Football Governance Bill (Seventh sitting)

Robin Millar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

It is with a very heavy heart that I stand here thinking about all the work that has gone into preparing the Bill, the foundations of which were set in stone by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. She put in an enormous amount of work to make sure that we had a strong evidence base for a Bill that would be effective for the future of English football. I am extremely grateful to her for all that she has done. I know how passionately she cares about this.

I thank those who supported my hon. Friend in that work, not least the Football Supporters’ Association, Kevin Miles and everyone who spent hours and hours listening to evidence. That helped us to produce initially the White Paper and eventually the Bill.

I pay tribute to the officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When I was first appointed as sports Minister, most of my friends laughed, but the Department’s officials have managed to make me understand more about football than I ever thought I would. They have been phenomenal at making sure that the Bill has been drafted as it is. I am incredibly grateful to them.

I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley East, who has been constructive throughout the whole process. I have really appreciated it.

I thank all members of the Committee, and indeed colleagues across the House, for their help and support over the past few weeks. We have had positive engagement as we have tried to address the challenges and issues that needed to be dealt with. There is a Bill ready to go, so I hope that whoever wins the next election will realise that this is a good piece of legislation that is quick and easy to pick up.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May I add to the Minister’s thanks for the exceptional work led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford? When I was going through the Bill, it struck me that this is the first time that football and politics have collided in this way. I cannot believe that the work, the attention and care paid to the Bill in our debates and in the many months running up to it will be lost. For the record, I am grateful. I am sure that what has been preserved of the debate so far will be useful for the future.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right. I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill: it is considered, and it will achieve the objectives that we want. As I have said on so many occasions, when a football club goes into administration, it is not just the club that feels it, but the whole community, all the businesses supported by the club and its sense of identity.

I hope that whoever wins the election on 4 July will see this as a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans. They are the ones we have been thinking about through the whole process. They are the heart and centre of the Bill. I hope it will be taken up. I thank everybody for all their help and support.

Football Governance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Robin Millar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is a fair point, but I do not think we should have to rely on players having the bravery to make public statements. We are saying—this is a debate that we rehearsed earlier in Committee—that there should be an obligation on the regulator to consult them, and I will come on to make that argument.

Many players care about the fans and communities that they play for, and it is players who are likely to come under fire if they take part in competitions that fans oppose. At best, they will act as a vehicle for fans hoping to hold their clubs to account. At worst, when competing in closed competitions, players may become the face of the demise of the long tradition of the English football pyramid, without having had any say in the matter. At a time when there has been a particularly concerning rise in abuse of football players—albeit from a shameful minority of fans—that becomes even more concerning.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

We rehearsed this somewhat when the representative of the PFA came before us to give evidence. I made the point to him then that we had been told that it was an inability to control costs that was damaging football, but—this was the point I made—actually it is the inability to control wages that is damaging football. That is firmly within the control of players, so I am a little less sympathetic to the argument that the hon. Member is making.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am not sure it is the case that the players control their own wages. When we look at this Bill, as other hon. Members have said—

[Robin Millar]

They can simply say no.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, that is true, and it is true for all of us and anyone who takes a wage, but I think it is a rather unfair expectation to put upon players. I am not sure that I accept the hon. Member’s argument, but obviously, if he has strong views on this issue, he can make a speech when I have concluded.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East set out, there are two main components in football, and they are the players and the fans. I think it is incredibly curious that this Bill does not mention players at any point. That is why I am making the case for these amendments.

I will draw my remarks to a close in a moment. I would just like to share a few other examples with the Committee. To give a troubling example, we will all remember that, following the penalty shoot-out at the Euro 2020 final, a wave of racist social media abuse was aimed at certain players. Ensuring a duty of care to protect players from abuse deserves its own conversation, but I think it is relevant to raise. It is not right that players are not given any say in relation to prohibited competitions, but could be told that they must compete in one—only to face the wrath of fans afterwards. Football is for the fans, of course, but it cannot exist without the players. I therefore encourage the Minister and members of the Committee to consider the benefit of player input on the regulator’s decision making in that area. Given that fans and the FA will already be consulted for their views, it would only require a simple change to the legislation. I hope that we can all get behind amendment 13 to strengthen the clause as much as possible.

Amendment 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, would strengthen the duty of the regulator to understand the view of fans, so that the full impacts of any particular competition are considered. As the European Super League attempt showed, the consequences of a closed competition, where qualification is not based on merit, are plenty. It is therefore important that the full range of impacts is considered. Is the Minister satisfied that the current wording will ensure that, or is amendment 22 needed to require the regulator to take everything into account when gathering the views of relevant stakeholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

The Government understand that the intent behind the amendment is to create certainty about how the regulator’s levy charges will be distributed between clubs. The clause gives the regulator the necessary discretion to determine how the levy is calculated and the individual charges to be paid by clubs. The Government do not have the information or datasets required to determine the appropriate way to calculate levy payments, but those will be available to the regulator. Therefore, the regulator, rather than Government, will be best placed to determine how to distribute levy charges across clubs. Importantly, that reinforces the regulator’s operational independence.

I strongly support the objective that levy charges should be affordable to clubs, which is why there is already provision that should ensure that. However, requiring the regulator to be guided by a percentage of a club’s annual revenue in its levy calculations could undermine its ability to ensure that the charges are proportionate and affordable. In addition to revenue, the regulator should have the discretion to take into account clubs’ other financial resources when determining levy payments, which may be a more appropriate indicator of what a club’s charges should be. That could include resources such as owners’ funds, but also the offset of club expenditure.

Clause 52 already provides assurance that the regulator must take into account clubs’ differing financial circumstances. That includes clubs’ financial resources and the leagues that club teams play in, as that ultimately has a direct link to revenue. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, so I hope he will withdraw it.

[Robin Millar]

On that point, I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts. As I understand it, the purpose of the levy is cost recovery rather than to be a redistributive mechanism. Is there a reason why a simple flat percentage should not be sufficient to achieve all that we described? It would offer certainty, but it would also make sure that those with broader shoulders pay more, and it would achieve the IFR’s objective of recovering its costs.

[Stuart Andrew]

The reality is that, to help it understand the specifics of club finances, the regulator will have at its disposal information that we do not have at the moment. If we set the levy by percentage, we may unintentionally cause a problem for some clubs and cause an unintended consequence. The regulator will be best placed to make sure that the levy is proportionate, which is why we want the regulator to determine it. My hon. Friend is right, in the sense that some clubs will pay more for a player than most clubs earn in a year, but we will make sure that the levy is proportionate. I understand the points the hon. Member for Sheffield South East made, and I have heard what some of the smaller clubs have been saying, but I am confident we will be able to achieve that aim.

Clause 52 will allow the regulator to charge a levy to licensed clubs that covers the regulator’s running costs, following the precedent of other regulators, such as the FCA and Ofcom. The cost of the regime will be paid for by licensed football clubs. By making football clubs more sustainable in the long term, the regulator will be providing a service to the industry. As the industry would benefit from regulation, it is logical that it, rather than taxpayers, should cover the cost.

The legislation puts robust checks and balances on the regulator, which will be limited to raising funds to meet its annual regulatory running costs. That includes the costs of ongoing regulatory activity, additional money for new activities, and costs associated with recouping set-up costs. In line with the principles of transparency and accountability, the regulator will be subject to “Managing Public Money” guidance, and its forecast running costs will be subject to review by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury.

The clause also gives the regulator discretion regarding the method for calculating the levy and in setting the levy payment level for individual clubs. To ensure that the regulator takes into account clubs’ differing financial circumstances, and to prevent charges from being unaffordable for clubs, clause 52 requires the regulator to take into account a club’s financial resources and the league it plays in. Clause 53 imposes a statutory duty on the regulator to consult regulated clubs and the Government on its levy rules.

The levy is an operational matter that should be determined independently by the regulator, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to make the assessment. As I say, running costs will be checked by both the DCMS and the Treasury.

Football Governance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Robin Millar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

The Minister’s answer with regard to the FA cup will disappoint many football fans. Football fans look to us to address things that matter to them, and the Minister is right that many fans were outraged at the decision taken with no consultation—not even proper consultation with the EFL and other leagues—to simply abandon FA cup replays.

We could all wax lyrical about the FA cup replay matches we have been to. Those are the ones I remember, and I refer again back to the 1970s, when Sheffield Wednesday, a third-tier club, had four FA cup replays with Arsenal, which was then in the top tier. I remember every one of those games—I went to four of them at least—because they were a unique experience, and that is what many fans feel. They want us to recognise that and to give some assurance that such decisions will not be taken with their interests cast to one side, as though they simply do not matter.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the questions that I asked in the evidence sessions that reflected that concern. However, I am mindful of Ronald Reagan, who said that the scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is reason, merit and even value in the Government’s cautious approach?

[Mr Betts]

We should always be cautious when we look at regulation. Without drawing you into the debate, Sir Christopher, I am sure that you would echo that point. Nevertheless, the fact is that there is a bit of conflict in the Government’s argument. Why are we here today with the Bill in terms of regulation? One of the reasons why is that a handful of clubs decided that they wanted to break away into a European super league, so the Bill specifically mentions clubs not being able to simply up roots and go into a different league without permission. The Bill legislates for and gives the regulator powers over new competitions and which clubs may enter into them, but no powers over existing competitions and how they may be changed.

Let me put a scenario to the Minister that involves not just FA cup replays, because I suppose that decision could be reversed; it would not be too difficult to manage if we got to the point where we wanted that to happen. Let us say there is a scenario—it nearly happened a few years ago—in which the Premier League decides to create a Premier League Two, then pulls the drawbridge up and stops relegation from that league. What would happen then? Would the Minister say, “That is terrible. I am getting a lot of letters and emails and people stopping me in the street; I cannot do anything about it and the regulator has no power”? Indeed, would the regulator have a power to intervene at that point, because that would be a major disruption to the whole structure and pyramid of English football? If the regulator will not be there to protect the pyramid, what will it be there for?

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the Bill does not currently recognise that there are cross-governance structures that work well within the game and with which it might be beneficial for the regulator to work constructively.

[Robin Millar]

I am really sympathetic to the notion of a redistributed ownership of the game; I have always struggled with the idea that the ownership sits, for example, with the Premier League. The Bill makes provision for consultation or constructive engagement with clubs. Is it the hon. Member’s contention that that is not satisfactory, because many clubs do engage with fans and, obviously, will talk to their players?

[Stephanie Peacock]

No. The point I am making is that, as we heard in the evidence sessions, lots of clubs have lots of good structures and some best practice that we can learn from, but this particular part of the Bill lists the groups that the regulator should have a relationship with, and I am simply suggesting that we could strengthen that. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

My amendment 2 builds on what my hon. Friend has just spoken about. The principles are all fine, but there is a glaring omission. We are here today because of supporters. It was the supporters that defeated the European Super League. If the reports are true, the then Prime Minister met the chief executive of Manchester United and there was not much of a furore around the European Super League politically. That suddenly changed when the fans rose up from every single club that was involved, much to the consternation of the owners —I know this personally. They thought that the fans of the said clubs would be delighted at the riches that were going to be pouring into their clubs and at ensuring their success, but that was not the case. It was the supporters of the six clubs and also the pyramid that rose up and defeated the European Super League.

[Robin Millar]

The hon. Gentleman and I see eye to eye on this, but it would be remiss of me not to point out, from the Government Back Benches, that the Prime Minister at the time was well aware of the objections and concerns that were felt across our constituencies.

[Ian Byrne]

That is a fine point. I am not excluding anybody, because there was outrage across the piece. Setting this regulator up is welcome, but it must have supporters at its heart. The regulatory principles should include supporters, so I hope the Minister takes on board what we have outlined and adds that one word, which would make a huge difference. It would reinstate trust in the whole process if supporters were listened to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is a good example that highlights that well-run clubs will want to hear from fans on the issues that matter most to them. Of course, the ability of fans to attend games is incredibly relevant to the financial sustainability of every club. Match-day revenue is a crucial pillar of club finances, and of course getting pricing right will require much more than fan input alone, but I believe that at the very least fans deserve to have their voices heard on the matter, and they have something to offer clubs in return.

[Robin Millar]

It is true that there is a sense that clubs are starting to treat fans as extras who pay for the privilege in a televised spectacle, but surely the hon. Lady would not want the regulator to interfere with market dynamics and a club’s commercial approach. I am struggling to hear that in her speech. I get that these are important issues, but I am not quite sure why the regulator should get involved.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we respect the fact that it is a commercial decision. Obviously, like me, he will have heard the evidence sessions. Fan groups said time and again that this is a really important issue and that they are not being consulted meaningfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby gave a good example of the benefit to fans; we are simply trying to highlight that point, because we want that meaningful relationship with fans to be as constructive as possible.

I will briefly move on to kick-off times. The FSA says that one of the biggest sources of complaints to its inbox is match-going fans complaining about the scheduling of games. That is not just grumbling about inconvenience; late changes to scheduling can impact on fans’ lives and finances. With good notice for games, fans can book time off work, access advance rail tickets and accommodation, and budget accordingly. Late changes to kick-off times, which are becoming increasingly common, mean that fans are forced to make expensive cancellations or spend large sums on last-minute public transport and hotel bookings.

If the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the game continues to serve the interests of fans and contribute to the wellbeing of local communities, the regulator must at least be taking note of the areas that matter most to fans. To reiterate, I do not believe it would be right for the regulator to take any kind of proactive role in dictating to clubs and competition organisers when matches should be played, but as I have said many times before, Ministers have repeated themselves over and over about how important fans are to football, so if that is the case, both the state of the game report and the clubs, when consulting fans, should be looking at the areas that matter most to those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I absolutely want to assure the hon. Lady about independence. It is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime free from any undue influence from industry or Government. However, as is the case with other regulators, it is appropriate that the regulator is accountable to both Parliament and Government. Holding it to account is also important to industry, which is why the Bill provides for that in a way that is proportionate while also protecting the regulator’s operational independence.

It will be for the regulator to determine when and where it publishes its guidance. We do not specify where it should be published, but we strongly expect that it will be published on its website in an easily accessible format in the way that most other regulators do, such as the Financial Conduct Authority with its handbook.

[Robin Millar]

Could the Minister imagine a situation in which the Secretary of State issues guidance as per clause 13—for, example, on some of the issues raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock)—and the IFR then subsequently issues its own guidance as per clause 12?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes, I have been very clear that the regulator must have regard to statements from the Secretary of State but is not compelled to follow them entirely. That is an important safeguard to ensure that independence in the setup that we are establishing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Annual report

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

Football Governance Bill (First sitting)

Robin Millar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary football club group, and we too receive sponsorship.

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

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on football. I do not think it necessary to declare, but at least it is there on the record in case anyone wants to know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

Q Do you feel then that the Bill goes far enough in tackling these issues?

Kieran Maguire: As an investigator, you would always want more powers than less, so I think you have to be honest there. At the same time, in terms of protecting the game from over-regulation and being mindful that FIFA does not allow government interference in football, I think we have probably hit a reasonably good sweet spot with regard to the proposals to date.

Dr Philippou: I agree with that.

[Robin Millar]

Q Dr Philippou, you describe a industry that is reliant on patronage. If I could remind you, Mr Maguire, you said that a collective inability to control costs characterises the industry. How do you reconcile the two? Is it the inability of owners to control costs? Is it the structure that has the problems? Is it actually an inability, or is it an ignorance of costs or an unwillingness to address them?

Dr Philippou: I think it is a combination of various things. Ultimately, what you have is poor cost control and poor monitoring. Owners have to be mindful of that because, ultimately, at least half of them are putting money into football clubs every year to keep them running, so they are aware that there are cost problems there. You cannot be propping up a technically insolvent club and not know that you are propping it up, so there is that element there. You also have general cost controls —people are aware that they are losing money. It is not something where you can say there is a lack of awareness there; it is a lack of a willingness to do something about it. We saw UEFA bring in financial regulations back in 2010-11. The Premier League brought them in around about 2014. But we are still seeing these problems, even with the financial regulations in place, which tells you that there is an ongoing issue.

Kieran Maguire: What we have in terms of the present model is one of self-regulation, and self-regulation is normally walking hand in hand with self-interest. As far as owners are concerned, and I can understand this from an owner’s perspective, if I bought a football club as a trophy asset and I have unlimited funds, then why should I not spend as much money? What there has been is a trade-off between those owners willing to put in unlimited amounts, those owners wanting to put in limited amounts, and those owners wanting to put in nothing because they see the football industry as an extension of the entertainment industry, with a view to making it profitable on a longer-term basis. That is where we are at present.

The rules have effectively failed to address the loss-making in the business. Loss-making is sustainable until it is not sustainable—until those owners, either individually or collectively, decide to change the rules. Without any form of assistance from the regulator, that would mean that the industry is naturally precarious, because you only have to have, as we said earlier, a change in circumstances, as we saw with Chelsea. We have seen a club such as Bolton Wanderers have a very beneficial owner. His personal circumstances changed due to illness, and then you have a crisis for the club.

[Robin Millar]

Q I am curious, then, because the Bill itself is a regulatory Bill. It talks about a licence to operate owners and directors tests, but in some of your replies, you have suggested something much more interventionist—something that is much more warning people about things that will cause them a problem further down the line. Is what you are describing about a regulation of interests rather than simply a regulation of finance? If that is the case, does this Bill focused on finance actually manage to do that?

Kieran Maguire: I think it does deal with the financial issues. Effectively, if the regulator becomes the Martin Lewis of football in giving appropriate advice, that can benefit the industry. Many people enter the football industry with very good intentions. They have been successful in their own roles in their own businesses and think they can replicate that in football, and then they are seduced by the nature of football. For example, you run a club on a sustainable basis, and you are in seventh in the Championship in January. Your manager comes to you and says, “I’ve spotted this centre forward—costs £8 million, wants 30 grand a week, can get us into the play-offs. We can be in the Premier League in six months,” and all your common sense goes out of the window. That is part of the joy of football, but it is also one of the reasons why we have resulted in a loss-making industry. Provided the owner is aware of the consequences of their decisions, all you can do is give advisory assistance, rather than telling them what to do.

Dr Philippou: But there is an element of investment fatigue. We see all these great things, it is all going well and people are pumping money in, and then something happens in their other businesses or they lose interest, and that is when things start going wrong in the industry. I guess that is why there is also the non-financial side of the Bill, which looks at the corporate governance and fixes that side of the game too.

[Stuart Andrew]

Q Do you worry about the competitiveness of the bottom of the Premier League, particularly after three weak clubs were promoted? That relates to some of the questions that were asked earlier. Do you have any thoughts about a reasonable timeframe for approving a takeover?

Kieran Maguire: In terms of the issues at the bottom of the Premier League, three clubs have just been promoted and have almost been relegated. The three clubs above them—excluding Everton, because if it had not had a points deduction, it would have been on 48 points—have been in the Premier League for two or three seasons, so there is an acclimatisation issue. There is also an issue at the top of the Championship. The clubs that have just been relegated have greater resources than their peer group, and that is going to have a yo-yo effect, which we appear to be locking in on a greater basis. That tends to be more of the case in the Championship and League One, where some clubs are moving. That is driven by the culture of the owners. The system at present encourages overspending. We have not seen that in respect of the three clubs that are being relegated, but we did see it to a greater degree with the clubs that were promoted in 2022.

Dr Philippou: Absolutely, there is that competitiveness issue, which we have seen diminish over time. That has a long-term impact on the commercial side and on broadcasting rights, because the less competitive a league becomes, the less likely people are to watch it and the less likely broadcasters are to put money in, so that can also have an impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Ian, we are going to have to move on.

[Robin Millar]

Q The difference between the three leagues is quite striking, in terms of the levels of investment, the scale and the nature of the operations that individual clubs run, and the way that they fail. In the last session, we heard about two quite contrasting pictures of the regulator. Dr Philippou talked about the Bill providing for a very light-touch regulator, but Mr Maguire seemed to talk about something much more interventionist that monitors things and intervenes when problems might be about to occur or develop. I am curious about how each of you sees that balance playing out, and how important it is for your league. Perhaps I can start with you, Mr Masters.

Richard Masters: I am probably going to start repeating myself. I think that light-touch, proportionate regulation can work, and when the Committee is scrutinising the Bill, it should try to ensure that that is the case—that the regulator has the powers to intervene at the right moment. One of the things that we have argued for—

[Robin Millar]

Sorry, just to be explicit, my question is whether you think that the regulator is there to control bad actors or whether the regulator is there to intervene when it sees that somebody is about to make a mistake.

Richard Masters: I think they are both the same thing. I do not think that we should put in place broad protective measures to ensure that nobody can ever hurt themselves. What I do think is that the regulator intends to be preventive, and we will be supportive of preventive regulation to stop bad things happening, and of the regulator having the power when bad things are happening. I think those three things are subtly different and quite nuanced, and I hope that the Bill can reflect that.

It comes back to the personality of the regulator itself, which has not been formed yet; key appointments have not been made. If the Bill is structured in a particular way, and the personality of the regulator is such that it enforces on a proportionate and light-touch basis, I think that it can be made to work and will help football.

[Robin Millar]

Mr Parry?

Rick Parry: I would like to broaden the conversation and touch on the regulator’s systemic responsibilities, which we think are really important. The purpose of the EFL, which we defined four years ago, is to make clubs sustainable. As I said earlier, that means reducing the dependence on owner funding. To do that, you need redistribution to make them solvent and better regulation to make sure they are not profligate; the two must go hand in hand.

We think that the Bill goes a very long way towards addressing the regulatory aspects properly. What it does not do is address redistribution properly. It has ducked the key issues on that. The danger is that, if it is completely effective on regulation but ineffective on redistribution, it will just be failing to license clubs, and we will have many EFL clubs not being licensed and going out of business. That cannot possibly be the objective of the regulator.

[Robin Millar]

Thank you. Mr Ives?

Mark Ives: It is an interesting question. As you say, the differences between the three competitions are striking. If I understood you correctly, the question was about there being failings in all three. If we are talking about financial sustainability, I am at a loss to see where that failing has been from a National League perspective, for the reasons that I outlined before. That is one of the reasons why I support a lighter-touch position from the regulator, but we need to ensure that there is a safety net there for the sport, so that you to step in when that is needed. As I say, from a National League perspective, the record has been quite strong. When the fan-led review first kicked off, there was a misunderstanding as to what the financial regulations in the National League are, and it was not until, I think, the second meeting that we had with the fan-led review, when that was explained, that people understood and realised what steps are being taken by the National League. That is the background as to why we think there is a lighter touch.

[Mr Betts]

Q I want particularly to look at clause 55(2)(b), which you are probably all very familiar with. Could I ask for your view on that provision—the removal from the regulator’s backstop powers of the ability to look at parachute payments? Did you lobby Ministers to include it?

Richard Masters: We do not think that parachutes should be part of the backstop power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q Kevin, you have given a very eloquent and passionate explanation about why you would like to see the Bill improved for fans and the general supporter base. You have also made representations about your wider concerns, so I thought you might like the opportunity to explain some of those to the Committee.

Kevin Miles: Clearly, I have been sat listening with a great deal of interest to what has gone before. The organisation has a view on the issue of parachute payments. We think they need to be in scope for consideration. We are also convinced of the need, in extremis if required, for the regulator to be able to trigger their own backstop powers. That is important. I am sure this will come up in discussion later, but I understand that you, Tracey, have tabled an amendment to adjust the wording about taking cognisance of Government foreign policy, and changing that from something that the regulator “must” do to something that the regulator “may” do. That is important because it would underline the independence of the regulator, which I think will be an important issue.

I could talk all day—I know you will not allow me to do so. The Bill is not perfect. There are areas that we would love to see strengthened, but if this Bill goes through entirely unamended, it is a huge step forward from the point of view of football. This is an important process for us. On a lot of what we have been seeking to get football to do itself, which it has failed to do, this Bill provides a solution. It fills a space and provides a regulatory function that has been lacking. Clearly, there are elements that we will continue to engage with Ministers and officials on, particularly the fan engagement stuff.

A lot of what we are talking about here is clarifying and nailing down. I am going to speak bluntly to people who understand this. At the moment, in a parliamentary process, we are aware that we have a little bit of leverage here. I would like to pin down as much of this as we can in the process of drawing this together, rather than just hoping for the best later. I think a lot of Members will share our concerns about the fan engagement. We want to make it meaningful; it must have a lasting impact. We do not want to be coming back to this and looking at the limitations—let’s get it right now. It is in that spirit that we are raising all these issues around fan engagement.

[Robin Millar]

Q It has been wonderful to hear the fans’ voice in what you have said and contributed previously to this whole process in bringing us to where we are. In the previous sessions, it has been quite interesting to hear how the English Football League and the National League, for example, were clearly feeling that it was, in what I think were Rick Parry’s words, an “unequal negotiation”. This Bill strikes me as trying to level the playing field, if you will pardon the pun, between different interest groups. Do you think the Bill gives you, as fans, the leverage to exert more control? I ask that because the Bill focuses heavily on finance. It includes other things such as heritage, but there is more to being a football fan than just the heritage. Do you think it gives you that leverage on those non-financial aspects as well?

Kevin Miles: It takes us a long way in the right direction. I think that if fans have a meaningful voice in every club, and the clubs are the ones who cast the votes in the leagues and their decision-making processes, the fan view should start to filter its way through. Clearly, we are never going to be completely satisfied.

I would also like to say that I am sitting here as the fans’ voice. I speak not just as an individual, but on the basis of the input that we have had from fans’ groups up and down the country. I need to thank my team from the FSA for the work they have done in getting this far. They work in a vary variegated landscape. There are some clubs that are really good at engaging with their fanbase and the local communities, and they deserve the credit for that. There are others where, sadly, it will need some sort of intervention to make sure that they are dragged up to at least the minimum standard. I hope we are in a process now where we can achieve that.

Football Governance Bill (Second sitting)

Robin Millar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Q First, thank you for all your engagements so far as we have been preparing the Bill. On the point about proportionality, you made good representations as we were preparing the Bill. I hope the Bill reflects that the amount of work you will have to do will be dependent on where you are in the pyramid.

If the Bill goes through, there will be a statutory regulator. What discussions have clubs had with the National League about whether it will row back and allow the statutory regulator to do the work so that there is no duplication?

Secondly, the independent experts we had in this morning said that clubs are looking in the rear-view mirror at the moment and that the advocacy-first approach means that there will be a real-time approach to analysis of clubs, which would be helpful for clubs. Do you agree?

Steve Thompson: I was quite hoping that the regulator would work with the National League, the EFL and the Premier League, allow them to continue with their reporting, and step in only if there was a problem with particular clubs. It would be a much more light touch. We have discussed that before. I understand that that will be down to the regulator, but I was hoping it would be more like that.

Darryl Eales: I think the forward-looking approach is to be welcomed. I am an accountant by background, and I am very happy to share my ideas on how that approach can put more pressure on owners to be financially responsible. The only reason football clubs get into trouble is their playing budget, so there needs to be some linkage between your playing budget and the financial resources of the owner.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Q Mr Eales, I was really struck by your comment that you question the motives of owners higher up the leagues. Something that came through strongly for me in this morning’s session was the differences between the leagues: differences in motives, if I understand you correctly; differences in the level of contact owners have with fans, which was a very important point that you made; and, I suspect, a difference in the closeness to the operations of the organisation.

I am interested in how clubs fail, too. This touches on what the Minister was just saying: where should the balance of the regulator fall? Should it simply issue licenses, have a fitness test for owners, and so on—take more of a “control the bad actors” approach—or should it be more interventionist and say, “We think there’s a problem here; we think there’s a mismanagement. They’re going to make a mistake, and it’s going to cause problems”? Where does the balance properly fall?

Darryl Eales: That is quite a toughie.

[Robin Millar]

Q You just said that clubs fail because of lack of money. That is not the case, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

Q I suppose ultimately, however it is done, we would want the same standards to apply to everyone. Clubs that have a men’s team and a women’s team should be regulated in the same way as clubs that just have a women’s team.

Jane Purdon: There is a proportionality. One of the other bodies I chair is PGAAC—the Professional Game Academy Audit Company—which is the academy quality assurance body. It is a joint venture between the FA, the Premier League and the EFL, and there is proportionality in what we do. We quality-assure all the academies, and we have just started doing the girls’ game as well. We are not taking what we apply to Manchester City to what we apply to a League Two community organisation that happens to run a girl’s elite training centre. It has to be proportionate and you have to make sure that you are adding value all the way.

In fairness, for full disclosure, I have spoken to people in the women’s game who disagree and say that if this if this is coming in for the men’s game, it ought to come in for the women’s game. I look at things like the owners and officers test, which we have written to the Committee about, because we think there are real problems in the drafting. I think that is going to be incredibly onerous for clubs. If you then put that into the women’s clubs as well, many of them who are running on much lower resources, it is an unintended consequence of bureaucracy to what end.

[Robin Millar]

Q I am an MP from north Wales. The Football Association of Wales told me that girls drop out of football at teen age. That is the big cliff edge, and it is principally to do with facilities that are available, as it is a time when that is particularly important. What do you think are the biggest barriers to women participating in football?

Jane Purdon: By the way, hearing where you are from, may I sound a note of congratulations to Wrexham FC? I saw it had an attendance of 9,500 for one of its women’s games—wonderful.

What are the barriers? We need the role models. We have those. Our Lionesses are wonderful. We need infrastructure. We need more, more, more, more, more. It is as simple as that. We need more pitches, we need more people, we need more coaches. I sometimes say to people if you want to know what needs to happen in future, take a walk around your town and count up all the football pitches you come across—the ones down the park, the ones in the school, the ones for the professional football club. Now double that. If we are serious about opening up football to the other half of the population, it will look something like that. So, yes: more, more, more.

There has to be some rate of organic growth in this. We cannot do everything at once. Many of the people looking at this, the people at NewCo, the people at the FA and, in fairness, the Sport Minister, have taken a good interest in this. There is good work happening, but we have a long way to go.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness. We will move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Q Do you believe the Bill as it stands will ensure the appointments to the expert panel and the board of the regulator are free from vested interests? What kind of experts do you think should make up the expert panel?

Niall Couper: You probably spoke to a couple this morning. I saw the panels and I am aware of some of those people. You have an issue here. Where does the investment come from? Who are the people making the decisions? Where is the funding coming from for some of these people who will be putting their names forward? We have to look at making sure that people who perhaps work for the Premier League or the EFL, who have been making an awful lot of these decisions, are not allowed to be on those boards, or that those organisations that are majority funded are not on those boards.

It is really difficult. I would like to see a whole load of organisations get independent funding. It would be really beneficial to allow them to have that free voice that football really needs. At the moment, the Premier League is the de facto regulator of football.

[Robin Millar]

Q I chair the parliamentary football club and have often said that I am a terrible fan. I have never held a season ticket in my life, but I have played grassroots football, badly, for about 45 years. It is fantastic to see you here today, Mr Sullivan.

DCMS has done a brilliant job in making sure that money gets out to grassroots clubs. I have seen some in my own constituency, even though that is over the border in north Wales and comes via the Football Association of Wales.

You have just said something that I have written down—every MP has grassroots football clubs in their constituency. Potentially, every single MP here has an interest in voting to see money vired directly to grassroots football.

You make the point about the key transaction between the Premier League and the English Football League. I am curious, however, about how that might happen. Is the structure in place to cope with, suddenly, tens of thousands of projects across the UK? Is the FA—I will use the phrase— fit for use, in terms of distributing and monitoring that? What do you think needs to be done from your end of the telescope?

Robert Sullivan: Let me pick through that carefully. The way in which projects are identified to invest in grassroots football is done by the Football Foundation, who fund us alongside the Government and the Premier League. In Wales, their money goes straight into the FAW, who have set up their own equivalent of the Football Foundation. Without passing comment on whether the FA were fit to do it, which I am sure they would have been, they tasked us with doing it.

I am delighted to say that we worked really hard to build what we call a local football facility plan for every local authority in the country. If any of you go on our website—I am seeing some nods; it is good that you know about your local football facility plans—there is effectively a shopping list of all the projects that we want to do in every part of England. We have built a team and we are building in the investment from our partners to go out there and deliver those projects.

[Robin Millar]

Q You are telling me what is already there, which I understand. Could it cope with the massive uplift that would come from money coming through in the way that you wish?

Robert Sullivan: Yes, because it would 100% be my job to build the operation or structure to do that. To give you some comfort that we can do that, we have basically doubled what we have done in the last three years. If the Minister responsible for the future investment of any Government of any colour said to me, “You need to double it again,” that is what we would set out to do.

[Robin Millar]

Q Mr Couper, do you have any comments on that?

Niall Couper: I am very much in favour of more investment going through to the Football Foundation. If we are looking at a body that could potentially help to deliver that infrastructure and that way of doing it and ensure that clubs are investing in the right ways, which I am also in favour of, it is a good thing. We need to look at those lower levels of football and how that comes in. It goes back to that parameter question. When you look at how a distribution deal is decided, having an independent regulator to say, “These are the parameters that that deal must reach” is where you can see a real, fundamental difference.

When we look at the Football Foundation, I think you get 2.5% of the £3.19 billion that is there. What would happen if that was 5%? How many extra pitches would there be? What extra stadiums would we see? There are crumbling stadiums that are outside the Premier League. The extra facilities that could be changed and used for all the community clubs and community assets there, to use a very good Conservative phrase, is levelling up. That is what you could see in all those grounds and areas. That is what you could do, but it comes about only if the parameters of that distribution deal are robust enough and set by the regulator to deliver the change that is needed.

Robert Sullivan: I want to put it on the record that the Premier League has been far and away the most supportive and consistent funder over the 24-year period of the Football Foundation, and it is really important to say that. I am not sat here in any way saying that we do not feel well-supported by the Premier League.

[Robin Millar]

If I ask more questions, the Whip will start getting nervous about amendments that I might want to lay down. I will just say that every community has churches, pubs and football clubs, and there is a good reason for asking these questions.

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Robin Millar Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Let me begin by telling a little story that may surprise some Members who have made assumptions and judgments about my position on policies of this type.

When my party leader, Alex Salmond, introduced equal marriage to Scotland, it was done in a collaborative and supportive way, involving proper engagement with all members of the community. All the Churches were involved, through an assembly process. It was a smooth and positive campaign that delivered real, meaningful change. I have not availed myself of it, because I am happy to stick with the old-style civil partnership—my partner and I are very comfortable with that—but for those who want a marriage ceremony, it is brilliant.

After the introduction of equal marriage at the beginning of 2015, the Equality Network, which had led the campaign for it, organised a consultation on what the priority should be for equalities campaigning in Scotland. So I trundled off to Edinburgh on a cold dark March evening to sit in a room with a large group of people—transexual people, transgender people and gay people. I was the only politician who had turned up on that cold evening, and I was full-throated in my support for advancing disability and inclusion rights and the rights of transgender people. What I had never signed up for, however, was the insinuation of queer theory into the rights movement and the equality movement, and the pernicious effect that it would have. I had not realised how dangerous and disruptive that movement was until I spoke up, very politely, and said a simple thing: “Women are not being listened to in the trans debate.”

The response that stemmed from that simple statement of absolute fact has been horrific. People describe me as gender critical, but I am not transphobic—absolutely not. I have led my local Pride march for two years, I have introduced safe spaces for trans people, and I have relationships and friendships with people who are transgender and transexual. However, when I look at a policy through the lens of someone who has been involved in safeguarding and child protection throughout his professional life and I see a risk in that policy, it is my duty to point that out to legislators and to say, “This is dangerous.”

The reason I have brought that up and the reason it is relevant to the debate—I am coming to that; I can see that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) is getting anxious—is that this policy does not sit in isolation from queer theory. It is part of the queer theory movement, and despite all the reassurances and despite the hon. Gentleman’s best efforts—and I believe that his speech and his engagement have been entirely sincere—he cannot divorce what he is attempting to do with this legislation from the activists who will have a very different reading of the words that he has spoken today, and the reassurances that he has given us. That is my great fear and concern.

I have risen to oppose the Bill not despite but because of the fact that I am a gay male who can see the dangers that it presents to gender non-conforming young people. I came out in the 1980s, when being gay was not fashionable and people could still be sacked for it, with no recourse or redress in employment law. In those days, my greatest allies were women: Women in the Workplace, the feminists who volunteered alongside me at Scottish AIDS Monitor, the women who worked alongside me in schools delivering drug and sexual health education to young people in response to the particular AIDS problem that we had in Edinburgh, and the women who walked alongside me on Pride marches. I remember that, and I value it.

It is so sad that the cause of improving the lives of transgender and transsexual people in the UK has been blighted by a campaign that can be described as, at best, divisive and aggressive. My family and I have been subjected to the full force of that campaign, which is the problem with this Bill. I believe the intentions of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown are genuine, but it is against a backdrop of queer theory activists and heterosexual people telling me how I should define myself and what I should accept as a gay man. That is unacceptable. It is homophobia, and I do not care what anyone says.

Balancing rights and protections requires the consideration of every affected community, and every affected category within each community. Despite what is often said, neither queer theory nor gender ideology is about inclusion or diversity. It is an anarchic, authoritarian movement, the purpose of which is to disrupt and silence. Speaking up has not been easy, and the impact on my family has been enormous.

As a voter, I want to vote for a politician who I believe is telling me the truth. I do not want to vote for a politician who lies to me, who says that black is white or that Y is X. That will never be acceptable, which is why I feel a responsibility to live up to that standard. I have made this point before, but conversion therapy bans are part of a slate of policies which, in my view, are intended to insinuate queer theory into every facet of our culture and to control and limit freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The clearest example is that I am somehow not same-sex attracted but same-gender attracted, and that I should therefore accept trans-identifying females as an acceptable partner. Thankfully, that is never going to happen because my partner and I have been together for 30 years and there is no way that will change—I do not have the energy to think about it.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I try to listen carefully to these debates, and each time I learn much that is new. The hon. Gentleman brings a perspective to this debate that is completely outside my own experience, for which I thank him. He makes an important point about inclusivity, and I want to understand the implications. Is he saying that this Bill is effectively promoting an exclusivity, and that it is not inclusive? By describing the slate of queer theory policy, is he saying that this Bill would be unintentionally harmful well beyond its actual scope?

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will address some of those complex issues.

If we look at the Bill through a utilitarian lens, there is a desire to protect the few, which is a laudable and noble aim, but it would limit the freedoms of so many and would potentially inflict serious criminal harm upon them because of a lack of foresight of the consequences of some of the proposals.

As a counterpoint, and this speaks to events that have happened today, can Members imagine a circumstance in which it would be remotely acceptable for me to lecture my partner about how he should feel when somebody expresses a racist view towards him, how he should manage it and how he should respond to it? I would never presume to do that as that is absolutely not my place. By the same token, it is not anyone’s place to lecture women or LGB people, or force-team them with others and say, “You must campaign with them. You must accept their demands.” That is what queer theory is doing to our society

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

Yes, that is an important point and refers back to the points made in the previous intervention. I have a very busy constituency office and I meet church leaders and different faith groups to talk about these issues. They are relieved that they have a Member of Parliament who is prepared to stand up on their behalf and ask the difficult questions. I have parents with children who are contemplating transition or who are desisting, so I deal with that.

I also have members of staff in the local health service who are finding themselves in a very difficult situation because queer theory has insinuated itself into the culture of all our institutions. The staff have no sense of privacy or dignity, and they are concerned about the privacy and dignity of their patients. That is why it is so important to name queer theory as the backdrop against which this legislation is being proposed, and my concern is that it would be the thin end of the wedge. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that the Bill would be reviewed in four years’ time. Yes, we can have amendments and new clauses added to the legislation, but that goes both ways. The next time it is reviewed, all caveats could be removed. The full-throated queer theory doctrine could be forced into every part of our society, which is a risk that I am not prepared to leave unchallenged.

As I said, the Bill leaves young people at the mercy of radicalised activists online, and such activity is to be tolerated. There is no amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent access to people who encourage and entice young people to sign up to irreversible medical and surgical treatments from which they can never row back. When someone stops puberty, they cannot restart it—that is it—and all the important developmental changes that happen during puberty are gone. Transitioning is not just about affirmation; it involves coercion, persuasion and unrealistic enticements, which lead young people who are living through desperately difficult times to believe that there is a quick fix for their problem.

The ideology underpinning all this is the real threat, and makes this legislation much more illiberal and much more difficult for young gender non-conforming people than section 28 could ever have been. That is the effect of this legislation: it would block therapeutic support for gender non-conforming young people and channel them, through unquestioning affirmation, into a lifetime of medical treatment and surgical limbo. We know that gender non-conforming behaviour is being used as evidence of gender dysphoria by non-experts in the classroom and in other professions. A significant finding of the Cass review was about the culture that existed at the GIDS clinic, and I ask all Members to reflect on the words of the brave detransitioners who were discarded by the “be kind” brigade of radicalised activists when they decided to desist. Kiera said:

“I became attracted to girls, but I had never had a positive association with the term ‘lesbian’ or the idea that two girls could be in a relationship. I wondered if something was wrong with me. I was adamant that I needed to transition. It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy. As I matured, I recognised that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause.”

Ritchie said:

“Homophobia was rife in the local culture, my family and school and it seemed to be the worst outcome ever to end up gay. My behaviours were policed by others for being too flamboyant or eccentric, and I struggled with fitting in with others. I latched onto the idea with an unfounded zeal, and not a single medical professional stopped me thereafter. I delayed my appointment for surgery for over two years, because I had doubts. But then they gave me an ultimatum and I knew that if was not going to go through with the surgery I would have lost my therapist. As soon as I was conscious, I knew I had made the biggest mistake of my life. My sex has been lobotomised.”

That is manifestly not informed consent. It is coercive and abusive, and it breaks all ethical principles of respect for personal autonomy. We need positive LGB and T messages, not false promises that personal struggles can be fixed by mutilating surgery and experimental drugs.

But it is not just lesbian and gay young people at risk. Sinead said:

“Transitioning evangelists on the forums tell young people like me that all will be well. After cutting my long hair short and wearing men’s clothes for a year, I was put on a 12-month waiting list for treatment at a gender clinic in Glasgow. I could not believe how easy it was. What I needed was counselling to uncover why I had come to loathe my body. Instead the professionals appeared to take what I said at face value. When I said I was in the wrong sex and wanted to be a man, they agreed and prescribed me with testosterone. No one ever told me the truth: ‘You’re not a man. It’s impossible to de-sex yourself.’”

The effects on those young people have been devastating, because they were denied the help they needed.

I pay tribute to Sex Matters and the team at LGB Alliance for their invaluable work standing up for the rights of young LGB people. I want to challenge a comment that was made earlier. Being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a sexuality. That is manifestly different from being transsexual. I am not indifferent; in fact, I feel passionate about trans people being looked after properly. But to say that, in order for my identity to matter, I have to be teamed with the trans community is completely unacceptable; it is homophobic. Those organisations that I mentioned have protected young people from a tsunami of lies. I cannot put into words how strongly I feel about this. I thank Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron, Sinead Watson and every other detrans person who has had the courage to stand up and speak out. I am absolutely humbled by the experience that they have gone through and their courage to put that into words. As Keira put it:

“it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery.”

I acknowledge that this Bill seeks to provide access to therapy and, as we mentioned a moment ago, to address affirmation conversion practices. However, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, where are the therapists? Where will they come from? Child and adolescent mental health services are already under enormous pressure. If through threat, fear or a chilling effect the trusted adults who can engage with gender-questioning young people or those who think they might be gay will be limited in who they can interface with, who will pick that up? Those young people will be left isolated, unable to speak to anyone about their sexuality. The chilling effect that this Bill risks is enormous. Where will the therapists come from?

The reality is that young people will be redirected to the quacks on social media. They will not be able to speak to a trusted adult. That risk has to be understood. The reality is that this Bill puts those it seeks to protect in harm’s way and restricts the support that they can draw on. This is the wrong legislation for young gay, lesbian and transgender people. It attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, and fosters a new, chilling homophobic culture—just like section 28.

I agree with the proposal from Sex Matters that any legislation should meet the following four policy aims: outlaw all medical or surgical treatment of minors to modify their sexual characteristics; outlaw medical surgical treatments performed on anyone who has not had the full implications of the treatment explained to them; make it a specific offence not to provide adequate information and ensure informed consent; and make it an offence to take a child abroad to get around the prohibition of modern conversion therapy. Sex Matters helpfully suggests that the legislation could use the model that was used for legislation on female genital mutilation and virginity testing.

The not-for-profit organisation the Gay Men’s Network was established to tackle modern homophobia, and I engage with it regularly. It agrees that the Bill is the extant modern conversion therapy scandal affecting gender non-conforming young people and others struggling with normal yet distressing pubertal body dysmorphia. Furthermore, the Bill risks embedding in statute the lie that gender non-conforming behaviour is evidence that some of those young people were born in the wrong body; that the normal development of puberty, which can never be restarted or repaired, should be arrested with chemicals; and that trauma or emotional distress can be fixed with cross-sex hormones or affirming the person on to an accelerated and irreversible pathway, which amounts to a policy of transing away the gay. That is wrong, and that practice must be the urgent focus. The evidence is there; it is widespread. We know of the huge explosion of referrals into GIDS, which is closing, but the service does not provide any follow-up. For lack of a better phrase, how can it do that to someone? How can it give surgical treatment and fail to follow it up? I cannot imagine that happening in any other field of medicine. It is completely unacceptable.

The Gay Men’s Network is concerned that an affirmation-only approach could easily be inserted as an amendment or a new clause if the Bill goes to Committee. Going to Committee does not mean that the Bill will be repaired; it could get worse, and we must be mindful of that.

[Robin Millar]

It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way a second time. I am again struck by his perspective on the process of conversion, and specifically on the length of time. He is describing a situation whereby people are on a journey, making decisions and wrestling with something existential—their identity—and I wonder whether the Bill adequately addresses that. It seems to me that it addresses a one-off moment—an incident or an action, reprehensible though it may be —but does not deal with a lifetime of wrestling with one’s sexuality or sex.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Member for that observation. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said that a young person has to wait 10 years, for example, for gender reassignment surgery, but during that time they will start on puberty blockers and other such medicines, and possibly cross-sex hormones, and the damage is done. Whether they have surgery or not is pretty academic at that stage, because irreversible treatment will have been administered.

The other point I would make in response to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) is that there was an option not to introduce this Bill and move the issue forward. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown could withdraw the Bill and we could establish a process of community engagement, through community assemblies, citizens’ assemblies or something of that nature. We could thereby have the debate we should have had five or six years ago, where everybody’s voice is valued, everybody gets to have a say, the Churches are involved right at the beginning and an accommodation is found that makes this kind of practice absolutely unacceptable—there is a clear output that this will never happen, but it does not have the strand of queer theory running all the way through it. That is the real problem.

Let me move on to the document on the Bill published recently by the Gay Men’s Network, because the hon. Gentleman addressed this in some detail and it is important to respond on some of the legal points. The GMN has among its number some legal experts, including a criminal barrister and an award-winning legal academic. It makes comments about the legislation under a few headings, the first of which is

“The wide net of criminal liability in the bill”.

The document states:

“The bill provides via clause 1, 4 and the Sentencing Act 2020 that:

a. a single act

b. the purpose and intent of which

c. is to change or suppress

d. sexual orientation or transgender identity

e. be a criminal offence if not excused by a defence in clause 1(2)

We draw attention to the terms ‘suppress’, ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’.

‘Suppress’ in comparative Scottish proposed legislation is defined widely, it includes, for example, a concerned parent forbidding an autistic daughter from wearing a breast binder because regulation of clothing is specifically cited as an act of suppression.

This bill proposes that the terms ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’ mean the same as in the Sentencing Act…this is problematic because that act defined neither term. It is important to note that the meaning of ‘sex’ (and therefore sexual orientation) is not settled in law and a Supreme Court Case on the subject is pending.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar]

Specifically on the point about the way the debate has been conducted, and what I have valued in it, the Minister said that it has achieved in bringing to the surface the issues, complexities and concerns that are preventing—or at least delaying—the Government from introducing a Bill in this House.

[Miriam Cates]

I completely agree. Despite the wide range of views expressed in the debate, we still have not established what it is that is not yet illegal but should be made illegal. That is why I do not believe this Bill should progress through Parliament. In fact, I do not actually think we can legislate safely in this area at all.

I do not want to rehash other hon. Members’ comments, but I have two particular concerns about the Bill and its drafting. First, we have already referred to the fact that a DPP would have to give permission for a prosecution to be brought. On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible safeguard, and certainly it is a good thing that private prosecutions cannot be brought, but from looking on the CPS website, it is clear that the permission of the DPP just means the permission of any Crown prosecutor, and all it would take is for one Crown prosecutor who particularly wants to secure a conviction on these terms to bring that case. Case law would then be made, and then the chilling effect that so many Members have referred to would indeed be achieved for parents, teachers and therapists.

The other safeguard that is very much lacking in the Bill as drafted concerns the ability for a Secretary of State to amend the Bill through a statutory instrument—in other words, a Henry VIII power. A number of Members who have spoken today in support of the Bill support it only because of the particular exemptions for therapists, parents and religious leaders, and those exemptions could be stripped out by a Secretary of State through statutory instrument. That ability to amend the Bill in future beyond all recognition and all agreement of the House in itself makes the Bill unsafe.

My particular concerns are for parents who sadly absolutely could be criminalised under this Bill. I agree that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has tried hard to create these carve-outs for parents, but if a parent in exercising their parental responsibility is found by a court to have committed an action that counts as conversion therapy, how would that court then find that that parent has been acting in the best interests of the welfare of the child? That seems highly unlikely to me and very likely to lead to parents being prosecuted, or at least to feeling that they cannot speak freely to their children, as they would wish to keep them safe and prevent them from making irreversible decisions.

I am also concerned about therapists. Again, I can see that the hon. Member has made significant attempts to create a carve-out for therapists delivering exploratory therapy and talking therapies, but unfortunately the carve-out includes that a therapist must be acting within the regulations of whichever body they are affiliated to. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these regulatory bodies, including the NHS, have signed up to a memorandum of understanding that essentially means that anything else but affirming a person’s gender identity is against those regulations. Again, this exemption, though well meant, unfortunately does not count for anything.

An example of a problem that could be caused came from a lesbian lady I met last year. She told me that she had experienced gender dysphoria since her teenage years. She had sought out a private therapist to help her to come to terms with her own female body and to live happily and successfully as a lesbian woman with a partner. She chose that therapist because they had a predetermined purpose of helping her not to move to a transgender identity. Unfortunately, that therapist, who I think many of us would agree should absolutely be allowed to practise on those terms, would be criminalised under this legislation because of their predetermined purpose to suppress a transgender identity. If such a purpose were made illegal, the lady I spoke to would no longer have access to that kind of therapy. Nobody in this place could really argue that that therapy is harmful. It is fully consensual, and we should not be criminalising those conversations.

[Robin Millar]

My hon. Friend is being generous, and I commend her on the points she is making, because these are legitimate questions we ask of the Bill. Perhaps she can answer this. It seems to me that in clause 1(1), in the absence of specificity about behaviours and in the reliance on the interpretation in clause 4 of those words “purpose and intent”, in effect we have legislation that is creating a form of thought crime.

[Miriam Cates]

I absolutely agree. Although Members have spoken about abuse and persistent patterns of behaviour—all of which are certainly serious—the reality is that in the drafting of the Bill, a single act could be brought as a criminal offence. There are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent that from happening.

For example, let us say that I was a primary school teacher and a girl came to me and said that she felt she was actually a boy and that she had been born in the wrong body. If I said to her on one occasion, “No, actually you are a girl. It is great being a girl”—perhaps she is gender non-conforming in some way, and she thinks that means she is not really female—I probably would not be caught by this Bill. But if I said that to her repeatedly—in other words, if I told her the truth and guided her, as adults should guide children—I very much would be caught by this Bill, especially if I were a gender-critical feminist who had put things on social media that prove that I did not believe in gender identity ideology, for example. Those are exactly the kinds of behaviours that we absolutely cannot criminalise in a democratic and free society.

Parents and children are my principal concern here. In the past two years, my inbox has been full of tragic stories of children, often girls, often same-sex attracted, often autistic, who have been groomed online and often by activist groups, sometimes in schools, into believing that they are actually boys. Sadly, some of these children have gone on to be prescribed puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones. Some are actively pursuing radical surgery that will leave them infertile, unable to breastfeed, and with medical problems for the rest of their life. It is already difficult enough for parents, teachers and employees to speak out against this ideology. The hon. Member for somewhere in Scotland—

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Robin Millar Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his announcement and I welcome this response from the Minister. I know that a lot of work has gone into this issue, but the energy and attention he brings is well received across the House. This is the right thing to do.

Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), it occurs to me that important information has emerged in evidence during the process of prosecutions so far. The Minister, if I understood his response correctly, referred to “malevolence” in behaviour. Will he ensure that whatever process unfolds will contain a mechanism by which information that would be useful for consideration in further action will be gathered and collated, given that people will not necessarily have the mechanism of a court case and a legal testing of their situation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am keen to engage with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get what he needs. Malevolence is the right word in this respect and it is important that we learn the lessons from that, in terms of both private prosecutions and the wider inquiry. We are very keen to do that, but of course I am happy to engage with him to make sure that we address any lessons he thinks we need to learn. This is not just a lessons-learned exercise; we want to hold people to account, but there are also lessons we can learn. It is important that we learn them, and I am happy to talk to him about what he thinks we should do, in addition to what we have set out already.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Robin Millar Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are three compensation schemes for good reason—it is not ideal to have three different schemes, but we are where we find ourselves. We have the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order scheme and the overturned conviction scheme, and it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman’s constituent would fit into the Horizon shortfall scheme and should be able to apply to that. I am happy to make sure that he is aware of the route that his constituent can take. In assessing financial loss, consequential losses are a part of that assessment, and it sounds as though there is a case for consequential loss in that particular case. It can certainly be something that financial compensation takes into account. With regard to the families of deceased individuals, they can still claim to the same compensation schemes and should be compensated in exactly the same manner and to exactly the same degree.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The building on Queens Road in Craig-y-Don in my constituency, where Alan Bates served the community as sub-postmaster, is now a charity shop. It is one small reminder of the damage that has been done to lives and livelihoods across the country. I welcome the Minister’s statement and his tone. I welcome the progress that the Government are making, but I also know that he has seen the interim report from the inquiry. He has heard the mood of the House this evening, which is that a great scandal requires a great response. Does he agree with me that, in addition to prompt payment of fair compensation, now is the time to consider legislation for the overturning of unsafe convictions, to consider the powers of the Post Office and to consider Fujitsu’s status as a framework provider for Government contracts? Does he agree that we need to see justice where actual wrongdoing has occurred, and soon?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this, and I share his ambition on delivering. This has been a great scandal and we need a significant response to it. Our discussions today with the Lord Chancellor were very much along the lines of attempting to do something unprecedented in this space, and we are working on that right now. I hope to give my hon. Friend something more definite in that regard in the coming days.

With regard to Fujitsu and individuals, we think it is right for the inquiry to be given time to ascertain who did what, who did not do what, and who is responsible for the scandal. When the inquiry reports in due course—it should be concluded by the end of this year, with a report hopefully soon after—we should be able to make decisions on those areas at that point. Certainly, our prosecution authorities should be able to make decisions with clearer sight of the information and the evidence that has been ascertained.

Draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Robin Millar Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 General Committees

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the chance to speak in this debate, even though I too do not have a vote. Can I extend my thanks and gratitude to hon. and right hon. Members present? I know that these Delegated Legislation Committees are sometimes a bit of a chore, and as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has said, this maybe is not the best vehicle for examining some of the detailed legal considerations. Certainly it has been a challenge to me as I have looked at it. However, I do have some concerns about regulation 3 of the regulations before us.

I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that the existing provisions will be, in her words, on steroids as a result of this. We all recognise the importance of the Equality Act 2010, and the provisions and protected characteristics within it. Likewise, we recognise the importance of provisions for addressing direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, but this seems to extend that further to be an associated indirect discrimination. I hence have this concern about a kind of gold-plating of the regulation that we have, which I would suggest works pretty well at the moment.

I have two particular concerns: one is to the direct effect and the other is to desirability. I will take direct effect first. The Minister proposes to make these regulations under section 12 of the Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Act. Now, that section gives a “relevant national authority”, in this case the Minister, power through regulations to reproduce the effect of any retained EU law that has direct effect. That is, EU law that, under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, has legal effect without further enactment. As the explanatory notes and the REUL dashboard make clear, regulation 3 reproduces the effect of the case that we referred to as CHEZ previously, which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. That decision expands the scope of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act, so as to confer a right of action on claimants who suffer alongside victims of indirect discrimination, even if the claimant does not share the same protected characteristic.

It is therefore unclear to me whether this judgment has direct effect in UK domestic law, and it follows then that it is unclear whether the Minister has powers under section 12(8) of the REUL Act to reproduce the effects of CHEZ. I ask the Government to delay enactment of the regulations until such time as this question has been fully explored and satisfied or, if I might refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, at least until we have had time to be regaled by him on the points of law on that matter.

I will turn to the question of desirability. Regulation 3(2) provides that persons with the “relevant protected characteristic” must suffer “particular disadvantage”, and people without it must suffer “substantively the same disadvantage”. This begs the question, what does “substantively” mean, in the Government’s view? Does it mean that the disadvantage has the same cause or that it is the same extent of disadvantage? It would be helpful to clarify this. This is important because regulation 3 does not actually safeguard the concept of discrimination, in so far as I understand it. The purpose of indirect discrimination is to protect minorities in particular, but instead of protecting minorities particularly, this new law protects anyone generally who suffers disadvantage. Why are the Government trying to protect discrimination by effectively diluting it into non-existence? I am happy to be challenged and corrected on these points but this is my understanding of it.

I will give an example. The law currently sets height requirements for police candidates, and says that those are indirect discrimination because they would put women at a particular disadvantage. The Government want to expand the law, it appears, so that short men will have the right to sue for sex discrimination because they then suffer the same disadvantage. It begs the question whether it is the purpose of equality law to protect short men or anyone who suffers a comparable disadvantage. There are important ramifications: I am concerned this new law will expose employers to unlimited damages, if they are then found liable. As somebody with an engineering, rather than legal, background, I hope my colleagues will forgive me if I have stumbled over this, but how will employers keep on the right side of the law? I am looking for practical application here.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I welcome the incorporation of this judgment and I will give the hon. Gentleman a different example. Let us say that an employer has discriminated against LGBT members of staff, and actually that discrimination includes somebody who is not, in fact, LGBT, but is perceived by an employer to be. This judgment would surely then allow that person to also seek damages. I do not think that this would be objectionable from any point of view, would it?

[Robin Millar]

The hon. Gentleman has done two things: he has exposed my engineering, rather than legal, background, and he has raised a very good question, which I look forward to hearing people with a legal mind tear apart and pick apart in consequence. I thank him for that.

[Miriam Cates]

My understanding is that the protection already exists, as I explained in my speech, but the point of this new legislation would be to allow someone who is outside and not connected with that group of people who have been classed, perhaps incorrectly, as LGBT by the employer to claim the same discrimination. We already have that protection in our law, but this would put it on steroids, for additional people to claim who do not necessarily suffer the disadvantage at the moment.

[Robin Millar]

My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a thought-provoking point. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East talked about the limitations of a Committee discussing detailed legal points.

To return to the practical application, how can a human resources officer foresee all the individuals who might suffer some disadvantage under these regulations and bring a claim in the employment tribunal? That is unworkable. In particular, how will employers satisfy themselves that the disadvantage is justified in each case, when they cannot possibly foresee each case?

I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Hollobone, and that of the Committee. I think these are profound questions. I tread softly and lightly into this space, but I think it has been important to raise these issues. I urge the Government to respond to them in a timely fashion so that these regulations are not enacted in haste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

My hon. Friend is suggesting that we revoke the legislation that we are considering, which provides the protections that I set out in my opening speech. It is certainly the Government’s view that it is important that we retain those protections, whether they relate to discrimination against women going through pregnancy, disabled people or others with protected characteristics. To clarify, the way the instrument interprets the CHEZ ruling is not new legislation. As I set out, the CHEZ judgment was before the implementation period, so it is already a basis on which judgments are made. Because it falls under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, this statutory instrument just puts that on a domestic footing.

[Robin Millar]

I fully acknowledge the challenge of debating such a detailed subject in this setting, but given that the ruling exists, why do we need to enact the measure through regulations now? There is provision in place.

[Maria Caulfield]

The reason is that the provisions currently fall under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and that if we do not replicate them under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, they will fall. That would mean that protections for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding fall at the end of the year. That is why we need to replicate them.

Let me touch on the point about whether the measure provides expanded powers—I think “power on steroids” was the phrase that was used. The legal advice is that CHEZ can be interpreted as already giving horizontal rights, so we are not introducing such rights through this statutory instrument. Even if it did not give such rights, section 13 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, which Parliament voted on, gives Ministers powers to resolve ambiguities and remove doubt or anomalies to facilitate the improvement of the law. That is the power that that Act provides. We believe that the CHEZ ruling already gives horizontal rights, but even if it did not, the Act gives leeway to Ministers to tidy up those provisions.

PANS and PANDAS

Robin Millar Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my colleague on the APPG, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), on securing the debate and on giving such a comprehensive account in her opening remarks. I also acknowledge the work that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has done on the matter here in the House.

As the chairman of the APPG on PANS and PANDAS, I also extend my gratitude to the organisation PANS PANDAS UK. I have had the privilege of working closely with Vicky and the team, and have seen at first hand their tireless efforts as the only charity in the UK that supports children and families living with the conditions. Their advocacy and community support work continue to prove invaluable for patients, carers and healthcare professionals alike.

Like most of us here in Westminster Hall this morning, I was first made aware of PANS PANDAS UK when a constituent contacted me to discuss their case. Separately and much later, a dear family friend contacted me to say that her daughter had also been affected. I recognise many of the descriptions given by the hon. Member for North East Fife of the circumstances that they had to deal with at home. In my speech today I will set out three key issues that have become apparent to parents and interested professionals over the years: first, the misinterpretation of symptoms; secondly, the subsequent misdiagnoses; and, thirdly, the significant problems that such misdiagnoses cause for children with these conditions.

First, according to a survey by PANS PANDAS UK, 95% of GPs do not know about these conditions, and 19% of affected parents said that their paediatrician was aware of these conditions but considered it too controversial to diagnose a child with any of them. As a result, many children with PANS and PANDAS receive multiple diagnoses, often of more widely recognised conditions with overlapping symptom profiles, including anxiety disorders, sensory processing disorders, ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome; some 31% of children with PANS or PANDAS are diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. That shows a clear lack of appropriate training for health professionals and means that the wide-ranging symptoms of these conditions are not being recognised as potentially linked to one of these conditions.

Secondly, continued misdiagnoses cause significant delays in the identification of PANS and PANDAS and the provision of effective treatment. Currently, there is no specific test that will prove or disprove the existence of the conditions, so a diagnosis must be made on the basis of an analysis of the patient’s medical history, a review of their current symptoms and a physical examination. Laboratory work and additional testing can be ordered to identify an infectious trigger, rule out other diagnoses and inform treatment plans, but all of that relies upon a clinician’s basic awareness of these conditions.

PANDAS is listed in the international classification of diseases by the World Health Organisation, and two sets of international peer-reviewed treatment guidelines exist. In fact, it is international clinicians currently working in this field who emphasise the importance of early diagnosis of PANS and PANDAS to reduce the risk of patients developing disabling chronic neurological conditions. Understanding the symptoms and detecting them early is crucial to patient outcomes.

Thirdly, we cannot underestimate the strain that these conditions place on parents, families and the children affected. Many families across the UK struggle to access any healthcare provision at all for these conditions on the NHS. In the same PANS PANDAS UK survey of parents that I referred to earlier, 47% of respondents said they had not received any treatment from the NHS and 37% said that, as a result, they have had to seek private healthcare Too often, access to adequate health provision for families depends upon a parent’s ability to carry out research and advocate for their child, and then fund private assessment and treatment.

As we have heard, the misdiagnosis and misinterpretation of symptoms has led to children being sectioned or admitted to psychiatric hospitals, and subjected to treatments that are ineffective, inappropriate or harmful. Families who have been rejected for referrals, or bounced between doctors and psychiatrists who are reluctant to consider a PANS PANDAS diagnosis or who are unaware of the conditions, must either watch their children deteriorate or somehow scrape together enough money to consult someone who has appropriate experience in the field. Private and overseas treatment must not be the only viable option for appropriate care in a nation that rightly prides itself on having an inclusive and accessible health service.

It is evident that significant change is needed in the UK to ensure that children receive timely and accurate diagnosis and the appropriate treatment and support that they need. We know that the underlying cause of PANS and PANDAS is suspected to be an abnormal immune and inflammatory response to infection, so my first request is that research into post-infectious disorders is given adequate funding and is accelerated across the UK. That is necessary if we are to see an improvement in the training and guidelines given to clinicians regarding these conditions.

Secondly, as the PANS PANDAS working group, we are pressing for the swift development of a UK-wide consensus on the treatment of children presenting with acute-onset neuropsychiatric symptoms. As I have already highlighted, without appropriate training and guidelines, UK clinicians are currently ill-equipped, so thirdly, we need to prioritise the development of clinical pathways to ensure that children and families do not continue to suffer as so many have suffered already.

I thank the UK Health Minister who is here today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), for her interest and I invite her to meet members of the APPG, PANS PANDAS UK and representatives of parents to hear their experiences first hand. Listening to the experience of patients is the first step in ensuring both that they receive the support they deserve and that we can secure the changes that are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. NHS England has been happy to work on such issues with the working group. It is embarking on work to roll out a nationwide surveillance study designed to identify the signs and symptoms because, again, it is probably unlikely that we will reach a definitive test that will ever give us a diagnosis, and it is about matching symptoms with a diagnostic criteria. NHS England has committed to doing that, and the Department is happy to support it in its work.

There is the issue about how quickly antibiotics should be prescribed and dispensed, but while one antibiotic may work for one child, it may not work for another, and it is sometimes a case of trial and error before the appropriate treatment is found. Although there is an evidence base for the treatment of symptoms, such as obsessions, compulsions and tics, it is recommended that children and families affected should be offered evidence-based treatments. That is why we absolutely need to build that research base to provide evidence-based guidance to clinicians, whether they are in primary or secondary care. At the moment, NICE says that it does not have the evidence base to put that guidance together, whether that relates to psychological treatments or to medications such as antibiotics. The commitment I can give today is to push and work with the working group, organisations and Members in this place to try to develop that research base.

[Robin Millar]

I have been struck by a couple of things in the debate—one is the cross-party consensus, but another is the uniform distress that Members have relayed. On the point the Minister just made about whether treatment is psychiatric or medical, one of the key points is that PANS/PANDAS is often confused as being psychiatric when it is an infection that has proven susceptible to treatment with antibiotics. That is the kind of basic step forward that we are hoping for today.

[Maria Caulfield]

I absolutely agree. I acknowledge that while the symptoms mimic a mental illness, there is very often a physical cause for those developments. That is why we need to build that evidence base with research to back the guidance that we can give to clinicians who, as colleagues have said, may not be aware of the condition or how to manage it.

Training on PANS is now included in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health curriculum. In April 2021, the British Paediatric Neurology Association issued a consensus statement with the faculty of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Following concerns about variation in how it was being interpreted across the UK, the new PANS PANDAS working group, as we have heard today, which is being supported by NHS England, issued a statement recommending the development of appropriate service models and pathways back in February. I am keen that we support the working group in its important work bringing the key organisations together so that we can get that consensus out to clinicians in the field.

The work that the working group has done highlights that all children presenting with acute onset neuropsychiatric symptoms should receive a full medical evaluation and signposts clinicians to existing international peer review treatment guidelines. As I have said, while NICE currently has no plans to issue guidance, should the evidence base develop further, and should there be an opportunity to do that, we would look to update clinical policy. NHS England would then consider the development of care pathways for those living with PANS/PANDAS. The key is building that evidence research base.

We have the evidence to sufficiently demonstrate that PANS and PANDAS are discrete disease entities. I hope that answers the question by the hon. Member for North East Fife on whether we recognise that. We absolutely do, but we do not have the evidence and research base on assessment, diagnosis, treatment and management. However, the Department is funding research into rare diseases through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is spending over £1 billion a year every year on research particularly into rarer conditions. It welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, which would include PANS and PANDAS. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of importance to the topics of patients, health and care services.

The National Institute for Health and Care Research does not just provide funding; it will also provide guidance, whether for academics, clinicians, researchers, the working group, charities or any other organisation. I am happy to organise introductory meetings with the National Institute for Health and Care Research. It has met other groups to explore the types of research it would support and that would build an evidence base. I strongly encourage researchers with an interest in this area to come forward with proposals so that we can develop that evidence base and make real inroads.

Other countries are not necessarily leading the way. Not many countries have international guidance on the issue. I cannot remember which hon. Member referred to this, but the UK and the devolved nations have an opportunity to take a lead, build that evidence base and develop guidance on that basis.

I assure colleagues that I am committed to ensuring that those with PANS and PANDAS get the care they need. We need more high-quality research into these conditions. That is the only way we can get better outcomes for patients. I am happy to meet both the APPG and the working group to take this forwards, because there is an opportunity to develop our knowledge, increase awareness and ultimately to have better outcomes for those children affected.