Football Governance Bill (Seventh sitting)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

For the last time, I call Dame Tracey Crouch.

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I did not expect my last contribution in this House to be one where I was crying my eyes out, to be honest, but I am glad that I am doing so under your stewardship in the Chair, Ms Nokes, as one of my best friends in Parliament, with another of my best friends sitting as a Minister, on a Bill that has been a labour of love for quite a lot of people, including all the officials in his Department, the fans up and down the country and the people who contributed to the fan-led review and the work of the Department in following it up. I am exceptionally grateful.

I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East, who is a fellow member of the women’s parliamentary football team. I have very fond memories of being in France with her and securing that Guinness world record. I have the medal and will shortly be packing it up with the rest of my stuff.

This is a ready-made Bill. I hope that whoever forms the next Government can take it forward. I am obviously disappointed that it has not made it, quite understandably, into the wash-up, on a technicality, but I appreciate that this is the place we work in, and them’s the rules, as they say. I am incredibly grateful for all the support across the whole House and outside the House, from all the football authorities, the fans, the organisations and the general punters—the people who just go and watch the game because they love it and it is important to them deep inside their soul.

I wish everyone who is seeking re-election a safe election, and I wish those who are not coming back to this place a very happy future. Thank you.

[The Chair]

If there are no further contributions, I am probably not allowed to speak from the Chair, but Parliament will be a poorer place for not having the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Football Governance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart Andrew]

I welcome the positive comments from the hon. Member for Barnsley East. She is right that we are trying to have a fair and supportive approach here and that clubs should be supported.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we have tried to design the Bill so that it recognises that the level of activity at the top of the Premiership, for example, will be vastly different, and that, as we heard in the evidence sessions, many of the club officers in the National League will be volunteers and we would not want to overburden them.

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The Minister will have heard the concerns in the evidence sessions about duplication. Will he be kind enough to remind the Committee that it will be for the leagues, not the statutory regulator, to decide whether there is any duplication?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This will be the statutory regulator, and this will be where the reporting will need to happen. If the leagues add anything, it is for them to make that decision. As this process progresses, I hope they will see that there is no need for the extra layer of reporting and that the regulator’s powers will be sufficient to secure the future of English football.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Will my hon. Friend clarify something? Is he saying is that there is no need to change any part of the Bill? This needs to be reflected in the intent of the corporate governance statement, and some of these things can be included without amendment to the legislation?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is exactly correct. I think it is a question of being clear as to what the corporate governance statement should include, either in the Bill or at least in the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes already say that a description of all the operations of all the elements of the club should be included; it would be extraordinary if we thought that that did not include a statement on equality, diversity and inclusion, or on the welfare of the players. This has been requested throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, we have heard that at present there is no requirement for an EDI statement, nor are players mentioned at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford says, without changing the structure of the Bill, or maybe even its wording Bill, we could make it really clear that these things are included through these important corporate governance statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I expect that clubs would have to work closely with the leagues as well.

On the issue of EDI, I hope that it is clear this is an area that I personally feel very passionate about. We have made sure that the Bill and the regulator are tightly focused on the finances of clubs, the sustainability of the pyramid and fan engagement. We recognise the importance of equality, particularly, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East mentioned, in light of unacceptable abuses. I regularly engage with the Football Association and the leagues to put pressure on them and to work with them to do more to make improvements in this area. We also work with organisations such as Sport England and UK Sport, because it is not just football where this is an issue.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

On the sports governance code, which I may have had a hand in helping to design and shape many years ago, is the Minister saying that when looking at the issue of corporate governance, he will draw on the experience of the sports governance code, which has specific EDI aspect it, or is it more about looking at the UK corporate governance code, which has elements of that but is certainly not as strong as the sports governance code?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I was just about to come on to. I am glad that she did so—it was a perfect introduction. She is absolutely right. The regulator can consider all of those, and I would expect that it would do so. It can draw on established principles such as, as she rightly points out, the code for sports governance and the UK corporate governance code. It can also draw on the Wates principles on corporate governance for large private companies, and it can also draw on the regulator’s own state-of-the-game reports. There is a whole host of information which I hope will address those issues.

I can confirm to the hon. Lady for Luton South that the phrase, “likely to be affected”, includes fans, so I expect that they will be consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

I rise to speak briefly about this particular part of the Bill, because although the fan-led review—and indeed the Bill, the explanatory notes and the evidence that we have heard from fans—have of course referred to some poor owners in the Football League over many years, it is really important that we also recognise that there are a large number of very good owners in football. I do not think that they necessarily get the credit they deserve, because we so often focus on those who have not done the game any favours.

Personally, I often think that, despite my love of football, I would not dream of wanting to be an owner, because at the end of the day someone can be a fantastic owner who cares passionately about the long-term financial stability of their club, but if they do not actually buy that left back during the summer transfer window and ultimately the club does not do as well as fans expect it to—I speak as a lifelong Spurs fan—expectations and reality are very different.

Being a club owner can really be very stressful. I do not think that running a football club, wherever that club is in the football pyramid, is a particularly easy thing to do. I also think that most people purchase a football club with the right intention for the club, its fans and the local community, but we have seen some poor examples of ownership in the past and that has really driven the Bill. I just wanted to place on the record my sincere thanks to all those custodians of football clubs who have not driven away their fans, who engage with others regularly, who do their very best to support the local community and who very much have the best intentions of their football club at heart.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right—there are many good owners of clubs in football. I refer immediately to Milan Mandarić, who came into Sheffield Wednesday when we were virtually bust, put the club on a sound financial footing, wrote the debts off, took the club forward and got it promoted, with Paul Aldridge as chief executive. They worked together. Mandarić then sold the club on, because he believed that he could not take it any further at that time.

There are other owners who do not necessarily have bad intentions—I think the Bill exists to stop those who have bad intentions—but just make mistakes. This Bill will not make every club successful and it will not make every owner make the right decisions, and we should always remember that. The Bill is to stop people from deliberately doing things that undermine the future of their club.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. During the fan-led review, Mel Morris gave evidence to us. His is an example that illustrates the point that the hon. Gentleman just made. As a panel, we asked Mel Morris whether, if the Bill and the regulator had existed with real-time financial monitoring, he thought the same mistakes would have been made. He said that fundamentally he thought that if these interventions had been in place, Derby would never have got itself into the situation that it did.

[Mr Betts]

That is a really helpful point. The Bill is about stopping people from doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, as opposed to stopping people from making mistakes because they are trying to do the right thing but get things wrong. We will never be able to stop that completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Clearly we have got to the bit that everyone is itching to speak to. Ensuring that new owners and officers of clubs have passed the regulator’s owners and directors tests is a key tenet of the new regime, and is designed to prevent unsuitable custodians from running or owning clubs. The regulator therefore needs to know who a club’s prospective new owners and officers are before they buy or join the club, so that they can be tested for suitability.

Clause 27 will place duties on a person to notify the regulator where there is a reasonable prospect of that person’s becoming a new owner or officer of a regulated club. The clause will ensure that the regulator receives advance notice of an application from a prospective new owner or officer, and will help the regulator to prepare to act quickly when it receives the application. The clause will place the same duty on regulated clubs themselves, as another means of ensuring that the regulator will be notified.

The regulator needs to know a person’s role at the club so that it can prepare to assess whether they are suitable to be an owner or an officer of that club. That is why, where the notification relates to an officer, it must state their proposed job title or job description, as well as any senior management functions that they will carry out. Enforcement measures such as censure statements or financial penalties are also available to the regulator if it determines that this requirement has not been complied with without a reasonable excuse. This will deter those who do not wish to comply with the regime.

Clause 28 will prohibit a person from becoming a new owner of a club unless the regulator has determined beforehand that they are suitable to own that club. It requires prospective new owners to provide an application containing information about how they propose to run the club, the estimated costs, how those costs will be funded and where that funding comes from. This will better ensure that prospective new owners are clear from the outset about their plans for the club and how they will deliver the resources to fund those plans.

Once a complete application has been provided, the regulator can pass the individual owner only if they meet the individual ownership fitness criteria, as defined in clause 26; they have the requisite honesty and integrity and are financially sound; they have sufficient financial resources; and the regulator does not have grounds to suspect that the individual has any source of wealth that is connected to serious criminal conduct, which is defined in the Bill by reference to part 1 of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007, which includes crimes such as drug trafficking and fraud. This will mitigate illicit finance in the game.

Registered societies are one vehicle by which fans can collectively own clubs. They must be run in accordance with specific legal requirements regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered society owners are not assessed against the fitness criteria or the source of wealth test, but they still need to complete an application, including providing a plan for running and funding the club.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

The Minister is setting out clearly the purpose of these clauses of the Bill. It is clear that the regulator has been designed to be as agile and as future-proof as possible. If a crime that we have not yet imagined is added to the Serious Crime Act, how will the regulator assess a potential owner who has committed that crime?

[Stuart Andrew]

My understanding is that if the 2007 Act is updated with a new crime, it will still be relevant to the Bill. However, I want to be absolutely sure, so I will write to my hon. Friend, and if I am wrong I will correct my homework.

By requiring new owners to undergo the regulator’s test, clause 28 will better mitigate harm to clubs by stopping unsuitable custodians.

Football Governance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have no major issues with the clauses, so in the interests of not repeating what the Minister outlined, I will simply welcome them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Matters relevant to determinations

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 37, page 27, line 30, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

This important clause will give comfort to many fans about the agility of the regulator. Of particular note overall is the reference to bankruptcy, which I know many fans will take a great deal of comfort from. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West will speak on that part of the clause if she catches your eye, Ms Nokes.

I advised in my speech on Second Reading that I would table this amendment, if only to impress the importance of independence within the regulator. There has been much commentary on the independence of the independent regulator, and much of it has focused on the fact that it is a political appointment. To allay some of those concerns, I should say that there are more than 600 agencies in Government, of which the largest number sit within the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That is why the Minister always looks so exhausted: because of the number of stakeholders he must deal with. I have been there.

Some of the concern and criticism has focused on clause 37(2), which states that the regulator must

“have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives”

of the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has often been confusion about what certain things within it mean, and the wording of clause 37 has set hares running. The Sunday Times this weekend had an interview with the Premier League’s Richard Masters, in which the journalist—not Richard—made reference to the clause, saying that it

“raised questions as to whether it could be forced to give state-backed clubs such as Manchester City and Newcastle United soft treatment”.

The piece refers to whether the regulator would have any say on the outstanding charges and, if it were to have a say, whether, due to foreign policy, there would be a softer stance on that.

Although we on the Committee understand that the clause relates to ownership, the wider world has somehow got it into its head that it also relates to the administration of the league rules, which is beyond the remit of the regulator. However, the clause would relate to the purchase of the club and, as the Minister will know from his own never-ending media round, also often relates to the public investment fund takeover of Newcastle. As the Minister has outlined, the ownership tests are set out in the legislation and apply to all potential owners and directors, regardless of where they are from, as long as they are not from a country where sanctions are in place.

However, my concern about clause 37(2) is that it adds an element of uncertainty into the test because of the fluidity of our foreign trade policy. For example—I use this with complete poetic licence—Donald Trump decides to add to his golf course portfolio and wishes to buy Arsenal. Concerns about his integrity are well documented, and yet our foreign and trade policy determines that we consider the USA to be one of our key allies and an absolute must for investment and trade in the future. Therefore, do we automatically give the keys to the Emirates to the former, and possibly next, President? Can the Minister confirm that the foreign policy test is just one part of the test, and would not overrule others where there is evidence that other matters might disqualify a prospective owner?

I am also concerned that the clause is not applied fairly across industries. Ofcom does not need to take into account foreign or trade policy when adjudicating on a takeover of a newspaper, but the football regulator does for the takeover of a club. I am not saying that subsection (2) should be removed altogether, although I am not sure I understand the value it brings. Many will be acutely aware that most of our Premier League clubs, and an increasing number of clubs elsewhere in the pyramid, are foreign-owned or owned by British people living in other countries, so it is essential that we have complete transparency in the process, including on at what point subsection (2) is relevant.

However, I fundamentally believe that if we are to truly value the independence of the regulator’s day-to-day decisions from the Government, the subsection ought to be reworded from “must…have regard” to “may…have regard”. In this morning’s sitting, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, the Minister said that we do not want the regulator to be involved in foreign policy. But putting subsection (2) into clause 37 does exactly that. A minor tweak to the wording satisfies everyone, but most of all retains the spirit of independence and removes some of the confusion about who is deciding who owns our football clubs. I am very interested in what the Minister has to say in reply.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 37 has three main parts. It requires the regulator to have regard to determinations from competition organisers, requires the regulator to have regard to foreign policy and trade objectives, and provides the criteria for judging honesty, integrity and financial soundness. I will speak to each of those parts in turn and address amendment 1 with the second part.

On the regulator having regard to determinations from competition organisers, I have already raised the issue of conflicting outcomes and was reassured by the Minister’s explanation, so I will move on to the issue of the influence of Government policy objectives on the regulator.

The clause states that the regulator must have regard to the Government’s “foreign and trade policy objectives” when making determinations on ownership. That has caused concern across the board, including across football governance structures, which usually have a harder time finding consensus, and with fans. That almost unanimous voice tells us something important: everyone wants to see a regulator that is free from undue political interference. I agree. The Government should not be in a position where they can apply pressure to the regulator to make decisions on ownership just because they might be politically favourable. Club ownership must not be a tool used to reward those with which the Government have a positive relationship or penalise those with which they have a negative relationship. That is particularly so given that the Bill empowers the regulator to make decisions on incumbent owners and officers.

However, I understand that there may be circumstances in which national security and foreign policy objectives may be pertinent to the regulator’s decision making. The regulator should, and will want to, have an understanding of all relevant information when making a determination. That is part of the reason why the regulator was chosen as the location of the tests, due to its ability to access relevant information that would not otherwise be available. I therefore do not believe that the intention of the clause was to compromise the independence of the regulator, but to empower it where security or foreign policy objectives are concerned.

Whatever the intention may be, we must ensure that the clause is not open to abuse. I am therefore pleased to offer my support to amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, which suggests that we change “must regard” to “may regard”. That amendment might help to provide some reassurance on the purpose of the clause and the independence of the regulator.

Some further clarification on how the measure will work in practice would also be helpful. In particular, there must be more guidance on how the regulator will be made aware of “foreign and trade policy objectives”. That is particularly important because transparency is a crucial tool for providing accountability, but may be difficult given that some information will naturally be confidential in line with national security considerations. Can the Minister provide any information on what good practice will look like in terms of striking the balance between accountability and security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Absolutely.

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

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

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

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, as I always do, and I will withdraw the amendment. However, as I understand it, similar provisions do not apply to any other regulator, and other regulators are faced with very similar decisions on a day-to-day basis. We do not take unilateral moral decisions, as the Minister pointed out, but I am happy to discuss the matter further with him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Disqualification orders

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 39 to 44 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate your comments, Ms Nokes. I can skip forward to the amendments. I have some separate thoughts on clause 45. I do think that the background is quite important to the amendments, but am happy to move on directly to address them.

Amendments 13 and 21 are on player consultation. It seems like a missed opportunity that the views of players are not to be taken into account by the regulator. That is why I tabled amendment 13, which would expand consultation requirements to include them. Similarly, amendment 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, would require the regulator to seek the views of players and staff, so I will address both amendments together.

Players in both the clubs that tried to break away and the clubs that were left behind had an instrumental role in demonstrating against the ESL. For example, just 48 hours after the announcement, a group of high-profile Liverpool players issued a collective statement against the Super League. That clearly stated:

“We don’t like it and we don’t want it to happen.”

Meanwhile, Leeds players, while warming up for a game, wore shirts featuring slogans such as “Football is for the fans” and “Earn it.” Players in other clubs followed suit. It is clear from that that players feel passionately about the competitiveness and fairness of the competitions that they operate in, and have a view to share on these issues.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

The shadow Minister is making a really interesting speech, but is she not actually making a speech against the amendment, because the players did that without there being a statutory requirement for them to do it?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

Thank you for that clarification—I am sorry for mixing myself up.

Let us get down to the issue of parachute payments, which almost everyone spoke about on Second Reading, and which the Minister seems to believe should be treated as a given in their current form, with no change. I think he has the support of the Premier League—or some clubs in the Premier League, because it is by no means certain that the Premier League speaks with one voice on these issues. But it clearly is a very important issue.

I am calling for the removal of clause 55(2)(b), which stops the regulator, as the backstop, being able to consider removing or changing parachute payments in their current form. Under the regulator’s remit, they have to be treated as a given.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Is the hon. Gentleman talking specifically about parachute payments from the Premier League into the Championship, or is he talking about the smoothing process of the parachute payments to clubs that are relegated from leagues in general, indeed most probably from the EFL into the National League?

[Mr Betts]

I am talking about parachute payments that currently exist, which is what the Bill refers to—I do not think it refers to parachute payments that might exist in the future in some other arrangement.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

It is important to place on the record that National League clubs get 100% and then 50% of an EFL deal for League Two upon relegation, and a Championship club once relegated gets one eighth of the Championship deal for one season, and a League One relegation gets one ninth. This is not the same solidarity payment. It is important to remember that, when clubs are relegated to the league below, there is some sort of parachute payment in order to smooth out the process of losing the revenue received from being in that upper league.

[Mr Betts]

The point I was going to go on to make was that I am not suggesting that parachute payments should never be allowed under any income redistribution. That is not the case. My amendment does not say, “No parachute payments”. It says that parachute payments can be considered as part of the overall distribution of finances within the game.

The Bill as drafted states that parachute payments are exempt from consideration at the backstop stage—full stop, end of story. Everything else, including media income, can be considered, but not parachute payments. That seems strange, given that the Minister has repeatedly said that the independence of the regulator needs to be preserved and recognised, and yet on this key issue its hands are being specifically and absolutely tied. That just does not chime as an appropriate situation for the Government to get themselves into compared with everything else that they have said about the Bill. The regulator needs to be independent and have discretion, but on this issue it is not allowed to have the freedom to look at the situation, particularly with regard to the state of the game report. If the regulator believes that it is necessary to revisit the issue of parachute payments in order for income in football to be distributed properly and appropriately, and for it to be sustainable not just for individual clubs but for the whole of the football pyramid, this proposal is a significant mistake.

We must recognise that 80% of what the Premier League gives to the EFL is in parachute payments to a handful of clubs. When the Premier League talks about its generosity to the game, it is talking about generosity to a handful of clubs that have just been in the Premier League. That is not a real position. When we look at the distribution of the media money overall, we find that 92% goes to 25 clubs—namely, the Premier League clubs and five others that have been in and out of the Premier League in the recent past. That is not sustainable, and if a reasonable and fair distribution of money should be agreed in the future, the regulator must have the power to take that into account.

I have also said to the Minister that we ought to look at not just the importance of parachute payments to the clubs that receive them. I do not think that anyone I have met who has talked about this issue has said, “You cannot have parachute payments.” They say that it must be looked at in terms of the totality of the game and the distribution of money. I would understand, very quickly, that a club going up into the Premier League faces an enormous difference between the wage bill it had before being promoted and the wage bill it will need once promoted, and it must have some reassurance on what happens if it gets relegated. That is an understandable situation, but we must also take into account the impact on the finances of clubs in the same division as the relegated clubs and their ability to compete.

It has been said over and over again that Championship clubs are getting completely overstretched, because the holy grail of promotion to the Premier League means that clubs try to extend their budgets beyond what is reasonable. Owners put in large sums of their own money, often beyond what is reasonable and sustainable, in order to compete with clubs with parachute payments, and the difference is enormous. Parachute payment clubs will come down with budgets three times the size of those of many other clubs in that league, so in order to compete clubs often do fairly stupid things to try to ensure that promotion becomes a possibility.

My amendment says that the regulator ought to take account of those issues. It is not reasonable to say to the regulator, “The only thing that matters is parachute payments to protect clubs that get relegated and you should have no regard to the impact on the clubs already in that league.” I hope that the Minister will consider this seriously. It is obviously a concern across the House, as was reflected on Second Reading.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East on the Front Bench has a slightly different way of addressing the issue, but the wording in her amendment 31 relates to what I have just said. Yes, parachute payments and the impact on the clubs that receive them must be taken into account, but the impact on other clubs that must compete with them must also be taken into account. The position under the Bill as drafted is that that cannot happen, because it is fixed as it is and cannot be changed by the regulator.

The Minister will probably say that the leagues themselves could come to an agreement and change it. What happens if they do not do that? There has not been much evidence of the leagues being able to reach an agreement for a long period of time now—that is why we are here debating this Bill. In the end, it is down to the backstop. That backstop, the regulator, needs to have the flexibility to address these very important measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I appreciate that—the hon. Member for Sheffield South East makes a similar argument—it is not an argument for the abolition of parachute payments. My concern is that if we take that step, we would have to bring into scope all football money, not just the money that the Premier League pays in redistribution to clubs in the lower leagues and through parachute payments. That would be a much wider step and would require further consideration. If such recommendations are to be made in future, that should be done after the regulator is established and we have the state of the game report.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

I find part 6 to be one of the most infuriating parts of the Bill, not because it is a bad aspect of the Bill but because it should not exist. The truth is that if there had been a deal between the two parties—the Premier League and the EFL—part 6 would look very different. We made it clear in the fan-led review that distributions are an issue for football and they should be able to resolve that issue themselves, but that it was important for backstop powers to be there to intervene if no solution was found. That is what part 6 is, and it has become a more controversial part of the Bill than was perhaps ever envisaged. We had hoped back in November 2021, when we published the fan-led review, that there would be a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a slight danger, if we go down the path suggested by the amendment, of creating an even bigger gap between the big six and everyone else? We would basically be saying to the rest of the clubs, “The parachute payments are not for us: they are for you—the other 14 clubs in the Premier League. If you want them, you can pay for them and pay for the solidarity payments for the football league as well”, because that is effectively what would happen.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I always refer back to that point in the fan-led review, and we mulled over that issue at length. The truth is that we did not come to a conclusion ourselves, because it is so complex. We have made it clear in the chapter on financial distribution that we hope that there will be reform to the system, but this was back in 2021, for goodness’ sake. I want to bang everybody’s heads together and send them to bed without any tea, because we are dealing with the failure of the leagues to reach a solution, and I hope that the message they get from today’s sitting and the evidence sessions that we had last week is to go away and come up with another solution. The Bill sets out the process if there is no deal on that, and ultimately if there is no amendment to the Bill, let that be an inspiration to people to come together and find a solution.

[Stuart Andrew]

I must say that I almost want to stand up, say what other Members have said and sit down again. I agree with everybody else: I wish we were not at this stage and that there had been a deal between the parties concerned, because it is in the interests of football for them to come up with a deal. I hope that the mechanisms we are talking about will enable us to encourage that deal to happen sooner rather than later.

On amendments 27 and 31, although the parachute payments can have the distorting effects outlined, they play a pivotal role in protecting clubs at risk of relegation from going bankrupt, as others have said, and certainly give certainty to clubs competing for promotion. As I mentioned on Second Reading, in the past, relegation from the Premier League often meant financial ruin, as teams such as Bradford City failed to adjust to the huge drops in revenue. Given the important role that parachute payments play in helping to ensure the financial sustainability of relegated clubs, removing them entirely could have significant adverse effects on the game, and we do not want to create an opportunity through the Bill’s distribution mechanisms to get rid of parachute payments by the back door. Including parachute payments in the Bill’s scope, as amendment 27 proposes, could do just that. It could mean the regulator accepting a final proposal from one of the leagues that removes those payments, and if the mechanism allowed for that, it could create significant financial uncertainty for clubs that could not confidently invest in promotion. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford also mentioned the commercial agreements that are in place.

An exciting, competitive and sustainable pyramid is at the heart of what makes English football the asset that it is, and we should not put that at risk. We have excluded parachute payments from the backstop, because it needs to be targeted and simple to work effectively. Including parachute payments in the backstop means that the regulator could be presented with two entirely incomparable final proposals, which could render decision making almost impossible, but it is important to remember that the backstop may never be triggered, and is only ever intended as a last resort. We expect the leagues to reach a football-led solution themselves and will continue to press them to do so.

I recognise there are also concerns about the potentially distortive effects of parachute payments, and that is why the broader regulatory framework is designed to address it. If the regulator finds that parachute payments are causing a structural or systemic issue, it could attach discretionary licence conditions to parachute payment clubs to address that. We are creating a financial regulator, and it is entirely right that we solve issues like this through financial regulation wherever possible.

Football Governance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. He is absolutely right, and he sums up why the process for appointments must be robust and underpinned by transparency and accountability on all sides.

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is making a very important point, but has she looked at the public appointments process on the Government website? The appointment to the independent regulator will be subject to the processes from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which has stringent rules around appointments, particularly regarding transparency and conflicts.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I welcome that input, and that is absolutely right. I am trying with these probing amendments to seek some clarity from the Government, so that all hon. Members and everyone who has an interest in the Bill are satisfied. I tabled them to make important clarifications and to ensure that appointments to the regulator are free from vested interests. I believe that that is the intention behind the Bill.

It is peculiar that the process of declaring a conflict of interest does not involve potential appointees making any declarations themselves. Given that potential appointees are the experts on their own history, they must take a level of responsibility for ensuring that time is not wasted as part of their appointment. Amendment 15 would ensure that candidates are obliged to make a declaration if they hold any relevant interests that might give rise to a conflict. That would create a pathway for unsuitable candidates to be easily and quickly dismissed, and ensure that the appointer is not the only person responsible for identifying conflicts. That shared accountability would strengthen the process.

The involvement of the appointer in any investigation of any potential conflicts will also be crucial. I tabled amendment 14 to require appointers to categorically and objectively ensure that the candidate is free from vested interests. It is not enough for an appointer to simply say they are satisfied that there is no conflict; the Bill must require a level of intentional due diligence on behalf of the appointer, so that if any conflicts are identified later down the line, there is a level of objective accountability. Replacing “is satisfied” with “has ensured” will strengthen not only the wording but the entire system of appointments.

I hope that the Minister can accept the changes as a necessary part of achieving the Bill’s aims, or at the very least can provide clarification on why the Bill as drafted allows for subjectivity in decision making when it comes to conflicts. It is only by getting the appointment system right that we will get the regulatory system right. We hope that the process will be watertight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

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

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

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

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

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Lady’s point about supporters and the fan community, but given that the Bill establishes an independent regulator to look at the long-term financial sustainability of the game, what does she think the other people listed in her amendment would practically contribute to, for example, the owners and directors tests or some of the licence conditions?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We are not suggesting that they will all be able to contribute to every element. I gave an example where, for example, football clubs are in the early stages of suffering financial problems and issues. Often, the groups that I refer to are the first to recognise and realise that. We are simply attempting to make sure that the legislation is as strong as it can be and that the regulator has the most thorough and useful list of people to work with constructively.

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Football Governance Bill (First sitting)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with this Bill?

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I want to declare that I was chair of the fan-led review that led to this Bill.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

I sit on the management committee of the Spirit of Shankly football union for Liverpool football club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

Q Should the regulator have any ability to determine ticket prices to protect the unique heritage of football?

Kieran Maguire: As a football fan, I would say yes. Looking at it purely from a business perspective, if you are selling 100% of your tickets at the current price, economics would say that they should be allowed to charge what they want.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q Given your collective expertise, how long would it take you to write an assessment of football—let us call it a state of game report? Given your insight over time into the finances of football, what would be a meaningful timeframe of review for that assessment?

Dr Philippou: That is a very good question. I mean, how long is a piece of string? It depends on what you are looking at. We know what the issues are, so it depends on how targeted what you are asking us to look at is. The issues are pretty well known, so it is about how deep a dive you require—you can tell I worked in forensic accounting, with my “It depends!” But it would take months. It is not something that can be done quickly. It would require proper review to get it right, because if you are basing something on the information in a report, one needs sufficient time and access to be able to provide that information.

Kieran Maguire: The information we have put out in the reports to date has been on the basis of the financial reports published at Companies House. Therefore, we are reliant on clubs producing them on a timely basis and with a level of detail that we can make meaningful conclusions about. I used to do investigations into companies, and it is always nice to have more inside information or management information about budgets and so on, because that allows you to look forwards as well as in the rear view mirror. I think it would be a time-consuming exercise, but it is not an insurmountable one.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We must move on, Clive.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q The panel will appreciate that the UK has nuclear weapons and there is coding for what happens in the event of a catastrophic diplomatic failure. All that coding is well thought through but the outcome is never 100% certain, and he who pulls the trigger is not always going to be the winner. Do you appreciate that part 6 of the Bill is the nuclear equivalent for football? Do you also appreciate that, really, part 6 should never be triggered, and the only way it will be triggered is if there continues to be a catastrophic failure, between the parties on the panel, to come to a deal? Do you appreciate that part 6 has been written into the Bill because, frankly, you guys have not come to a deal?

Mark Ives: We are talking about the backstop?

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

That is part 6, yes.

Mark Ives: Yes, I am aware.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q Mark, I will come to you for your views but—with no disrespect—I would like to hear what Richard and Rick say.

Richard Masters: I had not likened it to nuclear armageddon but it is an important issue. We have made attempts to come to a new deal but it has not worked yet. As I have said repeatedly, football solutions are the right way forward and the best solutions. I do not wish to be in a situation where the backstop power is being activated by any party, so I agree with you in that respect.

Rick Parry: We take a rather different view inasmuch as we do not see it as being armageddon or catastrophic. Football has manifestly failed and it will because the market forces are such that it is not an equal negotiation. We have very little negotiating power. We cannot threaten to leave and attach ourselves to the Bundesliga or La Liga, so we are basically stuck.

We think that if the regulator has clearly defined objectives, in terms of systemic sustainability, then as the fan-led review said, as the “One Year On” report said, as the White Paper said, and as the Government response said, it is the regulator that should have targeted powers of intervention. Intervention implies doing something positive. At the moment, the regulator is not actually allowed to do anything at all because it is reliant on the two leagues—the bodies that it is regulating—to step in. We believe the regulator should have those powers. The fan-led review is an enormously important and extremely helpful piece of work—an independent, objective, transparent study that has never been done before. The review will have a view on parachute payments and we are not, by the way, saying there should be no parachutes; we are discussing their level and the ability to fix them independently. We believe that, to make the Bill work, in the event that the fan-led review highlights problems, the regulator should be able to institute the process. We do not think it is armageddon. We do not think it is nuclear. We think it is logical.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q Do you think it is a game of Russian roulette, though, Rick?

Rick Parry: No, we do not see it that way because so much hinges on the fan-led review—on the objective study. If the EFL were to trigger the backstop—and we hope we would not need to, or we never would—we would actually see that the EFL position would be something very similar to the fan-led review. It is the fan-led review that will inform the regulator as to whether it is able to meet its strategic objectives. It is not for the leagues to decide whether the regulator can meet its objectives; it is for the regulator to decide. If we were pushing forward a solution, I think the likelihood is it would be extremely close to what the fan-led review recommended. Why would it not be? It is not Russian roulette at all.

Richard Masters: Mark should definitely speak, but the only thing I would say is that you can observe the difference in incentives that now exists because of the regulatory power—the backstop power. It is the third person in this discussion. One of the issues that I would like to highlight to the Committee is that the backstop power creates different incentives because there is a third person who will adjudicate in the end. Since 2007, we have been able to come to agreements bilaterally, away from the gaze of the public eye, and do increasingly generous deals and share our success. We are happy to continue in that vein. I would like to point that out.

Mark Ives: There is an additional dimension for me, as far as the backstop is concerned. The backstop is really important to our clubs. We are at the base of the system, as I said earlier. We only get money from the Premier League. The solidarity payments we get from the Premier League are extremely helpful. However, there is a gap between our clubs and the EFL clubs. We could come to an agreement with the Premier League over our next round of solidarity payments. It is extremely helpful and, as it looks on the surface, it is very good. We could accept that. However, then there could be a deal between the Premier League and the EFL that has an impact of widening that gap, and that is not good for the game because the gap is already very wide.

I urge you to look at the difference in the solidarity payments across the game, including ours, and where that difference is. It would seem to be difficult, then, for us to be able to activate the backstop. We hope we never need to do it. However, it is an important aspect of the game to enable us to make sure that that gap does not get wider.

We know where we are; we know where we sit in the pyramid, and we are proud to sit there. However, we cannot afford for that gap to get wider. I would urge the wording of—

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We move from the fans’ views to the person who started all this with the fan-led review—Tracey.

[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)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

It will only increase on Saturday!

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Q Sharon, your passion is obvious, and I am sure that if the Clerks could craft an amendment to the Bill to have you cloned, we would all support it. Ian, you sort of answered this question, but I will ask it again: there has been a lot of scaremongering about the impact of the Bill and some of the unintended consequences—the duplication and so on—but is there anything in the Bill that you fear? That question is to both of you.

Ian Mather: The thing that I fear is that it does not work in key places. On the parachute payment clause, protecting that does not work. I know that Rick has made the point, but I would endorse it: we are not against the concept of parachute payments if they are right. I do not believe that they are right, but let’s have a state of the game review and find out whether they are right, or whether they are an impediment to fair competition in the football world as we want it. But do not then hamstring the regulator so that it cannot deal with that problem, if indeed it is a problem.

The problems here are few: they are about who can trigger it, the parachute payments and how often you do a review. Those are the key issues. It comes down to the money. The other bits in the Bill, such as those about protecting heritage, are really good. We were looking at introducing a golden share in Cambridge United to give fans protection against things such as stadium moves and so on, but the Bill probably makes those redundant.

Sharon Brittan: Tracey, what you said about unintended consequences is really interesting. I have looked at the situation closely, and I like to look at both sides of the story, so we get a clear, honest picture from the Premier League side and the EFL side. I do not even understand unintended consequences; I cannot work out what he is referring to, unless I am missing something. I can understand the EFL’s argument, which is very clear and concise. From the Premier League’s point of view, I have so far not been presented with anything or read anything that has made me think, “What they are saying actually makes sense.” They have put together a very weak argument —I do not think there is an argument—and have conducted themselves poorly. I do not think they have presented themselves in the right way. They are arrogant. They think they are an island, on their own, sailing off and forgetting that 14 of the clubs in the Premier League have come from the EFL.

On how the pyramid works together, we loaned two players over the last two seasons. Both of them—James Trafford and Conor Bradley—went back to their respective football clubs, and they are absolutely flying in the Premier League and talking about their time at Bolton Wanderers. I could bring players to the table who will say to you that they have never worked in such a culture. People need to work in the right culture to bring out the best in them. There is enough stress in the world today.

On unintended consequences, I would love to sit down with Richard and for him to explain it to me because I do not understand it. They are just words, and there is no substance or arguments behind the words. I have not yet come across a cohesive argument to which I can say, “Actually, that’s a fair point.” I am not going to talk about the numbers—we all know the numbers. In my opinion, that this goes back to greed, envy, jealousy and thinking about me, myself and I. I cannot comprehend how someone can view this through that lens when we are a football pyramid, and what we do as custodians affects this country and beyond. We should be cherishing what we have here.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Q You have spoken so eloquently. I am looking at this from the perspective of my local club Reading, which has had very serious problems with the current owner. The previous owner was absolutely wonderful in creating a positive culture. My question is: how do we find more owners with the right intentions and motivation, and help them to play a bigger role?

Sharon Brittan: I completely agree with that. Even in the five years that I have been involved, I have seen better owners coming into the game because the EFL has changed the rules. You cannot having a bankrupt owning a football club, and you cannot have somebody who has been struck off; the rules are much more stringent. I do not want to talk about the numbers, and I do not like talking about them, but the problem we have is that in five years we have put a huge amount of money into the football club. Any sensible businessperson probably would not do that, because they would look at it and say that it does not make any financial sense.

Ian Mather: In direct answer to your question, I would say that it is the numbers. If an owner can look at a football club and think, “Broadly, if I run that club properly and well, with the income I get from running a football club and the sustainability payments from the Premier League, I can roughly break even. I may want to be ambitious and build a new stadium here, or improve the training ground, but broadly I can balance the books.” If you cannot balance the books, or worse, the books get more unbalanced each year, you are reducing the pool of people who can buy into being a football owner.

Sharon Brittan: I agree with Ian.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

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

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

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Q Do you think there is a risk that clubs make asset transfers from the women’s game to the men’s game in order to become financially sustainable?

Jane Purdon: One of the classic models at the moment, as you have heard, is that the women’s team sits within the same legal entity as the men’s team, and there are pros and cons to that. The pros are obviously that the club has the brand, the IP and the infrastructure. The cons are that it can make the women’s team very vulnerable to what happens in the men’s team. I saw that with my own club, Sunderland, which 20 years ago was so ahead of the game, but the men’s team fell down two divisions. I understand that it is a cost centre and tough decisions must be made, even if they are not the decisions that I would make.

I have actually posited the question before of what happens when women’s football begins to make money and becomes profitable. What are we going to do with that profit, and how much will go back into the men’s game and how much stays in the women’s game? I think that would be a great question for football to debate.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q Good to see you, Jane. You are obviously involved in Women in Football, which is not always about women’s football. Do you think clubs are making enough progress in ensuring that there are more women on their boards and that there is greater diversity in the boardroom? What do you think the regulator should or could be involved in in the future?

Jane Purdon: There are some statistics and research showing that, I think, 10% of current Premier League directors are women. That research was done earlier this season, but the key thing is that it has not shifted since somebody last looked at it in 2019. The answer, with a very broad brush, is that it would appear not. I have to say that there are some clubs doing fantastic work, some of whom have given evidence today. If you want a great exemplar, take a look at Brentford football club, but as a whole, I do not think the industry is moving fast enough. We need to look at not just boards but executive committees—the lead executive decision-making body within the club.

We speak to our members a lot about this. We have 9,500 members, 80% of whom are women—we do welcome men into our membership—and we talk to them regularly about how they are feeling. We are getting a very mixed picture. We are told that 89% of them feel optimistic about the future of football, but at the same time, again, getting into 80% say that they have experienced sexism in their football careers. A minority of them feel that they are supported to get to the highest path. I would say that things are changing but not quickly enough.

To the second part of your question about what the regulator could do, we have a proposal for a code of governance practice. What concerns us at Women in Football is that both on the face of the legislation and through discussions we have had with the Government in our lobbying activity leading up to this point, there is an indication that it will not include any provisions about diversity. Having co-written the code for sports governance in 2016—under your maestro-ship, Tracey, if I may say so—and having seen how that really shifted the dial, I am really concerned about this. I think it is a poor vision of corporate governance if you do not address equality and diversity. You are not actually writing something about governance. You are writing something else.

To really shift the dial on this, you need three things. You need to make the business case and win hearts and minds. People need to understand and not be frightened, and realise that there are really sound business reasons for doing this. You need to give them support, but you do need to have a bit of a lever—whether that is a funding consequence or a “comply or explain” consequence and the transparency that comes from that in the case of the UK corporate governance code. That is one thing we would like more assurance on and express reference to in the legislation.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q Yes, the world of sport did not fall apart by having more women on boards. Going back to the game, when Charlton were relegated, one of the first things they did was ditch their women’s team. That is not unique; other clubs have done exactly the same. Should the club’s licensing requirements state that clubs have to continue their investment in the women’s game regardless of where they are in the leagues?

Jane Purdon: This is such a tough question, because that money has to come from somewhere, and what do you cut? Do you cut funding to your academy? It is so tough. The real answer is that we have to get women’s football independently standing on its own feet and turning a dollar in its own right.

[Damian Collins]

Q Following on from the previous question, I have asked different witnesses about the corporate governance statement that clubs are required to make. I think you touched on that. Do you think it would be appropriate for clubs to have to consider how they meet their wider obligations as part of that corporate governance statement? I think it would be relevant to the regulator if a club was seeking to meet its financial regulatory standards by trimming back on other things it should be doing.

Jane Purdon: I think transparency is a great thing, as is transparency in sport. If you have ever read the code for sports governance, it kind of flows through that. We said to the sport governing bodies who were not as well resourced as many football clubs, “Tell the world what you are doing. Even tell them when you don’t hit your targets and then explain what you are going to do, because it breeds trust.” Against that, we do need to be proportionate and make sure that we are not asking organisations to report for the sake of reporting, and that there is real value that comes from the onerous work that reporting involves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

Q I will ask a second question about grassroots football. I was thinking about this, because I have two kids who used to play and had regular problems with waterlogged pitches and other issues: how would you describe the state of grassroots pitches and provision across the country?

Robert Sullivan: It is a huge challenge for the game, but we are definitely on an upward trend. For the first time, we have been able properly to map and record, and to improve grass-pitch quality by use of digital data. That has been a big change, because with 30,000 grass pitches in England, it is hard to get out to reach them all, but we can now use technology through phones, so we can assess those pitches remotely and help clubs to improve them, to do the simple things, and give them funding that can address some of the waterlogging situations.

We now have more than 8,000 of what we have rated as good-quality grass pitches. That is a big step forward on where we were five or 10 years ago, but we are perhaps only halfway through that journey. We are going to do everything we can to escalate that number as quickly as we can, and to build many more artificial grass pitches, because of the difference. On a good grass pitch that does not waterlog, we get maybe six hours of play; and on a good artificial pitch, we can get 60 hours of full-on community usage for kids, disability or vulnerable groups, older men who are coming for dementia classes, and whatever it might be. Those artificial grass pitches, which is what we want to invest in, are the game changers that will help us to support that growth in the women and girls’ game and all other parts of grassroots football.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q The original fan-led review had a transfer levy recommendation that was proposed to the panel by somebody from the Premier League. The Bill was not necessarily the right place to include that proposal but, presumably, given the fact that it was designed as a policy that would invest in grassroots sports, certainly further down the pyramid, is that something that you would still at some point be interested in seeing?

Niall Couper: Yes is the answer. I think it is something that we need to look at, considering that—in my mind—a lot of it depends on what happens with this Bill. It is important, because it is about redistribution and giving support to a lot of the clubs that are trying to do the right thing in the right way. Again, to go back, it needs to be caveated to make sure that it is ringfenced where possible to support the grassroots pitches.

I talk to clubs like Tonbridge Angels, Maidstone United, Sutton United and so on. Those clubs will talk about wanting to have the 3G pitches and their training pitches in there so that they can be put to community use—those 60 hours a week. That is really what they want, because that is where they see the big growth. That is where your club becomes a community hub. That is where it makes the difference.

For me, the money that you talk about from the transfer levy, if you give it to those sorts of pitches and so on, is where you can make a real fundamental difference. Where it will go, I do not know, Tracey. It is one perhaps that we can talk about once we are post the Bill. It was something that I was really excited about when you proposed it—it really appealed to me. It is something that came a bit from left field, but it is something that we should look at in the months and years ahead.

[Ian Byrne]

Q That is what Tracey proposed for the grassroots. This question is more to you, Robert. You do fantastic work, undoubtedly. Some of the Football Foundation hubs are magnificent—we have got four in Liverpool—but there is an issue around cost, and I am wondering whether that comes under regulation scope, as we go down the line with implementation. In an incident last year, an under-13 team was getting charged £194 an hour to use one of the hubs. That takes away totally the ability to play football. With the huge rise in the popularity of football through the women’s game and given the absolute need for the pitches, as you said, who will regulate the cost to ensure that they are affordable for every single person in the country?

Robert Sullivan: It is a big challenge, Ian. When we fund a site, we will put in terms and conditions on such sites that should provide a check and a challenge on the affordability. So, if that is happening on a site that we have funded, we should pick that conversation up separately, because when we provide a grant, it comes with terms and conditions: we need to see, basically, an income and expenditure plan that has sensible and appropriate pricing policies with it.

If I may go back to pick up on Tracey’s offer—

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

For the money—

Robert Sullivan: For the money. I am agnostic about where the money comes from, but we have a massive challenge, and we need as much as possible going into grassroots facilities.

To make one supplementary point about what Niall said, he alighted on a really interesting example. Sutton had a fantastic 3G pitch that was doing brilliant community things, but when Sutton went into the EFL, it had to pull that pitch up. That is an interesting question, although it is inadvertent. I understand all the competition reasons why that might be the case in the EFL, but Sutton went from having a very sustainable community asset to one that was not when it moved up into the EFL pyramid. That is an issue that I would potentially raise as well.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much for coming.

Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)

Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Darren Henry]

As the hon. Member knows, I am delighted that the Bill has got to this stage. For years now, I have pushed to make this vital change in law, following a local surgery in Broxtowe with my constituent, Aaron.

I agree with the amendments put forward, and I am grateful for the work undertaken by the hon. Member to achieve this level of support. It is important that he is taking the Bill through the House to stop individuals finding themselves in this position in future. I am particularly glad to see that cases of adoption are included. However, I am disappointed that pay is not included. I have previously placed on record my thoughts on the matter so I will not do so at length today, but I hope that pay will be added to the legislation in future to benefit all those who find themselves in a situation such as the one Aaron did.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I congratulate both colleagues—the hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—on bringing forward this vital piece of legislation. It is interesting that there is a public perception about what we do in this place, and this Bill is exactly what people do not see. It has come about from a surgery appointment that showed a clear gap in shared parental leave. I congratulate both Members on the important work that they have done on this issue. I hope that those of us who are introducing the Bill never have to go through those tragic circumstances, but if we do, we should be comfortable and confident that we and our constituents will benefit from it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. The Bill will provide bereaved parents with the support and protection that they need during one of the most devastating periods of their lives. Although we estimate that the number of people affected by these circumstances is thankfully low, the emotional strain and physical toll of caring for a new child while grieving the loss of a partner is simply unimaginable. I am pleased that the Government are able to support this important piece of legislation.

On Second Reading, the ambition of the Bill gained cross-party support in the House, and I am pleased to hear a similar sentiment being expressed today. Since Second Reading, we have discussed our plans for the Bill with stakeholders and we look forward to continuing to work with them. I also thank my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe; it is only a matter of time. His tenacious campaigning efforts were a key factor in getting the Bill to this stage.

Tackling Loneliness and Connecting Communities

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling loneliness and connecting communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I know this is an issue you care passionately about, as do many Members across the House.

I spoke for the first time about the issue of loneliness in the Christmas recess Adjournment debate in December 2011. I was supported in that debate by the excellent Campaign to End Loneliness, and I was gifted statistics about the older population and the impact of loneliness on health. I quoted Einstein and Mother Teresa—great minds who had reflected on loneliness long before it became the globally recognised problem that it is today. Thank goodness it is, because it needs to be, and not just for the older population whom I spoke about 11 and a half years ago.

Last week was Loneliness Awareness Week, but I do not need an awareness week to be thinking about this issue. I often think about loneliness; it has become part of my general psyche, along with sport, physical health and wellbeing. For example, I was at home doing menial chores last weekend, listening to the guests laughing and singing at a joyous barbecue a few doors down. I was smiling at their fun, but I suddenly became conscious of the anecdotes I heard as the world’s first loneliness Minister. For many people, summer can be just as lonely as Christmas.

The definition of loneliness reveals the reason why that might be. Loneliness is a

“subjective unwelcomed feeling of lack or loss of companionship”.

It happens when we have a mismatch between the quantity and quality of the social relationships we have and those we want. Just like Christmas, when adverts show families and friends together, opening the windows and hearing the soundtrack of summer can increase one’s sense of isolation and loneliness. When I was a Minister, we reflected on the definition of loneliness and wondered whether we should revise it. In fact, a great deal of energy was spent on that by the very hard-working civil servants who supported the ministerial team on this issue, but we returned to the original definition, because it is very clear what loneliness is.

Many Members have come to Westminster Hall straight from the Great Get Together event being held next door in the Jubilee Room. The event, sponsored by the Jo Cox Foundation, is not only an important means of connecting people and communities, but a wonderful way to remember Jo and all her work on loneliness. Its success has been phenomenal, bringing innovative and creative thinking to how we connect people and communities throughout the year. I see that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) is present. I did not really know her sister Jo—I merely had the privilege of being part of the outcome of the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness’s recommendations—but I think of the hon. Lady as a friend, a football teammate and a co-conspirator on all things loneliness. I have heard her speak passionately about Jo, the commission and the Great Get Together many times, and I predict that today will be no different.

It is important to remind the House of the statistics on loneliness. Some 47% of people over the age of 16 say that they experience some degree of loneliness, and 6% say that they often or always feel lonely. Contrary to what was discussed in the main Chamber debate that I led, it is not older people who now experience the highest levels of loneliness; people aged 16 to 24 are more likely to say they feel lonely often or always. Women are more likely to be lonely than men, and although there is no significant variability by ethnicity, there is for those who suffer poor health, who are disabled or who live in deprived communities. The main challenge of loneliness is that it can affect anyone, regardless of whether they are the chief executive officer at the top or the apprentice at the bottom. It is a subjective emotion, vulnerable to changing circumstances and life’s varying events.

When the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) took on board the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness’s recommendations to appoint a loneliness Minister, there was a moment when we worried what our media would say. Would they mock the Government for trying to come up with policy around people’s feelings? Had we gone soft? Is loneliness not something that just affects old people? As it happens, we got nothing but praise, in part because commentators understood then, as they still do now, the impact of loneliness and why there needs to be a Government-led policy approach to tackling it.

In fact, we had interest from around the world. We had ministerial delegations from New Zealand and Japan, and conversations with people from South America and Scandinavia. The world’s media is very interested in what we have been doing in the UK, because loneliness can increase early mortality, disease and poor mental and neurological health. I will not beat around the bush: loneliness is expensive. I am not sure there a definitive figure for how much it costs, but we know it affects the health service through GP appointments, admissions to accident and emergency units and social care. We also know that it has a massive impact on productivity, with one set of figures suggesting that it costs UK employers between £2.2 billion and £3.7 billion a year. Tackling loneliness is good health, social and economic policy, so it is worth doing properly.

The loneliness strategy, which I was proud to author, is a good start. We in the UK lead the world in strategic thinking on tackling loneliness, but others are catching up. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen and I regularly speak to politicians around the world about loneliness; we have become quite the double-act—I hope that strikes fear into the Minister. In recent months, I have attended a conference in Barcelona, and spoken to the Mayor of Buenos Aires about how cities can combat loneliness. From my earlier work, I keep a close eye on what the wonderful US Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, is doing and saying on the issue—if colleagues have not read his book, it is well worth doing so. However, I am not afraid to admit that the strategy, as brilliant as it was and as welcome as it was back in October 2018, is probably in need of a huge refresh post covid if we are to maintain our global lead. If there is one good thing about the pandemic, it is that it shone a huge spotlight on loneliness, but we need to get a grip of the issue and urgently revamp some of the excellent initiatives that started but withered, first, due to the lockdown rules, and then due to other priorities.

One measure I am particularly thinking of is social prescribing. There was huge enthusiasm after the launch of the strategy, and to me, as a local politician, it felt extremely positive, but the link workers were reassigned during the pandemic, and since then they have been racing to catch up amid other priorities, and the groups they previously prescribed to have disappeared.

Before the pandemic, working from home was for the few who embraced flexi-working, but now it is fairly standard, which has reduced the connectivity with the workforce for many. Transport services have disappeared from communities, isolating the elderly. We can all tell stories about our constituencies. Mine is about the 155 bus, which has ceased to exist in my villages, increasing loneliness across Burham, Eccles and Wouldam. Youth services, which were pretty patchy before, are non-existent now, leaving youngsters bereft of any connection beyond school. It is beyond the scope of this debate, but it is partly for that reason that I think we should give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in local elections, to give them a say on the services that affect them.

The rush to build large-scale developments to address the housing shortage has resulted in a decline in community. Estates once promised community centres, green spaces and play areas, but they are now built to an identikit, soulless spec; people come and go but never commune. Finally, there have been cuts to things such as BBC local radio services, sports provision and accessible green spaces. They may be small losses to some, but they are huge to those who need them, such as the one in four people who use radio as a means of combating loneliness. The challenge for everyone, including the Minister, is that there is no one cause of loneliness, so there is no one solution. On this issue, more than ever we need—to use that often-uttered phrase—joined-up thinking.

There are some brilliant projects out there. Let’s Get Chatty is a befriending initiative that started in March 2020 to support residents of Medway in tackling loneliness and isolation. The group, which has won a Pride in Medway award, has grown over the past three years, and runs “Coffee, Chat and Connect” and “Walk and Talk” sessions. Similarly, the Larkfield Community Group, at the other end of my constituency, arranges a buddy scheme, connecting a lonely person with a volunteer buddy for an hour a week to talk, listen and hopefully become a friend. Dr Huq, you have previously mentioned the banking hub in Acton, a vital community resource that helps tackle loneliness.

We have Men in Sheds, active retirement associations, the women’s institutes network, the wider scout and guiding movement, disability sports initiatives, friendly benches, walking groups, more active running groups, church-run groups, refugee services, parental support groups and bereavement clubs—the list goes on and on. I am proud that many of those groups have joined hundreds of other community organisations from across Kent and Medway who have attended my over-55s advice fairs since 2015, connecting constituents with like-minded people, activities and hobbies.

I hope that colleagues will highlight and celebrate the local and national groups they know. They deserve recognition for all their hard work, but we need more of them. We also need stronger national leadership on this issue. I do not mean the Minister, who is wonderful, but we do need to strengthen the cross-Government approach of providing long-term funding to projects, and to upscale and improve the evidence base. We need to incentivise local authorities and their partners to develop local action plans to tackle loneliness and, incidentally, hold them to account on delivery.

Funding has generously been given from central Government to local councils in the past for loneliness projects, but whether they have been delivered or the success of delivery is not transparent. We must invest in the community and social infrastructure needed to build connections, particularly in areas with higher levels of deprivation. My own patch has seen mass development and yet valuable section 106 funding has never been allocated to a community hall or any type of communal facility where people can gather.

We do not even build pubs anymore. Once pubs were the centre of a community; these days, we allow them to decline into disrepair, before they are bulldozed and made into blocks of apartments with no communal space. We need to loneliness-proof all our new transport and housing developments. I have supported a recent application for a brand-new retirement community, which has everything one would want to see to keep people connected in their later lives. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) here, which reminds me of “The Thursday Murder Club” retirement property. That is fiction, but it can turn into reality.

There is so much to celebrate in the UK. We started the global conversation on loneliness, thanks to a cross-party commitment to honour Jo’s legacy. Yes, we find ourselves in challenging times, but that is when those who feel acutely lonely need our strength and determination most. We have passed the pandemic; there are no further excuses. We have the chance now to grip the issue, revamp and refresh the loneliness strategy, and I hope the Minister will do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on raising this issue. She is very much at the forefront in doing so and we are indebted to her. We are good friends, so it is a pleasure to come along and support her in all her endeavours. This one is particularly close to her heart, as it is to mine. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). I thank her for her contribution, made with the passion she often brings to debates. We are very pleased to see her in this place, following on from her sister. Every one of us is greatly encouraged by her contributions in this House and we thank her for them.

I am blessed to represent a rural and urban community, yet rural communities often give us not only stunning views but social isolation, which in my constituency of Strangford can be found in the farming community. I did not hear the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford mention young farmers’ clubs in her introduction—they should have been and I am sure that is an oversight on her part. I must mention them, as they are among the organisations that do fantastic work.

The Northern Ireland Assembly also did a good bit of work on mental health that said:

“Northern Ireland has approximately 30,000 farmers and a total farm workforce – incorporating farmers, families and others – of approximately 49,000.”

Rural isolation is a big issue in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.

[Tracey Crouch]

The hon. Member is right. It was remiss of me not to mention that farmer loneliness and isolation is a huge issue, in particular its impact on mental health. There are some excellent examples of how other countries, such as New Zealand, tackle rural and farmer isolation and loneliness, so the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that and to draw on the experiences of other countries around the world.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has just done the very thing that I knew she would do—well done to her. I know that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for Northern Ireland, but it is a pleasure to see him in his place given his range of portfolios. When he speaks, I know that he will encapsulate all the requests we put forward. Whenever we want to ask the Minister something, he has an open door. It is always easy to ask for something when we know we have a Minister who will respond positively.

The Northern Ireland Assembly also pointed out that:

“There are approximately 25,000 individual farms with an average farm size of 41 hectares; this is the smallest in the UK. A key characteristic of farming in Northern Ireland is that 70% of the agricultural area here is defined as ‘less favoured’; this brings challenges in terms of successful farming.”

It also brings many other challenges. Northern Ireland, where one in five adults has a mental health condition at any time, has a 25% higher overall prevalence of mental illness than England. It also has the highest suicide rate in the United Kingdom, at 16.4 per 100,000 people, compared to 10.3 in England, 9.2 in Wales and 14.5 in Scotland. Prescription costs per head for depression in Northern Ireland are £1.71 compared to 41p in Scotland. Those are not just stats; they are evidence.

Northern Ireland is telling the tale of the detrimental impact on people’s mental health that I believe is partly because so many people feel so alone. The quarantine period during covid absolutely exacerbated that. I say this in fun, but the longest time my wife and I had spent together in our lives was during covid. We are married for 35 years, by the way. So covid did bring some benefits—at least I thought so; I hope my wife is of the same opinion! Whatever the case may be, there were too many who were isolated and alone. While covid restrictions have mercifully eased, for some people the ache of loneliness has not. I am so thankful for the community and residents groups who attempted to step into the breach.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to Men’s Sheds. We have had a proliferation of Men’s Sheds, as I want to illustrate in my contribution. I recently watched a video of a Men’s Shed learning to play the ukulele. Those of us of a certain generation will know what that is, but those who are younger, like the hon. Member for Batley and Spen and others, might not. These men were from the Glen housing estate, and the camaraderie between them was clear to see. When I looked at the men in that video, I saw men who had been recently widowed or who had lost their jobs. In the Men’s Shed, there were hurting men who were healing simply by being with other men and focusing their minds on living and not just existing. That is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

Thank you, Dr Huq. I thank colleagues for participating in the debate, either through speeches or through some of the excellent interventions we have heard—it is much appreciated.

I thank and pay tribute to the Minister, who I know is working exceptionally hard across Government to try to deliver on this issue. I also praise him for the very honest interview that he gave at the start of Loneliness Awareness Week. It is incredibly important that public figures show that we, too, are vulnerable to loneliness and that there is nothing wrong with highlighting that. It is something that Jo did brilliantly. Even though many of us have spoken about the issue of loneliness before, I have always said that Jo took that conversation and threw it into the stratosphere, which is why we are where we are today.

I thank the Front-Bench spokesmen for their excellent contributions. I particularly want to mention the contribution by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who talked about all the different areas of Government that contribute to people’s lives in a really positive way. That reinforces the message that I have taken to several Prime Ministers—I appreciate that that does not necessarily imply a long timeframe—that we need to restructure the Government to create a wellbeing Department. We need to bring together different portfolios across Government into something with a powerful voice that recognises that there are policy areas out there that are very good at preventing other conditions, which become very expensive for the Department of Health and Social Care to treat.

I am grateful for colleagues’ comments on lockdown, because that is a very important point. It reminds me of the only argument I had with my husband, who had rather generously gone to the supermarket on his way home from work to pick up our shopping, thus depriving me of my one opportunity to go out that day, even if it was just to connect with someone by talking to the checkout lady. That is what loneliness is—it is about connecting with other people. When we went out for our prescribed walks or exercise, how many of us manically said hello and waved at people we would not ordinarily talk to?

I thank all those who sent briefings for the debate, including the Local Government Association, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Union of Journalists, the Cares Family and the Red Cross. I also want to add to the comments by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and thank the Red Cross for its support for the all-party parliamentary group. Without its support, we would not be able to have the vast conversation that we are having.

Finally, I genuinely thank the tens of thousands of organisations that are out there helping to tackle loneliness. Without them—whether they are statutory bodies, volunteer groups or charities—we would not be talking about how we can reduce stigma around loneliness and improve people’s connectivity, so I pay tribute to them for their work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling loneliness and connecting communities.