5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

   Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

   I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I hope to give a voice to your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the interest in this important subject in Romsey and Southampton North. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and making such a comprehensive speech. He was even wise enough to quote the fire experts from the county that matters most—by which I obviously mean Suffolk. The fact that there were such clear themes from Members across the House and across the divides of the House—right and left, net zero enthusiasts and sceptics—shows that we are dealing with an undeniable problem that the Government have not yet gripped. There was a clear consensus across the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), that there is a total absence of regulation with this risky technology. There was also agreement, from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), about the effects of the policy on the countryside, such as on the availability of good farmland and on rural roads, as well as the challenges of fire service response times in the country. The hon. Members for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made the point that BESS fires can have serious effects on our precious rivers. I also want to single out the speech by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who drew attention to the dodgy finances of a lot of the firms behind a lot of these applications. That is something we need to investigate further. There was broad agreement on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) that these battery sites should not be allowed to go ahead until a proper system of regulation is introduced. I am afraid that I am going to breach the cross-party love-in by picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said about ideology. The Government are betting on battery energy storage systems thanks to their ideological aim to decarbonise the entire grid within five years, therefore choosing to depend on unreliable, intermittent and expensive renewables. That is the root cause of the dependence on the technologies we are debating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) can intervene if he wishes. It is the consequence of the zeal of the Energy Secretary that we are debating these subjects. Thanks to net zero policy costs, which are relevant more than wholesale gas prices, Britain already has the highest energy costs in Europe. Pushing policy to run faster than technology will allow risks a crisis in the grid and in our economy.

   Hansard source
2. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

   Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

   The hon. Member will note the enthusiasm and ideological zeal of the Energy Secretary, which began, I think, in his very first week when he came to this House and announced that he was imposing masses of solar farms on parts of the country and, in the case of the solar farm in my constituency, completely disregarding the independent expert examining authority. That is a clear difference between the two Governments we are discussing. Mass solar is inefficient and produces less power even than wind, which has a higher load factor—between 10% and 11% for solar, between 22% and 28% for onshore wind, and between 30% and 38% for offshore wind. And that is wind, which is unreliable in itself. The comparison worsens next to nuclear, as it would take 8.5 million solar panels, taking up at least 10,000 acres of often top-quality farmland, to produce enough power to match an average reactor. To the surprise of no one, the World Bank says we are one of the countries with the “least generous conditions” for PV. Indeed, we rank higher only than Ireland. Batteries and solar panels also expose us to dependence on China, which produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels. Many are made with slave labour, and perhaps all contain kill switches controlled by Beijing. While an amendment to the GB Energy Bill was passed to ban the Government’s new quango from using slave-made imports, it does not apply to private sector purchases. So much for ending our dependence on foreign dictatorships and human rights abusers. So much for our energy security. Giant solar fails even on its own terms, because it is four times more carbon-intensive than wind and nuclear. Apart from biomass, solar is the most polluting of all renewables. As this debate has shown, there are very real safety concerns about the battery sites that we must address. These battery sites pose a public safety risk that the Government are simply ignoring. With 150 BESS sites already in operation, and with well over 1,000 planning applications in the pipeline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) noted, this needs to be confronted as a matter of urgency. Building these sites and trying to deal with the safety questions later is reckless, expensive and dangerous. When a fire starts at a BESS site, highly toxic emissions are released into the air. They include chemicals such as hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals and carcinogens, forcing people to stay indoors. These fires do not need oxygen to keep burning, so they can last for weeks. They can be reignited easily, and the health effects of exposure to these gases are a major concern. Just look at the fire in Liverpool four years ago, which several Members cited. It took 59 hours to put out. In answer to my written questions, the Government have confirmed that no environmental impact assessment has been made of that incident, so no lessons are being learned. And this year we have seen fires at battery sites near Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire, and in East Tilbury in Essex. I have repeatedly raised fire safety directly with Ministers, but no satisfactory answers have been given. The Government have made no assessment of the adequacy of fire services near battery sites. There is minimal oversight from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. The National Fire Chiefs Council recommends a minimum distance of 25 metres between grid-scale batteries and occupied buildings, but it is only guidance and there is no statutory requirement to maintain this distance. As the Liverpool fire proves, a major blaze can affect people over a much wider area anyway. We need clear involvement from the fire and rescue services in the planning application process for battery sites, looking at concerns around construction, fire safety and retrofitting. Henry Griffin from Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service has described battery sites as an “emerging risk”, saying: “There can be complications with vapour clouds and fires will last a long time.” Fire services have no legal power to enforce safety measures on battery sites. We need legislation and residents need a say. Sunnica is one of the biggest solar and battery farms in the country, as mentioned by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), and it has been imposed on our constituents by the Energy Secretary. Three days after entering office, the Energy Secretary approved the application, overruling the advice of examining authorities and, quite clearly from his answer to my question, he had not read the evidence—breaching his quasi-judicial responsibility. Sunnica will cover over 2,500 acres of prime agricultural land across West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire. Three battery sites will be built, and the whole project will actually increase carbon emissions. Sunnica has treated residents with contempt and used consultants who specialise in questionable assessments of the quality of farmland. Sunnica is also located very close to the RAF bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, which host the US air force, and many service personnel live in the area. We believe Russia has already targeted those bases with drones recently, and the director general of MI5 says that arson and sabotage are part of the Russian modus operandi in European countries. To approve Sunnica without assessing this very serious danger is grossly negligent. Rushing towards mass solar and battery farms like this is an act of ideological irresponsibility. It is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses.

   Hansard source
3. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

   Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

   Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Ipswich were more confident in his arguments, he might want to stand up and take part. As I was saying, it is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. It is bad farming policy because it puts some of our best agricultural land beyond use, and as this debate has shown, it is bad for public safety, because the Government, in their haste and zeal, want to ignore the very serious dangers these batteries bring.

   Hansard source
4. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Maths: Contribution to the UK

   I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this important debate. We have had some fantastic speeches, and any debate in which Johnny Ball gets a shout-out is a good debate in my view. Our profession, politics, is awash with mathematical metaphors. Lyndon Johnson famously said that the first rule of democracy is that you have to be able to count. In Westminster, the Treasury is always insisting on making the numbers add up. Lots of junior Ministers who interact with the Treasury and try to get money out of it discover that they get the square root of naff all from those discussions. Occasionally, when I listen to hon. Members who are less concise—they are not in this debate—trouting on in the main Chamber, I am reminded of the space-filling Hilbert curve, which is repetitious and capable of filling an infinite amount of space if left unchecked. One of my greatest beliefs is in the non-linear nature of innovation. As hon. Members have already alluded to, mathematics is a brilliant example of that. It was never obvious, when the obscure philosophers who became logicians were faffing around with strange upside down a’s and backwards e’s, that they would lay the foundations for the computation that defines our world today. I read in Quanta magazine that in the ’60s we discovered something that seemed perfectly useless: Penrose tiling—infinitely non-repeating patterns, which are very pretty and obviously totally useless, right? No: they are now used in quantum encryption. We have found a use for that seemingly useless thing. The same is true of one of the UK’s greatest industrial successes: Arm, which does obscure-seeming work on reduced instruction set computing. What use is that? Why would anyone need a really tiny thing that does not use much power? But we all have mobile phones, and the intellectual property from that bit of Britain’s industrial policy is now in everyone’s pocket, all over the world. Mathematics is hugely important. I completely agree with all hon. Members who have said that. I have been goaded by the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who said that I would talk about the last Government, and of course I will. It would be inappropriate not to add some numbers to a debate on maths, so what happened to mathematics under the last Government? Let us look at some international comparisons. In the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS—between 2011 and 2023, England went from 10th in the world to sixth in the world for maths, and from ninth to fifth for science. That is remarkable progress that puts us top in the western world. We are not quite at the level of the Asian people who dominate the table, but we are the best in the west. I cannot tell hon. Members how Scotland and Wales are doing on that metric because their Governments chose to withdraw from those competitions as they did not like the scrutiny. However, I can give a comparison by stating where those devolved Governments are in the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the world for maths in PISA results, and from 11th to ninth for science. Whereas Wales —where a lot of the reforms that we had in England were avoided for ideological reasons—went from 29th to 27th for maths, and slumped from 21st to 29th for science. That is part of a wider picture. I encourage everyone to read the brilliant report “Major challenges for education in Wales” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which points out that the average deprived child in England is now doing as well or better than the average child in Wales. The gap is so big, and the deprivation progress has been so great in England, that the deprived child in England is now in a better position than the average child in Wales. That is an incredible situation. Looking at the improvement in school attainment by IDACI—income deprivation affecting children index—decile, we see improvement across the income distribution under the last Government, but the biggest improvement in England was in the bottom half of the income distribution. That is true for maths throughout the educational life cycle. Today, 90,000 more children at key stage 2—the end of junior school—meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths than in 2015-16. That progress was driven by a number of measures, including our putting in 27,000 extra teachers over our time in government. Over the last Parliament, we increased real-terms per pupil funding by 11%. We brought in things such as maths schools and maths hubs, lots more low-stakes testing—my daughter is about to do the year 4 times tables test—and the key stage 2 tests. All those things, by the way, are still opposed by some people in the trade unions even though the evidence for the effectiveness of low-stakes testing, for example, is so strong. The National Education Union still opposes all forms of testing in primary school—a crazy position that we were right to reject in England. There has been real progress as a result of those reforms. Although everything in England is far from perfect—there is loads of room for progress and lots of problems to fix—we can see what the alternative is. Where those reforms were not made for ideological reasons because the unions said no to academisation, school choice and school accountability, things got worse. The people who suffered from that ideology were not the rich and those who could afford to go private, but the poorest. Some of the things being done now in schools are a mistake, such as hammering the budget for the advanced mathematics support programme. As has already been touched on in this debate, and as quite a lot of the people who care most about maths have pointed out, that is a big mistake. Jens Marklof, president of the London Mathematical Society, said that it will harm the chances of children from poorer areas. He said: “There’s no AI without maths and if the government is really serious about its AI strategy they have to significantly scale up the support for maths education at all levels…The big success of AMSP was to enable kids who went to schools that didn’t offer further maths to give them this opportunity”. Likewise, Adrian Smith, the Royal Society president, said it is “spectacularly short-sighted to pull funding from programmes designed to support teachers and schools to deliver better maths provision.” He also said: “Our maths education is not up to scratch—too many young people are leaving school without the skills they need for life or the well-paid jobs that will drive economic growth”. Dan Abramson, the chief executive of U-Maths, the umbrella organisation for university maths schools in England, and a professor of maths at King’s College London, said: “For the UK to be at the forefront of AI and the data-driven modern economy, we need excellent mathematicians from all backgrounds, and we need more of them—that means more investment, not less”. We set up the advanced mathematics support programme in 2018 to provide extra maths help to schools, and the Government have now cut it. I think that it is a mistake and I hope that they will look at it again. Unfortunately, that is part of a pattern. The Government have cut support not just for maths, but for physics, computing, Latin, cadets and behaviour hubs. A lot of the things that were doing a lot of good, including for maths, have been axed even though they are very small in the grand scheme of the Department for Education’s £100 billion budget. I hope that the Government will rethink those cuts. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also wanted to talk about the higher education part of the piece. It is very striking that although 50% more people are now doing A-level maths—a great success—and the number of people doing double or triple science at GCSE has more or less doubled, which is great progress, that has not always translated into increases in the number of people doing maths at university. In fact, while there has been about a 20% increase in the total numbers entering HE courses at university since 2018-19, the number going into maths, while marginally up, is broadly flat. Why is the improvement we are seeing in schools not leading to larger numbers doing maths at university? I am afraid that goes to the heart of the issues with our higher education system more broadly. I understand the logic of why tuition fees were brought in and I accept up to a point the idea of a market in higher education, but it seems to us that that market has gone too far. It is really a pseudo-market, because we rely entirely on young people aged 16 and 17 to drive the allocation of resources into our enormous higher education system. The gradual move from teaching, or T, grants to a highly fees-based system gives Ministers far less control than they previously had. The Government’s decision last week to further reduce high-cost subject grants—T grants, as they used to be called—by a further 10% in real terms is a mistake in its own right because it hits the subjects such as engineering and science that we need for the future, and gives Ministers less control over what is going on in higher education. The incentives set up by the pseudo-market in education have led to a great growth in courses that are cheap to provide but do not necessarily give great value to either the student or the taxpayer. We know from the leading work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, when we look at the combined perspective of the taxpayer and the student themselves, higher education is not worth it, at least from an economic point of view, for around 30% of those who go into it at the moment,. Since the work that the IFS did, which is based on those who graduated during the mid-noughties, we have seen the graduate premium decline even further. The marginal students who we have been adding have even lower earnings, so those figures could easily be worse if we were to rerun that analysis now. That needs to be addressed. There is absolutely sometimes a case for higher education to be simply beautiful—to do theology, art or whatever—and for it not to be of economic value, but we should be clear about when we choose to subsidise that. We should also be clear that things that are highly economically useful, such as mathematics and science, also have intrinsic value. They are also beautiful and there is an intrinsic value to studying them—that is not just the case for some of those things, particularly the creative arts, where we see the great concentration of those who end up with very low earnings and negative returns from an economic point of view. We need to rethink. We need not just to patch up and mend the existing system, but to fundamentally rethink the incentives that it has set up. We should give ourselves the ability to make sure that we are investing in and driving up the growth of subjects such as mathematics, which are so critical to our future economy and security as a country. I will not go further into it than that, but the issues facing mathematics are, in a sense, part of the wider issues facing higher education. I hope that the Government will move from a patching up and mending attitude to a reformist and overhauling one. The one thing I want discourage Ministers from doing is something that I am worried will come out of the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. Although I have lots of respect for Becky Francis, who is leading the review, one of the things that Ministers have been very keen to do is say that we need to have lots more time for arts subjects—for fun subjects such as music, drama and dance. That is fine in a sense, but Ministers have to be super clear about how they will find that time, and whether they are going to find it by funding some extra hours in the school day or something, because otherwise it inescapably means less time on other things. One of the good things that has happened, and one of the reasons standards have gone up, is that schools now spend about 13% more time teaching maths than they used to in 2010, so more time is going into this critical subject than was before. If we say that we want to have more time for something else, let us be honest about the trade-offs and what we are going to not do and let us also be honest about the consequences of that.

   Hansard source
5. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Maths: Contribution to the UK

   I am happy to agree that we can bring maths into many other things, and that is also a fun way of teaching maths. In return, I put back to the hon. Gentleman that there are limits to that. If we want to have more time for something else, we have to say where it is coming from. The improvement in those international league table rankings that I mentioned has not come about as a result of some sort of magic. It has come about by us spending more time on that, putting more resources into it and making it a priority. Unfortunately, not everything can be a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. The last Government chose to prioritise maths and STEM. I think it was the right decision. One can argue that we should go for a different course, but if we are going to do that, people should be explicit about it and honest about what they are actually going to do. Let me not turn into the thing that I have already criticised—the space-filling Hilbert curve—and take up endless time in this debate. It has been a hugely important debate with brilliant speeches from lots of Members from across the House. I hope that the Ministers will act on some of the brilliant suggestions that have been made, and that we can further improve math education in this country.

   Hansard source
6. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Free School Meals

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The truth is that the families benefiting from today’s announcement are the same ones who are paying for it, because the same group of people are hit hardest by Labour’s national insurance increase. Labour promised not to increase national insurance, but it broke that promise, and someone earning just £13,000 a year will now take home £500 less as a result of the tax increase. Someone on just £9,000 a year—the exact sort of person who is supposed to benefit from this policy—will lose 5% of their income. The Government want to talk about the impact of the money they are giving today on poverty, but they do not want to talk about the impact of the much larger sum of money they are taking away. Disgracefully, they have not done any distributional analysis of the £25 billion that they are taking away, which is particularly targeted at low-income households. Will the Minister say how many households that will push into poverty? Will he finally admit what the figure is? While free school meals are obviously welcome, the things that are being cut to pay for them are much less welcome. For example, the Government broke their promise to fully fund the national insurance increase for schools, and some have been short-changed by 35%. They also broke their promise to fully fund the pay award. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that leaves a £400 million funding hole for our schools. Under the last Government, although there was an increase in achievement across the board, the biggest increase was in the lower half of the income distribution. That is much harder to achieve when the Government have taken £400 million out of our schools. What else is being done to balance the costs? We already know that the Government have cut support for maths, science, physics, Latin, computing and cadets in schools, and got rid of the successful behaviour hubs. We know that nurseries, which the Minister talked about, are saying they are on the brink because of the national insurance increase. In fact, the Early Years Alliance says the situation is “catastrophic”. We know that the Department for Education recently announced a real-terms cut of 10% to university teaching grants, and it has abolished 90% of higher apprenticeships—funnily enough, they announced that during the recess. Now the education press are saying that the next cost-saving measure to pay for announcements like this will be to abolish education, health and care plans for everything other than special schools. Will the Minister rule that out today? If he does not rule it out, the whole House will hear, and we will know exactly what is going to happen next. Turning to the numbers, what is the real net effect of all this? Transitional protections were established in 2018 to ensure that pupils who gained FSM would not lose them while universal credit was being rolled out. That has roughly doubled the proportion of pupils who are eligible from 13.6% to 25.7%. However, the Department for Education has announced that those protections will now end in September 2026, when the new policy comes in. By how much will the end of those transitional protections reduce the number of children who are eligible for FSM? Am I right in thinking that it is by 1.2 million? Will the Minister agree—he is looking away—to finally publish a figure? How many children who have been on transitional protection will lose their free school meals when they change phase of education? Will the Minister finally admit to the figure? There is another sting in the tail today, because school budgets are going to be hit—that is how this policy is being paid for. That is because FSM is the gateway to pupil premium funding. The pupil premium is a great achievement of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, and it is worth £1,480 per pupil in primary schools and a bit over £1,000 in secondary schools. As a result of today’s decision, schools are going to lose that funding. With 1.2 million pupils on transitional protection, bringing with them about £1,200 each, schools are going to lose the £1.5 billion currently going to them in pupil premium funding. Will that funding be replaced by this announcement? No, because today the Government have for the first time broken the link between FSM eligibility and pupil premium funding. On one side of the ledger, £1.5 billion has been lost, and on the other side of the ledger, schools are not getting it back. I had wondered where all the money was coming from, and now of course we know. I ask the Minister to spit it out: how much will this decision cost schools, and how much is it saving the DFE? On a similar point, will the Minister confirm that the Government will apply the same approach to holiday activities and food, which would also not trigger an increase in that funding? Is the same also true of home-school transport, and how is this all being paid for? I think we need a little more detail. Opposition Members have become rather cautious about positive-sounding announcements from this Government. For example, the other day Ministers were here to announce that they would continue the adoption and special guardianship support fund, but it must just have slipped their mind to mention that it was being cut by 40%. That is why we like to know the detail when we get positive announcements. I will end by asking some questions about the facts. Will the Minister agree to publish information on how many children are currently on transitional protection and how much the end of that protection will reduce entitlement to free school meals? Will he agree to publish how much pupil premium funding schools will lose overall as a result of breaking the link between FSM and the pupil premium? Just to ask again, so that the whole House hears the answer, will he rule out abolishing EHCPs outside special schools—yes or no?

   Hansard source
7. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Free School Meals

   After this, we have two Select Committee statements and two Backbench Business debates. If colleagues do not keep their questions short, they are just denying others the opportunity to speak.

   Hansard source
8. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Free School Meals

   Order. There are 15 colleagues remaining. If you want me to get you all in, work with me and keep your questions short please. I call Yasmin Qureshi.

   Hansard source
9. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Free School Meals

   As the Minister is on a tour, I assume that he will be coming to Sussex Weald shortly.

   Hansard source
10. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Free School Meals

    I am personally delighted and looking forward to hosting the Minister in my constituency.

    Hansard source
11. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Governing the Marine Environment

    We now come to the second Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee. Mr Toby Perkins will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source
12. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

    Order. We have shy of 30 Members hoping to contribute, so we will have a hard speaking limit of four minutes to begin with.

    Hansard source
13. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is unique, made up of Privy Counsellors from both Houses. However, last month the Committee took the highly unusual step of publicly criticising the Government for their failure to allow the Committee the staff and independence to fulfil its role overseeing the circa £3 billion annual spend, for which “there is no oversight capability.” The Committee is led by an experienced Labour peer, and it just wants the basics: to have staff who are not totally beholden to the Cabinet Office, so that they can do their job on behalf of Parliament and the country, and to meet the Prime Minister. The work of our intelligence services has never been more important, given the grey zone that states are acting within at the moment, which must be properly overseen. I asked a written question about when the Prime Minister would deign to meet the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), said that one was being arranged. Has that now happened? I also asked written questions about the independence and resources of the Committee and was told that discussions were ongoing. On a matter of this seriousness, does Parliament not deserve more than fob-off half-answers, and will the Minister provide further details now?

    Hansard source
14. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Business of the House

    I know that you, Mr Speaker, are an animal lover, like me and my Basildon and Billericay constituents, although sadly some people are not. After some horrific cases, will the Leader of the House push the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to get on with its consultation on licensing animal welfare centres? If not, will she allow a debate in Government time on this issue on the Floor of the House?

    Hansard source
15. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Business of the House

    May we have a debate in Government time on the three flagrant breaches of the ministerial code committed by the Defence Secretary on Monday? For the record, the Opposition received their copy of the strategic defence review mid-afternoon, the media received it at 10.30 am, and defence companies received it at 8 o’clock in the morning. Within minutes, there were share price spikes in a number of defence stocks. Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states: “where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”

    Hansard source
16. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, at end insert— “(d) conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA.” This amendment requires the IFR to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to open day 2 of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. On day 1 there was extensive debate about an issue that I am sure we will also get into today. We Opposition Members were keen to ensure that the Government’s new football regulator will improve transparency, help reduce costs to clubs and fans and stop political interference in football. It was disappointing that Government Members did not support those objectives. Amendment 97 seeks to ensure that there are no conflicts with any of the regulations and rules of international footballing governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA. It clearly requires the Independent Football Regulator “to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.” As we know, UEFA has written to the Secretary of State to set out its concerns with the Bill. The letter came after the Government introduced the expanded version of the Bill. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to publish it so that all Members can have an informed debate about the risks that UEFA outlined. I will not go over that debate again—I might get a yellow card if I do. The amendment would require the Government’s regulator to exercise its functions in a way that avoids conflicts with the rules, statutes and regulations of international football governing authorities, especially FIFA and UEFA. The amendment is designed to protect the regulator’s ability to carry out the functions that the Government have assigned to it without inadvertently triggering consequences that could seriously damage English football’s standing in the international game and, in the worst-case scenario, lead to English clubs being removed from the Champions League and—perhaps more seriously—the national team being banned from competitions such as the European championship and the World cup. Let us make no mistake: if the Government’s regulator were to exercise its powers in ways that contravene the established framework of global football governance, the ramifications would be swift and severe. A particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football. As hon. Members might know, under FIFA’s rules, any form of what is deemed undue third-party interference in the affairs of a national football association can result in disciplinary action. That can include suspension of the football association itself, exclusion of clubs from European competitions or the ineligibility of players to represent England in FIFA-sanctioned tournaments such as the World cup.

    Hansard source
17. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    The Lib Dem spokesman makes an interesting comparison. As I said in the Committee’s debate on Tuesday, my focus is on football, and I am outlining with this amendment my concerns about the interactions of a sport with other international competitions. I will come on to explain why football in particular is interwoven with international principles. The majority of fans want to focus on the sport, rather than politics. I am sure that there are many more debates to be had on issues such as the ECHR in the rest of this Parliament. I will stick to football today, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. UEFA’s ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competitions. That risk is very real: it has happened before and can happen again. In 2006, the Greek football federation was banned from European competition. People might argue that I am trying to scaremonger, but I am trying to highlight that this is a real risk. It is important to clarify what FIFA and UEFA mean by “third-party interference”. It is not a casual term; it is clearly defined in their statutes. It refers to instances where public authorities, including Governments or regulators created by Government legislation, exert influence over how football is run in a way that compromises the independence of football associations and clubs. Examples include dictating the appointment or removal of club directors—which the Bill does—influencing the outcome of football disciplinary procedures and imposing governance models that conflict with internationally recognised standards. Any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and national frameworks. It is therefore important that the IFR’s licensing criteria are complementary to football and created in full consultation with clubs and any other affected parties. Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a full voice in the development and implementation of those requirements? What consultation are the Government or their regulator currently undertaking on these regulations? Let me be clear: I understand that the creation of the IFR in and of itself is on the borderline of what constitutes third-party interference. We are taking great care to help the Government to redesign a regulator that is fully independent of Ministers and professionally competent. However, in the absence of clear statutory guidelines to avoid conflicts with international rules, there is a risk, or perhaps even an inevitability, that the Government’s regulator may, at some point in the future, cross a line drawn by UEFA or FIFA.

    Hansard source
18. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is exactly what we are trying to do. This is not a wrecking amendment; we are just trying to tighten the Bill to ensure that no conflict arises that would damage the participation of English clubs or the national team in future competitions. We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep and that the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond its loosely defined current competences. That expansion, intentional or otherwise, into broader aspects of football governance could undermine established structures and processes of the sport and amount to Government interference. That is why my amendment is needed. It would place a duty on the regulator to abide by long pre-existing international frameworks within which English football exists. It requires the Government’s regulator to ensure that, in pursuing its objectives, it does not create legal or procedural clashes with the statutes of FIFA and UEFA. Legislation that compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England would be non-compliant with those international statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. Some may ask why Parliament should concern itself with the rules of unelected international bodies. Why not simply legislate as we see fit and allow the regulator to act as robustly as necessary? On the surface, that is a fair political question, but we must recognise the reality of football governance. FIFA and UEFA are not advisory bodies; they are the organisations through which our clubs gain access to international competitions, including European competitions. They are custodians of the World cup, the European championship and the Champions League, to name just a few. Their statutes form part of the accepted legal architecture of the global game and all member associations, including the FA, are bound by them.

    Hansard source
19. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I appreciate what the Lib Dem spokesperson is trying to do, but I point out that English football has been involved directly with the rules that have been made and continue to be made.

    Hansard source
20. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I would argue very strongly that when the English football team finally wins the World cup, it will get much more out of FIFA than this country would ever get out of the European Union. English football does not exist in a vacuum, but the Bill acts as if it does. The global football ecosystem is fantastically complex, but the Bill is simple, clunky and—I am afraid to say—full of holes, which would potentially leave English football to drown among its international competition. I also fear that it will create even more legal cases, whereby clubs end up spending more time in courts than they do focusing on the football matches themselves. To act as if we can disregard those international rules, or to suggest that a domestic regulator can impose conditions without reference to them, would be to invite precisely the sort of jurisdictional collision that could see English football punished because of the good intentions of Members of this House. We cannot just pander to the politics; we must be practical about the potential havoc that the Bill will wreak across the English football pyramid. If FIFA or UEFA were to exclude English clubs or the national team from international competitions as a result of perceived third-party interference, the consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. As hon. Members will know, the Premier League generates more than £6 billion in revenue annually, with over £1.8 billion coming from overseas broadcasting rights alone. In fact, I understand that the Premier League is the first sporting competition in Europe to generate more from its international broadcasting rights than it does from its domestic rights.

    Hansard source
21. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is something that we discussed at some length during the Committee’s first sitting. It is disappointing that all members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend, do not have access to that information to help them to make informed decisions. I appreciate some of the what-aboutery and counter-arguments that are made, but, as I have said, I will defend the right of Committee members to have full access to information. It is so important, in particular given the Committee’s function in respect of this legislation, that its members should have full and frank information. It is disappointing that that has not been disclosed so that we can fully understand all the risks. The Premier League’s broadcasting rights are in no small part predicated on English clubs’ participation in the Champions League and the Europa League. Exclusion from those competitions would make our top clubs less attractive to global audiences and sponsors, shrinking the broadcast value of the league and undermining its international appeal. Without wishing to confuse my sporting metaphors, that would have a knock-on effect further down the pyramid. If the Premier League makes less money, there is less money to distribute to the English Football League or the National League, which we will come on to when we consider other parts of the Bill. The Champions League alone contributes more than £300 million each season to English clubs, not including the knock-on commercial benefits. For top clubs, it accounts for up to 20% of their total revenue. Stripping that away would lead to cost-cutting, player sales and job losses, not just in clubs themselves but across the local economies that depend on matchday trade and revenue. The FA also receives critical funding linked to England’s participation in international tournaments, as I know a number of pubs do; for example, when we are in the Euros in the summer, that normally means that the economy receives a boost. A ban from the World cup or the European championship would not only harm national pride but cut investment in grassroots football, which is often funded in part through FIFA’s global redistribution programmes or revenues generated by the national team.

    Hansard source
22. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I believe “Blue is the colour, football is the game” is the motto in the song. That is of course Chelsea. I congratulate them, as well as Spurs, on their recent victory in Europe. I probably should say that every other club that has won—

    Hansard source
23. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Member did not talk about Crystal Palace’s success in the FA cup final. I am sure his point is noted by the Committee. More broadly, the football industry supports around 100,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, contributes more than £7.6 billion to GDP and delivers £3.6 billion in tax revenues annually. A major disruption to international participation because of this Government’s regulator would clearly put a serious dent in all that. In short, any move that risks our relationship with UEFA and FIFA is not just a sporting gamble but an economic one, and a profoundly reckless move for any Government to take. We must also consider the practical impact on clubs and fans. Imagine a scenario in which the Government’s regulator intervenes in the ownership model of a particular club in UEFA competitions and in doing so breaches UEFA’s licensing criteria. That club could find itself barred from the Champions League, the Europa League or other leagues through no fault of its own. Fans, players and club employees would suffer, and the club’s value and viability undermined, all as a result of a conflict that could and should have been avoided through foresight and careful drafting of this legislation. There is precedent for this kind of statutory provision. In sectors such as financial services, we have long recognised the need for domestic regulators to align their actions with international frameworks that they are part of. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority operate in a global regulatory environment and Parliament has provided them with duties and powers that reflect that reality. This is not a novel concept; it is standard practice where cross-border frameworks exist. As the Government have chosen to model their regulator on those in financial services, perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have not done so in this regard. Football is different. It is more internationally integrated than most sectors. Rules are more intertwined and clubs more interdependent on foreign clubs for competition, particularly at elite level. English clubs compete weekly in cross-border tournaments—for example, when Arsenal sadly lost to Paris Saint-Germain, who went on to win the Champions League. What a final that was. Players move freely between jurisdictions. Broadcasting rights are sold and consumed around the globe, as we have heard. Football’s regulatory framework must reflect that international dimension, not wilfully ignore it. Some will say that the amendment is unnecessary because the regulator can use its discretion to avoid conflict, but without a statutory duty, it could operate without full regard to the consequences abroad. The amendment would place a clear and proportionate duty on the Government’s regulator—something that its leadership would be required to consider in every decision they take. Importantly, the amendment would not hand international bodies a blank cheque. It would not bind the regulator to follow their rules blindly or to give up domestic responsibilities. What it would do is make sure that the Government’s regulator takes those rules into account and, wherever possible, avoids direct conflict. That is entirely reasonable and, in my view, essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the Government’s regulator. We do not want to create a regulator that acts in splendid isolation. We want a regulator that defends English football’s integrity but also safeguards its place in the global game. It would be the height of irony if, in the process of attempting to strengthen our domestic football pyramid, we inadvertently isolated it from the wider footballing world, solving one problem only to create a much worse one. The amendment would act as a safeguard and send a signal to fans, clubs and international partners alike that we in Parliament understand the integrated nature of modern football and legislate accordingly.

    Hansard source
24. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    A point that is being slightly missed in this exchange is something that I mentioned in my speech: the impact and risk for clubs and whether the line is crossed. In particular, the qualification for the Champions League each year in the Premier League is a huge source of revenue, as I explained. Having that risk at play could deter the inward investment into clubs that we know is key to the future success of English football, as we have already seen. Does my hon. Friend agree?

    Hansard source
25. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    Although I do not doubt the Minister’s sincere belief in the assurances she has given, I am afraid that unless we have evidence that gives the Opposition certainty about them, we will not withdraw our amendment. We are very concerned about the future participation of English clubs in Europe and of the national team in European and world competitions for reasons that I outlined in my speech—in the interest of time, I will not repeat them now. I note that the Minister was very careful in her wording when she talked about what was said in the letter from UEFA. She talked about the Bill “as drafted”. The Opposition are extremely concerned about scope creep from the regulator, and much of our contributions have focused on the fact that the future regulator may take a decision that is not in conformity with the rules of FIFA and UEFA, which this House would then have few means to change. That would put at risk clubs, investment and jobs in clubs up and down the country. That is why I will press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
26. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 7, line 35, at end insert— “(3A) The IFR may not redistribute revenue, income or any monies from one regulated club to another regulated club.” This amendment prevents the IFR from redistributing any funds from one club to another. Again, it is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I promise that this speech will be slightly shorter than the last one—people will be pleased to know that. Amendment 98 would make it explicit that the Government’s regulator should not engage in the practice of redistributing income or revenue from one club to another. This is a necessary and prudent safeguard and goes to the heart of how we preserve competitive integrity, protect private investment and ensure that the scope of the regulation does not veer into a form of creeping central planning in our national game. Nowhere in the Bill as it stands is it clearly ruled out that this new public body—run by an appointee of the Secretary of State, as we have heard—could compel the transfer of funds between clubs in the name of sustainability, redistribution or solidarity. That is why the amendment is so important. It would place a clear statutory limit on the power of the Government’s regulator. It would ensure that the regulator could not, in any circumstances, divert resources from one privately owned club to help to subsidise another. It would preserve the principle that the money earned by clubs—through good management, fan support, on-field success or commercial acumen—belongs to those clubs, not to a central authority acting as some sort of financial equaliser. Although I am sure that hon. Members will say that that will never happen, it is important that we, as Members of this House, make sure that it never does. If Members believe that it will never happen, making this amendment to the Bill will not affect the operation of the Government’s regulator. There is no reason to oppose the amendment, other than political goal scoring. This issue goes far beyond football; it touches on the fundamental principles of ownership, competition and economic freedom. As we have heard, private investment in English football has helped to transform the game. Whether in the Premier League or lower leagues we have seen owners, both domestic and international, commit hundreds of millions of pounds to develop stadiums, invest in training grounds, nurture local talent and grow their clubs responsibly. That investment has come in the expectation of fair competition and the ability to retain the fruits of one’s success. We all know that it has not always been done with the best intentions, but the Government have decided to bring in a regulatory sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. A small minority of owners should not be responsible for upending the entire English football system, which has stood and evolved over more than 100 years. If the Government’s regulator is granted the power to override that and to redistribute revenues forcibly between specific clubs, that risks undermining the very conditions that made English football the most watched and commercially successful league system in the world. It sends a chilling message to investors that success may be penalised, ambition discouraged and financial reward diluted in the name of a central diktat. It would also, as I said when I moved amendment 97, demonstrate a total violation of the independence of English football from a Government regulator, which would assuredly constitute a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules, in turn leading to the expulsion of our clubs from competitions, as we have just discussed. UEFA states that mandating redistribution that affects “the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us. We also fear that having a third party intervene in redistribution would likely prevent amicable solutions being found.” It is not difficult to imagine where that could lead. A well-run League One club, generating income from smart ticketing and loyal fan engagement, could find its revenues skimmed off to support a rival that has been less prudent or less entrepreneurial with its fan engagement. A Championship club breaking even through hard decisions and local investment could be told that its television share will be trimmed to subsidise losses made elsewhere by a less prudent board or chairman. That is not regulation, but redistribution by bureaucratic diktat. Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the redistribution of moneys in English football. Voluntary redistribution negotiated by clubs, leagues and the FA is a long-standing and respected feature of the game, but there is a profound difference between clubs choosing to support one another and the Government’s regulator imposing that from above, using statutory powers to shift money between private enterprises without consent.

    Hansard source
27. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I understand the Lib Dem spokesman’s point, but in my understanding, that would be the responsibility of the leagues. That is not what we are trying to block with this amendment; we are trying to block club-to-club forced redistribution. That is an important distinction, and I will come on to explain why. I do not believe that this is a theoretical concern. The regulator’s objectives include financial sustainability. One can easily imagine a future regulator interpreting this objective to mean that it should balance resources across the pyramid, effectively redistributing funds to prop up weaker clubs. Without this amendment, nothing in legislation explicitly prevents such a scenario. Some may argue that redistribution is needed to make the game fairer—I understand that point—but fairness in football has always been earned through competition, not imposed through central control. We must be very cautious about importing the language and logic of equalisation into a sport that depends for its vitality on aspiration, competition and merit. Sporting competition is a hill that I am willing to die on. It is also worth noting that forced redistribution between clubs would create perverse incentives. It would reward financial mismanagement and punish prudence, and it would create a moral hazard where clubs are less motivated to balance their books if they believe that the regulator will require others to bail them out. That is not a path to sustainability; it is a recipe for mediocrity, or worse, disaster. The principle at stake is clear: the role of the regulator is to set standards, ensure compliance and uphold integrity, and not to act as a central accountant deciding who deserves what. If clubs wish to strike revenue-sharing deals through their leagues, they may do so. The amendment draws a line: it protects club autonomy and supports continued investment in the game, and it ensures that the Government’s regulator—whatever its remit ends up being—respects the rights of clubs to manage and retain their own finances.

    Hansard source
28. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    It is disappointing that our amendments, which were tabled in a constructive manner, not a political one, have not been accepted. We remain concerned about some of those risks to the future of English football, but we will not seek to divide the Committee on this clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 The IFR’s regulatory principles Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
29. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I will not seek to repeat all the objectives that the Minister outlined for clause 8, but I will make some comments on each principle, and pose some questions to which I hope she can provide answers. As the Minister described, clause 8 outlines the eight operating principles that guide the regulator’s approach. First, the Government’s regulator should be on time and cost-efficient, which is why I have tabled amendment 101 to clause 16. Secondly, the Government’s regulator should take a participative approach to regulation, helping to co-ordinate and co-operating with clubs and competition organisations, as well as engaging with players, fans and others. That relates to an amendment that we will come to shortly. Thirdly, the Government’s regulator should be light touch in its approach to regulation, wherever possible. Sadly, we Opposition Members believe that that is now highly questionable due to some of the new parts of the Bill, which we raised concerns about in the first day’s sitting. Fourthly, the Government’s regulator should be proportionate in everything it does. Again, we have concerns about that and we have outlined some of those already. Fifthly, the Government’s regulator should acknowledge the unique sporting context in which it is regulating, aiming to minimise any potential disruption to sporting competitions. I will not go through the debate we just had around UEFA international competitions, but I again highlight some of my earlier questions that I put to the Government on Tuesday about how this regulator is benchmarked against other regulators, because, in a sporting context, it is the first of its kind. It is very difficult for us to understand where the Government are moving towards, whether that is about resources, the size of the regulator, or the future direction, and we would like some clarity on that. Sixthly, the Government’s regulator should apply the regulation consistently. We all hope that the regulator will do that in the future. Seventhly, the Government’s regulator should, where appropriate, hold individuals responsible for the actions of the club. That is absolutely right. There are clauses that seek to do that, and, as we have heard, to identify the appropriate officers and senior directors for different components of the club. Eighthly, the Government’s regulator should be as transparent as possible in everything it does. Disappointingly, Government Members voted against the transparency amendments that we tabled, which, again, were not political; they were aimed to future-proof the transparency regarding how the regulator operates. I fundamentally believe that Members, regardless of what party they belong to, should be able to have all the information to make informed decisions on the benefits to their constituents. Many of the principles in this clause are generally welcome, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a few matters. Does she think that these principles are strong enough to prevent the regulator from jeopardising the future participation of English clubs, particularly abroad? The fifth principle states that the regulator “should” aim to minimise disruption. Surely—we believe—it “must” avoid disruption, because of the risks that I outlined in previous amendments. Lastly, none of the principles reference or reinforce the regulator’s independence. Why is there no principle regarding the regulator’s independence from the Government and politics at large, for the reasons we have outlined?

    Hansard source
30. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    As we heard from the Minister, the clause relates to the transfer of staffing, resources and property to the Government’s regulator in the future. I would like to ask her—this goes back to an earlier conversation on the potential direction of travel, size and scope—how many staff will be transferred? What resources or properties are we talking about, so that taxpayers can understand, and what cost will there be to the taxpayer? Hopefully, those are fair questions. We did seek to put an employee cap into the Bill to help to maintain value for money for taxpayers. I think that was a fair proposal, but Members did not agree with it or with the number of 50 that we put forward. However, the principle of trying to cap the size of the regulator is fair, especially given the size of some of the regulators that were described in comparison—I believe one had 900 members of staff. Most members of the public would be alarmed if the football regulator ended up anywhere near that, let alone a tenth of it. We are concerned, so I ask the Minister again, given the impact on costs to football clubs linked to the regulator, how big the Government expect it to grow. Can she also answer the questions that were raised about what will be transferred on day one?

    Hansard source
31. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for tabling this amendment. As I said in a previous sitting, we have a lot of respect for the work that he does chairing the football all-party parliamentary group. The amendment would require the state of the game report to assess existing and effective financial distribution agreements against the principles. My understanding is that the amendment would therefore require the Independent Football Regulator to assess existing agreements against the principles in clause 62(2)—namely that they “(a) should advance the IFR’s objectives, (b) should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and (c) should not, if a distribution order were made in accordance with the final proposal, result in a lower amount of relegation revenue”— also known as parachute payments— “being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to a club during that period had such a distribution order not been made.” There are a lot of words there.

    Hansard source
32. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 123, clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert— “(d) an assessment of the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets.” This amendment would require the IFR to include in its state of the game report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

    Hansard source
33. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    Clause 10 provides for what is described as a state of the game report—a new mechanism by which the Government’s regulator is expected to take stock of the health, direction and trends within English football. It is, in theory, a very valuable exercise for both fans and clubs. Done well, it offers an opportunity to review not only the financial condition of the game but its accessibility, integrity and future direction. But for the clause to serve its purpose, the report must include those issues which matter most to the people who sustain our national game—the fans that it purports to protect. That is why I wish to speak to my amendments 123 and 122. Amendment 123 would require the state of the game report to include an assessment of the impact that the regulator’s activities have had on ticket prices. Amendment 122 is tabled in a similar vein, and would require that same assessment to appear in the regulator’s annual report as well. These are modest and reasonable proposals, but they are also very important. The cost of attending football in this country has risen markedly in recent years. For millions of supporters, particularly those attending with children or travelling away from home, football is no longer the affordable pastime it once was—we have seen those protests in the stands and outside grounds on a number of occasions this season. While the causes are complex, it is certain that increased regulatory costs, compliance burdens and mandated structural changes may be passed on, directly or indirectly, to the supporter at the turnstile. If we are to create a regulator with statutory powers over finance, governance, and club operations, surely it is not too much to ask that we track the real-world consequences of those interventions.

    Hansard source
34. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I absolutely understand the point that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats makes. One of the extreme examples, which he used, of Manchester United—if I remember correctly, the owner involved was one of the people who were coming out in support of a Labour Government before the last election, so it will be quite interesting to see what the Minister says about the behaviour of said advocate of the Labour Government in that regard. He makes an interesting point, because fans are being impacted by ticket prices; we all understand that. It is about, as I have consistently tried to say—it is a theme of our amendments—ensuring transparency about how the regulator is or is not impacting the game. We believe the amendment represents a fair and reasonable request—that someone marks the regulator’s homework so that we can understand the impact.

    Hansard source
35. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As I said, it really is about transparency. We believe that we, as elected Members of this House, need to have an understanding of the impact that the regulator will have on the ultimate person, which in this case is the club’s fans. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I understand the hon. Member’s point, and I did say that the causes of price increases are complex. I will not read out all the figures, but clubs’ costs have increased just this year, whether because of energy bills, national insurance or wages. We are concerned about the burdens and requirements that the regulator will impose on clubs increasing their costs and about those being passed on to the end fan, who is already under significant pressure. Ticket prices are not an incidental issue; they are a barometer of whether the game remains accessible to its core community. We know that regulation drives up prices, through compliance costs, as I have said, and by reducing investment and squeezing margins even further. The Government must have the courage to recognise that and to adjust course if necessary by ensuring greater transparency about costs. Requiring the regulator to report on that, in its general state of the game report and its annual report, would embed an essential feedback loop in statue. It would ensure that the impact on fans was not an afterthought, but a standing obligation for the regulator. It is not enough for the Government’s regulator to simply say, “We have improved governance and we ensure sustainability,” if we then learn, in the same breath, that the average family can no longer afford to attend any more games. Football cannot become financially sustainable by pricing out its own supporters: I suspect all Members would agree on that point. I would add that ticket affordability is a deeply traditional concern. It goes to the very heart of football’s place in English lives. Fans must not be priced out of their favourite club in the name of regulation. If we forget that, we forget the point of the Bill, which is the fans. Let me also stress that the amendment does not restrict the regulator. It does not tie its hands; it simply requires transparency. It says to the Government’s regulator: “If your actions are driving up the cost of entry to the game, tell us, tell the fans and tell Parliament.” Then, we can at least have an honest discussion in this House about whether those actions are justified or proportionate. That is especially important when we consider that many of the regulator’s decisions, whether on licensing, financial rules or ownership models, will almost certainly have financial consequences. Clubs will find ways to balance their books, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham just intervened to say, and if the regulation increases their fixed costs, the easiest lever to pull is ticket price. That is not conjecture; it is basic economics—although we know that some members of the Labour party struggle with that. In the end, these two amendments ask only that we shine a light on the question that supporters ask every season: “Why is it getting more expensive to watch my club?” If relegation is part of the answer—[Interruption]—or rather if regulation is; relegation is definitely part of the answer—then we have a duty in this House to know and to ensure that we make laws that shine a light and ensure transparency for everyone to understand.

    Hansard source
36. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I am not going to guess what league that club is in, but I am sure they are brilliant, whoever they are. I will not seek to offend anyone’s club by not knowing what league they are in. But the fundamental premise of the argument that the Liberal Democrats are making is that this amendment would give bad owners, if we can describe them as that, a get-out clause to blame the regulator for decisions that they are making. I think that is the argument, and the hon. Member is nodding, but this amendment would, if anything, help to shine a spotlight to stop them making that argument, because they can do that regardless of the amendment. We know that a regulator will come in. The Labour party has a huge majority; the regulator is coming, so the same owners, using the same principle he has just argued, could still make that argument, regardless of this amendment, because they know that they will have extra duties. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that fans and ticket prices are at the heart of the reporting that we see in the future, as Members and as fans as well.

    Hansard source
37. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    It is rather disappointing that the Liberal Democrats and Labour seem to be against the principle of transparency for fans of the impact on ticket prices, given that the issue is so pertinent to fans across the country. As Conservatives, we want to stick up for those fans. We understand the costs of going to a game, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said—I will not criticise his choice of club. Going to games and season tickets cost a lot of money for the average fan, and we have seen the impact of that. One example was the cost for Man City fans of coming down to the semi-final. Part of Wembley was empty because fans were saying that they could not afford the costs, because of the times of fixtures, although that is a slightly different point. We have to be mindful of the impact on ticket prices.

    Hansard source
38. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    That fans would be happy to accept higher prices is a brave argument to make, and it is not one that we are willing to accept. More broadly, we believe that Parliament must be able to scrutinise how much regulators, whether they are arm’s length, more direct or independent—however we label them—cost taxpayers and, in this case, fans. We believe that the sovereignty of this House demands a transparent report that Parliament and the public can analyse. We must understand the impact on ticket prices for fans. As Conservatives, we will stick up for fans today. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
39. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—a half-time substitute in today’s proceedings. I will speak briefly to the amendment. I completely understand the objective that he is seeking to nudge the Government towards, which he explained well. The obvious question for the Minister is whether more frequent reporting—three years rather than five years—would mean additional costs. I await the Minister’s response, but I understand that the hon. Member is not seeking to press his amendment to a vote.

    Hansard source
40. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    The amendment, as explained by the hon. Gentleman, seeks to add supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans to the list of those whom the independent football regulator must consult about the state of the game report. We have absolutely no problem with the principle of consulting fans in that context, and we would expect the football regulator to wish to do so in the due course of its business, for reasons we explained in other parts of the Bill. I suppose there might be some concern about how long the consultation would take if it had to consult every individual fan, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but we will await the Minister’s comments to understand that in the context slightly more.

    Hansard source