industry review is every 10 years. Three years is incredibly short. It would be like painting the Forth bridge—once you have finished one report, you will have to start another. It is great for the economists and the consultants; it is bad for the competition organisers and the clubs.

[The Chair]

Q I will give the last minute to Rick and then Mark.

Rick Parry: I echo what Richard said in terms of the report being incredibly important. It is important that it is comprehensive and able to address every issue facing the game, including parachute payments. The big point we would like to make is that we think the three-year interval for the first report to be completed is much too long. We think that should be a maximum of a year. We see no reason why it cannot be completed within a year. We actually think three years is fine, inasmuch as eight of the last Premier League TV deals have been on a three-year cycle; the champions league TV deal is on a three-year cycle; parachute payments operate on a three-year cycle. Football operates on a three-year cycle. However, the big report is the first one, and we think that the subsequent ones would be fine-tuning; they are not going to be a complete reinvention.

Mark Ives: I will be quick. I echo the importance of the report and it will address things that the regulator does not cover. It will address things that are important to our game and that the fan-led review spoke about, things that are outside the scope of the regulator—and I understand why they are outside its scope—such as three up, three down, protection of players, and all of that sort of stuff. It is really important that the emphasis on those things is not lost, and we have the ability to deal with that. The report is there to highlight the wider issues within the game.

Football Governance Bill (Second sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Robin Millar]

Q I have to come back to this question about being custodians of heritage, because there is something really important here. Mr Parish said that money is pouring in from Europe. On the question of replays, the issue is that clubs are not going to play fewer games; they are going to play more games that are more valuable. It seems that in the decision that you have reached, you have looked at it purely transactionally: “We have a competition; we need to see results.” It is not even just about hope. You have cut out the match-day experience, the travelling to a new ground, and the stories that fathers tell sons and daughters over the years. Can you understand why fans, when they look at this decision, think that it should fall under the scope of a regulator?

David Newton: I can completely understand fans’ passion for the FA cup. People who work in football—all of us in football—have that same passion for the FA cup and our other competitions. We have all done those things that you talk about. Competition formats have changed over the last 30 years in a variety of the different competitions in English football that I have referred to, and that has been the way. I guess, as the game evolves and different demands are placed on it, that will continue to happen. As I have explained, the decision taken was based not just on one set of circumstances. There is a huge number of factors relating to the fixture calendar, which is an extremely complex piece of architecture. As I say, the decision was a necessary consequence of that, but, absolutely, we understand the passion and the interest that is involved in the FA cup.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Q On heritage, the Bill gives fans say over club colours and club crest, but the ultimate say on club names stays with the FA. That is based on existing FA rules, if I am correct?

David Newton: Correct.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q Can you give us a bit more of an explanation as to why fans are not given any say over names in these rules?

David Newton: In club playing names?

[Rachel Hopkins]

Yes.

David Newton: We introduced the rule about 10 to 15 years ago, and the rule actually gives the FA Council the final approval of a name change to a club in the top tiers of English football. As part of that, we conduct an extensive consultation. Thinking about one in particular, there was a significant amount of consultation with local stakeholders, the local MP, the local fans’ groups concerned, and so on. The decision was voted on by the FA Council, which also has supporter representation on it, so supporters are very much part of the stakeholder community that will consider those changes in names.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q When you are collating those opinions to make important decisions such as that, how do you ensure that it is as accessible to fans as possible, and that there is a genuine emphasis on their involvement?

David Newton: As I say, the most recent one or two that I can think of were some time ago and were probably quite well publicised. The consideration of those decisions would have been accompanied by all the relevant submissions made by the various stakeholders and considered in the round, and the weight given to those views.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q I have two quick questions. Are you content that the Bill preserves the FA’s position as the governing body for football in England, and are you content with your role as an official observer on the board? Secondly, in previous correspondence, the FA has been keen to ensure that there were no unintended consequences for women’s football. Are you satisfied that that is the case?

David Newton: On the first point, as I outlined at the start of this session, the FA is responsible for the whole of English football, ranging from grassroots right the way up to the international team. The Bill is concentrated, as we know, on a small—but none the less very important—subset of that. Our role as an observer on the board is extremely helpful to that. I am confident that with the work we do—whether that is in grassroots, on and off-field regulation, disciplinary matters, the national teams and that sort of thing—our position as the governing body of English football remains.

Regarding the women’s game, you are absolutely right. We raised the potential concern of the unintended consequences of investment in the women’s game being affected by their co-dependency in some situations on the men’s game, and with funding being removed or reduced as a result of decisions by the regulator. It is important that the regulator, in exercising its powers, does so in a proportionate and reasonable fashion and bears in mind that co-dependency, where it exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q Can you give us an insight into why clubs benefit from having greater measures on equality, diversity and inclusion?

Niall Couper: When we look at that area, when Tracey Crouch wrote that original fan-led review it was one of the key recommendations. When you go to our clubs and look at them, the clubs that thrive and are actually forward thinking are the ones where you see that diversity put into the boardrooms and staffing structures, and where they actually try to address it.

It is a travesty of justice when you look at a football ground at a men’s match and it is 80% male. When you go into the club’s shop, nearly all the merchandise is for men. When you look at the toilet facilities, they are pretty poor for women. All those things are naive both financially and in terms of actual gender representation, and those are the things that need to change. The clubs that we have in Fair Game, which are across the pyramid, are the ones that are more forward thinking and realise that actually we cannot live in the dark ages.

A proper code of governance needs to have EDI embedded in it. It needs to be part of the way forward and part of how we look at football holistically, and that has not been the case. Having been a board member of a football club and sat there, there have been far too many instances where unfortunately it has been an awful lot of people looking an awful lot like me being the entire representation. That is not really appealing to wider society. If we want football to grow and thrive, ignoring vast sections of society is completely remiss.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q How do you think EDI can be best incorporated into the regulator’s regime without going out of the scope of the Bill?

Niall Couper: When you look at it, there are a couple of things that clearly can be part of the Bill, such as the governance code. When you look at the governance code, that needs to include EDI representation, as you would see in nearly all other sports governance codes that exist. That is an obvious place. The other thing is the state of the game report, and I think we need to look at having proper benchmarking and seeing where we can improve. Fair Game has looked at a lot of this—we have done a lot of stuff on the gender divide and we are doing a lot of research on that—but we need to look at this issue as constantly going forward and improving. We cannot perform just tick-box exercises; it needs to be about developing real outcomes so that women and people from ethnic groups can feel safe within a football ground, and that is not the case.

On a side point, we have been doing some work on the women’s game and there is a significant difference in how that operates compared with the men’s game. The issue we have seen is that women are not feeling safe, and that is an area that we really need to address. Until we get to that position, we will have loads of steps and things we need to improve. Every single element in the Bill needs to address that and ensure that that goes forward and improves what we have. Going back to the Bill, I would say that 90% of it is pretty good, but there are bits that can be improved, and that is definitely one area that can be.

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

Q I have been looking at the regulations that UEFA and FIFA have on their involvement generally in the governance of football, and their requirements about what Governments can and cannot do. We have tried to be very careful with setting up the regulator. How do you feel that interacts with some of the changes that you would like to see? Is there a big barrier, or is there anything that you think could be changed on that level that might be useful? How do you feel that affects the scope of what we can achieve? Has that been a big problem for you, would you say?

Simon Orriss: I don’t think it has. I have discussed it with a couple of colleagues—barristers and other people that I know in the profession—and the general consensus is that it is unlikely that some of the FIFA statute articles that prevent Government interference in the governance of the game would be enacted. In particular, we have looked at institutions in France and Spain, which don’t have a completely identical remit to what the IFR is proposed to do, but they have some role in regulating the sport in those countries, and FIFA has largely left them to that. Although it has been noted, as you have just done in your question, it has not been something that has got people terribly agitated.

Sport: Gambling Advertising

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this important debate on an issue that I and many of my constituents care deeply about.

Almost 7,000 gambling messages were shown in six televised matches over the premier league’s opening weekend. If that does not set off alarm bells, I am not sure what will. My speech will not completely oppose gambling—in fact, I am sure I will be placing a bet on the grand national in a few weeks’ time, and my other half does a few quid on the acca for football on a Saturday—but it is clear that gambling addiction, fuelled by excessive gambling advertisements, impacts our communities. YouGov research found that nationally 1.4 million adults are harmed directly by gambling. Shockingly, the Gambling Commission stated that 80,000 UK children are addicted or at risk.

I want to say thank you to the brilliant organisations, Gambling with Lives and The Big Step campaign, which raise awareness of the harm that is being caused. They have introduced me to their volunteers, who have personal connections to the harm caused by gambling. Some had loved ones who sadly ended their lives as a consequence of their gambling addiction. Others are survivors who now campaign to ensure that other people do not suffer the pain that they did. The message is always the same: the pain is preventable. I have found many of these discussions incredibly moving.

The current gambling regulations are failing the public terribly, and there is no sign of change to protect the next generation, as we have heard from others. The industry’s voluntary whistle-to-whistle ban in football is completely ineffective, as it applies only to TV adverts. Over two thirds of fans who responded to a Survation poll said they felt it had not prevented children from seeing gambling advertisements in football. With insufficient regulation, football is often the hook to get the young into gambling, especially as they are then cross-sold highly addictive online casino products.

It is important to recognise that not just fans are impacted. We have seen the impact on players in recovery who are made to advertise the addictive products, including Ivan Toney, Sandro Tonali and Harry Toffolo. Football is so important to our communities, creating a shared identity that ties us together with a common objective, mostly just three points at the weekend, possibly six for Luton this weekend, but also seeing our team represent us with dignity. That is why I am proud of my local football club, Luton Town, for leading the way, by refusing to choose a gambling shirt and stadium sponsor. Across the premier league and the English football league, only Luton Town’s 19 home games will not feature gambling adverts, according to The Big Step. That is only 0.8% of games. It is disappointing that seven premier league clubs will still display gambling companies as their main shirt sponsor. Luton Town is part of The Big Step campaign to kick all gambling advertisements out of football, alongside other clubs such as Tranmere Rovers and Forest Green Rovers. Sadly, not all football clubs can be relied on to do the right thing, even though we know that a sponsorship ban would cost clubs only around 2.5% of revenue.

What measures are the Government considering to curtail gambling advertising in sport, especially in football? I reiterate the point already made, that this is a public health issue. Just like measures to reduce advertising of cigarettes to tackle smoking harms, would the Minister consider, as a first step, a review into banning pitch-side advertising in football, to reduce gambling harm? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Funding for Youth Services

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered trends in funding levels for youth services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The significance of good youth services for our young people’s development cannot be overstated. They provide essential building blocks for a full and rewarding life, a safe place, acceptance, guidance, friendship, physical and mental health support, academic support and employment skills. Youth services set young people up for a healthy, happy and confident life as part of communities across Britain, acting as an indispensable component of our national infrastructure. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency of Luton South. I want to say a huge thank you to everyone in Luton supporting our young people. They are a credit to our town and play such an important part in giving the best start in life to our young people.

Luton Council does an excellent job working with our voluntary and community sector to ensure that all young people enjoy their lives and reach their full potential. Whether it is the Scouts, the Guides, Tokko youth centre, the Centre for Youth and Community Development, Next Generation Youth Theatre, Youthscape, various cadets or sports clubs and our excellent music service, our young people have a variety of activities that they can get involved in.

That support and meaningful activities for young people have arguably never been needed more, with challenges such as loneliness and societal pressures stemming from the global health pandemic and the cost of living crisis making it harder for our young people to get on. In some cases, youth services are about ensuring that a young person is guided away from being drawn into gangs or other negative activities. However, more often than not, they are about nurturing the confidence, resilience and skills of our young people.

The benefits of well-resourced youth services are obvious for all to see, but rather than just reel off stats and facts, I want to use this opportunity to amplify our young people’s voices. Here are some testimonies of young people, as given to the YMCA, about the importance of youth services. Sam, 16, said:

“I wasn’t keen on the idea of attending a youth club at first, it was quite out of my comfort zone but since I started attending, I have grown in confidence and have begun speaking to people more often...Attending YMCA has made a real difference to my life.”

Rachel, 16, told YMCA:

“It was around a year ago that I started to struggle with anxiety and depression and at first, I did nothing. My older sister was already attending the youth club at YMCA and invited me along. I love it here. I feel very safe and supported in the company of the youth workers—they are very caring and always sit and talk with me when I feel upset or need to cry. Without YMCA, my mental health would be way worse as I would have no one to talk to and nothing to do.”

Idris, also 16, said:

“I suffer from anxiety and anger issues. I tried to battle it alone, but it didn’t work. A friend suggested I come to YMCA. I always have fun when I attend YMCA and it makes me feel really happy. It has helped me as I can take positive memories away from my time here and when I am feeling low, I can remember that I have Monday’s youth club to look forward to.”

There is no better testimony than from those who actually use the services and are reaping the benefit.

Unfortunately, today’s debate is an opportunity not just to sing the praises of our wonderful youth services, but to recognise the reality of a severely underfunded, under-supported sector that has been deprioritised by the Conservatives.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has given fantastic examples of the importance of youth services and the work of the YMCA. Does she agree that one problem in society at the moment is that children in the more deprived communities are even less likely to be able to access the services that they need for the sort of support that she has described for her constituents?

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I wanted to have this debate so that we could press that point, particularly for constituencies similar to mine of Luton South.

After 14 years of the Conservatives cutting funding, local authorities are struggling under the substantial weight of funding pressures. Youth services are often one of the first services to be cut. Councils and councillors want to deliver high-quality youth services for young people, but the Conservatives have given them no choice. My local council, Luton, is a case in point: it has had £170 million cut from its budget since 2010.

The Local Government Association has stated that councils in England face a funding gap of £4 billion over the next two years just to keep services standing still. Significant budget pressures mean that there are few options available to maintain high-quality youth services. Children’s social care puts significant pressure on local authority finances, so general, more universal services for young people are compromised as the limited resources are targeted at ensuring that the young people most in need are kept safe and supported. It is a difficult decision that councillors of all party colours must make, but the Government are ultimately responsible, due to their swingeing cuts to local government finances.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. My experience as a serving Somerset councillor is that investing in youth services is often seen as a preventive measure to address future social and economic issues. Somerset has seen an 80% reduction in real-terms spending on youth services over the past 12 years. Does the hon. Lady agree that cutting such services leads to higher costs associated with problems that could have been mitigated through early intervention and support for young people, and that local government needs to be adequately funded?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for making an excellent point. I absolutely agree, and I will address that later in my speech.

During the Conservatives’ time in office, youth organisations have fought to keep delivering great youth work, amid a £1.1 billion real-terms cut to local authority spending on youth services. I thank the YMCA and the National Youth Agency for their support in preparation for this debate. The YMCA’s “On the ropes” report found that drastic underfunding means that spending per head on youth services in England has suffered a real-terms cut of 75% since 2010-11, which means that it sits at £48 per five to 17-year-old. Although cuts have been significant across the board, there are clear regional funding inequalities. In 2022-23, the lowest spend per young person was in the west midlands, at £24, followed by the east of England and the south-east, at £38. In contrast, in London it is £69 and in Yorkshire and the Humber it is £71.

I am also concerned about the funding cuts to my constituency of Luton South since the Conservatives took power. The YMCA found that real-terms spending on youth services in Luton has been cut by 73%, with spend per young person sitting at £34.60. In the central Bedfordshire part of my constituency, spending per head for young people is £25.17—a 53% cut. Although passionate youth workers continue to battle to deliver high-quality support, many have had to leave the profession: there has been a 35% reduction in full-time equivalent youth workers employed by local authorities in England over the same period.

This should not have to be said, but all children, irrespective of background or geography, deserve high-quality youth services to support their development. After 14 years of the Conservatives, youth services are at breaking point, and too many young people have no access to youth services at all. Our voluntary and community sector has brilliantly stepped up to fill the gap left by the Conservative Government cuts, but that is not a long-term solution.

The physical and mental health support previously offered by youth services has been shifted on to schools and overworked, under-resourced teachers. Schools have their own pressures. According to National Education Union research, in Luton South per-pupil funding has been cut by £751 since the Conservatives took power—that is more than £14 million stripped from our school system. The case for greater resources for youth services is compelling. Youth work has proven, positive impacts on improving young people’s mental health and wellbeing, behaviour, engagement with education and attainment. Youth workers achieve life-changing outcomes for young people through intervention and prevention, building voluntary, trusted and educative relationships with the young people they support.

If the Minister needs to hear an economic case for youth services, for every pound the Government invest in youth work, the benefit to the taxpayer is between £3.20 and £6.40. Youth work saves £500 million annually by preventing incidents of antisocial behaviour, knife crime and other associated criminal justice costs, according to UK Youth and Frontier Economics. To pre-empt what the Minister might say in response about Government funding directed at specific youth club buildings: as welcome as any capital funding is, there is a pressing need for additional support for training and sustaining well-qualified youth workers. There is an absence of a co-ordinated strategy across Government Departments, leading to fragmented and insufficient funding for targeted youth services.

The YMCA has set out the following recommendations to support youth services. It mentions:

“sustained and long-term revenue funding to bolster universal and open-access youth services, catering to all young people throughout the year”,

a cross-departmental strategy for youth services,

“fostering a long-term vision for nationwide provision”,

and enforcing

“a duty on local authorities to ensure that all young people can access youth services in their respective areas, with necessary government support and resourcing.”

Will the Minister respond to each of those recommendations in his closing remarks?

I want the impact of this debate to be that the Minister, his officials and other Government Departments reflect on the true value of our youth services. I do not doubt that the Government recognise the good those services do in our community, but I ask that additional actions be taken to ensure that they receive the support they desperately need. Will the Minister outline what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Department for Education and the Home Department about long-term resources for youth services? Will he also outline what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of full-time equivalent youth workers across the UK to ensure that all young people receive the support they deserve?

Labour recognises the need for a long-term, co-ordinated approach to revitalise the delivery of youth services. At our last party conference, we announced a 10-year programme to bring together services and communities to support young people, providing new youth mentors and mental health hubs in every community, and youth workers and pupil referral units in A&E, along with a programme of public sector reform to help to deliver that. Communities will come together to transform the lives of children, giving them the best possible start in life. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not implemented such a scheme during their 14-year tenure?

I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members from across the House. Together, we must continue to call for Government action to ensure that young people in our constituencies get the best possible start in life. That means supporting our local youth services and youth workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his closing comments. I do not doubt his sincerity in what he wants to achieve. However, it is notable that it was predominantly Members from the Opposition who wanted to come and raise important issues about youth services and youth workers here today. It was perhaps more by chance than design, but we have representation from the north-east, the north-west, London, the midlands, the east and the south-west, so this really is an issue that needs attention up and down England.

We are talking about the importance of a safe place to go and to be—to be a young person and feel safe—and one that is open access and universal, but also targeted, particularly at those who need it most, in some of our most deprived areas. Importantly, that means rural areas as well as urban areas. This is so important, and I hope that the Minister continues to work on that cross-departmental basis so that we really can see improvements in our youth services, because too many young people are missing out on things that could give them the best start in life. The Minister referred to the importance of the youth voice. As a middle-aged woman, I also want to champion the voices of our young people, who are our future, as so many other people have said today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered trends in funding levels for youth services.

Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Lady listen to my answer? The employer has a relationship with the employee —without doubt, that is a legitimate interest—and the union has a relationship with its members. I am sure we can give the hon. Lady more detail if she would like me to write to her on the point, but I do not think that there is a complicated situation here. I think she will find that it works perfectly well in practice.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Maybe the Opposition can enlighten the Minister about workplaces in which there are multiple unions within the same work unit, representing different members. How can he assure us that the proposals set out in the code will not put employers in jeopardy of breaking the GDPR by sharing information about employees with the “wrong” union?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I say, I do not think that it is a complicated situation. As I set out to the hon. Member for York Central, the employer has a responsibility to contact their employees and union members, but I am happy to give more detail on that if the hon. Member for Luton South wants further clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am grateful, Ms Nokes, for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on his excellent speech, which set out all the problems with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, the draft regulations and the code of practice that we are considering today. I agree that the measure is draconian, unnecessary and unworkable. Indeed, as the Minister himself said, it is controversial.

The right to strike is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the International Labour Organisation’s convention No. 87 and paragraph 4 of article 6 of the European social charter. Fundamentally, those standards are flouted by the whole set-up of the regulations, the Act and the code of practice. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, when public services are struggling and many are on their knees, this Government have chosen to play politics and attack a fundamental right of workers through the introduction of these minimum service levels. That is solely to undermine collective bargaining and collective organisation, as set out by others.

Many of the details of my concerns have already been laid out in this debate, but I would like to flag up a couple of areas about not only the principles but the unworkability of this whole set-up. We have heard much about taking reasonable steps and issuing directions to employers on work that they are expected to do on strike days, but the code of practice itself interferes with a democratic trade union’s communications with employees.

As we have heard, disputes may involve many different employees in different workplaces, who may be members of different trade unions or none, yet we have not had real assurances that data will be protected, particularly under GDPR. We must remind the Minister that a person’s trade union membership status is a particularly special category of data, so I would like assurances that he has understood the implications of the complexity of this code of practice, which is still very opaque and, in fact, confused.

On timescales, we have heard how, given the amount of notice given and the ability later to amend the work notice, the measure could leave unions with three days to reach their members, and that could be over a weekend or a bank holiday. How does the Minister expect that to work in practice, or is he, again, just going to let that all fall through to be dealt with by the courts? It is disappointing to see the speed with which the Minister expects this to come into force. Usually employers have a six-month period to get used to legislative change, yet we are led to believe that this process will be in place from 7 December—that is in barely a week.

While we will obviously want trade unions to be able to meet their obligations if this measure is passed— I put on record my desire to vote against it today, and I hope that we will all get the ability to vote against it as a whole House—I ask the Minister why it has been brought in so quickly. Not only are we dealing with a very opaque set of regulations and code of practice—even more time than usual is needed to consider how things will actually work in practice—but I believe that the Minister is setting employers, trade unions and indeed the Government themselves up for failure by bringing in legislation with such speed and without a real ability for all parliamentarians to scrutinise it thoroughly. I would really like to hear the Minister’s view of how employers are going to respond on 8 December when they are faced with having to deal with this alone. Does he have any thoughts on how trade unions will deal with this?

I would like some clarity on the stated design of the code of practice. It is the Government’s recognition of their own failure to just say, “That can be settled by the courts.” There is no confidence that the legislation is actually fit for purpose, but the Government are already washing their hands and saying, “We’ll let the courts decide.” Can we have clarity from the Minister about any Government assessment of the cost of litigation for trade unions, employers and, indeed, the Government themselves? So many questions have not been answered about the lack of clarity in this opaque code of practice. As I said, it is an admission of failure to leave so much to the courts, and far be it from me to say, but there will be plenty of employment lawyers taking up the work, sadly. Is that really a metric of success? I would argue that it is not.

I also want to reiterate the point so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West about ministerial comments in the Chamber that nobody will be sacked as a result of this legislation and that other disciplinary measures can apply. If that is the case, why is there a requirement for trade unions to warn their members that dismissal is an option? The Minister has said that that will not be the case, so can we have some clarity from him on how he reconciles those two points? I reiterate my question about the definition of reasonable endeavours with regard to picketing. It is thoroughly unclear—though, again, I presume that it will just be left for the courts to decide.

I appreciate that other Members want to speak, so I will conclude. This is not actually about a situation that the Government are trying to settle. It is fundamentally about attacking individuals’ right to strike, not improving industrial relations. As I said, I will be voting against the code.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services.

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

18. What steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)]

We are investing an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24 so that 2 million more people can access NHS-funded mental health support.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists shows that between July 2021 and July 2022, referrals to child and adolescent mental health services increased by 24%. Labour has set out a fully costed plan to recruit 8,500 new staff. Why have the Government failed to produce their own plan to recruit more mental health staff to reduce waiting times?

[Steve Barclay]

We are recruiting more mental health workers, with 7,400 more full-time equivalents in September 2022 compared with September 2021. That reflects the significant additional funding we are providing—the extra £2.3 billion going in by 2023-24.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for bringing this important Bill to the House, and for working with Ministers, employers, trade unions and other organisations to get it to this stage. She made an excellent speech, and I commend her for her tireless campaigning for unpaid carers. She knows that the Bill will help many across the country to balance work with caring for their loved ones. Recognition must also go to the TUC for its Flex for All campaign, as well as to other organisations from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, to Working Families and Pregnant then Screwed for their campaigning on this issue and for holding the Government to account.

I reiterate what has been said at previous legislative stages of the Bill. The Bill has Labour’s full support, but we still expect much greater action from the Government to enhance workers’ rights. The data tell the story: there are currently 1.5 million more women out of and not looking for work than men. The number of economically inactive working-age women rose by 124,000 last year, compared with the previous year. Gaps in employment because of a lack of flexibility can cause a loss of confidence to return to work, as well as resulting in reduced pension entitlement and barriers to career progression, not to mention the gender pay gap.

Labour welcomes the provisions in the Bill, which will begin to help create the environment for a fairer and more equitable discussion between employers and employees about flexible working. The covid-19 pandemic has changed how we work, with both employers and employees recognising the business and personal opportunities created by flexible working. The Bill represents an important step to ensuring that legislation reflects where we are as a society.

Many Members have spoken on this common-sense Bill, particularly from the Government Benches, and we heard from the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Bury North (James Daly), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). We also heard interventions from the  hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). Far be it from me to point out that they are all—as I am—from the 2019 intake, and therefore are the Conservative MPs with the most recent experience of the world of work. Perhaps they are getting their bids in early for when they return to the world of work in a year and a half or two years.

Improving access to flexible working will help the parents of young children, single parents, women, carers, older people and people with disabilities or health conditions. Accessing flexible work is not equal for all: a TUC poll found that one in three flexible working requests were turned down. People want to stay in work and earn a living, but too many are being forced out of the labour market. At present, one in five economically inactive people say that the reason they are economically inactive is that they are responsible for other family members. We know that many women are disproportionately affected by barriers to accessing flexible working, which are compounded by poor access to affordable childcare and to adequate parental leave.

The Bill will contribute to breaking down barriers to the workplace and will help employers to create stronger, more diverse workforces. I stress that flexible working is about not just working from home, but a fundamental change to working practices to improve the lives of all working people. The ability to work flexibly is crucial to achieving gender equality in the workplace and a fairer, growing economy to change our economy and the world of work for the better.

The Bill is a step in the right direction, but workers still need greater protections. Flexible working should not be a nice-to-have or a job perk, but an employment right. We need to see the Bill as a starting point, not the end point.

Following years of dragging their feet on their pledge to make flexible working the default, the Conservatives have agreed to back only these watered-down proposals. They pledged to include regulations on flexible working in their long-awaited employment Bill. That Bill was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, and it was stated that it would

“make flexible working the default”,

but it was seemingly shelved in last year’s Queen’s Speech.

Beyond responding to this private Member’s Bill, the Government have repeatedly failed to follow through on their promises to promote flexible working. Labour is proudly committed to strengthening rights at work. Although the Government are willing to allow workers the right to request flexible working, Labour’s new deal for working people will ensure the right to secure flexible working for all workers, as default from day one, with employers required to accommodate that as far as is reasonable.

[James Daly]

Will the hon. Lady clarify that point? Is it the case that if, for good reason, a small or medium-sized employer cannot afford to accommodate flexible working, because of the nature of their business, a Labour Government would legislate to say that that is unlawful and that it had to, no matter the financial consequences for the business? [Interruption.]

[Rachel Hopkins]

The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I beg to disagree: Labour is the friend of small businesses. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the end of my sentence before jumping to his feet, he would have heard me say, “as far as is reasonable”. There is a better balance to be had, but there is still a requirement to have a discussion and for it to be as far as is reasonable for the business.

[Gareth Bacon]

I am bit confused about the hon. Lady’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly). How, then, does Labour’s position differ from what the Bill seeks to achieve? It sounds identical.

[Rachel Hopkins]

This gives day one rights at work, compared with—[Interruption.] We would like to see a greater ability for employees to secure flexible working as a right from day one through discussion.

In response to the hon. Member for Bury North, I want to build on the point that the right to flexible working includes flexible hours, compressed hours, staggered hours, and flexibility around childcare and caring responsibilities. There are examples of its being a win-win-win, such as in Luton when, following cuts to budgets, the refuse operatives came up with a new working model that resulted in the same productivity in four days rather than five. It not only met their needs but supported the needs of the business and—sadly—met an objective to make savings.



We know that allowing working people to ask for flexible working is one thing, but ensuring that all workers have the opportunity to benefit is another.

We are committed to ending one-sided flexibility, so that all workers have secure employment and regular and predictable working hours, enabling them to plan their lives around a stable job. We want to ensure that businesses can truly maximise the talent of their employees by creating thriving working environments. Evidence shows that that will greatly increase recruitment and retention. Research by Working Families found that only three in 10 UK parents would be likely to apply for a job that did not list flexible working options in the advert, yet eight in 10 UK parents would be likely to apply for a job if it did list flexible working options in the advert.

[Jo Gideon]

I am confused as to why the hon. Lady’s position seems to be that employers would not want to provide more flexible working and need a labour law to enforce them to do so. That is not my understanding of business. I know that the Labour party claims to be the friend of business, but I am not quite sure how we can be a friend to business and assume that businesses do not have the interests of their employees at heart.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. However, not all employers operate as effectively as the ones that she has experience of, because many people have not had the opportunity to secure the flexible working they need and have had requests turned down.

Importantly, Labour would ensure that businesses can truly maximise the talent of their employees by creating thriving working environments. We would support small and medium-sized businesses to adapt to flexible working practices and to increase the uptake of flexible working, which is good for people and good for businesses. It would boost productivity, employee engagement and staff retention.

In closing, it is right for me to refer to my personal experience. In my career, before having the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Luton South, I enjoyed the benefits of flexible working arrangements at first hand, both as an employee and as a manager of people. As an employee, I flexibly balanced my working hours both when studying part-time for a Masters degree as well as when I was a local councillor carrying out my duties. While working in human resources, I saw how flexible working—whether it be hours or location—can suit different people’s lives and commitments, especially women, and help to retain expertise and talent in the workplace when people’s circumstances change.

I end my remarks by reiterating that we wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is a long-overdue and positive step that will help hard-working people across the country, and I am pleased that it has the Government’s support.