Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new freedom of speech provisions will ensure that, if any member of a university’s staff gives the same definition of a woman as the Prime Minister did in his most recent iteration of it, they will not be no-platformed or driven out of their job?
My constituents are horrified by the Government’s failure to order a national inquiry into the child rape gang scandal. Does the Minister share the concerns raised by Sir Trevor Phillips that the decisions made by the Government appear to be obviously political and designed to avoid offending Muslim voters of Pakistani origin?
Football is not just an important cultural institution in Britain, but one of our great successes and our most successful export. I accept that the Government have only the best of intentions in wanting to set up an independent regulator and I am sure Labour Members genuinely believe this Bill will achieve good things, but I fear they are mistaken. I fear that the regulator will hinder growth in a sector that should be powering our economy forward instead of being held back by red tape and political interference. The Prime Minister says he wants to reduce the number of quangos yet has set up 41 new ones in his first eight months in office. That is because this Government’s first instinct is always to regulate first and ask questions later. How long will it be until an independent cricket regulator is proposed, and perhaps rugby after that—we could have two, one for union and the other for league? I believe we should make a different choice: we should accept that the state already does too many things in our country and does many of those things not very well. I believe that we should limit the role of the state to a smaller number of areas and demand that it performs those roles better. This Bill threatens the future health of English football. Labour’s changes to the remit of the regulator will impose a significant regulatory burden, which will be felt particularly harshly by lower league clubs. The ultimate cost will be borne by the fans. Ticket prices, already rising on average by 7% this season, will rise further. Compliance costs for clubs are estimated at £35 million; that is money that could be spent on football instead of compliance. Is that really a good use of money? The operational costs of the regulator are estimated to be £97.9 million, all funded through a new levy. Small clubs will struggle under the burden. What the Government are saying is that they want to take £130 million out of the game and spend it on administration. That means that the cost of Labour will yet again be felt by working people, despite what the Government claim. I am fully aware that it was a Conservative Government who launched the fan-led review into football governance chaired by Dame Tracey Crouch. That review made targeted recommendations for an independent regulator, focused solely on financial stability and protecting club heritage. The previous Football Governance Bill, introduced last year, tried to strike that careful balance. While I would have had questions about that Bill, I have even more significant concerns about this one. That is because Labour’s version is a different beast. It has expanded the regulator’s remit to cover parachute payments, solidarity payments, fan engagement mandates, new spending controls, and unnecessary diversity, equality and inclusion reporting. This Bill will take £130 million out of football and spend it on administration. It will expand the role of the state into a sector that is commercially successful and where that intervention is unnecessary. It is more Government at a time when we need less, and that is why I shall oppose this Bill tonight.
In February, a brave group of victims and a leading child abuse lawyer wrote to the Home Secretary warning her that the rape gangs scandal across the Bradford district is likely to be one of the most significant of its kind in the UK, and that leaders in Bradford are deliberately seeking to avoid the commissioning of an in-depth inquiry for fear of unearthing a significant problem. The letter, which still sits with the Home Secretary, outlines the dreadful deadlock that we are in across the Bradford district, where there is overwhelming victim-led support for a full inquiry, but a council unwilling to commission one. Does the Minister believe that victims and families across Keighley and the wider Bradford district deserve a full rape gangs inquiry, and if not, why not? If she believes they do deserve an inquiry, what powers will she use to overrule Bradford council if it continues to ignore victims’ wishes?
What assurances can the Minister provide to concerned adoptive parents in my constituency who benefited from the match funding element of the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and whose funding could be cut from £10,000 to £3,000? Will she consider reintroducing this vital element of the ASGSF?
Bromley council has the second highest rate of education, health and care plans in London, and is in desperate need of extra special school provision. The council is looking to bring forward a 200-space special school but has met with a lack of innovation at the Education and Skills Funding Agency. Will the Minister meet me and local officials to discuss how we can break those bureaucratic blockers and deliver this provision?
As has been mentioned, only one Football League club is represented by a Conservative MP, and that is the mighty Bromley football club. My efforts to bring about a chant of “You’ve got the only Tory” across opposition stands in league two are ongoing, and I will keep the House informed of how well they proceed. Hayes Lane, the club’s ground since 1938, stands proudly in my constituency. Bromley FC is a football fan’s dream. We have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Earning promotion to the conference south league in 2006, the club was crowned champion eight years later. We climbed the national league, reaching the FA trophy final in 2018 and earning promotion in 2021, but our rise did not stop there. Bromley faced Ryan Reynolds’s Wrexham at Wembley for a second shot at the FA trophy in 2022. It was an amazing day, and one that I remember well. While we may not have had “Deadpool”, we did have Michael Cheek—Cheeky, the Maradona of Bromley—who secured the silverware with the game’s only goal. I love Michael Cheek, and I congratulate him on being named league two player of the year last night; it is well deserved. Last year, a moment 132 years in the making arrived as Bromley was promoted to the English football league for the first time in its history. Why is this story relevant? Bromley’s football dream was realised thanks to sound management, private investment and raw talent, not a state regulator, and I congratulate Robin Stanton-Gleaves, Mark Hammond— Hammo—and Andy “Woody” Woodman on all that they have done for the club. As a Ravens fan, when I look at Labour’s supposedly independent football regulator, I have to ask whether it would help Bromley FC or aspiring clubs like it, and in its current state, the answer is a resounding no. When the Bill was first proposed, it was proposed with the right intentions. It would protect cherished community clubs from bad owners, and would prevent a breakaway European super league. However, Labour’s regulator is morphing into a meddling, costly political deadweight for English football, because the regulator will be neither independent nor impartial. This is cronyism at its worst.
What fans tell me is that they want the money to move more freely through the sport. I shall say more about that in a moment. The cronyism is what we are concerned about. With political leadership, the risk of mission creep is greater. More state intervention would threaten English football’s independence, and UEFA warns that without independence, English clubs could not compete in European leagues. The Government know that their Bill could torpedo English football, and I wonder whether that is why Ministers refuse to publish UEFA’s letter about it. The regulator will also cost clubs a small fortune. The levy to pay for the new bureaucracy will cost them nearly £100 million, and the regulatory burden will cost them nearly £35 million more, hurting the smallest clubs, such as Bromley, that do not have the staff to handle yet more red tape. For clubs it means higher taxes, more paperwork, and staff working on state demands, rather than football. For fans it will inevitably mean higher ticket prices, especially in view of the new jobs tax that Labour has instigated, and employment red tape. We should be focusing on getting money to the league clubs, not tying their hands with bureaucracy. That is what the clubs need. Football is about risks and aspirations. Teams win or lose, are promoted or relegated. This is not banking; it is football. While I recognise that smaller clubs need support, a partisan regulator is not the answer. English football’s independence is worth protecting.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
My right hon. Friend is making the key point. With the Secretary of State’s choice of chair, it is no longer an independent regulator. If a Conservative party donor was being presented by a Conservative Secretary of State, does my right hon. Friend think that the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), as shadow Secretary of State, would support that stance? Is it not one rule for her and one rule for everyone else?
I declare my interest as an Aston Villa season ticket holder and therefore speak as somebody experienced in the highs and lows of football. I refer not to the FA cup semi-final on Saturday but to the moment in 2018 when Villa almost went bust under Dr Tony Xia. To own a football club is to respect one’s responsibility as a custodian of an important community institution. That is something, despite some of the speeches we have heard, that most owners respect. We cannot debate the Bill without acknowledging the extraordinary success of English football, because the premier league is the greatest show on earth. It is broadcast to 189 different countries, and nearly 2 billion people follow the league weekly. The revenues that football accrues are invested not only in top talent but through the divisions and in grassroots facilities overseen by the excellent Football Foundation. The New Croft in my constituency, for example, is home to Haverhill Rovers, who just became champions of the Thurlow Nunn league first division north, and incredible all-weather pitches that host more than 50 teams of different ages and abilities. What is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix? The Government say that the new regulator will protect and promote the sustainability of English football. The examples given to justify regulation are Bury and Macclesfield Town among others, but the experience of those clubs shows the power of community and supporter activism. Bury was rescued by a supporters’ group, and Macclesfield by a local businessman. Both are going concerns today.
Of course, I agree that Bury was a very sad incident. The right hon. Lady mentioned 60 clubs, I think, that had gone into administration. My point is that I am not aware that any of them collapsed to the extent that they are not going concerns or not participating in league or non-league football. We know from the examples of Bury, Macclesfield and AFC Wimbledon that it is possible for clubs to come back. Supporter activism is not the only solution.
I will happily give way to the hon. Member. Perhaps he can name one club of the 60 who are no longer live, and no longer participating in competitive sport.
What the hon. Gentleman just said about Bury football club is rather insulting to the fans who have kept it going. Of course it is a football club. Supporter activism is not the only solution when finances go wrong. When Villa were in trouble, we were quickly bought out by new owners. Such is the draw of English football that new owners are almost always ready to step in and invest. Even Birmingham City managed to find new owners two years ago. We are told that we need a regulator to stop travesties such as the European super league, but again that is wrong. Those English clubs that were tempted by the super league backed off as soon as supporters made their views plain. The real motivation for the super league was European envy of the premier league, but we risk the strength of that league with this proposal. We are also told that we need a regulator because football finances are unsustainable. Everyone knows of the issues caused by the leveraged buy-out of Manchester United by the Glazer family. There is action that the sport can take to prevent such cases, but debt itself is not necessarily a problem. Spurs have borrowed to invest in their new stadium, for example, and many owners are willing to invest more in their teams but have been blocked by financial fair play rules. Those rules demonstrate why regulating football in this way is such a risk. They have protected the most established clubs from challenge, prevented teams from building on their success through investment, and caused all sorts of perverse decision making. Premier league teams are selling promising young players because they represent pure profit in the financial fair play system. Players are signed on long-term contracts to amortise the cost. Some clubs have sold their grounds to comply with the regulations. Chelsea sold their women’s team to a company belonging to their owners for an inflated sum of £200 million, just to get around the rules. It is not difficult to see how a football regulator would lead to similar perverse outcomes and a loss in the competitiveness of English teams. Just today, we have heard calls from parliamentarians to extend the role of the regulator. We can imagine interventions on ticket prices, kit sales and carbon footprints, and perhaps quotas for English players, wage equality between men’s and women’s teams, the distribution of revenues, restrictions on heading the ball, and diversity mandates for youth schemes and the appointment of coaches. I heard something said about human rights checks. Football does not need this regulator. The vast revenues of the premier league and their distribution, and the extraordinary continuity of almost every professional club in the country, show that the sport is balancing commerce and community well. Our clubs are performing in a tough international market and the most competitive of leagues and cups, and they are surviving and thriving as vital community institutions. When it is not even clear what the problem is that we are trying to fix, why would we risk something that is so cherished by so many?
Having told this House in answer to an urgent question from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that the adoption and special guardianship support fund would continue, Ministers somehow did not manage to mention that the funding per child would be cut by 40%. They then slipped that out during recess. Meanwhile, Ministers will spend £90 million on advertising. Can they at least agree to publish the impact assessment on cutting what is available from this fund?
When will the Government publish the impact assessment?
The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity around the future of the apprenticeship levy is creating uncertainty among businesses, and is “worrying and destabilising”. Employers in universities are worried about plans to cut higher apprenticeships, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that plans to axe level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK altogether. Will Ministers agree to the proposal from the Campaign for Learning for a skills immigration worker test to be carried out before any cuts are made to level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not go from simply investing in British workers to just importing workers from other countries?
At the start of January, the Secretary of State said that she needed more time to consider the overseas funding transparency measures in our freedom of speech legislation. It is now nearly May. In the meantime, there have been several concerning the reports in the press about UK universities working with Chinese institutions that are designated as high risk and have ties to their defence and security apparatus. This legislation was passed in 2023. When will the Secretary of State reach a decision?
The Government are blocking a national inquiry into the rape gangs and say instead that we should have five local inquiries, but we know there have been 50 places where these things have happened. In some of those places, such as Bradford, the council is blocking a local inquiry. We also know that local authorities often do not have the powers they need to requisition evidence and summon witnesses. Indeed, this whole story began when representatives of Oldham council wrote to the Minister after the election asking for the national powers that the council needed. Why did the Minister refuse to meet them?
No, it had not.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not correct that Oldham council had written to the last Government. An individual councillor had, but Oldham council had not. That is the whole point.
Order. With just shy of 50 Members wishing to contribute, the only way that I can guarantee the maximum number of contributions is by having a speaking limit of five minutes to begin with.
Order. Before the hon. Member for Cheadle responds, let me say that if interventions are long, even fewer colleagues will be able to get in. Interventions should be short. They should not be speeches.
I call Luke Murphy. Is it your birthday?
Happy birthday!
Lengthy interventions are eating into time, so the time limit is now four minutes.
Order.
5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of increased school costs on the adequacy of school funding for 2025-26.
Many heads, teachers and support staff who are worried about school budgets have been in touch with me. I recently had a letter, which was sent to the Secretary of State, from a therapist in a school, saying: “I have recently been informed that I am being made redundant. Most of the schools in the trust are making cuts in order to stay afloat. Staff that are being cut or having hours reduced are teaching assistants, social, emotional and mental health staff and other support staff.” How would the Minister answer the question posed by my constituent who is being made redundant, who asks: “Why have Labour voted for unfunded pay rises and National Insurance Tax increases if they cannot support schools with the cost” of these proposals?
I am sure the Minister shares my concern that, to date, no one has been convicted of covering up these horrendous crimes, including sexual abuse and gang rape. What is the plan to ensure that people are held to account, because it is quite clear, as the Minister said in her earlier remarks, that the cover-ups perpetuated the crimes, not just historically but potentially continuing to this very day?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, about which I have given Mr Speaker prior notice. All of us in this House know that Mr Speaker has a deep personal commitment to the safety of Members of Parliament and their families. In that context, a video has emerged this weekend of a concert held in London some months ago, at which an Irish republican band, called Kneecap, told a cheering audience that, “The only good Tory is a dead Tory”. The band then implored the audience to, “Kill your local MP”. I am not a lawyer, but to my mind that is incitement to murder. Quite rightly, counter-terrorism police are now investigating. This is beyond despicable and the issue affects all parties. I say that as I look across the Chamber at the plaque for our fallen comrade, Sir David Amess, and at the one behind me for our fallen comrade, Jo Cox. They both died serving their constituents. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask Mr Speaker three things? First, will the Home Secretary come to this House by no later than tomorrow and make a full statement on what the Government understand has happened here and exactly what they intend to do about it to protect all those in public life, not just MPs and their families? Secondly, will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who I see is in her place—I did notify her of my point of order—give a public explanation, ideally via a statement, of how it came to pass that this band were given some £14,000 of British taxpayers’ money in a grant?
We do not normally heckle points of order, but, if the right hon. Lady is going to do that, I will say that our party’s leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), refused the grant. The band appealed, and this Government did not oppose the appeal. Those are the facts. Will the right hon. Lady please explain to us exactly how that happened and how we can get the money back? I did not want to make this issue partisan, but she interrupted me. Thirdly, I understand that Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury, which, under the circumstances, would be unconscionable. As Mr Speaker is chairing a Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ safety, can we implore him through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to write to the organisers of Glastonbury festival and say that this House does not think it is appropriate that Kneecap should be allowed to appear, at least until the investigation is completed? I ask this on behalf of all MPs and all our families. I hope that that is not unreasonable.
14. What estimate she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the number of teachers employed in schools.
I have been contacted by schools in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency that are outraged that Labour’s tax rises are forcing them to cut resources and staff while the Government demand that teachers do more. One teacher told me that, as a proud trade unionist, she had always voted Labour, but feels completely betrayed. She says: “Labour have made the situation in schools 10x worse letting students and teachers down”. She is right, is she not? Labour has betrayed teachers, students and schools.
Quite simply, because it is no longer independent.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I put on record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and everyone who has engaged with the process outside the Chamber. Like in politics, in football there is always a risk of scoring an own goal, and the Government have just done that with this Bill. It is plain common sense that a Labour donor and a key crony cannot lead an independent football regulator. It is yet another spectacular own goal by this Labour Government—so bad that one has to question whether match fixing is in play. Is that highly controversial appointment the reason that it has taken so long for Labour to bring the Bill back to this place? For months, this Labour Government have held the ball in the corner, counting down the clock as the Prime Minister enjoys his free prawn sandwiches in a suit paid for by Lord Alli in his free box at Arsenal. So delayed is the Bill that Liverpool have already won the premier league, Leeds and Burnley have already been promoted to the premier league, the Toon Army have ended their long wait for a trophy, Birmingham and Wrexham have been promoted to the championship and a Labour MP has been sent off for punching a constituent in the street. Introducing the Bill in the other place was an attempt to avoid the issue here for as long as possible, and the question that fans across the country will want an answer on is why? Was it because of Labour Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or because they would not know a football if it hit them in the face? We Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game. The review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association. Having spoken to a great many football fans across the country and in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football. As we have heard, the Government are putting our football clubs’ participation in UEFA-licensed competitions at risk. Does the Minister recognise that one particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football? Those are not my words but those of UEFA. Reports also suggest that UEFA has made it clear that it has specific rules to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition, the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding any federation from UEFA and teams from competition. Are the Labour Government prepared to be the reason that English football clubs risk being banned from the champions league, the UEFA league, the conference league, the super cup or—even worse—national competitions? Moreover, UEFA, like the Conservative party, reportedly has concerns about scope creep from the Government’s regulator. Our Bill intended that the regulator would oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and help protect fans and heritage assets. However, this new Bill makes it more likely that, once established, the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond those areas and amount to Government interference. If Labour has nothing to hide, it should publish the letters. There are already obvious ways in which the Government’s regulator will increase its own scope. The Minister in the other place was unable to provide a clear answer to questions asked on the following two matters. First, on a concern raised with me by serious and senior football people, where does the Government’s new Bill leave Newcastle United’s Saudi majority owners in relation to the regulator’s powers to investigate club owners? Are the Government saying to all those Newcastle fans who have seen cup glory for the first time in a generation that that will have to stop? Where will the Labour Government’s interference end? Labour and Liberal Democrat peers have voted down Conservative protections for such investment, risking the withdrawal of billions of pounds in investment from clubs. Fans will have heard the comments today from MPs about scope creep in the ownership test. Could the Minister also clarify where this will leave clubs that are involved in multi-club models? For example, Manchester City head a worldwide group of partner clubs, and in 2023 Chelsea acquired a majority stake in the French ligue 1 club Strasbourg. How will the regulator assess these clubs? Will they assess the whole ownership group, in which case they suddenly become an international football regulator, or will they assess only clubs in England, in which case the super-wealthy clubs will simply hide losses in other jurisdictions, as other Members have pointed out. This could directly impact the flourishing women’s game, given the multi-club model in English football. The own goal is already so much bigger than this place and politics. We on this side of the pitch understand football and we know why the independence of a football regulator is so important. The Labour Government do not. Apart from their donor, this Government already have 38 civil servants working on their regulator, making it clear that there is already political and Government interference in the function of football. This legislation and the Government’s action in proposing their own donor, David Kogan, as the chair explicitly and deliberately compromise the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England. It is also clear that this compromises the competitiveness of English football in its purest form: using your jumpers for goalposts in the local park and standing on the terraces with family and friends to support your local club. We cannot lose sight of the business side of professional football and the delicate international ecosystem that sees fans from around the world enjoying English football. For example, only a handful of owners in the premier league are actually English these days. This country is a football global powerhouse, and every single one of us benefits, with billions of pounds for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country and tens of thousands of jobs. A phenomenal export, our beautiful game is watched across the world, with the premier league a true British success story that attracts the most fans and the best players and managers. The EFL and the national league are also fantastic competitions enjoyed by many across the country. Football clubs up and down the pyramid are at the heart of our communities and are a force in many people’s lives, so much so that they even have the ability to split family loyalties. That is the case in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency, where historically you tend to be either a Millwall or a Charlton supporter. But as any football fan will know, competition across the world is rising fast, not just across Europe but in America, the far east and, of course, the new Saudi league, all of whom want a slice of the premier league’s success. Let’s be honest today: if this Labour regulator had been created many years ago, the premier league and all the benefits that Labour talks about would not exist. Let’s be honest with the fans about that. I understand that the premier league is the first and only domestic competition in the United Kingdom where the international media rights strip out those of the domestic rights deals, and the Government are hitting it hard. As we have heard, the premier league alone will be hit across the course of this Parliament by £250 million of costs by this Labour Government’s Budget of broken promises. All clubs will see their costs increase, first from the Chancellor’s tax rises and secondly from the ever-increasing amount of red tape introduced by this Government and exemplified by this Bill. Football might have changed over the years, but the Labour party has not. A Bill touted as reducing costs for fans does nothing of the sort. In fact, plain as day, it will increase the costs for every fan across the country. The Government can stand at the Dispatch Box today but they know full well that this regulator will increase the cost on fans, so much so that Labour peers voted against an amendment that would have disclosed the true cost of this regulator on football ticket prices. What are the Government trying to hide? I ask the Minister: why is she blocking transparency over ticket prices? Not one Labour MP has been able to say how their regulator will reduce ticket prices for fans across this country. I will conclude, as I am conscious of time and want to give the Minister a chance to speak. This shameful Labour Government have once again put their party first—cronies over clubs, favours over fans, greed over the beautiful game. It seems that the Government have taken inspiration from John Barnes and taken his lyrics too literally when he sung, “They’ll always hit you and hurt you”. I am sure he did not mean that the Government should hit fans with increased ticket prices and hurt English football. The Conservative party is under new leadership and will not shy away from telling the fans the truth. Labour has shamefully cut grassroots sport funding across the country, including the Lionesses fund, and its regulator will mean even higher ticket prices for fans at every level of the game. As every Conservative knows, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” We are calling full time on Labour’s shameless power grab over English football, which will certainly see them relegated in the minds of voters and put English football at major risk internationally.
The Secretary of State talks about a light touch and proportionality. The general secretary of UEFA wrote to her about the potential consequences of her proposals before Christmas. That letter is relevant to the decisions we have to make today, so will she publish a copy for the House before we vote this evening?
rose—
Everybody will have found the reports about this incident, which was of great severity, deeply concerning. I would like to express my deepest sympathies to those who were injured during this horrendous attack. Our thoughts are with them at this time. I also thank the public, the police and the emergency services more broadly for their response to the incident. There are two aspects that I would like to touch on with the Minister. West Yorkshire police has said that counter-terrorism police are involved in responding to the incident. We have heard from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation about the importance of not allowing an information vacuum to form. Will the Minister ensure that there is as much transparency as possible in the release of information about this case? Secondly, I am aware that in the aftermath of the incident, although the police are not seeking anyone else in connection with it, there will be an increased police presence across Headingley and the broader city of Leeds in the coming days and weeks. Given that this horrific attack was on two young women, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether there have been any discussions about what that presence will entail and what measures are being taken, in particular to ensure that young women and girls feel safe in Leeds following this incident.