Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Football Governance Bill [Lords], because, notwithstanding the need for financial sustainability in the English football league pyramid, the Regulator proposed to be established by the Bill will damage the independence of English football, particularly given the Government’s proposed choice for the Chair and because the Bill will increase the regulatory burden and costs on all English football clubs—particularly lower league clubs—leading to increased ticket prices for fans and will in turn reduce the international competitiveness of, and increase the risks to, English football.”

Let me begin by offering my congratulations to Liverpool FC on winning the premiership yesterday and to those who have been promoted, and I feel I especially need to mention two of my former homes—namely, Leeds and Wrexham.

I think I speak for all Members when I say that football is a defining part of our national identity. With clubs bringing fans and communities together week in and week out, football has been a great unifier since its inception. It was a football match that famously brokered a momentary truce on the western front on Christmas day in 1914. Since the inaugural FIFA world cup in 1930, football has brought nations together around one central purpose—the love of a game—in friendly competition. Football is a multibillion-pound industry with a truly global footprint, and I know that Members across this House want to secure its future growth.

The collapse of clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, the devastating impact of the pandemic and the failed attempt by some English clubs to join a breakaway European super league have all highlighted that the future of the clubs we love and of the beautiful game is far from guaranteed. For this reason, we introduced the original Football Governance Bill, aimed at securing the future of football clubs for the benefit of both communities and fans. This proposed legislation, as we have heard, followed the fan-led review that was brilliantly chaired by our former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch, and extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and experts. I, too, want to pay tribute to Dame Tracey, and to all those who participated in the process and contributed to shaping our Bill.

However, it is because of the importance of football, both to our national identity and economy, that we have had to take a decision regarding our stance on this particular legislation. When circumstances change, so too will our approach—and things have certainly changed. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, but after careful consideration of our responsibility to the game, the clubs at its core and the millions of fans who cherish it, we have reached the conclusion that we must vote against Labour’s version of the Football Governance Bill.

The Bill we are considering today is not the same as the one that we originally envisaged. It has been fundamentally altered to a point where it threatens to do far more harm than good. The Secretary of State says in one breath that it is same Bill, and in the next breath that she has changed it all, which is almost like saying that Manchester United and Manchester City are the same. The Government’s decision to appoint a Labour donor as chair of the independent regulator raises serious concerns about political interference in football governance.

[Mr Betts]

Getting down to details, the right hon. Gentleman praises Dame Tracey Crouch’s review, which everyone welcomed and supported. Will he now set out the specific measures in the Bill which contradict and differ from what Dame Tracey recommended?

[Stuart Andrew]

First and foremost, and I will come on to this, is the fact that the regulator is no longer independent.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making the key point. With the Secretary of State’s choice of chair, it is no longer an independent regulator. If a Conservative party donor was being presented by a Conservative Secretary of State, does my right hon. Friend think that the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), as shadow Secretary of State, would support that stance? Is it not one rule for her and one rule for everyone else?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will absolutely come on to that point. When the regulator is being set up and you look for people, you cast the net wide. Of course you do. You want to know who is interested and you want the best candidates. But I tell you something: if any donor of any political party had been put forward and recommended to me, I would have said no. That is the difference. The right hon. Lady said yes to a Labour crony. I would have said no.

I confess that when preparing and drafting our version of the Bill, I went through a whole host of conflicts in my mind—what to include, what not to include—but after months and months of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, from fans and fan groups, the FA, the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, UEFA, FIFA and many, many roundtables with MPs from across the political divide, the Bill that we presented was, I believe, measured and proportionate, tightly scoped to ensure the financial stability of football clubs, the sustainability of the leagues and fans given a say over their clubs’ heritage. Two things stood out most to me throughout all my engagement: first, the consistent call for it not to be overburdensome and costly, particularly for lower clubs; secondly, that it must be independent, like all sports.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the new chairman of the Labour football regulator gave £5,000 to the hon. Gentleman who has just chortled from his seat, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), and another £70,000 to other Labour Members, and will be getting a return of £130,000 per year for a three-day week—half a million pounds of personal return on that £75,000 investment over this Parliament. If the Secretary of State was sitting on the Opposition Benches, she would be able to smell the hypocrisy and the stink of corruption. That is why we cannot accept this appointment: it does not ensure the independence that this position certainly requires.

[Stuart Andrew]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. This is not—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Labour Members are saying, “You shortlisted them.” Let me assure this House: I most certainly did not shortlist this gentleman. Even if he was presented to me, there is no way I would have appointed him, for precisely the reasons my right hon. Friend has set out.

Labour’s expanded remit for the IFR significantly increases the regulatory burden on clubs. Make no mistake: it will be the smallest clubs—the beating hearts of their communities—that will be hit the hardest. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the cost of compliance could reach a staggering £47.3 million, and make no mistake: that will push ticket prices up.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

At the FSAs’ 2023 annual general meeting, the shadow Minister said:

“Despite the phenomenal success of football at home and abroad, we have seen too many examples of the devastating impact the failure of a beloved club can have on a local community.”

My local club in Gateshead was nearly wound up in 2019. Is he really content to maintain the grotesque status quo, which allows too many of us to lose our clubs, to score political points on this matter?

[Stuart Andrew]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is actually going to be adding cost to those clubs. I have just mentioned the £47.3 million, but with the football regulator’s remit now considerably expanded, operational costs could rise to £150 million, which clubs like his will have to fund through the levy.

Baroness Brady, someone with deep knowledge of the football industry as vice-chairman—[Laughter.] Labour Members mock, but the Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), had to retract similar comments, which she did graciously, I have to say. Baroness Brady has raised serious and well-founded concerns about these costs and the disproportionate impact they will have on clubs, as all this comes against the backdrop of Labour’s wider economic mismanagement, which is already undermining the financial stability of our football clubs. Labour’s new national insurance job tax will hit clubs’ finances hard, with the Premier League saying it will amount to £50 million a year and £250 million over the life of this Parliament, compounding the pressures of increased regulation.

At the same time, football stadiums are facing higher business rates under Labour’s watch. To give a few examples, Wembley stadium is set to pay £829,000 more, while the Etihad stadium will see a rise of £564,000. These are not abstract figures; these are real costs that will trickle down to fans through higher ticket prices, reduced investment on or off the pitch, or even clubs having to close.

Against this backdrop, we now have very real concerns about the impact of these changes on smaller clubs. Indeed, Mark Ives, the former general manager of the National League, highlighted the financial strain that increased regulation will place on lower league clubs, calling it, quite rightly, “a huge concern.”

However, and most egregiously of all, the Government have fatally undermined the IFR’s independence. The fan-led review into football governance was unequivocal that a credible regulator must be fully independent, free from political influence, and certainly free from Government interference. It stated clearly:

“Independence means operations and decision making are independent from the government”.

That is a critical element for me personally. That point was made over and over again in almost every discussion I had, and quite right too.

[Graham Stuart]

This is not a Labour-leaning businessperson who is generally independent but decided to support Labour; this is someone who was a director of LabourList until just a few weeks ago. This is someone who is absolutely embedded in the Labour establishment, who funded Labour Members including the Chancellor, now being given this half-a-million-pound boondoggle for the next four or five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regulator clearly is not independent and that Labour needs to think again?

[Stuart Andrew]

It feels like my right hon. Friend has already read my speech, because those are the points that I want to make. When I had those extensive meetings, that question of independence was absolutely raised time and again by fans who were worried that they did not want party politics or Government interference in the game they love, by clubs and leagues, who time and again wanted reassurances that a regulator would be truly independent, and by UEFA and FIFA in particular, who have strong statutes about political and Government interference in football, as indeed most international sports governing bodies do. I pledged and promised to all of them that independence meant just that. I fully understood the possible consequences if the regulator were seen as anything other than independent. That is why independence matters, and why I always held it dear.

[Dr Luke Evans]

There are not only political concerns about independence but concerns from the EFL about the regulator’s previous links with the Premier League. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when trying to make a digital decision when, for example, we come to the backstop and choosing one side over the other—the EFL or the Premier League—which is in effect what the legislation does, there would be a conflict of interest if the regulator had worked for the Premier League?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend makes really important points. This appointment is really important to the future of the regulator. What have the Labour Government done? They have announced the appointment of David Kogan, a key Labour donor and political insider, to lead the football regulator. It is deeply troubling—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry, but I feel really strongly on this.

Let me be clear: Mr Kogan is no impartial figure. He is a long-standing member of Labour’s inner circle, having donated thousands of pounds to the party and having spent five years on the board of LabourList, the party’s propaganda outlet, resigning only this month, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. This appointment is not about qualifications or about merit; it is about rewarding a political ally. At the same time, Labour have totally thrown out any credible claims that the regulator is independent and free from political interference. Football fans deserve better, the British public deserve better, and our national game deserves protection from political meddling.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman must have been upset when the previous Government appointed Richard Sharp as chairman of the BBC as he was not only a former donor to the Conservative party, but a member of a think-tank. Did he express similar views to his Government back then when they made that appointment?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the fact that Labour Members went mad about that, but now they are doing so because this is one of theirs.

Media outlets are now reporting that even some EFL clubs are deeply worried about this political appointment. If they are worried, we should be worried and we should listen. Members will recall that this is not the first time that alarm bells have been sounded about political interference in football governance. Well before this deeply questionable appointment, UEFA raised serious concerns that England risked exclusion from the European championship due to concerns that a Government-backed football regulator could lead to unacceptable political interference. We understand that in a letter from UEFA, which is still being withheld from Members by this Government, the general secretary said:

“One particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition.”

And that was written before the Government sought to install a Labour crony at the helm of the football regulator.

We began this debate by recognising football for what it truly is: not just a sport but a pillar of our national identity; something that unites communities, carries our shared history and inspires future generations. It is because we care so deeply about this game and everything it represents that we cannot, in good conscience, support a Bill that risks compromising its very foundations and its independence.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State says that he cares deeply about football and the communities that it unites. My patch is just down the road from Reading, where we have seen truly horrific scenes as a bad owner has ripped the heart out of the football club and driven it almost to the point of extinction. Reading fans back this Bill, and they do so because they know that the Bill will make it far harder for what has happened to Reading ever to happen again. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman: why will he not back this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I have just been explaining why: it is because this Government have made an independent regulator a party political regulator. I am ashamed that they have done this.

I ask the Minister to answer this question in her summing up: does she not appreciate that the appointment of David Kogan drives a coach and horses through the independence of the football regulator? Does she not understand that the appointment of Mr Kogan only exacerbates the risk that the introduction of the regulator could lead to England being excluded from European competitions? Will she publish all correspondence received from UEFA so that Members and fans can be better informed of that risk? Given that there have been so many donations to Members of Parliament, including the £5,000 that was given to the Chancellor, will she publish all correspondence regarding the IFR from No. 10 and No. 11? Will she also explain how smaller clubs will be expected to cope with the increased regulatory burden she has brought in?

It truly pains me to see what this Government have done regarding this issue, playing fast and loose with the independence of the regulator. They have turned this into a Labour Government regulator, increasing burdens on clubs when the Treasury is already hammering them with its taxes. It is beyond disappointing and I am genuinely furious—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but when I met those stakeholders, I made it really clear that independence was sacrosanct. The Government have destroyed that in one appointment. They have put their crony before clubs and their friends before fans. They have put their donations ahead of football. That is why we have no confidence in this Government’s ability to bring in a truly independent football regulator that will not raise more questions than it solves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I would first like to thank the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), for bringing the Bill before the House today. I have it written down here somewhere that I should thank the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for gallantly coming forward on this issue before the election, when he supported the Bill, but I am flabbergasted; to think that I came in here this afternoon to thank him, when he has changed his mind completely! What will Dame Tracey Crouch be thinking, watching this on her television? She will be utterly ashamed, appalled and disgusted. She did an incredible amount of work to bring this Bill to the Chamber. She spoke to the Football Supporters Association and to every organisation she could to try to get to people’s true feelings in her work on the Football Governance Bill.

I would love the right hon. Member for Daventry to explain what he said about this chap who is being appointed as regulator. The Conservatives want to kill the Bill because of that. That is absolute nonsense, man, and the Tories and the Government understand that. They just say what they do for the sake of opposing a fantastic Bill.

[Stuart Andrew]

Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that across all sports, political interference is frowned on, and has consequences for teams across the nation. Surely he agrees that the independence of the regulator is paramount.

[Ian Lavery]

I think I agree with that, but from what I have heard from my hon. and right hon. Friends, the proposed independent regulator was on a list that they received from the Tory Government. This bloke who everyone on the Tory Benches has hammered was on a list proposed by the Tories—

[Stuart Andrew]

indicated dissent.

[Ian Lavery]

Of course he was. He was on the list, and there were other people on the list who were Tory donors. This fantastic Bill, which will give a lot of comfort to football supporters, is being opposed by the official Opposition because of one individual being appointed. He is obviously the best man for the job. The way I measure it is this: the louder the Tories scream and the more opposition they give to anything we say, the better it is, so I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. The louder he shouts, the better. This was the best the Labour Government could do. Let us hope that this individual is welcomed with open arms. He has a hell of a job to do to make sure that football supporters in this country are actually listened to—and it is the football supporters’ game.

Not so very many years ago, the rich and the elite tried to steal the working man’s game in Europe. They tried to take it abroad, without any consultation with the fans who pay for season tickets. Football supporters absolutely love the clubs, and they are greatly insulted by the rich and the elite who are trying to take away their traditions, their culture, and their history, because that is what that is. Football is not just a religion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said; it is much more than that. This Bill goes a long way to support fans up and down the country and give them that bit of reassurance that the Government have their back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

May I congratulate Newcastle United on its amazing win in the Carabao cup final? I share the Secretary of State’s remarks about the 80th anniversary of VE Day, and we all hope that the ceremonies around the country will be enjoyed by everybody.

In just three days, national insurance bills will fall on the doormats of charities across the country, and they will have to find another £1.4 billion to pay for Labour’s jobs tax. While it is right that the Government have provided compensation to the police, local authorities and so on, why have charities, which provide support to those who are the most vulnerable, been left out?

[Lisa Nandy]

We are providing support to charities. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have more than doubled the employment allowance to protect the smallest charities and businesses. More than half of those with national insurance contribution liabilities will either be better off or see no change next year. He will also know that there is a reason why we have had to make difficult choices. His party had 14 years in power; it crashed the economy and left charities in an appalling position, with not just the economic mess we find ourselves in, but far more people to support. That is why we are launching the civil society covenant to reset our relationship with charities and put them at the heart of national life where they belong.

[Stuart Andrew]

We supported charities through the pandemic with millions and millions of pounds and with the £100 million cost of living fund. Month after month, we have urged the Secretary of State to tell the Chancellor that this policy is wrong and will do irreversible harm. We now hear that one charity a day is closing because of Government decisions. How many will have to close before the Government acknowledge that they have made a terrible mistake?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am afraid that that is an absolute rewriting of history. I am old enough to remember the Conservatives’ charities Minister telling charities on his first day in the job that they ought to “stick to their knitting”. This Government are determined to treat charities with the respect that they are owed, which is why we have established the civil society covenant, why the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South, meets with the charities sector regularly and why we have taken action to protect the smallest charities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

One year ago today, I announced that the Conservative Government were investing a further £120 million into the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme for that year, building on the £186 million we had already invested over three years. Today, the Minister has claimed that it is this Government who are making that same investment. In reality, this Government are scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities programme, and uncertainty remains around more than half a billion pounds of funding from the primary school PE and sport premium, the holiday activities fund and the school games organiser network. Will the Minister tell us what the Labour Government are actually doing to support grassroots sport?

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I have stated, £123 million has been invested across the UK this year. That has led to the building or upgrading of 637 facilities to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

Artificial intelligence is a significant innovation, but our media and creators are innovators, too. Almost the entirety of those in the creative sector say that Government proposals are not fit for purpose. They would allow AI companies to scrape content without creators getting paid. UKAI has said that Labour’s plans would damage public confidence in the AI industry and hinder the industry. In that light, will the Secretary of State admit that the Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a mess and that Government proposals are not fit for purpose? Is she as disappointed as I am that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology admitted on the radio this morning that he has not even met those in the creative sectors?

[Lisa Nandy]

I can tell the shadow Secretary of State that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is also a joint Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, meet those in the creative industries regularly. We are crystal clear that the creative industries have been powering the British economy for decades, and as our future economy moves towards high consumption, the creative industries will be even more critical to our future success.

I also say gently to the shadow Secretary of State that this is an issue his Government failed to grip for a long time. We are delivering certainty through a copyright regime that provides creators with real control and transparency, and that helps them to license their content, while supporting AI developers to access high-quality material so that they can train leading AI models in the UK. We are working with our fantastic creative industries to get that balance right. We are not prepared to do what his Government did for 14 years, which was to leave this country with uncertainty, drift and low economic growth.

Gaza: BBC Coverage

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the coverage of Gaza by the BBC.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

As the House will be aware, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. It is my view and the view of this Government—I hope it is shared across the whole House—that Hamas is a terrorist organisation guilty of heinous acts of terrorism over many years, including the appalling terrorist and antisemitic attacks carried out on 7 October 2023. That is a position I set out clearly in public in the media this week.

That tragic day and the conflict that followed have had real-life impacts on communities across the UK, playing out on our streets and overseas, and every one of us has a duty to take the utmost care not to exacerbate the situation. That is why I have discussed editorial guidelines with the BBC director general in recent days. The BBC has clear editorial guidelines to report Hamas as a terror organisation proscribed by the UK Government. That was its policy under the last Government, and that remains its policy now.

I held discussions with the BBC director general earlier this week at my request in order to seek urgent answers about the checks and due diligence that should have been carried out ahead of the screening of a recent documentary on Gaza, and about the commissioning, the payment and the use of licence fee payers’ money. I also sought cast-iron assurances that no money paid has fallen into the hands of Hamas and that the utmost care was taken to ensure that that was the case. I expect to be kept informed about the findings of the internal BBC investigation, and I will be happy to update the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and colleagues across the House on its progress.

Across all the issues on which the BBC may report, the BBC’s operational and editorial independence from the Government is an important principle that we intend to uphold. As a former Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member will be aware that it is for Ofcom as the independent regulator to ensure the BBC fulfils its obligations under the charter and broadcasting code. Nevertheless, as I have set out publicly, it is essential that the BBC maintains the highest standards of reporting and governance, as the public rightly expect. I have made those views clear to the BBC. That is crucial to ensure that the BBC retains the confidence of the public.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” was broadcast by the BBC on 17 February. It purported to show what everyday life was like for people in Gaza—a topic of huge sensitivity. As the UK’s public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, which is particularly important when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. In this case, it is clear that the BBC has fallen far short of those standards.

Shortly after it aired, reports emerged that the documentary was narrated by the son of a senior Hamas figure. Initially, the BBC defended the programme as an “invaluable testament” to the conflict and kept it available on iPlayer. Only after a significant public backlash did the BBC decide to withdraw it. Then we learned that on at least five occasions, the words “Yahud” and “Yahudy”—Arabic for “Jew” and “Jews”—were changed to “Israel” and “Israeli forces”, or were removed from the documentary; and then we learned that up to £400,000 in public funds might have indirectly supported a terrorist organisation.

However, I regret to say that the Government’s response to these allegations has been just as concerning. On Monday the Secretary of State refused to say whether Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, should be described as such by the BBC, but I was glad to hear her comments today. On Tuesday the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible for addressing threats related to terrorism, said that she did not “know the details” surrounding this case, despite allegations that £400,000 in public funds may have indirectly supported this organisation. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the director general of the BBC requesting a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic bias against Israel.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response to my correspondence on this matter. I understood from her letter that she had raised these concerns about the documentary with the director general—and she has just confirmed that—and it was right that she did so, but I must press her further on the letter’s contents. Did she make it clear that, in this case, the BBC has fallen far short of the standards expected of the UK’s public broadcaster? Did she receive any assurances from the BBC that taxpayers’ money has not been funnelled to Hamas? Did she support our calls for a full independent inquiry into the documentary? What commitment did she receive from the BBC that this will never happen again, and if a criminal investigation has to take place, what will happen?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That should have been two minutes. Please will everyone measure how long they have? It is unfair, because we have a lot of business to get through.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

January is traditionally a time when people commit to exercising more, and it is the perfect opportunity to encourage a more active nation—

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

Go on then!

[Stuart Andrew]

Bingo! I knew he would do that.

I am proud that in government we had a sport strategy and set up the national physical activity taskforce, which brought together Departments, delivery partners and industry to work to increase activity rates. May I ask the Secretary of State when the taskforce last met, whether it discussed the impact of the jobs tax on the sector’s ability to get more people active, and what alternative measures there will be for the school holidays when facilities will no longer be open?

[Lisa Nandy]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that we have regular meetings with representatives from sporting bodies and industry. We are determined to roll out grassroots sport to every part of the UK, and we have already signalled our intention as a new Government on that. When I returned from the Euros, we announced a whole tranche of funding for the coming years to ensure that those incredible grassroots sports facilities that support not just young men, but young women across the country continue. I would be happy to discuss this further with him to ensure—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, this is topical questions, and we have six minutes before I have to hand over.

[Stuart Andrew]

The murder of Jimmy Mizen sadly sticks in the minds of many of us. An investigation by The Sun has revealed that his killer, Jake Farhi, is the masked rapper who has shockingly been promoted by the BBC despite his lyrics sickeningly boasting about killing and other crimes. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling for an investigation into how the BBC allowed this to happen? I cannot imagine the pain and upset that it is causing Jimmy’s family.

[Lisa Nandy]

I add my voice to the support for Jimmy’s family. The shadow Secretary of State raises that matter in a particularly sensitive way, and I would be happy to consider it with him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a very happy birthday to the Clerk of the House.

As we have heard time and again today, and in the past few weeks, the Government’s jobs tax could cost £2.8 billion to the Department’s sectors—to the arts, sport, music, hospitality and tourism. Was the Secretary of State blindsided by the Budget, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs claims, or was she aware of that? Has she, as we have asked several times, done a sector-by-sector impact assessment? If not, why not? If so, will she publish it?

[Lisa Nandy]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that unlike the previous Government, we do actually like one another and work together across Government, so I had a number of discussions about the Budget with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in advance. She is very aware of the importance of creative industries, and of all our sectors, to the UK economy. That is why we have put them at the heart of our industrial strategy and our economic plan. We are working closely with the industries to make sure that they continue to thrive.

[Stuart Andrew]

So it sounds like the right hon. Lady did know, which is interesting, given that she cares about charities as much as I do. They face a £1.4 billion bill. When they needed help the most, we gave them £100 million. Her Government are now going to take 14 times that amount back from them. We heard yesterday that the Teenage Cancer Trust will have to find an extra £300,000, and Marie Curie reports having to find nearly £3 million. Where does the Secretary of State suggest that such organisations find the money to pay this charity tax, and who will fill the gaps if charities have to scale back on their work as a result of this Government’s decisions?

[Lisa Nandy]

Under the last Government, charities faced a perfect storm. Not only did they receive very little support from the Government—in fact, they were silenced and gagged, and were told by one charities Minister that they should be “sticking to their knitting”, which, in my view, was deeply offensive—but they had to deal with the rising pressures of the cost of living crisis, and the mess that the right hon. Gentleman’s party was making of running the country. Our Government are determined to take action on this, and we were elected on a pledge to do so. As I have told the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues previously, we are protecting our charities, as was announced in the Budget, and I will take no lectures from the Conservatives on how to run this country.

National Youth Strategy

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

Let me begin by saying that the Opposition really do welcome any focus that the Government are putting on young people. I recall from my time in the Department that spending time in the youth sector provided some of the most inspiring moments of my time as a Minister. In government, we had a proud record of listening to young people and putting their views at the heart of our agenda, and our record shows that. Indeed, I always ensured that young people were around the table when we were making decisions that would affect them, and would often say that I wondered how a middle-aged, grey-haired man could know exactly what young people wanted.

It was because we listened to young people that we allocated £500 million over the next three years to fund the national youth guarantee, ensuring that every young person aged 11 to 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home, and opportunities to volunteer. That is what young people told us they wanted. As part of the national youth guarantee, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to the youth investment fund projects that are under way, but will the Secretary of State confirm the fate of those that are not? In government, we delivered £1.3 billion-worth of sports programmes, developing and improving sports pitches across the country. Can she confirm that they will still be invested in, given their importance as a resource for young people?

Of course, the importance that we placed on young people went much further. Whether the issue was housing, the national living wage, education or apprenticeships, we listened to their views at the very top of Government. That is why we welcome some of the measures in the statement, such as the focus that the Government will place on youth workers through the local youth transformation pilot. The relationship between youth workers and young people is one of the most important, especially for young people with challenging backgrounds.

One element that we cannot support, however, is the scrapping of the National Citizen Service. The NCS has grown since 2011, when it first supported 158 participants. Over the last 13 years, more than 750,000 young people have taken part in its programme. I had the pleasure of visiting many of them, and what struck me most was the sight of people from a mix of different backgrounds coming together. It was a great scheme which had cross-party support.

If the Government intend to listen to young people, can the Secretary of State explain why it is scrapping a scheme with which 93% of participants were satisfied? She says that we do not need citizenship because of social media, but I would argue that we probably do. The cancellation of the NCS also means that a hole will develop in youth services being delivered in 2025, so can the Secretary of State tell me what immediate action will be taken to prevent it from developing, and how she intends to spend the £50 million of savings that she has announced—or is that a loss to the sector?

The NCS is not the only scheme that is being scrapped. I do not need to remind the House of the importance of cadets both to their communities and to young people, especially following the remembrance services that took place yesterday and over the weekend. It is a great shame that the Government have cut grant funding for cadets, and I hope the Secretary of State will reconsider that. As for the issue of dormant assets, this is money that we announced in government, but may I ask how quickly that funding will be in the hands of those who need it?

Giving young people the best start in life is something about which I—and, I know, many other Members—care passionately. I assure the Secretary of State that we will work constructively with her when we see opportunities to improve services, but we will also challenge it when we think that she has made the wrong decision. I am sorry to say that, in my view, the cancellation of the National Citizen Service is the wrong choice.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive challenge. I welcome him to his place, and I look forward to more of this in the coming months and years.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about grassroots sports funding and the facilities that we make available around the country. He will have noted that over the summer I announced that the Government would invest in that significantly, and that we provided further details following the Euros—where a whole generation was inspired, not just by the men’s team but by the incredible success of the Lionesses, and many other sports besides. We know how important this is. We have made a commitment to ensure that that funding matches the demand that is being placed on us by young people in particular.

As for the importance of youth workers, I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to get into an arms race about who cares more about this issue, but the truth is where the last Government left us a good inheritance, we will acknowledge it, support it, and ensure that it continues. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will rightly agree that the challenges facing young people are far too important for us to play party politics with them. I hope that young people will recognise from this exchange that they have a group of parliamentarians who are determined to work together to get this right, and who will challenge one another when they think they are not doing so.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £50 million cost of NCS. We are working with the NCS Trust to ensure that we manage the closure in an orderly fashion, and that all associated costs are met. The Department is currently engaged in a business planning process. However, he will have heard what I have said in the House previously and what I will continue to say to colleagues today: we recognise the funding challenges that affect the entire youth sector. The series of announcements that I have made today, including the announcement about dormant assets funding, are intended to ensure that we start to put rocket boosters behind young people.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about other youth organisations, and in particular about uniformed youth. We do intend to increase funding for some of those organisations, especially those that have received funding previously through the National Citizen Service, to ensure that no gap is left that would prevent them from being able to honour the commitments that they making to young people. As for the general question—why the NCS?—I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that we were strong supporters of the dedicated programme for young people that was established by the Cameron Government. I was also a strong supporter of vInspired, which preceded it, but the incoming Government at the time decided that they wanted to move with the times and wanted to change the programme.

What we have learned from that episode is that an orderly transition is very important. With vInspired the funding was cut but the programme continued, and it finally closed in 2018 with more than half a million pounds of debt. We are determined not to allow that to happen again, which is why we are working closely with the NCS Trust and others to make sure we do this properly. However, I have a responsibility to millions of young people around the country, and I think it only right to say that the system is far too fragmented, and not aligned with their priorities. I make no apology for putting them back at the centre of government, where they belong.