5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his amendments. He is absolutely right to say that this country trusts the judges, which is why this House was so enthusiastic about the inclusion of the High Court in the original Bill. Does he agree that by reintroducing proper judicial scrutiny at this stage we would be reverting to the Bill that the House voted for on Second Reading?
I rise to speak to new clause 14 and amendments (a) and (b) to that new clause. I am honoured to speak after the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I also thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for working closely with us on the issue of banning advertising. Whatever our views on assisting terminally ill adults to end their lives—and I remain implacably against the potential harms that arise when our society and our imperfect state are given permission to help people kill themselves—I have to acknowledge that there was a majority on Second Reading in favour of the Bill and a majority for closing down debate in the last sitting on Report. Thinking ahead to the possibility that this Bill might get on to the statute book, I hope that everyone participating in the debate will recognise that we should not allow the services of the organisations that will arise from the legislation to advertise on television, online, on posters, on TikTok or on any platform that our constituents may see. We can all imagine a scenario where, if the Bill passes without the House agreeing to new clause 14, independent contractors and not-for-profit firms, and perhaps even the NHS, will be able to advertise to potential customers, for instance on afternoon television. Can you imagine a situation, Madam Deputy Speaker, where, while watching a repeat episode of “One Foot in the Grave”, an advert runs for a funeral plan company, and is then followed by an advert for an organisation offering services to make it easier to have an assisted death? Members may think the situation I am painting is merely hypothetical, but in Belgium, in fact, the Government themselves are running online adverts featuring young, healthy women at a yoga class talking about how they are worried about granny’s situation, and discussing whether they have considered telling her about the option of assisted dying. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spen Valley for tabling new clause 14. It is not perfect, but she and I have had a lot of discussion about the wording. I also support the intention behind amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 14. It is important that Ministers confirm—as we have heard before, and as I hope we will again today—that encouraging assisted dying under the Bill remains a crime under section 2 of the Suicide Act. However, this requires showing intent to encourage, and adverts might be framed so that they are not so intended, so a specific provision on advertising is needed in this legislation. I am also concerned about the scope of some of the exceptions in unamended new clause 14. I am grateful that the example set out in subsection (2) does not refer to potential service users, but there is nothing preventing the Secretary of State from exercising Henry VIII powers to exempt them, and doing so would negate the point of the prohibition. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the power will not be exercised to create exceptions for adverts targeted at potential service users. It is the case, as the hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned, that a number of advert bans already exist on the face of legislation, such as the Cancer Act 1939, the Surrogacy Act 1985 and the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Such bans are set out clearly on the face of those Acts. I hope the matter can be resolved. I hope the House today will, at a minimum, support new clause 14. I hope that the House will also support the strengthening amendments, which I endorse. I hope that Ministers will confirm that these powers will never be used to create an exemption to section 2 of the Suicide Act in order to partially allow encouragement of assisted dying, as I think it would defeat the whole point of the provision.
I intend to speak only briefly. We have to be really honest about where we are, and the current situation under the legal status quo is not working. It is failing terminally ill people who want choice, compassion and control at the end of their lives. Right now, those with the means are travelling abroad to die, often alone, away from their loved ones, without medical support, and when they can physically make it rather than at a time of their choosing. Those without the means face suffering they do not want, or try to take matters into their own hands here in the UK unsafely and illegally. It is not humane, it is not fair and it is not sustainable. I spent two years as a Minister in the Department of Health, with palliative care and end-of-life care as part of my portfolio, so this matter came across my desk on a regular basis. I have had a lot of time to think about it. It is not easy to find an answer and a solution, but we owe it to people to try to do that. That is why I support the Bill: it brings the issue out of the shadows and into a framework of regulation with safety and dignity.
I certainly will read that report. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Palliative care is really important and needs to be improved. In many cases it makes such a difference, but it is not the solution for everybody. There are the most heartbreaking cases—I have met people in these situations in my constituency—where that form of palliative care would not have made the difference. That is why I support the Bill, and that begins with new clause 13.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am addressing new clause 13, which provides the strict regulation of life-ending substances and self-administering devices. That means there will be transparency about what substances are used and how they are stored, prescribed and delivered. We owe it to patients, clinicians and the public to ensure that every part of the process is governed by clinical standards and ethical safeguards. For those physically unable to swallow or self-ingest, the new clause ensures that devices to support self-administration can be safely used. Without that, we risk creating a system that excludes some of the very people it is meant to support. While we must regulate the system properly, we must also reject amendments that would undermine or stall the Bill’s delivery. Amendment 19 proposes adding suicide prevention, the Mental Health Act and deprivation of liberty safeguards to the code of practice. As the Minister who put much of that legislation through, those are really important topics for me, but this is not the legislation to address them. Let us keep the code focused on the Bill’s core function of ensuring a safe, consistent and compassionate assisted dying process. Amendment 20 would allow non-adherence to the code to be used in civil or criminal proceedings. That is not appropriate. Guidance is meant to help professionals navigate difficult decisions, not become a legal trap. If clinicians act negligently, existing law already applies. We should not be creating new liabilities for those acting in good faith in very difficult conditions. I also oppose amendments 97 and 27, which would require the MHRA to license drugs specifically for assisted dying and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to recommend them. That would make the Bill unworkable.
I am not entirely sure that I agree with that. However, I want to talk about the MHRA, which is just not set up to license drugs for ending life. Clinical trials to support such a licence and MHRA requirement would be impossible. However, the substances likely to be used are already tried and tested in other jurisdictions and are MHRA approved for other purposes. New clause 13 already provides us with the strict regulation that we need, without putting prohibitive hurdles along the path to a compassionate and painless death. Amendment 42 would remove the backstop date for implementation, giving the Government indefinite discretion over when or whether to put this law into effect. That cannot be right. If Parliament passes the Bill, there must be a clear and reasonable timeframe for implementation. The four-year backstop already gives Government more than enough time to get this right. Removing it simply invites delay. This is a moment to show that we can be both compassionate and competent, and that we can bring an end to the quiet suffering caused by an unjust status quo and replace it with a system that is safe, fair and accountable. Let us support new clause 13, let us reject amendments that would add red tape or stall the Bill’s progress, and let us show dying people that we are ready to treat them with the dignity and trust that they deserve.
The Government have pledged to enhance the record of the previous Conservative Government and uphold animal welfare. Retained European regulations currently prohibit the handling of chickens by their legs, but in their first act of animal welfare, the Government are proposing to pass regulations to permit that harmful practice. Will the Leader of the House ask the agriculture Minister to write to me—and place a copy of the letter in the Library —to explain why the Government are choosing to lower the legal standard rather than to uphold the law and protect animal welfare?
It is encouraging that the Gibraltarians are receiving more consideration than the exiled Chagossians did. When the Foreign Secretary says that a sovereignty clause was inserted, does that mean that Spain absolutely and explicitly recognises the sovereign relationship between Britain and Gibraltar? If so, what has the reaction been of those elements that he referred to in Spanish politics that do not accept that relationship?
The Minister will be well aware of Sir Andrew Dilnot’s ambitious plan to put a cap of £86,000 on the cost of the social care that any family would ever have to pay. It was never going to be easy to implement that. Previous Governments postponed the plan, and the Chancellor effectively scrapped it completely. May I appeal to the Minister to work across party lines, and to focus on the crippling debt that hits hard-working families when they come to the end of their working lives and need the support of the state?
It seems quite radical to suggest, as the report does, devolving responsibility for post-16 technical education and training to local leaders and transferring responsibility for skills to the Department for Business and Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman briefly expand on that, and explain how it relates to apprenticeships on the one hand and university education on the other?
That is partly about the specification of need and the quantification of how we meet it. Government can be helpful in that. I first took an interest in the matter as a county councillor more than 30 years ago and then as a shadow Schools Minister more recently—some 20 years ago. The Government can provide support through guidance. Guidance can get right the specification of need, and some of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has described can be addressed.
That is the truth that dare not speak its name. It is often the most disadvantaged or poorly educated parents who struggle to navigate a complex system. Middle-class parents are at an advantage—let us face facts—but that is never really recognised, and it needs to be. Those people need support and guidance to navigate the system, and to get the education that their children rightly deserve.
As I expected, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling case. Will she also ask the Minister to address the issue of special needs not being static? Many needs are dynamic—children change when their needs change—and that dynamism needs to be built into the system so that flexible funding can follow need.
The point was made earlier about rural areas. My county of Lincolnshire has a sparsely distributed population, which makes travel and access difficult for parents of children with special needs. Will the Minister address that in the new funding formula to ensure that rural areas do not lose out?
The right hon. Gentleman will know—and he will not take this personally —that for the most part I think his Government’s ability to negotiate is appalling. The only reason I have any confidence that this might be a good deal is that the Government of Gibraltar were heavily involved. At some point in the future, this House—me included—will see the detail of this agreement, and I will know what red lines I stuck to when I was negotiating. To save time and for the education of the House, will he, without going into details, let us know: did the European position, including the Spanish position, move closer to ours or did we move closer to theirs to get this deal over the line?
Our spending on the NHS is now as much as the entire GDP of Portugal. We used to be a country with an NHS attached to it, but we are almost becoming an NHS with a country attached to it. Of course we would welcome this spending if we got the same outcomes that people get in civilised countries, like the Netherlands or Australia, but every time I mention fundamental reform, I am dismissed as wanting to bring in privatisation, so it is hardly worth raising that issue. Australia has an extremely successful pharmaceutical benefits scheme; I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care went out there, and I have talked to Australian doctors about it. Will the Minister at least look at the successful outcomes, including some of the highest life expectancies in the world, that are being delivered in countries like Australia and the Netherlands, to see how we can deliver better outcomes? There is no point spending more money if people’s only right is to join the back of a queue.
May I remind the Leader of the House that when I referred to the prayer tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition against the Mauritius treaty, in early-day motion 1398, she was unable to give an undertaking that this will be debated within the 21-day period laid down by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010? [That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified.] However, in a subsequent answer to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), she made it clear that the global ocean treaty would not be ratified until the necessary legislation had been passed. Can we take it that the Mauritius treaty will not be ratified until the House has approved the legislation providing for the very substantial expenditure that it involves?
As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology carefully consider Somerset’s bid for an artificial intelligence growth zone? Its unique advantages—the Gravity local development order, and its existing connections to the grid—make it an ideal location to boost jobs and growth.
Gibraltar is British and its citizens are British by choice. I was proud to represent Gibraltar for 10 years when I served in the European Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that once the full text is available, he will allow time for both this House and the Gibraltar Parliament to scrutinise the deal before it is ratified?
Across Keighley and Ilkley, there are many fantastic independent businesses that rely on footfall for customers to come through their doors. However, after hiking parking charges in Ilkley earlier this year, Labour-run Bradford council has now decided to strip away our free one hour on-street parking from the town centre and, quite rightly, local businesses and residents are up in arms. On top of the whopping 10% increase in council tax and increases in business rates, Bradford council is now scrapping free car parking, so does the Leader of the House feel that will be to the detriment of our many businesses and residents across the constituency?
The thoughts of the whole House will be with those affected by the plane crash in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and the emergency services at the scene. I thank the Foreign Secretary for assuring us about the assistance that will be given to the families affected. As we know, British nationals are involved. On the statement, I pay tribute to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, and his team for the constructive way they have approached this issue. They worked constructively with Ministers in the previous Conservative Government to set out the negotiating position and red lines, the UK having recognised the choices that Gibraltar made in its interests. The Chief Minister stated in a letter to the former European Scrutiny Committee that “the UK and Gibraltar have never worked more closely together in delivering the outcome that the People of Gibraltar want”. As my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton said when he gave evidence to the Committee last year: “Fabian Picardo and I are joined at the hip: we will not agree anything that we are not both comfortable with.” The Foreign Secretary has acknowledged his predecessor’s work and taken time to reflect on it and secure this outcome. Will he also acknowledge that this negotiating process has been frustrated by Spain, which, as we know, blocked these issues from being resolved through the Brexit negotiations? His Majesty’s Opposition will judge the deal agreed on whether it meets the aims and objectives that we outlined when in government with Gibraltar and once we see the full details. Our principles have been that nothing compromises or infringes on the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar, which is to remain British. We believe that we must able to operate our base as we have done to safeguard our defence and interest, and that the deal must be backed by the Government of Gibraltar and Gibraltar’s people to support their interests. It must also address the concerns about the actions of Spain to frustrate and prevent the free flow of goods. I heard what the Foreign Secretary said in his statement and in the joint statement from the Government of Gibraltar, the UK Government and the EU Commission. I have the following questions. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm when the House will get to see the full details of the deal and the treaty? In a letter to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee, the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), commented on the benefits to scrutiny of sharing the initial treaty text in advance of its being laid formally. Given the importance of the issue, will the Foreign Secretary make a draft available to the House before signing, and will he commit to make parliamentary time available to debate the treaty? Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the red lines that the last Government set with the Government of Gibraltar have been met or whether, during the negotiations and since he took office last year, there has been any divergence from them? Can he give assurances that under this deal we will see a stop to the games that have been played by the Spanish that disrupt the border and the freedoms that Gibraltarians should enjoy? They cause disruption in the EU, so has he received commitments from Spain and the EU that this will never happen again? With in excess of 15,000 people crossing the border every day, it is vital for economic interests that a fluid border, which Gibraltar wants, is in place. That is why when we were in government we respected the choice of Gibraltar to work to achieve this. No mention is made of the military base in the joint statement, but the Foreign Secretary has referenced it. Can he confirm that nothing will be agreed that infringes on our ability to operate the base, and will members of our armed forces be able to access Gibraltar without needing Schengen checks? On the juxtaposed border controls, can he give more details about their practical operation and explain to the House how they will work? Can Spanish officers stop a British citizen from coming to stay in Gibraltar? Will British citizens’ time staying in Gibraltar count against the 90-day Schengen limit? Finally, the joint statement issued lists areas that the agreement will include, covering state aid, taxation, the environment, transport, the rights of frontier workers, social security co-operation and financial mechanisms on training and employment. However, there is a lack of detail. When will the details come forward, and when will we be able to scrutinise them? Does this put Gibraltar in a customs union with the EU? What does this mean for VAT? Will there be any provisions that will require Gibraltar or the United Kingdom to pass legislation, including to enact any EU law? Conservatives will always defend British sovereignty and the rights of Gibraltar, and we will continue to scrutinise the details of this deal so that nothing undermines this.
Order. Colleagues can see how many Members wish to contribute. There will be a speaking limit of three minutes.
Order. We will not get everybody in unless I drop the time limit again down to two minutes.
Order. I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) needs to respond to the first intervention. I appreciate what is happening, though, and he may wish to take the second intervention shortly afterwards.
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
I thank all Members, and I especially thank the Minister for being so swift at the Dispatch Box.
I recently met a load of entrepreneurs and small businesses in Mid Leicestershire who all have the same concern about the low VAT registration threshold of just £90,000. That is stifling their growth, because it adds a lot of bureaucracy and cost. What representations will the Minister make to the Chancellor to ensure that those small businesses can flourish?
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 37, page 28, line 28, at end insert— “(fa) whether the individual is a member of a proscribed organisation as per section (3) and schedule (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.” This amendment requires that IFR, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Butler. I welcome all Committee members back for day four. Amendment 110, tabled in my name, requires this Government’s regulator, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Clause 37 sets out the framework under which the Government’s football regulator must assess whether an owner or officer of a football club meets the required standards of honesty, integrity and competence. This is an important part of the Bill. Football clubs are not like ordinary businesses, as we have discussed; they are institutions rooted in community, tradition and even national identity. Those who control them must be held to the highest standards and supporters quite rightly expect that clubs should be fit to uphold those responsibilities. The Government’s regulator’s task in clause 37 is to ensure that persons in positions of influence over our national game are financially sound and professionally competent. However, the clause as currently drafted leaves the test for honesty and integrity open to interpretation—arguably too open. That is why we have tabled amendment 110, which provides a clear and unambiguous requirement that, in determining whether a person has the requisite honesty or integrity, the regulator must take into account whether that person is or has been a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Let me be clear: this is not about political views, past associations or guilt by implication, but about having a national minimum standard of moral fitness. It should be inconceivable that a person with demonstrable ties to a terrorist organisation could pass the fit and proper person test to own or operate a football club in this country. Football clubs are part of the fabric of British civil society. They are symbols of local pride and national values, and they have international reputations. To allow a person associated with a proscribed group, many of which pose active threats to our national security, public order and democratic way of life, to take a controlling interest in such an institution would be not only morally indefensible, but deeply dangerous. This is not a hypothetical concern. We live in an increasingly globalised football economy and genuine questions have been raised in recent years about the sources of funding, ownership and political influence across the game. My amendment does not attempt to legislate morality in broad terms; it simply anchors the Government’s regulator’s assessment in existing law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, which provides a clear, publicly available list of proscribed organisations that Parliament has already determined pose an unacceptable risk to our way of life. By incorporating that into clause 37, we do two things. First, we clarify the threshold for what constitutes a failure of the honesty and integrity test, giving both clubs and the regulator a clear reference point. Secondly, we send a signal to not just fans and communities here at home, but investors and foreign Governments abroad, that English football will not be compromised by individuals whose allegiances lie with organisations committed to violence, extremism or the subversion of our national interest. Football is a global sport, but it must still reflect and uphold our national values. It is not alarmist or over-zealous to say that those who control our clubs must have a character as close to unimpeachable as possible. We are asking them not to be saints—unless, perhaps, they own Southampton FC—but to be the pillars of the community that we already expect them to be.
I have woken everyone up there. Clause 37 is an important safeguard, but without amendment 110, it lacks a clear and necessary line in the sand. Parliament has already determined that proscribed organisations represent a threat to public safety and national order. That same logic must apply here. I urge the Government to accept this modest but essential amendment and, in doing so, to help to ensure that our clubs are not just well run and financially sustainable, but led by people whose values are consistent with the country, communities and traditions that they are entrusted to serve.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments with regard to amendment 110, which I tabled. I have listened carefully to her arguments, but it is still unclear to those of us on this side of the Committee why consideration of the Terrorism Act 2000 was not included in the list of factors set out in clause 37. We believe that is an oversight and, consequently, that the clause lacks the clarity that the amendment seeks to deliver in the Bill and that those who refer to it will seek going forward—in other words, the regulator. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 38 is one of the most consequential provisions in the entire Bill. It gives the Government’s football regulator the power to disqualify an individual not only from being an owner or an officer of a specific club, but from holding such a position in any regulated club going forward. That is an extraordinarily wide-ranging power, which amounts to a professional ban from participation in the administration or ownership of an English football club. That power must be exercised with the utmost care on the basis of clear evidence, robust procedural safeguards and fair opportunities for representation. Under subsection (1), the regulator may issue a disqualification order if it is determined that a person is not suitable to be an owner of a particular regulated club. Subsection (2) extends that same power to issue a disqualification order against officers. The clause in effect makes the Government’s regulator the gatekeeper of who may or may not participate in the leadership of English football. While the Opposition accept the rationale, particularly in the light of past controversies and failures of governance, we must be careful about vesting that level of authority in a politically appointed body. Three concerns arise. First, there is the question of proportionality. Not every failure of suitability in one club ought to trigger an automatic blanket ban from the entire football pyramid. A disqualification order is not a light matter in itself; it carries reputational consequences that may extend far beyond football. Will the Minister confirm what thresholds of seriousness must be met before a disqualification order is considered appropriate? How will the regulator ensure that such orders are not used disproportionately, particularly in cases where suitability determinations may be contested or borderline? Secondly, there is the question of due process. The clause appears to allow the regulator to act not only in determinations it makes directly, but on decisions it is deemed to have made by operation of law. That introduces a grey area where someone might find themselves disqualified without ever having had a clear and fair hearing. There must be a full right to representation, explanation and appeal before such a decision takes effect. Will there be an express duty on the regulator to provide reasons in writing to allow for full and fair challenge after a decision has been made? Will the affected individual have the right to appeal to a genuinely independent body—one that is outside the Government’s regulator’s own structure? Thirdly, there is a concern about consistency and transparency. The risk is of regulatory opacity. If a disqualification order is issued without published reasoning, or if standards vary from case to case, we will quickly see a collapse of confidence in the regulator’s impartiality. Will the Minister consider introducing a requirement for an annual report to Parliament listing the disqualification orders that have been issued in the preceding year, and for a publicly accessible register of disqualified individuals, with anonymised or redacted reasoning where appropriate, for transparency? Crucially, will the Minister confirm that this power cannot be used retroactively—that is, to punish individuals for matters known and previously tolerated under prior regimes, should there be a change of chairman, deputy chairman, chief executive or board members? English football needs good owners—as a Charlton fan, I can say that with a great deal of confidence and with sympathy for other clubs that have been in similar situations. It needs competent, honest and engaged officers, and there must be consequences when individuals fall short of the standards we all expect, but clause 38 must not become a tool of regulatory vengeance, nor of political interference. The power must be used sparingly, lawfully and accountably.
I thank the hon. Member for that valuable contribution and for telling us his experiences as a Derby fan. There are many examples that have been drawn on in various aspects of the Committee’s debates, and I suspect that there will be more going forward. Just to be clear, we are not seeking to press the provision to a Division. The point we are making is that we want the strongest owners and fittest people to run clubs, but we also want to ensure that the regulator is seen to be acting lawfully and in a balanced way at all times, to avoid any issues of impartiality. I understand the point the hon. Member makes, which is why I have always supported strengthening ownership tests, even in the previous Parliament. We do not believe that exclusion based on reputational judgment or politics should come into these kinds of judgment. The Government must not forget that they are regulating not just football clubs, but people’s lives, reputations and livelihoods. That demands humility, caution and a presumption in favour of freedom and innocence, unless the case for restriction is absolutely clear and overwhelming. Where there is doubt, the Government’s regulator must not fill in the blanks with its own qualifications or prejudices. The Opposition support the need for disqualification in serious cases, but we continue to press the Government to ensure that the clause is not open to abuse, and that football remains a competitive, plural and fair environment, rather than one policed by the regulator, acting as judge, jury and executioner in uncertain circumstances. Clause 39 empowers the regulator to give a removal direction in requiring an unsuitable owner to take all reasonable steps to cease being an owner by the end of a specified period. The exception to this requirement is when an owner did not have prior regulatory approval, and the regulator can exercise its power to make an ownership removal order within three months, starting from the determination day. The clause requires the football regulator to inform the owner of the club and relevant competition organiser before giving a removal direction. It also requires the football regulator to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. It is because of powers such as these that the regulator must be seen as independent. If a Government regulator is to order the removal of incumbent owners, this could be seen by competition organisations as clear interference, which as we have discussed at length, and could cause many issues for English clubs, especially when competing in UEFA and FIFA competitions. I would be interested to hear some assurances from the Minister about how that might work in practice. If the Government’s regulator is to tell clubs that they must change ownership, how confident is the Minister that that will not breach the rules that we have discussed? This goes back to a point I made in a previous sitting about something that is a theme of the clauses in this group. Giving the owner or officer of a club notice of a regulatory action that is coming will hopefully allow them the rights of representation and challenge, if they feel that they have been handled wrongfully, but it also opens up issues around insider information, particularly with regard to a club’s valuation. I suspect that all hon. Members appreciate that such a change, particularly at the top levels of ownership, will have a dramatic impact on the valuation of a club. We want to understand how the regulator will deal with that issue to ensure that insider dealing, in particular, does not become a widespread issue where the regulator is trying to enforce its actions, as provided for by these clauses. We want to understand how that will work in practice, to ensure that these clauses do not have unintended consequences. Clause 40 empowers the regulator either to issue a removal direction to an unsuitable officer, requiring them to take all reasonable steps to cease being an officer by the end of a specified period, or to give such a direction to the relevant club, or both. It requires the independent football regulator to inform the owner, club, and relevant competition organiser before giving a removal direction. It also requires the IFR to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. I have the same question about this clause as for the previous one: how will the risk of inside information be managed? Clause 41 empowers the regulator to prohibit an unsuitable owner or officer from carrying out specified activities or exercising specific rights and/or to issue a direction to the club requiring it to ensure that the unsuitable owner or officer does not exercise specified activities or rights. The clause provides a non-exhaustive list of such activities and rights, including any right “to vote on any matter relating to the…club’s activities”; appointing, terminating or changing the terms of appointment or responsibilities of any officer or employee; changing the corporate structure; and undertaking any specified actions without obtaining prior approval from the independent regulator. Clause 41 also requires the IFR to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. Such action could seriously impair the ability of a club to function while it seeks a new owner or officers, as ordered by the regulator. As we all know, it takes a significant amount of time to find a new owner, and many may be deterred by perceived interference in English football, compared with other nations without a state regulator. Clause 41 may cause more damage to a football club than the owner, who the regulator cannot dismiss. How will the Minister ensure that the regulator uses these powers only if and when deemed strictly necessary? Clause 42 relates to situations where directions under clause 41 would impede a club’s ability to operate effectively or comply with regulatory requirements. It empowers the IFR to temporarily appoint an officer to carry out a specified function, or redistribute functions among existing officers. It stipulates that those functions must be specified, must be for a specified amount of time, and can be revoked or varied by another order. It specifies that an interim officer is not subject to the duties and requirements placed on officers by the Bill. It also requires the IFR to notify the owner and club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. Clause 42 adds to the fear that the regulator could erode the independence of English clubs and how they operate. It empowers the regulator to effectively govern a club while seeking to remove unsuitable officers or owners. Given the time that it takes to find new ownership, that situation could last for a considerable period and cause massive issues on the pitch with regards to investment and transfers—as we discussed in a previous sitting—and how the club functions. It would also leave the regulator wide open to criticism if its actions lead to relegation, for example, for a particular club. Does the Minister think that there is a risk that such a club could be barred from international competitions—as I suggested earlier—or that the Government’s regulator could be left wide open to legal challenge if it directly impacts a club’s performance on the pitch, or its financial performance off the pitch while such considerations, or changes of ownership, take place?
Clauses 43 and 44 set out how ownership removal orders are to be made, and the legal consequences of non-compliance. Clause 43 matters hugely because it allows the regulator to force an individual to sell their ownership stake in a club. That is a serious and intrusive power, so we must ensure that it is used sparingly, lawfully and with robust safeguards. On process and fairness, we welcome the requirement in clause 44 to notify the person and allow representations to be made before an order is issued. However, is that enough? Will representations be meaningful, or will this just be a procedural tick-box exercise? I have some questions for the Minister. Will the regulator be required to give full written reasons for the proposed removal? Will the owner have access to the evidence relied upon? Is there a statutory right of appeal or review, and if not, why? Secondly, on liability and legal exposure, clause 44(6) imposes the liability for costs incurred by non-compliance with an order on to an owner. What types of loss are envisaged for owners? Are they just financial, or reputational and contractual? Who decides whether a loss is caused by the non-compliance, and is causation clearly defined? Could this lead to vexatious or opportunistic claims in the future? How will this work with ownership groups, when there are multiple owners of a club? On commercial realities, forcing the sale of a football club is not simple; in most cases, these are not liquid assets. The value depends on market conditions, the timing of the economy and sale, and obviously buyer availability and demand to purchase a football club. I therefore ask the Minister: will the regulator have a duty to ensure fair market value is preserved during a forced sale? What happens if the regulator’s actions or any delays cause the value of a club to fall? Could we see a situation where the regulator is frequently appearing in court on such claims? Fourthly, on the broader principle, the clause is in effect a power to force the sale of a privately-owned business. That is a major constitutional step. Property rights in this country matter, due process matters, and so does the rule of law. We need real safeguards, not just procedural gestures. We want to keep football in safe hands, but the clause needs to be clearer, fairer and more restrained in its use. It must not give the regulator quasi-judicial power without necessary oversight of Parliament. That is not regulation; we believe it would be overreach. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on my questions.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has stolen some of my lines. As always, he picked up the ball and put it in the net, as would be expected of the chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. There are inconsistencies in what is being discussed, and he was right to highlight them. Clause 45 introduces a legal duty on clubs not to enter or operate a team in a competition deemed to be prohibited by the regulator. As has been discussed, the clause is clearly a response to the threat posed by breakaway leagues such as the attempted European super league a few seasons ago. While the intention behind the duty is understandable—to protect the structure and integrity of English football—the mechanism raises serious questions about competition and proportionality, as the hon. Gentleman just touched on. First, on the principle, we agree that the pyramid structure of English football must be preserved wherever possible. Promotion and relegation are sacred principles of our game, and competition on and off the pitch must be upheld. The competitive nature of English football is what makes it so great. This season, certainly in the Premier League, has probably been slightly dimmer because it has been perceived to have not such great competition for the Championship and in relegation, as things were determined quite early in the season. The Opposition have some sympathy with, in particular, the National League’s 3UP campaign, which has sought to close the gap between the National League and League Two. If we are looking at how to close the gap between the Premier League and the Championship, which has been the main argument from proponents of the Bill, we must also look at the bottom half of the pyramid to see how that competition can also be improved. That is a principle of fairness and competition for which I have a lot of sympathy.
I will not question the experience of my hon. Friend, whose military background is far greater than one I could even dream of on a PlayStation, let alone in practice. He makes a valid point that English football is much more than just the Premier League. We take enormous pride in all the leagues in our country, as we do for British football more broadly. They are some of the most watched leagues in the world, with amazing clubs and competition. Competition across the pyramid is what we seek to promote and preserve going forward. The proposed European super league rightly provoked outrage from fans, clubs and Parliament itself, and rightly collapsed after pressure from all those groups, but we must be cautious about giving a regulator the power to prohibit competitions on open-ended grounds. As the Minister has said, the Premier League probably would not exist in its current form if we had sought to prohibit it around 30 years ago.
I completely agree with the hon. Member’s sentiment. We will seek to debate that when we come to our player welfare amendment, because we are concerned about increasing the length of the season to generate further revenues. The tournament in America and the Asia tour that has just taken place at Man United are probably the prime examples of the impact that can have on players. The English team, in their performance the other night, sadly looked quite tired. There is an issue around player welfare that we must all acknowledge, particularly given the demands to generate more revenues for the financial fair play rules. I thank the hon. Member for making that point; I am sure we will come back to it when we reach the player welfare amendment. On definitions and discretions in the clause, the Bill defines a prohibited competition in quite vague terms, and it is ultimately left to the discretion of the regulator. The explanatory notes state that subsection (5) sets out some factors that the IFR must consider when deciding whether to specify a competition as prohibited. What are the criteria for a competition to be deemed prohibited? Will they be set in primary legislation, by guidance from the Secretary of State or by the regulator? Is there a right of appeal if a competition is believed to have been unfairly designated as prohibited? On international alignment, there is another issue that we must highlight. We must accept that football operates in a global ecosystem, as we have discussed. English clubs routinely participate in international and cross-border competitions, whether that be the Champions League, the Europa League or the Club World Cup, as does the national team. How does the clause interact with UEFA and FIFA competition rules? What happens if, for example, a competition is sanctioned by UEFA but deemed prohibited by the football regulator, or vice versa? This is a real issue for the regulation. We would like some clarity from the Minister on how such a conflict would be resolved, because it would put clubs in a very confusing situation. On enforcement and penalties, clause 45 creates a legal duty not to participate, but what are the sanctions if a club does so? One assumes that it would lead to licence revocation, but what else? Would there be fines or points deductions? What penalties will the regulator look to enforce? Will they be proportionate? Will clubs be given prior notice and the chance to make representations? On unintended consequences, we must avoid stifling innovation and competitive evolution in the sport. Not every new competition is a threat; some may bring financial or structural benefits, or benefits for fans. As I and the Minister have highlighted, we must remember that the Premier League was technically a breakaway league from the old First Division. If that happened today, we believe that the Bill and the regulator would be responsible for preventing that league, and all the attributes and characteristics that we celebrate in this country, from existing. We have to look at innovation carefully, and the answer must not always be no if there are clear benefits to the country and to the game of football itself. We support the aim of preserving the integrity of English football, but the clause must be clearly defined, tightly drawn and fairly enforced. A law designed to stop the next European super league must not become a tool for bureaucratic overreach or political intervention by the regulator. The game belongs to its fans and its communities, not to the regulator or the governing body. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on my questions, particularly those about how the international system would interact with a prohibited competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Member for Newbury highlighted the issue of friendlies. The Minister has indicated that she will come to that, but I do think we need some clarity as to what that might look like in practice. The end-of-season competitions are normally internationally designed, and although they may be endorsed by UEFA or FIFA, they would breach some of the conditions under the definition the Minister just gave. We need clarity about how this will work, because we do not want to put English football on a collision course with international football.
I thank the Minister for those remarks. I suspect that a letter of clarity would be helpful for all Members. There is a risk that FIFA, or UEFA, as we have seen with the Nations League in recent years, looks to introduce a new competition, whether at club or international level, that would contradict the regulator. As we have spoken about at length, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East has described, the different governing bodies of UEFA and FIFA are often in competition with our national competitions. We have to ensure that clubs are not forced to choose between a licence in the English game and partaking in international competitions. We fear that could drive acceleration toward a breakaway league, rather than prevent one.
I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Similar sympathies apply to the situation at Reading, which is also still the case at Charlton’s Sparrows Lane training ground, which is owned not by the current owners but by two owners ago, as is the stadium. How would the hon. Gentleman’s amendments work with regards to the Everton example, where Goodison is now to be used for the women’s game? How would his amendments cover those kinds of properties? An owner might want to sell the women’s ground, even though the women’s game is technically outside the scope of the regulator.
On the point about risky situations and the risk-averse nature the Minister is describing, the Bill is clearer on disposable home grounds. I am intrigued to see how the regulator would deem a club either selling its freehold and then having a leaseback option, which we have heard has happened, or looking to move to a ground or stadium that it did not own and pay rent going forward. Would that be seen as a bad financial move or a good one by the regulator? It is not quite clear how it would work for non-disposable treatment of assets.