Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   Sorry—Government Benches. Members of this Bill Committee have been appointed to it to scrutinise the Bill based on the situation now. The argument that seems to be coming from the Government Benches is that, under a new Parliament, we are unable to criticise or challenge the Bill because of what a previous Government proposed. We have already explained why we believe that the situation has changed, and why we have concerns, so we are well within our rights to table amendments. If the Opposition party does not agree with the Government, that is their decision to make.

   Hansard source
2. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. Another point that I made—this is not political—was about the standardisation of requests, which would allow clubs to prepare on the basis of what they expect the regulator to ask and ensure consistency between clubs. Will the Minister tell us how that might work?

   Hansard source
3. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   We are concerned about unchecked powers, as we have explained at some length, and believe that the House should be able to check those powers. We are concerned about the lack of standardisation. I fear that, by treating clubs differently depending on their circumstances, the regulator will be left open to legal challenge. Some clubs have the financial resources to challenge a league, and will have the resource to challenge a regulator. We have seen that with certain clubs in the Premier League—I will not mention the cases, for legal reasons. Some football clubs are willing to challenge their regulation in court. We fear that, without standards for what is asked of clubs, there could be more legal challenges down the line. For those reasons, we will press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
4. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert— “(9) The IFR must make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence within the period of one month. (10) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (9) by no more than two weeks if it requires more time to consider the application due to— (a) unusual staffing pressures, or (b) discrepancies or abnormalities with the application. (11) If the IFR extends the period as per subsection (10), it must give a notice to the relevant club stating— (a) that the period has been extended, (b) the length of the extension, and (c) the reasons for the extension.” This amendment places a time limit of one month for the IFR to decide whether to grant a provisional operating licence. The amendment would require the independent financial regulator to make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operational licence within a period of one month. The independent football regulator would be able to extend the period by no more than two weeks if it required more time to consider the application, whether that be due to staffing or other issues. If the independent football regulator extended the period, it would have to give notice to the relevant club explaining why. Clause 17 is where we find the initial provisions that give the Government’s regulator the power to grant provisional operating licences and the conditions that must be satisfied for a football club to be granted a such a licence. The Government’s regulator must be satisfied that the club applying will comply with the free-standing duties on clubs as set out in part 4, comply with the mandatory licence conditions set out in schedule 5, and operate a relevant team. On the face of it, the clause seems necessary. There should be a safety net for clubs that have uncertain futures but cannot afford to pause operations while a full licensing determination is made. In that sense, the provisional licence acts as a regulatory bridge which, if implemented properly, can be an essential tool for avoiding the kind of cliff-edge collapses that we have sadly seen in years gone by. Clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, where administrative or ownership crises rapidly spiralled and led to total collapse, might have benefited from such a mechanism. I pay tribute to all the fans and campaigners who have fought so hard for a regime that intervenes earlier rather than only when it is too late. As I have said, I believe that all Members would have preferred football to have got its act together and for our not to be doing this today, but we are where we are. Although I support clause 17 in principle, I want to raise concerns about how it is drafted and how its powers might be used in practice. First, the clause gives the regulator significant discretion in determining whether to issue a provisional licence and under what conditions. Subsection (1) provides that a licence may be granted—not must—even where a club applies in good faith and has satisfied the initial criteria. That may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it raises the risk that clubs could be left in a holding pattern, awaiting a decision for weeks or months on end with no firm timetable and no recourse to receive an outcome from the Government’s regulator. Secondly, the measure allows the regulator to impose any conditions it considers appropriate when granting a provisional licence. We absolutely recognise the need for the independent football regulator to have flexibility, particularly when dealing with clubs that may be in financial distress or suffering from poor governance. However, as currently drafted, the clause presents a clear and present danger to English football. As I have highlighted already, we believe that imposing different rules on different clubs will create issues for the regulator going forward, legally and particularly in relation to independence and European competitions, but Members will be pleased to know that I will not go into that again. We must also guard against the risk of disproportionate or arbitrary conditions being imposed, particularly if they are unchallengeable or unclear for clubs. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether a club might, for example, be required to restructure its board to get a provisional licence? Would it be forced to accept certain ownership conditions, and would it be required to provide reams of documentation within a short period just for the provisional licence? These are not hypothetical questions but real-world concerns that clubs will have, particularly at the lower end of the football pyramid. Many such clubs, as I have already outlined, lack the administrative bandwidth to deal with complex regulatory demands at short notice. That is why the official Opposition have tabled amendment 101, which would ensure that the Government’s regulator must reach a decision on a provisional licence within one month. We fear that, without a time limit, clause 17 risks becoming an instrument of delay, rather than one that supports and creates certainty for clubs by providing a regulatory bridge. Crucially, there is no requirement in the clause as drafted for the regulator to explain why a provisional licence has been refused or revoked. That, again, undermines transparency, and if a regulator is to command trust and credibility, particularly in the emotionally-charged world of football—in its good moments and its bad—it must be seen to be operating with both fairness and openness. We understand that a decision can be appealed as a “reviewable decision” under clause 81. However, that does not provide transparency for fans, and an appeals process increases uncertainty for clubs. Fans and clubs deserve a Government regulator that acts swiftly, proportionately and, above all, transparently. Clause 17 is the beginning of that promise, but it must be shaped with care.

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

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   No, I do not, and I think the hon. Member slightly misunderstands what the measure is about. It is about the provisional licence, not the full-fat licence. I am not asking the regulator to rush a decision on whether a club should be granted a long-term licence. We are asking for some certainty and some time limits to help with that bridging. We have already said that we are concerned about the size of the regulator, but we want clubs to have some certainty around timeframes and not to be left in limbo for too long. Our belief that clubs should have certainty was why we tabled amendment 101, which would establish a time limit of one month for the Government’s regulator to decide whether it will grant a provisional operating licence. This is supposed to be the main focus of the regulator, so we believe that it is reasonable to expect that it fulfils that function efficiently. This would be an important and proportionate safeguard. It would not diminish the regulator’s authority, but rather ensure that it is exercised in a timely, effective and accountable manner. It is about introducing clarity, certainty and discipline into a process that, under the Bill as drafted, risks becoming needlessly opaque and potentially open-ended. We must remember what the provisional licence mechanism is designed to achieve. It is not the final or comprehensive licence that will be granted to a club, as I have just said. It is a stopgap—a holding measure meant to ensure continuity of operation for clubs while their full licensing application is under assessment. In short, it is there to prevent disruption, not to prolong it. Thinking about the footballing element to this, a club that was held in limbo, unable to play, would create a lot of issues for the league and the season overall. As it stands, the Bill provides the Government’s regulator with no firm timetable or obligation to act within any defined period when it comes to a provisional licence. That raises two concerns. First, it risks leaving clubs in regulatory limbo, especially those already in difficult situations. That is not just a matter of administrative inconvenience. For clubs living hand-to-mouth, as many sadly are, uncertainty over their licensing status could mean missed deadlines for investment, lost commercial deals or even delays in paying staff and suppliers. In the worst cases, it could trigger crises and the very things that the Bill was supposed to prevent.

   Hansard source
6. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   I thank the hon. Member for that point. Transfers are a key aspect. If a club is in limbo, it could arguably be at a much bigger disadvantage when the season starts if it had not been able to make transfers because it was uncertain about whether it could compete in the competition. The point is well made. Secondly, the absence of a defined period creates a lack of accountability within the regulator itself. As we have discussed, the regulator cannot be scrutinised in the way that we would have hoped. We know that the Government do want it to be strong, but with strength must come accountability and transparency. If it is to command the trust of fans, clubs and local communities, it must be seen to act with purpose, not with delay. We know from numerous examples across different industries that when regulators are left without timetables, backlogs just build up. I will not name examples because I am conscious of time, but we know that it happens. My amendment proposes a time limit of one month—a full 30 days—for the regulator to determine whether a provisional licence should be granted. That is not a rushed timetable; we believe that it is a reasonable one, especially considering that when a club applies for a provisional licence, the key facts will likely already be known by the regulator. Again, this is not designed to be a forensic financial autopsy, but a short-term stabilising mechanism. Let me also be clear that the time limit does not bind the regulator to approve an application within a month; it simply requires a decision one way or another within that time. That allows the Government’s regulator to reject unsuitable applications if needed—hopefully not—but it removes the damaging uncertainty of a process that otherwise could drag on indefinitely. We must not forget who bears the cost of delay. It is not just the club executives and directors, but the fans, players and staff. We have just heard about transfers, which are a great example. It is about the people who turn up on a Saturday afternoon come rain or shine, the people who run the club shop and the ticket gates, and the people whose local economies benefit from having a club that is alive, operating and secure. The amendment also supports the broader aim of stability in football. A system without timelines invites inconsistency and subjectivity. One club might be processed in a week, and another in six. That cannot be right. We owe it to clubs at all levels, from the top of the Premier League right the way down to the National League, to create a system that is predictable and fair. Finally, good regulation is not just about the rules but about responsiveness. It is about a regulator that can act promptly, efficiently and in partnership with the people it is overseeing. Our amendment does not weaken the regulator; it makes it better. It strengthens the trust between the regulator and the regulated. It gives clubs the certainty that they need to plan, invest and survive. After all, that is what the Government say is the intention of this regulator. I hope that hon. Members will support the principle behind the amendment. We have heard some of the issues that may arise if not.

   Hansard source
7. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   I do not plan to speak again at length. I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but we are concerned that without a set timetable on the regulator’s granting of a provisional licence, the uncertainty would create a number of issues.

   Hansard source
8. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is not my understanding of how the Bill works, but the Minister may want to clarify that.

   Hansard source
9. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

   That was a rather long intervention, but I suspect it was probably needed. I appreciate the clarity from the Minister on that point, but in terms of the time limit, we are concerned about the impact of the uncertainty relating to the provisional element. In this situation, we would like that to be a focus of the regulator, given that it is being set up for exactly this kind of work. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
10. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister has outlined clauses 17 and 18 at some length. We had a lengthy debate on clause 17 in relation to our amendment 101. We are naturally disappointed that the amendment, and the time limit that we seek for the provisional licensing, was not agreed to. However, in the interests of time, I will move on to clause 18. Clause 18 sets out the process by which the Government’s regulator may grant the full operating licence to a club, which is a crucial stage in the proposed licensing regime, with significant long-term implications for the structure, stability and future of the English game. This clause is where the Government’s regulator transitions from assessing provisional eligibility to giving a formal stamp of approval for a club’s longer-term competition and compliance. However, the clause raises several questions that the Committee must interrogate, and that I hope the Minister will be able to answer—not least whether it achieves the right balance between regulatory assurance and operational flexibility. Under the clause, the regulator may grant a full operating licence only if satisfied that a club meets the relevant conditions of eligibility. That is right and proper, and clubs should be expected to operate on a stable financial footing, meet appropriate governance standards and protect the game’s integrity. But I am concerned about the breadth and, in some respects, the open-ended nature of what those conditions of eligibility might come to mean in practice. We must be alive to the risk of regulatory overreach, as the Opposition have highlighted, and we should all recognise that bad regulation is worse than no regulation at all. If clubs are to be subject to vague or ever-changing thresholds, with little recourse or clarity on what is required, we risk imposing a level of uncertainty that could deter vital investment, discourage long-term planning and undermine the very sustainability that the regulator seeks to ensure. That is why the Opposition will—as we already have done in Committee—continue to press for greater transparency around the costs and cumulative burdens that flow from the action of the regulator; and it is why we believe that the regulator should not have unfettered discretion to shift the goalposts without clear parliamentary scrutiny and approval. As I have said, we should not write blank cheques to a politically led regulator. Another issue with the clause is timeliness. As we have explained, clubs will need to plan ahead, financially, structurally and operationally. If the licensing process drags on, it risks becoming a bottleneck and not a safeguard for clubs around participation. We tabled amendments that would ensure timely decision making on provisional licences, and the same principle must surely also apply to full licences. However, we appreciate the different context within which a full operating licence will exist. That is why we have not tabled an amendment to this clause with a specific deadline. We understand that full licences will take slightly longer. Moreover, there is a danger that the full licence becomes a tool for undue influence. We have spoken about our concerns about the impact that that may have on the statutes of UEFA and FIFA—in the interests of time, I will not go into that again. If clubs feel under pressure to comply with this new licensing regime to be able to play in English football, there may be a concern about them breaching other regimes, such as UEFA and FIFA, and, again, they may fear expulsion from those competitions. One club asked me this question, although it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, so I will not name them. If a Premier League club decided not to apply for a licence, would the Government look to exclude it? There is the risk that, if a club feels that it will not be able to compete in Europe, for whatever reason, it may choose what this Bill was originally intended to stop: the European breakaway league. I am not sure that the club would do that, as it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but what would happen if a club says, “We are not going to meet these conditions, and therefore we will not apply for a licence”? Would the Government or regulator be willing to kick that club out of the Premier League? Even though that question is hypothetical, we need to know where this might lead, because we are talking about a regulation that will have an impact. If the Minister can answer where she thinks that club might go, I would be particularly interested in that. We are also concerned about the future interpretation of eligibility and how that may veer into what we believe to be subjective decisions, or where the Government’s regulator will take on new powers as it enters mission creep. As such, I would appreciate it if the Minister will confirm that there will be no demands, for example, on clubs to provide diversity quotas, net zero targets or enforced political campaigns, all of which stray beyond the regulator’s core remit of financial sustainability and good governance. Let us not forget that football clubs are not franchises, as they are in the American sport system. Our clubs are community institutions with long histories and unique identities. They are not all cut from the same cloth.

    Hansard source
11. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about quotas, which is a slightly different thing. We do not think that the regulator should be insisting on quotas, and that is very different from Kick It Out, which has made incredible progress for football over the years. The hon. Lady has raised a very different point, so I will not go down that rabbit hole. I am sure that the Minister would agree that what is best for Barnsley FC is not necessarily best for Bromley FC or Bristol Rovers. Each club has unique characteristics and should be treated as such. However, we feel that the Bill, as drafted, could lead to clubs being lumped in the same direction. We believe in the equalisation of treatment, but each club should not be treated exactly the same when there are clear differences, whether that be in league structures or financial positions. We are concerned about parts of clause 18, but we believe that it is an important part of the licensing structure that must be implemented with care, proportionality and consistency. It is essential that the Government’s regulator operates with discipline, sticking to those statutory objectives, resisting the temptation to micro-manage and always keeping front of mind the importance of stability, continuity and respect of football’s unique heritage. We support the principles of the clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister answered some of my questions about what may come in the future and what the Government would do if a club decided not to apply for a licence.

    Hansard source
12. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    I appreciate that I was asking about a hypothetical situation, but it is an important hypothetical. We are talking about a structure going forward in which clubs will be required to have a licence, and we have had some exchanges on that. This is a serious question: what would the football regulator do if a club said that it did not want the licence, and it did not believe it had to have one? Where would that legally leave the club and regulator? Even though it is hypothetical, it is very important to what we are debating in the Bill.

    Hansard source
13. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    EU: Trading Relationship

    5. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the new trading relationship with the EU.

    Hansard source
14. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    EU: Trading Relationship

    The Government continue to celebrate last month’s latest EU surrender deal, continuing their long-term ambition to undo the results of a democratic vote that their leadership has never agreed with and is doing its best to reverse at every opportunity. The Government have already proven that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Can the Minister reassure the House that this Government have no further intentions to surrender any more hard-won Brexit freedoms?

    Hansard source
15. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

    I start, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) did, with an ask of the Minister. As she will have heard, this issue is apolitical, and we are raising it very much because we care about our communities. Can we increase the flexibility for banking hubs to be rolled out throughout the country? I apologise, because I should really have started by congratulating the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate. In South West Hertfordshire I have seen the decline of high streets, including a reduction in the number of banking branches. Nationwide, which has been mentioned, deserves credit for proactively retaining its high street presence, which does help my residents and, I am sure, others across the country. In Rickmansworth in my constituency, the local post office manager, Danny, has stepped up and is now managing a banking hub, which allows my residents access to the frontline banking services to which they would not normally have access. I am also working alongside two of my councillors in Abbots Langley—Councillor Vicky Edwards and Councillor Ian Campbell—and I hope the Minister will encourage the powers that be to see that, where there is a real need for communities to have a banking presence, banking hubs are an obvious solution. If we want our high streets to remain viable, we need to encourage people to continue to come down to the high street. Historically, that has meant services such as banking. That will, I hope, increase footfall for our local cafés, hairdressers and all the other services associated with the high street. We have heard about the 6,300 banks that have closed since 2015. I am a former retailer, and I understand that high streets change, but from a policy perspective, Parliament needs to create the framework that ensures high streets are as we want them to be. If we do not proactively encourage banking hubs to be in the centre of our towns—yes, ATMs are important, but they are typically in places such as out-of-town petrol stations—we are not helping small retailers and convenience stores that rely on emergency purchases of a pint of milk and the like. I will close, because I am conscious of the time, with a pledge from me—and, I hope, those on my Front Bench—that if the Government step up and say they will increase the flexibility of banking hubs, they will have our support, because cash remains king. We have spoken before about digital exclusion, and it will have a massive impact on a minority of our population if we do not get this right.

    Hansard source
16. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    EU Relations

    I do not know how much longer the love-in will last. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I will start off nicely. The Minister has been commendably clear that the youth mobility scheme must be capped, and has made comparisons with agreements reached by the previous Government with countries such as Australia, Canada and Uruguay. He will know that last year 9,750 youth mobility visas were issued to Australian nationals, 3,060 to Canadians and just 140 to Uruguayans. Will he be equally clear in setting out what he thinks would be a reasonable level for that cap, or is it just a matter of whatever Brussels tells him he has to accept?

    Hansard source
17. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

    People in my constituency are worried. They are worried by the constant stream of applications for new battery energy storage systems in and around the villages across the constituency—from Kinver to Swindon, Hinksford, Wombourne, Lower Penn and the edge of Kingswinford. Their worries were not exactly alleviated by the response the Prime Minister gave to my question last month. He did not give the impression that the Government understand residents’ concerns and some of the reasons for those concerns. Lower Penn in South Staffordshire is a lovely village with a population of just under 1,000, and it felt like pretty much all of them were in the village hall for the public meeting in February. At least seven battery sites have been either approved or proposed in or close to that small village. The same is happening in villages across South Staffordshire. As I have been sitting in the Chamber for this debate, I have received another email from the planning authority inviting me to speak on one these applications, which are coming through at such a rate. That reflects the position across the country. There are 121 operational battery energy storage systems in the United Kingdom, but over 1,500 more are in the pipeline, so we really are at a tipping point, but the planning and regulatory systems have not yet caught up. That is why we need action. As has been said, such batteries have a low failure rate, but sometimes they go wrong, just as they do in mobile phones and electric vehicles. That is why airlines tell us we cannot charge our mobile phone battery while we are on a flight, and it is why Parliament has decided that electric vehicles cannot be charged in the underground car park. It is not because the risk is high; it is because the consequences of things going wrong can be catastrophic. Whereas a mobile phone may have a capacity of 15 to 18 watt hours and an electric vehicle battery perhaps 80 to 100 kW hours, the site in Tilbury—the site of the fire earlier this year, which I think the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) referred to—when completed will have a capacity of about 600 MW hours. To put it another way, that site will be the equivalent of 33 million iPhone batteries. As we see an increase in these sites, we know from basic statistics that there will be more fires on top of those we have already had this year in Tilbury, Cirencester and Aberdeenshire. We therefore need to ensure that our systems are properly adapted and modernised to reflect those risks. The risk of a fire is not only about the potential danger to human life—for both those who may be nearby and the firefighters who are sent to bring those fires under control over what may be 24 or 48 hours —but about our local natural environments.

    Hansard source
18. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

    My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly. When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals. For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk. Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife. The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems. Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed.

    Hansard source
19. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Police Presence on High Streets

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate and for her passionate work on this subject. In fact, I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this debate. I welcome the news that the brother of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has joined up to the police force, particularly as he has done so in Durham—on my streets, no less. We all know the brilliant work that our hard-working police officers, PCSOs and civil enforcement officers do to protect our high streets and local communities. The police put themselves in dangerous situations to stop the criminals who blight our communities and undermine the social fabric that binds them together. Although it is welcome that headline figures from the crime survey for England and Wales show that crime fell by more than 50% between 2010 and 2024, there is still much more to be done, and protecting our high streets is an integral part of that mission. I have the honour of representing Stockton, whose high street is a great place and home to some incredible businesses. I will always encourage people to support them, but I would fail in my duty if I did not acknowledge or try to tackle the many challenges they face. If my grandparents were alive today, they would be devastated to see what has become of our high street. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed it to decline and to become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. Instead of employing more civil enforcement officers and street wardens, the council chooses to employ a huge number of managers on £100k-plus salaries—it recently came to light that it had spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in the last three years.

    Hansard source
20. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Police Presence on High Streets

    It is incredibly important that whatever money councils have is put to good use. In Stockton, we have terrible examples: people being flown abroad to watch shows to scout for festival appearances, and the CEO of the council recruiting a chum of his on £900 a day, without it ever being seen and considered by the council. Councils have a responsibility to spend properly the money that is given to them, and in Stockton there are too many examples where that is not the case. Instead of the council using all the powers available through public spaces protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, its soft approach means that lots of antisocial behaviour has gone unchallenged. Moreover, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered as a dispersal authority, taking a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years it has had one of the highest asylum seeker-to-resident ratios of any local authority across the entire country. Those asylum seekers are all housed near the town centre, creating challenges in accommodation, public services, and integration, and leaving huge numbers of lone men hanging around the town centre. The situation is made worse by the council’s approach to housing, which allows huge amounts of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to emerge around the town centre. I will continue to push the council and local police for more action to support Stockton’s fantastic high street and the incredible businesses therein. Before addressing the police’s specific role in protecting the great British high street, we must acknowledge the challenges facing our high streets as a result of this Labour Government’s actions. The Government’s jobs tax and the slashing of small businesses—well, of small business rate relief, though actually they are slashing small businesses—is putting the survival of many of our high street businesses at risk. Confidence has been sapped, and in April business confidence once again turned negative. The Government will always have the support of the Conservative party in backing our hard-working police officers. We need more officers than ever. It was interesting to hear, during Home Office questions, the Minister and the Home Secretary reading with some excitement a table listing the number of neighbourhood policing officers in each area. How many more police officers—those who can arrest the most serious criminals in our society—does the Minister expect to be in place by the end of the year? Will that number exceed the March 2024 figure? This discussion comes against the backdrop of six of Britain’s most senior police chiefs warning that important and laudable ambitions to tackle knife crime, violence against women and girls, and neighbourhood policing are all at risk because of funding shortfalls. The Government’s decision to let criminals out of prison early, many of whom will inevitably commit more crime, will put more pressure on our police. The proposed settlement for policing in 2025-26 is insufficient and risks causing job losses. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has said that his force is facing the potential loss of 1,700 officers, PCSOs and other staff. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that Sir Mark’s figures are correct. Special constables are invaluable, but we also need full-time officers to investigate serious crimes and secure convictions against the worst offenders on our high streets. That is critical; the public expect not only a police presence, but effective action. Although we were pleased to agree on stronger laws in the Crime and Policing Bill to address offences on our high streets, such laws are meaningless without proper enforcement and punishment. Having spent a long time campaigning alongside the likes of the Co-op, the BRC and USDAW, I am delighted to see the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker on the statute book. On policing our high streets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on recent remarks made by the Mayor of London and his Drugs Commission. Within the mayor’s expression of support for the proposal to decriminalise possession of small amounts of cannabis, there were concerning references to police stop-and-search powers, in which he questioned the scope of their application. Frankly, that is extraordinary, reflecting a worrying disregard for public spaces such as our high streets, where all of us should expect to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will condemn those comments in the strongest possible terms and send a message to our hard-working police officers that stop and search is a vital tool in their armour, and that we entirely support them in using it. This week, I met representatives of the Federation of Independent Retailers, who shared their experiences of retail crime and the way that the use of in-store facial recognition and AI technology is making a real difference. They suggested that a grant scheme could help them to take the fight to criminals; I would be delighted to hear whether the Minister has given any consideration to introducing such a scheme. In conclusion, we should celebrate the work of the hard-working police on our streets and of the retail workers in our stores, but we must remember the challenges that they face because of the decisions of this Government. High streets are at the heart of our local communities. The Government must do much more to ensure that they are safe and thriving places that people want to visit.

    Hansard source
21. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Business of the House

    Yarm is being battered by Stockton’s Labour council’s rush to build far too many houses far too fast in all the wrong places. It is placing unbearable pressure on our roads, schools and GP surgery. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on how we tackle such irresponsible over- development?

    Hansard source
22. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Business of the House

    Greenergy operates a biodiesel facility at Immingham in my constituency, but it has had to go into a cold shutdown and review the future of its operations. This is in part due to subsidised imports from the US and the need to review the renewable transport fuel obligation, which affects not just the Immingham plant but businesses up and down the country. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or an urgent statement on the renewable transport fuel obligation?

    Hansard source
23. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Topical Questions

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will know that the UK has some of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and they have huge powers and huge budgets which they use to keep our country safe every single day of the week. He also knows that in any large organisation mistakes are made and public confidence in those agencies is vital. Given that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 is more than 30 years old—there have been some other Acts—is it not time for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have new powers of oversight and even new powers of sanction, so that the public can have confidence that our intelligence agencies have proper scrutiny and oversight?

    Hansard source
24. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

    I also congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate. A great strength of feeling about banks has been evident in this debate, and it is important to remember the importance of banks not just to our communities but to the wider economy. Banks provide services for businesses and individuals, but they also provide two other fundamental services. First, banks and building societies take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment in infrastructure, businesses and jobs. Secondly, banks take overnight deposits and turn them into 25-year mortgages—so that our constituents can create a home and build a family—which is quite difficult for banks to do. The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington made a couple of important points that I would like to address. The first was about the profits that banks make, and the second was about the policing of banks and the fact that banks apparently police themselves. Following the 2008 financial crisis, there was obviously a huge number of problems in the banking system. The Financial Services Act 2012 created two regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, both of which—and particularly the PRA—are responsible for making sure that our banking system is sound. Banks need to have strong balance sheets, and to do that they need to make profits to a certain extent. I agree that some of those profits look obscene, and perhaps some banks could put some of that money back into our communities. None the less, if banks spend their money unwisely, we potentially run the risk of another banking crisis. Along with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), I am one of only two Members left in this House who sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards from 2013 to 2015. Our work on that commission underlines the importance of banks in modern life, about which we have heard so much today. The commission found that holding and operating a bank account is now essential to participate in society and the economy, whether it is receiving wages, paying bills or accessing benefits. But we also found that people’s views on banks are shaped by their direct experiences. The more a person knows their bank, the more likely they are to have confidence in it. That means that if banks want to retain their customers, they must provide good, wide-ranging services. An inability to access banking services risks eroding that trust and confidence, as we have heard today, especially among the most vulnerable.

    Hansard source
25. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

    I agree 100%. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be clear that the decline of our high streets and the decline of bank branches have run concurrently as behaviour has changed over the last couple of decades and retail activity has increasingly moved online. Banks are, of course, commercial entities, and their decisions to close branches are often driven by commercial imperatives, which is not necessarily what we want to hear in this debate. Falling footfall, the rise of digital banking and the need to be cost-effective are just some of those reasons. As we have heard so often, there are now just 3,000 bank branches remaining in the UK, and that number is expected to drop even further in coming years. ATM numbers, especially free-to-use machines, have also declined. Only 14% of payments in the UK were made with cash in 2022, and withdrawals from the Link network are down 50% on pre-covid levels.

    Hansard source
26. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

    My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about face-to-face relationships, not something done through an app. Behind the statistics I cited are real people and real communities. The digitally excluded, older people, those in poor health and people with lower financial resilience mostly rely on cash. Small businesses and rural communities are hard hit. The question for Members who want to compel banks to keep branches open is how much digital-first customers should be charged to retain loss-making branches—notwithstanding, of course, that profit question. Of course, the answer cannot simply be to do nothing and to walk away from our responsibilities to those who are left behind. The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in this sector. Through the post office network, we provided a system of free and convenient access to banking services, and the banking framework partnership between the Post Office and over 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means consumers and businesses can access basic banking services through the post office network. The Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined, and according to the Financial Conduct Authority, post office branches make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. The last Government also introduced banking hubs, which we have heard a great deal about. I am conscious of time, and I do not want to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so although I have a lot more to say, I think it would be prudent for me to step aside and allow the Minister to face up to the passion about this issue from Members representing their communities.

    Hansard source
27. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The shadow Minister is making a pertinent and important point. If the independent football regulator were inadvertently to cross lines into the jurisdictions of UEFA or FIFA, it could be catastrophic for English football. Clearly, that is not the purpose of the regulator. Given the success of many English teams in Europe, that would have serious ramifications. I genuinely think that the shadow Minister’s amendment is meant to be helpful and is incredibly important.

    Hansard source
28. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I suspect that Government Members will oppose the amendment. Given that, does my hon. Friend think that it would be reasonable of me to ask the Minister the extent to which UEFA has seen the Bill and signed it off as something that does not constitute political interference either way?

    Hansard source
29. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    Mr Turner, you will have seen the declaration of interests that I made on Tuesday. I seek the Committee’s indulgence; this is the only gratuitous intervention that I will make. Can the shadow Minister remind the Committee of the identity of the only team who have won every major European trophy, having recently won the UEFA Conference League?

    Hansard source
30. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I ask the Minister to respond to this simple question: has the Bill as drafted been shared with UEFA? Is UEFA satisfied that it does not represent political control?

    Hansard source
31. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I rise as someone who currently has an invitation in my inbox to renew my season ticket for an eye-watering £950. I would love to know where all that money goes, as the shadow spokesman said, and why the price has gone in the direction it has. The amendment should not be seen as counter to the regulator. There was significant pushback from the Government Benches when we tried to amend the regulator in terms of size and pay, and we also discussed the budget. If, in a regulated environment, the ticket price went up from £950 to, say, £980, then this amendment would ensure that fans were made aware that that 30 quid had gone on being part of a regulated industry. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for us to want to communicate with the viewing public. Equally, it would create a relationship between the fan and the regulator that might not otherwise be there, so I support the amendment.

    Hansard source
32. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    The Liberal Democrat spokesman talks about dodgy owners. My season ticket is for a Premier League club; a season ticket for, say, Ashford Town (Middlesex) FC for the forthcoming season is £130. I think part of the function of this amendment is to make the regulator aware of the costs that it puts on well-run but smaller clubs. Simply making decisions and acting under this legislation without any sense of the financial impact and imposition that it is making on those clubs would be a very worrying way to do business, but the amendment would slightly redress the balance between club and regulator.

    Hansard source
33. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    I struggle to understand what might be contained in the Government policy statements. The Minister is steeped in this legislation, so must have discussed this in the past. Can she give the Committee an indication of what sort of thing might be covered?

    Hansard source
34. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    It is important for the House to understand that once an organisation is in the hands of the regulator, it has no choice. I was a director of a company that was applying for an operating licence from a national regulator. It cost millions of pounds, and we never achieved it—we tried three times, and never got there. As long as the regulator is doing its regulatory work, that is okay as far as it is concerned. There can be circumstances in which regulators, as long as things are being done by the rulebook, do not care about the growth of their industry. The amendment is a reasonable counterbalance to that, and would ensure that the regulator understands the financial burden it is putting on teams.

    Hansard source
35. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    What makes the Minister think that clubs themselves would not, as a normal matter of course, be noting their compliance costs?

    Hansard source
36. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Subsection (3)(c) of clause 16 is an absolute Trojan horse; it gives carte blanche to the regulator to demand whatever it wants, regardless of whether a club produces such documents or information on a routine basis. Anyone who has worked with a regulator will know that means that clubs will have to employ lawyers, because they would never submit anything to their regulator unless it had been through lawyers first. The shadow Minister used the phrase “blank cheque”, but it is almost a blank invoice to the poor clubs that will simply have to comply. When a regulator says, “Jump”, they do not say, “Why?”; they say, “How high?” However high the bar is set, they have to get over it. It is completely reasonable, at this stage of the regulator’s development, to seek limits so that it can take some very well-defined steps in regulating football, prior to giving it the carte blanche that subsection (3)(c) represents. As the shadow Minister said, I fear that the unintended consequences of subsection (3)(c) will be considerable.

    Hansard source
37. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    Regulation does indeed evolve, but giving this football regulator carte blanche to evolve it without any recourse to Parliament is a key weakness of the Bill’s current drafting, which is why I support amendment 99.

    Hansard source
38. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I were not here in the last Parliament, so what went on and the provenance of the Bill are not really our concern. We are being asked to contribute to the discussion and the debate on the Bill that has been placed before us. Neither of us saw the last one, so these are genuine points.

    Hansard source
39. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister just said something that I am not quite clear about; perhaps, given my hon. Friend’s experience, he could explain it to me. If a club gets promoted to the English Football League—the happiest day of the club’s history—it then has to apply to become regulated, but if it does not have that licence by the beginning of the next season, the Minister just said that it can play. Where should I look in the Bill to understand the latitude that clubs have to play in the English Football League without regulation?

    Hansard source
40. 5 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister said that clubs would still be allowed to play in the absence of a provisional operating licence. How long would they be allowed to play for before being granted such a licence?

    Hansard source