5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

   The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she make the point that we do not really understand where the Government are coming from? I understand why they want to claw back money from big estates, or from people who buy farms just to avoid inheritance tax—not Jeremy Clarkson of course; he is a fantastic chap—but I cannot understand why they are focusing on family farms. Will the hon. Lady make the point that the National Farmers Union has offered various compromises, and the Minister should meet the NFU in a positive way to ensure that we keep our family farms run by families?

   Hansard source
2. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Topical Questions

   T5. Lord Hermer says that we are not even trying to reform the convention. Why not?

   Hansard source
3. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Female Offenders

   In March, the Government announced that girls will no longer be placed in young offenders institutions. How will the Minister monitor the implementation of that policy, and how will he ensure the public are protected from the small number of violent girls who need to be detained?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Yeovil Hospital: Maternity Unit

   I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Many women in my constituency choose to give birth in Musgrove Park hospital, and with the closure at Yeovil—where, as he said, 1,200 babies are born each year—there is a grave concern about whether Taunton will have the capacity to cope. In fact, mothers across Somerset will suffer as a result of this closure.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Dementia Care

   It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who has hit the nail on the head when it comes to how terrible this disease is. Forty years ago this August, my paternal grandfather was dying of lung cancer. My father went to the hospital with him. The day went on and on, and eventually, my grandfather said to my father, “Go and give your mother a call—let her know where we are at.” She answered the phone, and my dad said, “Just to let you know, mum, we’re delayed at the hospital. Dad and I are going to be late.” She said, “Oh, I’ve not seen your father in three weeks.” At that point, he said, his blood ran cold. Tragically, my grandfather died just two weeks later. The funeral came, and the funeral went. My grandmother constantly asked, “Where have all these flowers come from?” Within four years, my grandmother had to go into a nursing home. Making the right decisions during those four years put a huge strain on my father. “Do we sell the house? How are we going to pay for the care?” My grandmother was walking the streets at 3 am. She was leaving the gas on. Neighbours were saying, “The whole street is going to be destroyed. Derek, you have got to do something.” Then she was put into the home. What I have found during my work on dementia is that that is often the pattern. The spouse, or the partner, protects his or her spouse or partner. They pick up the slack—and this is such a ratcheting disease, which comes so slowly, that they do not realise that they are under more and more pressure and taking on more and more work. Tragically again, in 2019, my father-in-law died suddenly, and it soon became apparent that he had been hiding my mother-in-law’s dementia. My mother-in-law is doing very well: she has a carer, and on some days she is still pretty sparky. She was a formidable woman in her time. She is 87 years old now. She still remembers me, and there is an important point there: I will be the person she forgets next, because I was the last in. I say to my wife, “For as long as she remembers me, we are still in a roughly good place.” That is quite a sad statement, is it not? It is sad that we are moving down that road. However, I was inspired by something I saw shortly after I was elected, in 2010 or 2011, at a dementia café down in Rothwell. I went there when it first opened, and I quickly became aware of the support that it was giving people, and of how much they appreciated it. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Hartlepool said about how cruel this disease is. Because people are gradually supporting their loved ones more and more, they reach a point at which there is enormous pressure. They are not going to take a step back, go on to Google or try to get on to the local Facebook to try and work out what is going on locally. People do not know what is going on out there, and that was even more true 10 or so years ago. A huge number of voluntary organisations take clients. Let me name just two in my constituency: Wetherby in Support of the Elderly—WISE—and the Easingwold Hub Club. They provide a huge amount of support for people with dementia, but dozens of other voluntary organisations supply an incredible service that helps to take the pressure off carers, who are also able to take their loved ones out, which in itself can be stimulating. That gave me an idea, and I created the Dementia Directory and one of the first dementia-friendly constituencies. The directory breaks up the constituency up into parts, and lists all the events that are going on. We are working on the new one now. It is a complex process; it is a bit of a spider’s web, because we find one event and then another is off, and then another is off. We try not to miss any, but inevitably we do. It is because the last directory had such a huge and positive impact that we are preparing this one for the new constituency, following the boundary change. All that we need now is the sponsorship that will enable it to be printed and posted. It will make a difference, because, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, this is a terribly cruel disease. There is a statement that upsets and annoys me greatly: “It is not such a bad disease, because the person who has it does not know they have it.” That is an awful thing to say. I can never hold back a tear when I see the advertisement in which a chap sitting on the end of the bed says to his wife, “I want to go home.” How many of us, as children, became homesick? I was homesick when I went to university. It is a terrifying thought that as you get older you will not know your partner, and you will be constantly homesick. For Members who may not know this, I have a tip, because I have done dementia training. When I went to a care home, there was an elderly lady of about 90, who said, “I don’t like it here. They never let me see my parents. I just wish they’d let me see my father.” I had been told to get into a memory of the person and mention somewhere their relative may be, so I said, “Well, your father’s down at the allotment.” She said, “Oh, yes, that’s right,” and she calmed down. Do not argue with those people, because that will just make them more upset, but try to take them back to a memory. As well the directory being used to notice events, it highlights things that may help, such as hydration. One of the things that happens with elderly people is that they do not want to keep going to the toilet and they get worried about doing so, so they are often quite sparky in the morning when they have had a cup of tea, but by 3 o’clock they are getting memory lapses because they have not drunk enough. That is also something we have to tell people. How many Members in this Chamber, when they said they were going to speak in this debate—they do not have to put their hands up—had somebody say, “Oh, don’t forget to go there”? Everybody seems to know what dementia is, but nobody really knows what it is. It is a real paradox. Everybody makes that comment, “Don’t forget,” but do they really understand the depth and impact of this disease? Dementia includes Alzheimer’s disease. I recently read a book about Ronald Reagan, which at the end said that he did not open his eyes for the last four years of his life. Just think about that, and what this terrible disease does to people and all the impact it has. This debate is about dementia care, and several contributions have been made about things the Government can do. I raised this issue back in 2012-13, and the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, did put funding into research for dementia. The trouble is that we have learned how to preserve all the organs of our body with medical research and medical advances, but we have never bothered with the brain. The blunt truth is that, before this disease had the prevalence it now has, most people were dead before they got it. However, there is something we can do all do as Members of Parliament in our constituencies, and that is to draw together all the voluntary organisations that give such relief to families and help to stimulate the sufferer along the way.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Dementia Care

   I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who does indeed make an important comment. My constituency of Wetherby and Easingwold has an older demographic, and that will become more acute over time. He is right to say that there is a dedicated band of volunteers, but most of the people who do the voluntary work during daytime are of an age to be retired. There are people who I think do an incredible job in supporting people—they really do—and they deserve nothing but our gratitude and thanks. As I have said, there is something positive that we really can do as Members of Parliament, so I urge everyone when they are back in their constituencies to look at what goes on and see what they can do to promote it. I promise them that it will make a transformational difference not just to the lives of the people affected, but to their lives as Members of Parliament in doing what they can do for their local community, which is why we are all here in the first place.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

   Dementia Care

   My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful and informed speech. He mentioned the importance of the role of volunteers, which I think the whole House will recognise. Does he, however, share my concern that, with an ageing population, we seem to be seeing a smaller cohort of people prepared to step up to volunteer? Across the Government and across this place, a noble endeavour to embark upon would be to champion and encourage more people to get involved with volunteering outside the usual catchment or cohort, because otherwise, in the not-too-distant future, these vital organisations will be so short of volunteers that they will not be able to do the jobs they need to do.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

   Victims of Sexual Abuse

   In recent weeks, Daniel Clarke, a vile sexual offender, was sentenced to seven years in prison for horrific acts of sexual abuse against six vulnerable children, many with special needs and many of whom are my constituents; indeed, there are 81 suspected cases. I have been contacted by the families of those innocent victims, who have expressed outrage at the shockingly lenient sentence. I wrote to the Attorney General on 20 May asking for the case and the sentence to be reviewed. I did not receive a response and had to find out through the BBC that the review was happening. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the sentence is being reviewed. Will the Minister give assurances to my constituents, the House and the British public that such vile sexual predators will have the book thrown at them and that protecting our children is the only thing that matters?

   Hansard source
9. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

   Violent Offenders: Early Release

   Can I first say how sorry I was to hear that the Minister was the subject of intimidation and an attack on her office? I think all of us across the House would like to wish her and her staff well, and to say how pleased we are that the vile individuals behind this have been caught and punished. In September, the Justice Secretary designed an early release scheme for prisoners. She let out Lawson Natty, who supplied the machete used to kill a 14-year-old, and Adam Andrews, who shook a baby so violently that he was left blind and paralysed. She is now halving prison sentences for killers and rapists, while Lucy Connolly remains behind bars for a reprehensible but swiftly deleted tweet. Does the Justice Secretary really believe that her choices are making the public safer?

   Hansard source
10. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Immigration Offences: Sentencing

    For the first time, the Sentencing Council has published immigration sentencing guidelines. They water down sentences passed by Parliament, which means that hundreds of illegal migrants every year will avoid the threshold for automatic deportation. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s officials were in the meeting and waved the guidelines through, and I have the minutes to prove it. Has the Justice Secretary lost control of her Department once again, or is it the case that, as the Defence Secretary said on Sunday, this Government have simply “lost control” of our borders?

    Hansard source
11. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Topical Questions

    Brave prison officers are under attack, and I am warning again that, if the Government do not act now, an officer will be killed on the Justice Secretary’s watch. After the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, allegedly attacked an office with boiling water, he is now bingeing on treats such as Maltesers and Pringles. When will the Justice Secretary strip Rudakubana and monsters like him of those privileges and put them in solitary confinement? When will she finally have the backs of all our brave prison officers, by giving each and every one the protection that they need in the form of high-collar, stab-proof vests, and not just a privileged few in the most limited circumstances?

    Hansard source
12. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Topical Questions

    Last month, nine countries wrote to the Council of Europe calling for urgent reform of the European convention on human rights to tackle the migration crisis. The UK was conspicuously absent, and instead the Attorney General has likened critics of the ECHR to the Nazis. The Justice Secretary is reported in the press to find Lord Hermer “very frustrating”, and “personally unbearable”. Well, Mr Speaker, we might have found an area of cross-party consensus, but why did the Justice Secretary not sign the letter? Are the Government irrelevant, or are she and the Prime Minister defending a broken system?

    Hansard source
13. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Groceries Code Adjudicator

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Who better to open this debate than a Lincolnshire representative from a county that I know very well and which produces 30% of our vegetables, 20% of our sugar beet and, collectively, 12% of all of the food that we find on our shelves? We have heard contributions from Members from all four nations of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I represent the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in God’s own county of Yorkshire, and we also have many producers and growers who have a relationship with supermarkets, and have been expressing their concern to me in advance of this debate. The Groceries Code Adjudicator is hugely important in addressing some of the systematic issues within our food supply chain that have been referenced in the debate. It was set up under the coalition Government, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted. It manages only 14 retailers, which cover a vast swathe of the food market, but that does not go far enough. Competition puts huge pressures on our suppliers and growers further down the chain, which is why it is vital that the Groceries Code Adjudicator addresses unfair practices. The questions that have been raised in this debate are those of power, funding and resource. In 2024, a survey run by the GCA reported a reduction in the number of groceries code issues and an increase in supplier satisfaction with retailers, where issues were raised. I question that report. All Members speaking in this debate have picked up on the fear among growers and producers of being blacklisted if concerns are raised, and a reluctance to even report, because of the huge pressure that can be put on them by the retailers. The 14 retailers included in the scope of the GCA and the code of practice cover a significant proportion of the UK market. However, it misses a number of smaller but significant retailers. That is the point I want to build on, as mentioned by other Members today. Has the Minister considered reducing the £1 billion turnover threshold that marks the point where businesses must be compliant? If that threshold were removed, many more retailers would be brought into the fold of the GCA. Members have advocated for that in today’s debate. The work of the GCA is important in maintaining the health of our supply chains. An unfair contract between a retailer and a producer or grower can be devastating. We have heard the points made in the debate—the challenges are huge. That can result in growers and producers being locked into unfair contracts. Orders can be cancelled unnecessarily. The Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), made a point early on in the debate about potatoes—they were of sufficient quality for any consumer to eat, and yet, because they did not meet the exact specification from the retailer, the order was not taken.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Groceries Code Adjudicator

    My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. At the moment, the risk is all sitting on the shoulders of the growers and producers. That is unfair, because there is a certain expectation of the food they are preparing, whether in quantity or quality, but some of the risk factors are completely out of their control, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) noted. Those factors include weather conditions, which impact many of our farmers and growers. The lack of flexibility in the contracts is another. That is why the GCA must have the teeth that many have talked about in this debate, because these issues go beyond the impacts of the unfair contract. At a time when pressures on our agricultural sector are mounting, additional budgetary pressures were announced by the Government in last year’s Budget. The hike in employer’s national insurance, the family farm tax, which has created a huge amount of uncertainty, the cuts to the sustainable farming incentives, and the drastic reduction in the delinked payments to a cap of £7,200 are all additional cash-flow pressures, exposing our farmers and growers to long-term uncertainty, beyond the challenges associated with the contracts they are entering into with retailers. While the GCA has made hugely important steps, many producers and growers are still unaware of its role and powers. There is absolutely more work to be done within the industry to build awareness and trust of the GCA and its powers, and that is exactly what the nub of this debate is about. We know that pressures are mounting on the agricultural supply chains that run right the way through the system, from farm to fork. One of the shortcomings of the GCA in its current set-up is that it only handles the relationship between the retailer, the supplier and some farmers and growers, missing out many farmers, growers and other intermediaries in the supply chain. That has to be addressed, as has been referenced by many Members in their contributions. That has to be addressed if we want to restore a level of trust in the system, and work to do so has been started. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 were introduced recently, which have a specific focus on milk, and regulations for other products are on their way. But I ask the Minister: what are we doing to address this disjointed approach? It seems that multiple regulators are managing different elements of the supply chain, which is creating more friction and uncertainty for businesses. The experience of the last decade shows the growing case for better lines of communication between the GCA, DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. What conversations has the Minister, in his role representing the Department, had with DEFRA and the GCA? That was a point made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I congratulate him on the work he did in introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, which had the support of the Opposition. Going forward, I hope that the Government will be able to pick up where the last Government left off and not only expand on the fair dealing regulations, but tie in the GCA and its operation to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, providing a joined-up approach to the full supply chain. Although I welcome the increasing scope of regulatory framework on the agricultural supply chain, does the Minister plan to include other products, such as ornamentals, as part of an expanded GCA remit? Ornamentals, like food, are perishable and suffer with the same challenges that many Members have outlined in this debate. What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to increasing the GCA’s powers, funding, resource and people power, so that it has the ability to enact the requests of both sides of this House? I reiterate that trust absolutely needs to be restored into the system, which can only be done by re-establishing better supply chain relationships throughout the system. That relies on giving the GCA more power, more finance and better lines of communication with DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Dementia Care

    As a fellow South Hams representative, I wonder whether the hon. Lady would agree that the Government’s lack of focus and targets for dementia diagnosis is having a particular impact on rural constituencies such as ours, given that treatment is so dependent on diagnosis. Does she also agree that the work of local groups such as the Dementia Friendly Parishes around the Yealm is going to be vital to increasing diagnosis in our communities in Devon?

    Hansard source
16. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Topical Questions

    As of 1 May this year, there were seven biological males in HMP Downview, a women’s prison in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State confirm when they will be moved out?

    Hansard source
17. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Topical Questions

    Yesterday, a man was convicted of a public order offence after burning a Koran outside the Turkish embassy. The judge said that the fact that the man was attacked was proof that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour. This is grotesque, and means that in effect, we have a blasphemy law. Does the Justice Secretary believe that this should hold, or will the Government back my Bill to put an end to all of this madness next week?

    Hansard source
18. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Dementia Care

    Order. Over 20 Members wish to speak, so there will be a speaking limit of six minutes.

    Hansard source
19. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Leasehold Reform

    I thank the hon. Lady for securing this incredibly important debate. One of the issues in my constituency, which is very similar to hers, is that people are buying new flats or houses under the freehold system, but with so many covenants involved that they are also being charged the sort of service charges that she has mentioned. Does she agree that whatever the Government do— I welcome the good approaches in this place—they must also cover some of the covenant issues around freehold?

    Hansard source
20. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Reoffending on Probation

    The Lord Chancellor admitted in a recent interview with The Times that her sentencing reforms will create “inevitable tensions” with the Government’s efforts to halve knife crime and rates of violence against women and girls. It sounds like she does not really believe in these reforms, which have been trotted out by David Gauke, the Prisons Minister in the other place and the Prison Reform Trust. Does the Lord Chancellor realise that none of them is elected, and that if this package fails to keep our streets safe and restore the criminal justice system, the country will hold her and this Government to account?

    Hansard source
21. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Protesters: Sentencing

    While we might not agree with their methods, peaceful protests can take many forms, including the burning of religious texts. Does the Minister agree that freedom of expression must be protected and that any move by Parliament or the courts to introduce a blasphemy law would undermine it?

    Hansard source
22. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

    With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could begin by referring briefly to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which immediately preceded this debate. As a Navy wife, she clearly fully understands the vital role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting our armed forces, and as the son of someone who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, I have grown up to appreciate everything that the RFA does for us. It is a wonderful organisation. I was sitting on the Front Bench throughout her speech and I wish her Bill all the best. As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I rise to speak as a critical friend of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, driven by a commitment to ensuring that it delivers real and meaningful support for the brave men and women who serve our country. Our armed forces personnel deserve a system that honours their sacrifice and guarantees fairness, accountability and transparency when concerns arise. To recap, the Bill at its core seeks to strengthen oversight by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner modelled partly on the German system, with Ofsted-like powers to access military sites and relevant information for investigations. If implemented well, it could improve the lived experience of our servicemen and women, bolstering public confidence in how their issues are handled. A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner is a vision that I believe commands support right across the House. Saying that, where are Reform Members? This is legislation that is designed to enhance the welfare of our armed forces and their families, so why are they not here? Having checked in Hansard, I know that they were not here yesterday either. They took no part in either of the urgent questions, and no part whatsoever in the statement or the very long debate that followed it. Why? It is because Reform Members do not do defence. They are one-club golfers with one single issue, and unfortunately the welfare of our armed forces personnel and their families does not seem to be it. Their empty Benches speak volumes, and while I am at it, are there any Scottish National party Members here? Oh well, they do not take this very seriously either, do they?

    Hansard source
23. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

    For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes. At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case. That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that “Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”. He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

    The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech. The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear. The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context? Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal. To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard. Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude. In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust. I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

    Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?

    Hansard source
26. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect the financial sustainability and success of English football.”

    Hansard source
28. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to be opening the first sitting of this important Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. It is right and proper that we begin by considering the most fundamental questions of all: what is this Bill actually for? What is its central aim, or its core principles? What will it actually do? And why are the Government looking to establish a regulator for football at all? As we consider those fundamental questions, I want again to put on the record my thanks to all the clubs, fans and leagues, and those in the wider football community, who have engaged positively over many years, highlighting a range of challenges, experiences and opinions in the game. It would be remiss of me not to thank Dame Tracey Crouch again for all her work on the fan-led review of football. I am sure she is very happy that Spurs have finally ended their European trophy drought. Moving on to the future of football, clause 1 states that the purpose of the Bill is “to protect and promote the sustainability of English football.” The Opposition believe that that is something of a missed opportunity. Why should our ambition for our national game be limited merely to its surviving? We have much higher ambitions for the future of English and British football than mid-table mediocrity. As the creators of this beautiful game, we want these isles to continue to be home to the best leagues, the best clubs, the best players and managers, and of course the best fans, both here and overseas. Although the focus of the Bill is the English game, I want to be absolutely clear that the Conservative party has the same passion for seeing all British football clubs thrive and the sport as a whole continue to go from strength to strength. Football is a national sport rooted deeply in our communities, but we must not lose sight of its global reach, evolving international competition and the importance of our game to millions of people around the world. Amendments 95 and 96 in my name seek to provoke exactly that discussion. They also seek to ensure that there is a specific definition of the “sustainability of English football” that is more than just the preservation of the status quo, and that sustainability means the sustainable growth of the game. Given that the Government’s stated core mission is growth, let us see whether Government Members support them. Without the amendments, there is a real and growing risk that Labour’s football regulator will stifle the growth of English football at all levels, whether by overzealously adding more burdensome regulations and costs on clubs throughout the pyramid, or by increasing its scope beyond that originally intended. That is why my amendments seek to ensure that the regulator has a clear objective actively to support growth of the game. As we heard on Second Reading, English football has a proud and unparalleled heritage and is now an economic powerhouse for this country on the international stage. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere, as was the English Football League. In the inaugural 1888-89 season, Preston North End went undefeated in the league and the FA Cup, making them the original invincibles—that is something a member of my team, Matthew Comber, will not let me forget. So long is the history of English football that it predates the Labour party by almost two decades. The deep-rooted identities of our clubs have been passed down through generations and inspire deep passions across England and around the world. Those emotions are not captured by the word “sustainability”. The love of a home ground, the pride in a club’s colours, the hope of a promotion push and the agony of a relegation battle are deeply human attachments. Some of that is recognised in the clauses on heritage assets, but if those elements are important enough to warrant specific provisions, why are they absent from clause 1, which sets out the Bill’s purpose? We must be careful that, in striving for sustainability, we do not risk entrenching stagnation. A regulator whose primary remit is to preserve the status quo risks falling behind and becoming rigid and resistant to positive evolution of the game, and that creates significant risks given the increasing international competition. It is sometimes said that the Conservatives fear change. I reject that characterisation. We value our history, but we are not stuck in it. We embrace change where it is well thought out, positive for the future and rooted in our values. That is exactly the mindset we should bring to the regulation of football. The Government’s new regulator must be forward looking. It cannot simply aim to keep the wheels turning. It must support the growth of the game, including in attendance, participation and commercial success. Anything less risks relegating English football from its current position of world leader. That is why my noble Friends in the other place tabled amendments to build on sustainability with ideas such as success, growth and aspiration. Those are not just slogans; they are principles that clubs and communities live by, and they reflect the very spirit of English football. We should not be afraid to put those words in the Bill. Doing so would give the regulator a true north—a clear, unapologetic mission not just to preserve English football, but to help it flourish. Let me be clear about what is at stake. Football is one of our greatest national industries. The Premier League alone accounted for £1.4 billion in TV exports in the 2019-20 season. It is watched by more than 1.5 billion people across 189 countries. This is not just sport; it is a key part of our cultural identity and one of our nation’s most powerful soft power assets, with all leagues, including the English Football League and the National League, highly ranked around the world. The women’s game has been clear that it does not want a regulator as it wants to be able to grow. The men’s game, in many parts, is the same. It should be allowed to continue to grow, to do the great things it does in local communities and to employ thousands of people across the country to support football, not to perform Whitehall-imposed box-ticking exercises. Football is deeply local. Clubs are the beating hearts of our towns and cities up and down the country, as Members know. If the House gets this Bill wrong— if we give the regulator an inadequate remit—we risk weakening that fabric. We cannot let that happen. I urge colleagues to support these amendments and the broader principle behind them, namely that we must aim higher. The Government’s majority means that it is almost certain that the Bill will pass and a regulator will be created, so let us give that regulator a purpose worthy of the game it is being created to protect. Let us ensure that the Bill is about not just survival, but the long-term success and vibrancy of English football.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I wish to press the amendments to Divisions. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    It is an honour to speak again under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I promise the Committee that I will not say that every time. The Opposition do not disagree with much of the sentiment as we are all passionate about football and understand the role of clubs in our communities, as I acknowledged earlier. Our concern, which is why we tabled the amendments, is that the opaque definition of sustainability could have significant unintended consequences for the regulator’s direction of travel. The Minister said of our amendments that the considerations we were trying to put in the Bill were secondary—or words to that effect; I apologise if I have slightly misquoted her—but my concern is that those considerations are primary in their focus. It will take many months to get the new regulator up and running, but if it does not understand the message that the House is sending it—that it should be focused on trying to improve football—it could be a lost cause before it has even got started. Our concerns are clearly articulated in our amendments. We accept that we have lost the vote—the Government have a massive majority, so that is not surprising—but we urge Ministers, in their work going forward, to be clear with the regulator and the people who work for it that the ambition of this House is not to limit the scope of the regulator to just the clauses before us today.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(3) For the purposes of this Act a ‘specified competition’ includes— (a) the Premier League, (b) the English Football League, and (c) the National League. (3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament amend the competitions specified in section (3).” This amendment would specify the leagues that are to be classed as “specified competitions” under Act.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    As promised, I will leave out the pleasantries, Sir Jeremy, but you can take it as read that it is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I will. It depends on how long we go on for today. In all seriousness, the Government have not been specific in this clause regarding their key definitions, and have clearly left open the door to scope creep by the regulator and the Secretary of State, whoever they might be in the coming weeks and months. That should concern all Members who value Parliament’s role of holding the Government to account, regardless of political affiliation. That is why I tabled amendment 132, which would clearly specify the leagues that are to be classified as a “specified competition”. That would ensure that, should the Bill pass, the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, could not unilaterally decide that they wished to expand the regulator’s scope without first consulting Parliament. Without the amendment, the Secretary of State could, without oversight or accountability, decide that they wanted a particular competition to be included, and for the clubs involved to face the costs of that decision. We know that representations from the women’s game highlight a desire not to be included, but the Bill as it has come from the Lords would allow the Secretary of State to bring the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super League 2, the FA Women’s National League North and the FA Women’s National League South under the regulator’s control. It is also unclear why the Government have drafted the Bill to specifically reference consulting the Football Association but not other bodies such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. Will the Minister please explain why that is, as the question has been raised with me, and I suspect with other Committee members? It is important to clearly define what competitions will be under the regulator’s scope so that the wider football world can understand the direction of travel for clubs and leagues, which will ultimately impact long-term investment and budget decisions. Uncertainty is not helpful for clubs or fans, and the regulator will already impact clubs and leagues in different ways, let alone if the Government expand their reach further. Unsurprisingly, the Government do not like the amendment, as it would remove powers from the Secretary of State to decide which competitions are under the scope of their regulator. We know the Government are a big fan of scope creep, but we want to prevent it, and to ensure that any attempt by the Government to add more trophies to their cabinet is subject to the approval of Parliament and the democratically elected representatives of fans in our constituencies. On the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I will listen to his arguments carefully but in my experience the last thing that clubs at that level need is more red tape and costs that will stifle their growth. The amount of paperwork that the Government’s regulator will likely require of every club is a concern. For smaller clubs, it will mean a shift in focus from what happens on the pitch and from fans to form filling—bureaucracy over the beautiful game. I can see what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do—even if, true to form, it is not very liberal—but it would create more costs than rewards. Yes, there is an exemption from having to pay the levy, but it will have to be applied for, so the clubs would still be liable to pay the levy, alongside other costs the regulator will put on them, until the application was approved, which will likely take time.

    Hansard source
34. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments about why she believes we should not specify the leagues, but what is unclear in her language is whether she believes that the Committee should have the opportunity for scrutiny; these measures have been scrutinised in the other House and by a previous Parliament. I believe passionately that when it comes to future-proofing the Bill it is the role of elected Members on the Committee to scrutinise and have a proper debate. I appreciate that the issue has been debated elsewhere, but we need to have a proper debate here, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying not to be too political in my comments. My other point is about the consultation exercise with clubs. From the feedback we have had from clubs, it is unclear why they were not invited to give evidence to the Committee. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not want clubs to give evidence to the Committee?

    Hansard source
35. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I might have jumped the gun, particularly given what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, but I want to understand the Government’s thinking about that exact classification and the difference between the National Football League and the National Leagues South and North. What are the Government fundamentally looking at in defining what leagues should be in scope of the regulator?

    Hansard source
36. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but in the feedback we are receiving there seems to be inconsistency not only about what leagues should be under the powers of the regulator to ensure certainty and clarity, but about the powers of the Secretary of State. As I said, there is a massive issue about the role and power of Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account, which we all should believe in regardless of what party we represent. I note to Labour Members that their party will likely not be in power for ever—I am not making a point beyond that—but this legislation will be in place until another Parliament seeks to change it. Whatever the colours of the Government of the day, Members should have an opportunity to scrutinise what they bring forward. Our amendment 132 seeks to ensure that that happens, by giving hon. Members a clear ability to have a vote whenever the Secretary of State wishes to expand powers.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I will pick up on a couple of my previous comments that have not been answered by the Minister, as we will shortly conclude debate of this clause. Why have the Government decided to specify the FA in the clause but not the other leagues? That point has been raised with me by those other leagues. Why are the Government not specifying the other regulatory bodies involved in football? I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and will happily give way if she would like to give it.

    Hansard source
38. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I welcome that comment, but the FA has a quite different role than the leagues themselves, which are currently responsible for various regulatory aspects of English football—whether in the Premier League, the EFL or the National Football League. The FA’s role is alongside those bodies. That is why—these are not my words—there is uncertainty about why the Government have decided to only specify the FA, given that there are clearly other governing bodies involved in English football. That is currently a bit of a mystery. On the Minister’s other comments, the Government are unclear on the direction of travel of English football and on what the Bill will and will not do. It has been suggested that the regulator will be able to solve all problems, but we have to be honest with the public and say that that is not going to be the case. If a club is badly managed—and I know we are about to discuss ownership—there is little that the regulator will be able to do to stop a club from going bankrupt, as an extreme example. We all have to acknowledge that that is a real risk for football, regardless of what the regulator looks like. I will end my comments there.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I will start with clause 3, which deals with the broad definitions of an “owner” within the context of this legislation, as the Minister has just set out. While it may appear technical on the surface, this clause lays the groundwork for the regulator’s ability to properly identify and engage with those who hold real power and influence within our football clubs. Getting these definitions right is absolutely essential. For too long, fans have felt that football governance has been undermined by opaque ownership structurers, shadowy investment vehicles and individuals who exercise effective control without proper scrutiny or accountability. The clause also ensures that the regulator is not hamstrung by narrow or outdated definitions of ownership. It gives clarity on who can be held responsible, whether through legal ownership, executive authority or de facto control. That clarity is vital if we are serious about improving transparency and strengthening the fit and proper person test regime. At the same time, it is right that this is done in a proportionate and legally precise manner. We must avoid unintended consequences that could dissuade responsible investment or penalise legitimate business structures. Definitions must be robust but not overly broad. On that point, I will pause for a second. As Members, we have to recognise the international nature of club ownership, both in the EFL and the Premier League. We are talking about English football, but there are only four or five clubs in the Premier League that have an English majority owner these days. We have to be very clear in our work, and in our discussions on the Bill, that we do not want to deter inward investment in the game. We need to understand that there is increasing international competition for these owners to effectively move their assets into other countries. In particular, there is the rise of the Saudi league, which is growing in competition versus the more traditional heavyweights of the European sector. In seeking to strengthen the ownership test, which I support, we have to be mindful of not deterring investment. Could much of this work on ownership structures and tests have been done appropriately through the current governance structures of English football? Yes, I think it could have been done better already, and I personally would have preferred that to be the direction of travel, rather than through the Bill. However, we are where we are, and I will not oppose clause 3 for the sake of it. Clause 4 defines the roles of an “officer” and “senior manager” within football clubs, and again seeks to improve transparency on accountability, roles and responsibility. This provision, as outlined by both the Minister and the Premier League in some of its comments, seems to mirror banking regulations, which I was familiar with before coming to Parliament nearly four years ago—time flies when you’re having fun. The language used in this provision is similar to that used by the Financial Conduct Authority. When the Minister speaks again, I would be quite interested to understand why the Government have chosen banking regulations as the model for football, because I want to understand their thinking on the future of the regulator and football. We are talking about both a business and a sport that differs in many ways to financial services and in the positive impact that it has on this country. While football creates many jobs, it also has an impact on communities around the country and grassroots clubs, where we like to see young boys and girls participating in football. Schedule 1, like clause 3, is foundational to the Bill and thus to the future of English football in providing a detailed meaning of an “owner”. Where the clause provides the broader meaning of an “owner”, this schedule details the conditions for being an “owner” and rightly looks beyond just legal shareholders. It captures those who influence clubs through formal or informal control, whether that is through a boardroom presence, financial influence or complex ownership structures. The inclusion of the 25% ownership threshold is rooted in established legal standards, but equally important is the provision to capture those who may fall below that line but wield significant power. We have seen far too many clubs come to harm because of murky ownership arrangements and a lack of transparency. I am confident that other hon. Members will speak to the goings-on at Reading in recent months and years, if previous debates are anything to go by. I know more about Reading than I ever thought I would, as a football fan, but a lot of hon. Members have mentioned the example already. That said, I must also raise the example of Charlton Athletic, a proud and historic club just outside my own constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup. It operates in the Greenwich borough next door to mine, with the training ground literally on my constituency boundary and the home ground, the Valley in Charlton, a bit further away.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    Yes, we also have Portsmouth. This rivalry—the kind of blend I mentioned—is obviously true of my own family: half blue, half red. To be clear, that is only in football terms, especially as the current Government continue to use the famous Millwall “No one likes us, we don’t care” chant as political inspiration. That rivalry will be reignited next season, as the mighty Addicks have been promoted back to the Championship, where they will play Millwall twice. Hopefully, both will be battling it out for promotion to the Premier League—Millwall, of course, just missed out on the play-offs. On a more serious note of regulation, it has not only been on the pitch where the fortunes of both clubs have differed significantly in recent years. So I was not just rambling on about fans for no reason; there is a clear point about ownership linked to all this.

    Hansard source