Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I regret that I have not spent as long as the Minister has in considering this issue. Could she point me to the clauses that make it absolutely clear that the English national team could not be taken within the scope of the regulator and that “a club” could not apply to the Football Association?
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. In essence, with this amendment, we are trying to set the regulator up for success. Presumably the question mark about whether someone appointed was the best person for the job—as opposed to any extraneous influence that donations might have had—should be the primary consideration.
Another counterpoint to the whataboutery argument is that this proposal will cut through massively with the British public and the football-supporting public. We had the appointment of the director general of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, who was a Labour donor, and the director of investment at the Treasury, who was a Labour donor. Those things matter to us here, but they do not cut through to the public in the same way that the football regulator will. It has to be cleaner than clean to instil the confidence of the footballing public.
It is dangerous to indulge in hypotheticals, but if an applicant for the football regulator chair role had been integral to the negotiation of broadcasting rights for the Premier League, would they not be conflicted in their duties under the Bill? They would have done something in their former life that could disadvantage certain leagues and certain divisions of the league, and they would be seeking to protect that legacy.
Does my hon. Friend remember the case of a referee whose footballing allegiance became public a couple of seasons ago? It caused a huge ruckus because it generated a suspicion that he had been, in some way, partial in the way he had conducted his independent role as a referee, which is not unlike that of the regulator. For football affiliation, read political affiliation. There will be semi-political decisions. Does that not also make the point that the regulator should not be politically aligned?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Committee to entertain a semi-hypothetical set of circumstances. I have spent many minutes googling in order to find the only club in the Football League represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—the mighty Bromley, as I am reminded constantly by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I think he said in the Chamber that visiting supporters have started chanting, “You’ve got the only Tory.” This is a very particular set of circumstances—there is only one. Bromley has done jolly well this season. Let us just hypothetically suggest that they caught the eye of a very wealthy potential new owner, which would bring riches beyond belief. That would come under the strictures of this Bill in terms of change of ownership. Let us suggest that, in carrying out its normal duties, the football regulator questioned, delayed and, finally, denied that change of ownership. If the football regulator was a paid-up member of another political party and a donor to that other party, does the Committee not understand that the perception would be that part of the reason the regulator had come to the conclusions that it had was political? That is what we are trying to avoid with the amendments. I ask Committee members to reconsider, in order to give the regulator the best possible chance of success.
If people appointed to regulators and quangos have fully declared what they have done, ab initio, that does a lot to dampen down concern about partiality. It would be nice to see the Government select someone for one of these appointments who was not a donor at the last election.
I completely take the Minister’s point about the unanimity of the Select Committee. In that same spirit, it is worth quoting the Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who said: “While Mr Kogan’s background and experience make him well-suited for the role, his past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount. We want to see the new Independent Football Regulator succeed, so it’s crucial that nothing undermines the regulator as it gets up and running. Mr Kogan must give 110% when it comes to reassuring everyone in the game that he is his own man. The Committee looks forward to working with him constructively and holding him to account.” Imagine how much simpler life would be if someone who did not have that perceived conflict of interest—
The hon. Member says that both his club and the fans support the football regulator, but they do not know how much it is going to cost or how big it is going to be. They like the purpose of the regulator, but they do not yet know the cost. Is it unfair to set a boundary on some of those aspects in the Bill, so that it does not grow arms and legs and put regulatory burdens on his club outwith their ability to meet them?
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe made the very powerful observation that, in identifying a target operating model, form should follow function. The function has been pretty well defined in the Bill, which rather prompts the question why the Government do not have some idea of the form that the regulator should follow. Without any cap whatever, we would simply be inviting untrammelled mission creep and cost growth. Perhaps the hon. Member disagrees with where the cap has been put and with the methodology approaching it, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the principle that he and other hon. Members should have an opportunity for scrutiny if there is a proposal to grow the budget, the wages or the number of people in the regulator. It is interesting to note the varied approach across the regulatory network. Do we think that the football regulator will be like the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is pretty important—we all drink water—and does its work with 55 people? Coming in next is the Office of Rail and Road, which has up to 370 people. The Information Commissioner’s Office has 500-plus; information is all around us, so that is pretty important. Not quite topping the tree, but coming pretty close, is the Pensions Regulator, with 900 people. The point is that untrammelled bureaucracies have a tendency simply to grow. There is no limit on the amount of fan consultation that could be done. A member of the football regulator could be sent down to every fan meeting if it really wanted to convince itself that the club was engaging with the fan base. All the amendment seeks is some measure of control, to give Parliament the opportunity once again to stop this thing growing arms and legs and moving way beyond its intended purpose.
I—
We do not know yet what the target operating model will be. I think the Government can do that work, as they have a pretty clear picture of the functions of the regulator that are envisaged in the Bill. The shadow Minister asked the Minister to give some indication of the limits on money and structure, because we have the powers and the functions. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to hear the Minister’s answers.
Quoting those figures is very helpful. Can the Minister tell us what personnel assumptions those figures were based on?
On that principle, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence, who said yesterday that the number of people in the Army would be 73,000?
Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? The Minister said that some indicative numbers for the costs came from the impact assessment for the previous version of the Bill. I asked her what personnel numbers that was based on, because if such assumptions do not underpin the budget, that is as random a number as any.
Will the Minister give way?
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. The Minister admitted that with Select Committees she was not comparing like with like. Would not a better comparison be another big regulator, the Bank of England, where the Monetary Policy Committee in setting interest rates does indeed allow for minority reports, which are helpful to the market in understanding the logic behind those who want rates to go up, go down or stay the same?
And Tottenham.
Thames Waters is a massive stakeholder in my constituency, and the biggest landowner. We have half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs and we have a fair chunk of the Thames, from Staines to Sunbury. For 11 months now, I have been trying to get a meeting with Thames Water. I appreciate that it has had one or two other things on its mind recently, but can the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage Thames Water to meet me?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. At a time when more of our lives are spent online, the job of keeping our country safe brings law enforcement increasingly into the digital space. Many of the most serious crimes, including terrorist attacks, are now planned, prepared and facilitated online. In order to intercept those crimes before they happen, police officers and intelligence agents need to take action, often at short notice. That can lead them to co-operate with and require co-operation from tech companies, often based thousands of miles away, which have their own data privacy policies and operate across hundreds of different legal environments. Often, those companies are extremely reluctant to provide the kind of data that is needed, but access to that information can be the difference between an attack happening or being stopped in the nick of time. It is absolutely right that we give law enforcement and our intelligence agencies the powers that they need to navigate these situations. That is why the previous Government passed the IPA, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and the 2024 Act. The measures before us today will give effect to some of the enhanced powers passed by the previous Government in 2024, and we gladly support them. We should welcome and celebrate the strides being made by tech companies. These platforms are something to be embraced, not feared. We must also be cautious about measures that could infringe on individual privacy, which is a long-held and important principle in this country. I think we are all agreed that our age of constant connection must not become an age of constant surveillance. The need to keep the public safe must always be balanced against the importance of privacy and individual liberty. Powers must be accompanied by appropriate guardrails and parameters, as I believe they are. As such, does the Minister believe that the mechanisms for parliamentary oversight strike the right balance? How will the Government review the efficacy of these regulations so that we can remain at the forefront of a fast and ever-changing technological environment?
7. What discussions she has had with victims’ groups on the early release of violent offenders.
The Victims’ Commissioner says that the early release of prisoners risks victim safety, so will the Lord Chancellor explain why she is putting violent offenders ahead of victims?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will ensure that Thames Water stands by its commitment to upgrade our sewage network in South Buckinghamshire? Specifically, will he ensure that the upgrade promised for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works in my constituency is delivered on time?
I rise to present this petition from my constituents in the Scottish Borders to the House of Commons. It calls on LINK to set up a banking hub for Selkirk and Eyemouth. I want to record my thanks to the many local residents who have signed this petition. The petition states: The petition of the residents of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Declares that residents of Selkirk and Eyemouth are being left without proper access to cash and banking facilities. This is causing significant concern and worry for the local community, and that LINK should take the necessary steps to tackle this by setting up a banking hub in each of the towns. Further that a separate online petition on the same issue has generated 1,456 signatures. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that the residents of Selkirk and Eyemouth have access to a Banking Hub, with proper access to cash and banking facilities. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003079]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am delighted to be on the Committee, although I feel slightly ashamed that, unlike seemingly everyone else, I do not have any interests to declare. The amendments deal with the important issue of the Bill’s purpose, but I will start by saying that football in this country is more than just a game; it is a defining part of our national identity. With around 14 million grassroots players and over 40,000 clubs across England, football is deeply woven into the fabric of communities. From the local pitch to the world stage, our game is a source of pride, unity and aspiration. There are many key dates in this nation’s history. One of them is 1066, when the Norman conquest marked the start of modern monarchy in England, but for many people 1966 is an even more important date, because it was the last time that England won the World cup. To see this as merely a Bill relating to a sport would be to misunderstand the fundamental importance of football in our country. As a previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport noted in 2023: “We invented the beautiful game. The English Football League is the world’s original football league, while for over 3 decades the Premier League has been the template for all other leagues to follow—simultaneously generating both the most excitement and the most wealth of any league on the planet. The Premier League and EFL are true global success stories, exported and watched by millions of people around the world each week.” The community value of football clubs at the grassroots level also must not be underestimated. The original wording of the Bill risks reducing sustainability to narrow financial metrics; amendment 96 seeks to broaden its definition to encompass environmental, social and generational responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the amendment aims to make the definition more aspirational; rather than merely sustaining the status quo, it would mean looking to promote and enhance football in this country. Our amendments 95 and 96 would frame football as not merely a business but a shared cultural institution, and they would protect fans’ long-term stake in their clubs, ensuring that future generations can access the same joys, histories and traditions. An overly cautious approach in the Bill could stifle investment and reduce competitiveness, so I ask the Minister for greater clarity on the regulatory model. The statement of the Bill’s purpose relates to sustainability and the Bill itself is overly focused on financial metrics.
I would not like to sweep aside any suggestion of tension. There will always be tension among people who watch sport—in this case football—in different ways, but I do not accept that there is an overall tension. It is perfectly possible to grow both match attendance and TV audiences. I do not accept that there is a structural tension between those two things. In my view, the success of football is infinitely growable. Amendment 96 also refers to the unique heritage of football clubs. The shadow Minister talked about football being older than the Labour party, which shows how woven into the fabric of this country—indeed, of the whole United Kingdom—football is. The amendment also mentions the “effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment or the reputation of the local area.” All Members know that football and football clubs have a positive effect on those things. It is right to that the Bill’s purpose reflects all those things and the breadth and importance of football in this country.
I rise to support Opposition amendment 132. The shadow Minister eloquently set out the reasons why, and I do not need to repeat them. But I pose this question to the Minister: why would she reject clarifying that specified competitions mean the Premier League, the English Football League and the National League? If she is not prepared to accept the amendment, which would set out those competitions with clarity, that slightly begs the question of what she or her Government have in mind. What are they seeking to add by using the wide discretionary powers set out in the Bill already? Unless the competitions are clearly identified as in the amendment, there could be a question about whether the England national team could accidently get swept up as part of the regulations. The amendment makes an obvious clarification and gives certainty to football clubs and fans.
In looking at the definitions, I am concerned about what is intended to be meant by “ultimate owner”, not least from a drafting point of view. Schedule 1 deals with an owner in significant detail, although it is actually quite convoluted and I worry that there may be loopholes in there that may be exploited in the future. By setting out such a high level of detail around trying to close loopholes, loopholes might accidentally be opened or created. However, it is not the definition of “owner” that I want to look at, but the definition of “ultimate owner”, which must be something different or else it would not be separately defined. It is contained in clause 3(2), which says: “For the purposes of this Act, a club’s “ultimate owner” is—(a) where the club has only one owner, that owner;”. That makes sense; if a club is owned by one person then they are the ultimate owner—that is easy. It goes on to say: “(b) where the club has more than one owner and one owner exercises a higher degree of influence or control over the activities of the club than any other owner,”. That seems very vague wording for lawmaking. There could be two highly influential owners, but one has some power at their disposal that makes them technically able to exercise a higher degree of influence; that does not mean that the other owner is not also very influential. I do not understand why “ultimate owner” dismisses the possibility of there being two club owners exercising a significant degree of control, albeit where one has a marginally higher degree of control than the other. Normally the wording in company law—but not just company law—talks about an owner, director or officer exercising significant influence and control, and there is a lot of case law that sets out what that means. That wording is used in the Bill, in schedule 1(15), which is entitled “Significant influence or control over the activities of a club, trust or other body”. But because clause 3(2) does not use that wording, “ultimate owner” must mean something different than exercising a significant degree of control, and I do not understand what it is getting at. There is a third definition of “ultimate owner”. We have dealt with where there is only one owner—that is easy. We have dealt with where there is more than one owner, and one owner exercises a “higher degree” of influence, whatever that means. The third definition is “in any other case, each owner of the club who exercises a degree of influence or control over the activities of the club”. That seems to be sweeping up anyone with any influence, so potentially every owner. But it goes on to say “where there are other owners, is a higher degree of influence or control than any other owner.” That suggests that the only owner in a multi-owned club who is not caught by the definition of “ultimate owner” is the one owner who ranks the lowest in terms of the amount of control that they exercise over the club. The provision is badly drafted. It is very unclear what it is trying to achieve, and alternative wording is available to the Government and the draughters of the Bill. If the aim of describing the ultimate owner is to avoid applying this to very small shareholders, such as community shareholders and fans who have some ownership of the club but no meaningful say over what happens to it, the Bill could simply state that an ultimate owner is any owner other than those who exercise a negligible or trivial degree of control. That would exclude those who have no influence but who own shares and would avoid the convoluted, inclusive set of provisions that amount to nonsense in the minds of most people. If an ultimate owner is not defined in the Bill, the Government open themselves up to all sorts of problems. An ultimate owner, who may be very wealthy, could deploy his well-paid legal team to take the Bill apart in court, and we know what courts will do: if the wording is unclear, they can find in favour of the person who is trying to be bang to rights with a badly drafted Bill. I would urge the Government to rectify that. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to be able to respond to all that detail on the hoof now. If she cannot, I ask her to go away and seek clarification on that, because I worry that that is a major drafting defect. If we cannot define an ultimate owner in the Bill, we have a problem.
I thank the Minister for that. She has already given some better words by talking about “significant” control. That is not the wording in clause 3, but I prefer it, to be honest. Will she go away and look at that? It is probably a drafting issue.
The requirement for the regulator to be independent is clearly essential. I am sure that it is common ground on both sides of this Committee Room, and in the rest of the House, that the Independent Football Regulator board and chair need to be independent. This is a significant time for English football. To be regulated by statute and lawmaking and the decisions of the Members of the House of Commons and the other place is a departure from the way our beautiful game has grown in this country, without regulation. In certain aspects, we need to be really careful about what we are doing. The independence of the chair and the board of the regulator is key. Independence can mean so many different things, as the shadow Minister has noted. It can mean independence from the influence of certain interests within the game—clearly, if the regulator is to regulate multi leagues, we need an independent regulator that is not encumbered by particular interests, particular clubs or particular leagues. There is also the very important issue of political independence. Given that the chair will be appointed by an elected politician—by the Secretary of State—the decision needs to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that independence, with a capital I, remains key. We might get on to this point at another time, possibly today, but the Secretary of State has recused herself from making any decision over the recommended candidate because of a donation he declared to her leadership campaign. The preferred candidate also made a donation, which he declared to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but the Prime Minister has not recused himself from any involvement in the decision.
Thank you for that guidance, Sir Jeremy. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do, and I have sympathy with his general point about the independence of chairs of bodies, but I will stick to this Bill and this independent regulator for two reasons. The first is that we are in this Bill Committee today to talk about football governance. Secondly, the point I was making is that because this is a new departure—to have a regulator in a sport that does not have a regulator—particular regard needs to be paid to political independence. We have a candidate who has made a political donation to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Government have an unexpected relationship with the preferred chair of the regulator. I urge the Minister to address at some point today how the independence of the football regulator will be protected. Even putting to one side the preferred candidate, the fact is that the appointment will always be made by a Secretary of State, so how will we avoid the criticism that the hon. Member for Cheltenham identified? If it is a political appointment, there are always going to be accusations—in this case, fair—around an elected politician appointing a regulator over English football. I know that that is inherently unattractive to fans, who should be our priority.
We are debating a group of amendments that attempt to better the regulator’s independence. The shadow Minister has set out at great length—made even longer by the interruptions —how these amendments would do that. I think we all agree that the regulator should be independent. It is perfectly open to Labour Members to say, “Hang on a minute, the Bill already does that,” but their interventions and their scoffing from sedentary positions seem to make the counterargument, “Well, when you were in government, you made political appointments to bodies like the BBC and Ofqual.”
The Government Whip is agreeing from a sedentary position. “And therefore it is perfectly open to us to make a political appointment to the football regulator.” That is an extraordinary argument.
I obviously disagree with the word “hypocrisy.” [Laughter.] There is no point laughing when dealing with the very serious issue of taking politics out of football. Fans do not want to see us trading arguments about hypocrisy and the BBC; they want to see us working together to keep politics out of football, and that is what these amendments seek to do. On the amendment about political donations, of course the shadow Minister spoke about the Government’s preferred candidate—that is the environment in which the Bill is being considered. We learned about the preferred candidate’s political donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister only in a Select Committee hearing, after the Bill had already been considered on Second Reading. My colleagues and I looked at the preferred candidate’s donations to Labour MPs and prepared a list of those that had been publicly filed. The list did not include his donations to the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I am not saying that there was an improper lack of a declaration of interest, but the donations were not in the public domain. It was only at the very late stage of a Select Committee hearing on his appointment that the donations came out, and they came out because he voluntarily gave that information. I commend him for doing so, but this is the problem we have: we are relying on candidates voluntarily declaring donations they have made to the Government of the day—donations that might not otherwise be publicly declarable. Amendment 117 would force such donations to be publicly declarable in order to keep politics out of football.
I am not sure I agree with the hon. Member’s interpretation of why individuals should disclose that they have made political donations. It is not necessarily so that they can be automatically vetoed; it is for transparency, making sure it is in the public domain and making sure the Select Committee has all the information available when it reviews their suitability. This time, the Select Committee relied on a voluntary disclosure. Through amendment 117, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is trying to make that mandatory. It would then be for the Select Committee, other commentators, MPs and the media to draw their own conclusions and give their own opinions on suitability.
Amendment 117 would mandate that a candidate for chair of an independent regulator must declare all their political donations. It would not be merely a voluntary process. I back that, and in the absence of any good reason not to, I urge Government Members to do the same.
I have to confess that was not in my mind when I rose to my feet, but my hon. Friend has a good memory. I welcome his sporting analogy, rather than the analogy of Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a job for GB News, which is completely irrelevant to the Bill. That brings me to another point. I wonder why the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, given that he is chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, tried to widen this debate on the politicisation of organisations. We are talking about football, about sport. It is almost uniquely an apolitical thing, both nationally and internationally. In fact, international sporting bodies are very sensitive to politics. I recall that, in the last 15 years, UEFA—was it UEFA?—tried to ban England players from wearing the poppy on their arms. That was ridiculous, but the organisation saw the poppy as a political symbol. Football probably stands highest in trying to keep politics out of sport. Associating it with who might have a contract with GB News shows a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of sport.
The issue here is that this is a regulator, with regulatory authority and powers. When we legislate, we should do whatever we can to keep politics out of sport. If there are examples going back over time, we can debate them, but doing that in the context of creating a brand-new regulator for football—one that has never existed anywhere else—would probably be a distraction tactic on the Government’s part. It would not deal with fans’ genuine concern that we should not bring politics into sport. We have an opportunity to do something to deliver that by agreeing to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister. Amendment 116 states: “The Chair of the Board must not…be a member of a political party”. Why would anyone disagree with that? It is perfectly open to someone who wants to run to be the independent regulator to resign their membership of a political party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about the word “currently”. Well, “currently” means at the point that someone is appointed, so it is perfectly possible for someone to go through the appointment process before resigning their interests at the moment the Government propose to appoint them. I think the word “currently” deals with that issue, which we possibly agree on. The amendment also says that the chair must do no canvassing “on behalf of a political party”, including in council elections. The hon. Member for Newbury might find it weird—as would I—that someone would want to live without canvassing for council candidates, but that is not much of a sacrifice for someone to make if they want to be the national regulator for English football.
The Liberal Democrats are always looking for an opportunity to bring things back to potentially rejoining the EU. No, I would not read the amendment as either an overt or a subtle message about a campaign to rejoin. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a non-British national might campaign in Europe for a candidate standing for the European Parliament, but I will not get distracted by all the possibilities. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. The point is that, while somebody is chair of this independent board, they should not campaign for political candidates or for someone to attain political office. I urge the Government to take the amendments on board. All they would do is further embed the idea of independence, which the Government say they support.
I know we know this, but the Select Committee is dominated by Labour MPs—I want to make that clear. I did not follow the process within it, but a Committee dominated by Labour MPs approved a Labour donor as the independent regulator.