Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank my Member of Parliament for giving way. She talks about strengthening the Bill even further, but does she acknowledge that the fans at Blundell Park would not blame a supposedly independent regulator, like Ofwat, Ofgem or whatever, but would blame the politicians, if the regulator made a decision about potential investment in the club that they did not like?
I recently had the opportunity to visit Echelford primary school in my constituency, where I saw an extraordinarily different approach to oracy from those I have seen in other schools. Will the schools Minister visit to see that for herself?
Bromley FC!
Given that the person who negotiated that rights deal is going to be the regulator, how confident is the hon. Member that they will change the process that he criticises?
Do you want to bet?
Not only has the Education Secretary introduced a Bill to this place that will destroy standards in English schools, but now she has broken her promises on national insurance contributions compensation and is leaving schools in an impossible funding situation. Every MP has heard from headteachers who are stressed beyond belief at how to manage their funding. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that worried headteachers up and down the country will not have to make teachers redundant because of her broken promises: yes or no?
Despite the Education Secretary’s best attempts to rewrite history, we Conservatives did not need a court to tell us that biological sex was real. She has on her desk the draft guidance for schools on gender questioning, and the final Cass report was published a year ago. If she is serious about protecting women and girls, why has she not published the guidance?
That draft guidance was produced a year and a half ago. The Education Secretary wants to talk about her record. Well, let me remind her that one of her first acts on coming into post was to pause implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which would have protected gender-critical voices. She is more concerned about listening to student union activists than to women. Will she apologise to the gender-critical women who were forced to spend eye-watering sums on legal fees to fight for their rights because of her actions?
Will the Minister provide assurances from the Dispatch Box as to how the Government will compel councils—like Bradford, which has refused to participate in this inquiry or in a local inquiry—to take part? It may seem self-evident, but councils that are liable for child protection and that are found at fault are probably not going to want to participate in a local inquiry. That is why we are asking for a national inquiry. Will the Minister please set out what the Government are going to do to compel those councils to give evidence so that justice can be served for the victims?
T7. National per pupil funding criteria are a blunt instrument for fairly funding schools in rural areas like mine on the Isle of Wight, which is also separated from the UK mainland by sea. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the Isle of Wight council to discuss how fairer funding for Isle of Wight primary schools can be provided so that no more of them close unnecessarily?
My hon. Friend is a football fan. Does he recall hearing any fan group saying, “What we really need is a Labour donor crony regulating the beautiful game”?
Has the hon. Lady not received a payment of £8,000 from the man whom her own Government want to install as an independent chair of an independent regulator? Does she not accept that that is a major compromise of the independence of that chosen nominee?
Will the hon. Member give way?
8. 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.
Headteachers are warning that the gap in funding to cover the Chancellor’s jobs tax is equivalent to losing more existing teachers than the Government are planning to recruit. I have heard that message loud and clear from headteachers on my recent school visits, and unfunded pay awards will just make this worse. Why is the Education Secretary not standing up for our schools?
During covid, non-league clubs took DCMS sport survival loans, but their repayment now threatens the viability of some. Will the Secretary of State assure fans that she will do all she can to assist them? As my local club, King’s Lynn Town, are in active discussions with Sport England about their loan, will she or the Sports Minister agree to meet me to discuss that?
I declare an interest as a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town. Other Members have referred to the success of the premier league and the fact that the EFL is one of the best attended in Europe. Football, we should take it as read, is a success story. I want to focus on the risks posed to the game by the Bill and regulation. Indeed, even the Government concede that the new regime and distribution provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented. The objectives of sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions, safeguarding heritage and strengthening engagement are supported by fans, but much of that is already happening under the existing rules of the FA, the Premier League and the EFL. My concern—the one I expressed in the previous Parliament when we debated a similar Bill—is that it will lead to overreach and over-regulation. We have heard bids already from across other parts of the House to load burdens on football, including protecting car parks. The Prime Minister has said on regulation: “the key test…Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to…unlock investment?” Yet he is creating a new regulator that will take £100 million out of the game, including for smaller clubs, and regulatory scope and costs will inexorably increase. The task of the regulator is already vast. It will have to approve business plans for 116 clubs as part of licensing. Applying such banking-style regulation to a sport is inappropriate. The provisions on revenues of course attract a lot of attention. Let us be clear here: the Government are taking powers through the backstop to mandate the division of commercial revenues. These are unprecedented powers that will cause significant regulatory and investment uncertainty. There is a voluntary agreement at the moment, which is essential to the health of the game and to get funds flowing through the pyramid. The backstop, which is meant to be a last resort, is now the frontstop. The EFL has been very clear that it is waiting for the provisions to come into force and it will not agree to anything until then. The Government have made the situation worse by including the parachute payments, which will prevent clubs that want to invest when they get promoted and take a risk so they can compete from doing so, which will weaken the competitiveness of the game. Then there is the untried binding final offer arbitration model. Rather than considering the proposals put forward by the Premier League and EFL to determine which is the best approach—it may be a compromise between the two—we have a Russian roulette approach where the regulator has to pick one or the other. Lord Birt put forward an amendment in the other place to introduce an approach based on commercial arbitration instead of that model, which incentivises gaming. The Secretary of State had some warm words for what Lord Birt had done in the other place. I would be grateful if the Minister, in winding up, can clarify whether the Government are still talking to Lord Birt and other legal experts in the other place, with the intention of changing the flawed backstop model. To conclude, the Bill would introduce unprecedented regulation of our national game. There are clear risks, through excessive regulation the Bill will introduce, to the very elements that make football the great success it is. That is why I will be opposing the Bill. The Government and the Prime Minister will be rightly held responsible if they get it wrong and undermine football.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the measures put forward by the Government. The changes are necessary to ensure that standards are upheld while allowing for streamlined updates to the process. The 2011 Act was a necessary step in providing a statutory footing for the regulator, following the recommendations of several separate reviews and reports that advocated that. It is important to ensure that the code corresponds with the reality experienced by forensic science providers, which means making alterations and recognising the need to support some of the changes outlined in the draft code. For example, the change highlighted by the Government—to avoid duplicating procedures relating to the quality-management systems operated by provider organisations—appears to be a proportionate and appropriate alteration. No longer requiring individual assessments or accreditation for each department is a step that should be widely supported. The changes in the draft code are significant, which is why it is important that the Government have listened to a range of stakeholders. There is no point in pretending that I or the Minister are well versed in the day-to-day experiences of forensic science providers. The long-running consultation launched by the previous Government, and subsequent targeted consultations, appear to have reflected the voices of those in the field. Moving forward, we must ensure that the regulatory burden is appropriately set. The enabling legislation is clear in its requirement that the regulator should keep the code under review. Will the Minister outline whether there have been discussions with the regulator about assessing the changes, including whether cost avoidance occurs in practice? Will she clarify whether she is confident that the transitional period up to 30 October will be sufficient to accommodate the changes for micro and small businesses? As I stated at the start of my speech, the Opposition welcome the measures.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are significant concerns in Whitehill and Bordon in my constituency about changes to healthcare provision and meeting the needs of the rapidly growing local population. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 28 January about this issue, specifically about the future of the Chase community hospital. I have sent follow-up emails, but—three months to the day later—I have still received no response to that letter. The refusal of the Secretary of State to engage with my constituents on this matter is concerning. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on securing a ministerial response to the proposals.
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), but each child with special educational needs in the East Riding receives £968, whereas in Camden the figure is £3,564. I am sure she agrees that a child in Camden does not have four times the need of a child in the East Riding. Will she undertake to ensure, as part of the review, that in principle we will have fairer funding for children throughout the country with educational needs related to, for instance, dyslexia or autism at the end of that process, as opposed to where we sit now?
The Secretary of State has been most generous in giving way. It is reported that Manchester United, Liverpool and others have advertised posts that exclude applications by white men. Will she say on the Floor of the House today that any such policy is illegal in that it infringes the Equality Act 2010, and will she give a clear message that any such policy must be reversed?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the new chairman of the Labour football regulator gave £5,000 to the hon. Gentleman who has just chortled from his seat, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), and another £70,000 to other Labour Members, and will be getting a return of £130,000 per year for a three-day week—half a million pounds of personal return on that £75,000 investment over this Parliament. If the Secretary of State was sitting on the Opposition Benches, she would be able to smell the hypocrisy and the stink of corruption. That is why we cannot accept this appointment: it does not ensure the independence that this position certainly requires.
This is not a Labour-leaning businessperson who is generally independent but decided to support Labour; this is someone who was a director of LabourList until just a few weeks ago. This is someone who is absolutely embedded in the Labour establishment, who funded Labour Members including the Chancellor, now being given this half-a-million-pound boondoggle for the next four or five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regulator clearly is not independent and that Labour needs to think again?
To be clear, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the regulator should intervene on the issue of gambling ads rather than this House taking responsibility for doing so? I worry about the regulator’s reach spreading and about it forcing small clubs to engage with their communities over ticket prices and so forth; if there has to be a regulator, we must keep it highly constrained.
10. 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.
Can the Minister solve this equation? VAT is pushing more students into the state sector and increases in national insurance are squeezing staff budgets, yet the Government say their ambition is to improve school standards and staff retention. How does that add up?
The Minister said in her opening answer that she is determined to get to the truth. She also listed people who could be caught up in cover-ups such as politicians, police and councillors. There are five potential inquiries and up to 50 child grooming gangs; how will it work if those councils do not have funding? More importantly, what if the councils do not want to take part? She said that she will do everything she possibly can. She could change the law—with backing from the Opposition—so that people are compelled to give evidence in such cases. Will she consider doing that?
rose—
One of the sticking points in the Bill, and one of the things that has changed, is the approach to parachute payments. One of the Opposition’s concerns is that the Bill will deter investment. We are talking about literally the best league in the world. People from across the world invest with security because of those payments. If the Government take them away, there is a worry that it will deter investment in other leagues. That is exactly what the German league, the French league and the Spanish league are looking for. Will she rectify the issue by putting a provision about those payments in the Bill?
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
There are not only political concerns about independence but concerns from the EFL about the regulator’s previous links with the Premier League. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when trying to make a digital decision when, for example, we come to the backstop and choosing one side over the other—the EFL or the Premier League—which is in effect what the legislation does, there would be a conflict of interest if the regulator had worked for the Premier League?
The English premier league is the best in the world. Any bar we go into across the world wants to show premier league football. There is a real danger of killing the golden goose if we try to pull that down. Also, the championship is the seventh most valuable league in Europe, and it is our second tier. I have a big worry here. We should look at the way England is playing, and at the way the clubs have come up. Leicester won the premier league in 2016, and the likes of Brighton and Brentford and Nottingham Forest are all flying up the leagues. The premier league is a competitive league, and that is what we want; we do not want to over-regulate it and kill both our national game and our international presence.
Does the Minister share my surprise at just how easy it is to get hold of one of these weapons? A few clicks will buy someone a Guillotine X+ compound crossbow for £324.91 plus £6.99 for delivery, or a Jaguar Deluxe for £129.95, with free delivery. These things are as deadly as shotguns, yet we do not license them as such. Will the Minister, in the plans that she has heralded, consider seriously going down the same route as other European countries and ensuring that these deadly weapons are properly controlled?
Before the Secretary of State goes any further in her speech, will she take the opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, whose work in government laid the foundations for what the Secretary of State is talking about now? Since independence should be at the heart of everything we do, will she also say that it would be a pity if this Bill were mired in another story about Labour cronyism?
I agree with the Minister that policy must be victim-centred and that we must put victims at the heart of everything we do. Could she provide more information on when we will know about the remaining four locations? What will she do to ensure that the councils that are reluctant to be part of this work are compelled to do so?
I start my comments by speaking not as the Chair of the Select Committee, but as a football fan—in particular, with apologies to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a Portsmouth FC fan. I understand very well what a football club means to a community, a local way of life and the fans, and what they will do to protect it. In the five years that followed Portsmouth’s fantastic FA cup victory in 2008, we really went through the wringer. The club boardroom seemed to have a revolving door. We had a succession of owners, each worse than the last. The club entered administration twice, and it had a 10-point deduction on two occasions. Pompey suffered three relegations in four seasons. I saw what that did to the city of my birth and to the fans, who feel as strongly about the club as I do. The club was pulled from the brink of oblivion by the largest fan-led buy-out in history—fans put their money where their mouth is. They had to, because the club was at risk of extinction. The Pompey Supporters Trust was formed. Some 2,300 Pompey fans invested their own money and became shareholders, raising around £2.5 million. Remarkably, under that fan-led ownership model, the Pompey Supporters Trust was able to declare the club debt-free in September 2014, just 18 months after taking over. Not all clubs are so lucky. Time and again we have heard in the Chamber stories of clubs falling into the hands of unscrupulous owners who have little regard or care for the club history, or what it means to the local community. They do not listen to the fans, who we all know are the blood that runs through the veins of our football clubs up and down the country. It was that, alongside the spectre of the European super league, that the previous Government had in mind when they commissioned the fan-led review, captained so brilliantly by my friend Dame Tracey Crouch. It was pivotal in the genesis of this Bill. I hope that this rebooted Bill will protect English football and keep clubs at the beating heart of their communities, just as much as its previous iteration did. Some of the Government’s changes to the legislation echo the previous Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendations. First, on enhanced fan engagement, we know that English football fans are some of the most passionate in the world. Their voices must be heard. For too long, fans have been left in the dark about decisions on ticket pricing, home shirt colour changes and home ground relocation. I welcome the Bill’s commitment on that. I also welcome the removal of the requirement for the regulator to consider Government foreign and trade policy when deciding whether to approve club takeovers. That should ensure the regulator’s operational independence from Government—a subject to which I will return. There has been controversy around aspects of the Bill, and particularly on the inclusion of parachute payments in the financial distribution mechanism, which has inevitably sparked hostility towards the Bill. However, in a room of 10 people there would be 10 different opinions on how the parachute payments should work. The legislation will never please everybody. Some people oppose the Bill entirely, and others have voiced dissent for myriad reasons; there is growing criticism of the Bill this time around. The sheer number of amendments tabled in the other place was a sign of that discontent. It will be crucial to ensure that the legislation is right, and we have only one chance to do so. I suggest we take a moment to remind ourselves of the findings of the fan-led review, and of why the idea of a regulator was conceived in the first place. It was conceived because self-regulation simply is not working, although it was given many chances over many years. The leagues have not been able to reach a deal on financial distribution themselves. We should not forget that, left to their own devices, six greedy clubs planned to break away to form the European super league, risking English football itself.
The hon. Lady is right. English football thrives because the ecosystem runs from the grassroots to the top of the elite. Our job is to ensure that it continues to thrive, and that every aspect of that ecosystem is protected and supported. Some irresponsible club owners continue to play fast and loose with club finances and assets. Far too many clubs have been on the brink of collapse, and that is why the regulator must have a role in protecting English football. However, the regulator will need to bring together all voices in that complex ecosystem for it to work properly. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, is looking forward to our pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, the preferred candidate, next week. It has been a long journey to get here, as I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates, having scheduled and then postponed hearings more than once, as Ministers have struggled to pick a candidate. The chair of the football regulator will be utterly critical to ensuring that the regulator performs its role well. They will steer the ship. They will set the temperature for football, going forward. They will have to come in on the front foot and broker strong relationships with stakeholders across football to get full buy-in. I have already spoken about some of the nay-sayers and detractors. The chair will need to build faith and demonstrate a good understanding of the dynamic football ecosystem to have the clout that they will need. However, they need to ensure they do not come with a load of industry baggage. It is a really difficult position to be in. At the same time, to be effective, they must demonstrate regulatory experience. Ultimately, the chair will have to demonstrate that they can be objective, fair and, crucially, independent of Government, the leagues and individual football clubs. It is a very difficult job to recruit for. Indeed, UEFA has raised concerns and threatened sanctions over the prospect of Government interference. That is why I am surprised that the Government have proposed a candidate who is so close to the Labour party, and who has donated money to the Chancellor and others. It raises concerns about whether the regulator can truly be seen as independent, given their close ties to members of the Government. I expect that the Committee will want to explore that in detail when we hear from Mr Kogan next week. He will need to demonstrate that he intends the regulator to be operationally 100% independent from political interference. I struggle to see how that will happen, but my mind is open, because the Select Committee’s job is to hold a pre-appointment hearing with this potential regulator. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the former chair of the BBC, clearly a talented, capable and very smart man, was undone by the impression that he gave of lacking independence from Government. Like the BBC, very many people out there are willing this body to fail, and I do not want to see that happen. The worst-case scenario for everybody is if the regulator is undermined in its infancy. Even before the chair is in place, there have been some concerning signs about the Government’s approach to the independent football regulator. We know that many clubs in the premier league in particular have expressed misgivings and in some cases very strong opposition to the regulator. Despite what the Secretary of State has said—she has spoken very strongly on this—there are some lingering doubts. The whole process has been plagued by leaks and delays. Members have seen and heard the rumours that the regulator was poised to be thrown out on to the latest bonfire of quangos even before it had started. When discussing the so-called blockers, it seems telling that the Government chose to single out the Gardens Trust, Sport England and the Theatres Trust, which will no longer be consulted over planning. When considering AI and copyright, the Government seem to be siding with big tech over creative industries. Members will forgive me for beginning to feel like the sectors we represent on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are not valued by the Secretary of State’s Department. I look forward to hearing next week from the proposed regulator and to seeing the Bill progress through the House. I think the Bill can improve the resilience of clubs and encourage sensible financial decisions. I would like clarity on how the regulator will operate alongside the cost control measures that it will have no oversight of, such as premier league profit and sustainability rules, which we have recently seen clubs such as Chelsea manipulate to their own advantage and which will arguably undermine the regulator. I would be grateful if the Minister came back to me on that. I also want cast-iron assurances that the Bill will prevent the sort of painful, appalling situation that has been experienced by Reading FC with its owner, Dai Yongge. Otherwise, we will all be wasting our time. It is imperative that this Bill safeguards English football, which is central to our communities and to the national fabric of our country. Football is a unifier: it brings people together for the love of the game, from the grassroots to the top of the elite clubs, and it is the envy of the world. All the other countries in the world would love to have our football leagues. We must secure its future for generations to come.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the child rape gangs scandal.
The whole nation is shocked by the rape gangs scandal. Thousands of young teenage girls were systematically raped over years by men of predominantly Pakistani heritage—girls such as Jane, who was repeatedly gang raped at the age of just 12. The police found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting the illegal immigrant, they arrested her. That is sick. The last Government took action by setting up the wider Jay inquiry and the grooming gangs taskforce, but the truth is that that is not enough. There is now clear evidence that those in authority covered up these rapes because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani heritage. Last week, I met retired Detective Chief Inspector John Piekos. In Bradford, he witnessed the abuse of a young girl in a car, but he was then instructed by a chief superintendent to drop the matter in order to avoid antagonising Bradford’s Muslim community. Covering up the rape of young girls for that reason is one of the most immoral things I have ever heard, yet not a single person—not one—has ever been held to account for these cover-ups. That is why we need a national statutory public inquiry that can compel the production of evidence. Even last year, authorities in Manchester were still covering up, leading the chairs of the local Manchester inquiry to resign. Five local inquiries, which cannot compel the production of evidence, just will not do. Fifty towns were affected, not five. Bradford, where some of the worst abuse occurred, is refusing to co-operate with any inquiry at all. There has never been an inquiry in Bradford, because the council is refusing to participate. The Home Secretary promised on 16 January that Baroness Casey would complete a rapid audit within three months. Three months have now passed and we have heard nothing whatsoever. The Government said there would be five local inquiries, but we know nothing about four of them. The man charged with setting them up, Tom Crowther, told the Home Affairs Committee on 1 April that he had been sidelined by the Minister over there, and “did not know” what was going on. Finally, I recently met Marlon West, whose daughter was trafficked, abused and raped by mainly Asian men, including in Bradford. He said that this Government should be ashamed of themselves, and they should hold a national inquiry. Jane, who was trafficked and gang raped at 12, also wants a statutory national inquiry. Labour Mayor Andy Burnham, Harriet Harman and the Labour MP for Rotherham—the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—all agree. So will the Minister do what they, and Marlon and Jane, are all begging for, and hold a national inquiry so that those who covered up this scandal are at last held to account?
When?