Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

If the hon. Gentleman forgives me, I will make some progress. I think over 50 Members want to speak in this debate, and I want to give them an opportunity to contribute.

We are determined to ensure, through this Bill, that those protections are in place. Clubs will be required to establish that a majority of fans are supportive of changes to club emblems and home shirt colours, and obtain FA approval of any change to a club’s name. For the first time ever, this will set a minimum standard of fan engagement in law. It will introduce financial regulation giving the regulator the power to oversee financial plans and step in where it has concerns. Many clubs are already delivering with and for their fans, but this should be a right of all fans, not just some. This Labour Government are delivering strong and sensible measures that respect the contribution of working people to this country, and our message is clear: if they value it, we will protect it, by putting fans at the heart of the game, where they belong.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

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?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am not aware of that—genuinely, this is the first I have heard of it—but I am happy to look into it and come back to the right hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I will absolutely come on to that point. When the regulator is being set up and you look for people, you cast the net wide. Of course you do. You want to know who is interested and you want the best candidates. But I tell you something: if any donor of any political party had been put forward and recommended to me, I would have said no. That is the difference. The right hon. Lady said yes to a Labour crony. I would have said no.

I confess that when preparing and drafting our version of the Bill, I went through a whole host of conflicts in my mind—what to include, what not to include—but after months and months of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, from fans and fan groups, the FA, the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, UEFA, FIFA and many, many roundtables with MPs from across the political divide, the Bill that we presented was, I believe, measured and proportionate, tightly scoped to ensure the financial stability of football clubs, the sustainability of the leagues and fans given a say over their clubs’ heritage. Two things stood out most to me throughout all my engagement: first, the consistent call for it not to be overburdensome and costly, particularly for lower clubs; secondly, that it must be independent, like all sports.

[Graham Stuart]

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.

[Stuart Andrew]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. This is not—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Labour Members are saying, “You shortlisted them.” Let me assure this House: I most certainly did not shortlist this gentleman. Even if he was presented to me, there is no way I would have appointed him, for precisely the reasons my right hon. Friend has set out.

Labour’s expanded remit for the IFR significantly increases the regulatory burden on clubs. Make no mistake: it will be the smallest clubs—the beating hearts of their communities—that will be hit the hardest. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the cost of compliance could reach a staggering £47.3 million, and make no mistake: that will push ticket prices up.

[Stuart Andrew]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is actually going to be adding cost to those clubs. I have just mentioned the £47.3 million, but with the football regulator’s remit now considerably expanded, operational costs could rise to £150 million, which clubs like his will have to fund through the levy.

Baroness Brady, someone with deep knowledge of the football industry as vice-chairman—[Laughter.] Labour Members mock, but the Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), had to retract similar comments, which she did graciously, I have to say. Baroness Brady has raised serious and well-founded concerns about these costs and the disproportionate impact they will have on clubs, as all this comes against the backdrop of Labour’s wider economic mismanagement, which is already undermining the financial stability of our football clubs. Labour’s new national insurance job tax will hit clubs’ finances hard, with the Premier League saying it will amount to £50 million a year and £250 million over the life of this Parliament, compounding the pressures of increased regulation.

At the same time, football stadiums are facing higher business rates under Labour’s watch. To give a few examples, Wembley stadium is set to pay £829,000 more, while the Etihad stadium will see a rise of £564,000. These are not abstract figures; these are real costs that will trickle down to fans through higher ticket prices, reduced investment on or off the pitch, or even clubs having to close.

Against this backdrop, we now have very real concerns about the impact of these changes on smaller clubs. Indeed, Mark Ives, the former general manager of the National League, highlighted the financial strain that increased regulation will place on lower league clubs, calling it, quite rightly, “a huge concern.”

However, and most egregiously of all, the Government have fatally undermined the IFR’s independence. The fan-led review into football governance was unequivocal that a credible regulator must be fully independent, free from political influence, and certainly free from Government interference. It stated clearly:

“Independence means operations and decision making are independent from the government”.

That is a critical element for me personally. That point was made over and over again in almost every discussion I had, and quite right too.

[Graham Stuart]

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?

[Stuart Andrew]

It feels like my right hon. Friend has already read my speech, because those are the points that I want to make. When I had those extensive meetings, that question of independence was absolutely raised time and again by fans who were worried that they did not want party politics or Government interference in the game they love, by clubs and leagues, who time and again wanted reassurances that a regulator would be truly independent, and by UEFA and FIFA in particular, who have strong statutes about political and Government interference in football, as indeed most international sports governing bodies do. I pledged and promised to all of them that independence meant just that. I fully understood the possible consequences if the regulator were seen as anything other than independent. That is why independence matters, and why I always held it dear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

Well, that person will be working within the boundaries of the regulator, and he is obviously very good at striking deals, is he not? If the hon. Gentleman’s contention is that he did a good job in his old job, we can be confident that he will do a good job in his new role.

The Liberal Democrats think that the redistributive mechanisms ought to go even further to promote financial sustainability, including by taking account of the restricted resources in the fifth tier, and redistribution beyond that level to cover more grassroots clubs in the national leagues north and south and beyond. Then, there is social responsibility. Football clubs are not just businesses; they are also civic institutions. They are often the most visible and well-loved organisations in any community.

Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords pushed for clubs to be mandated to report on their community work, so I welcome the new clause requiring clubs to do so. In my constituency, the Cheltenham Town Community Trust delivered £5.4 million-worth of social value work with young people and older people, and to reduce antisocial behaviour, in its last reporting year. What gets measured gets done. Clubs want to continue doing such work, but they cannot keep doing it if they cannot afford to because the Premier League is hoarding all the money. We need to go further to support clubs in that, particularly by providing help for smaller clubs that may struggle to fulfil reporting requirements. I agree with the Members who have made similar comments.

We believe that the Bill must go further on problem gambling. Nearly 30,000 gambling messages were posted across the premier league’s opening weekend this season. That represents a tripling of ads compared with the almost 11,000 recorded over the opening weekend of the season before. Such ads are normalising a dangerous relationship between football and gambling that is destroying lives. Football should not be a gateway drug to problem gambling. It cannot be right that, whether watching on television or in the stands, we are bombarded with gambling adverts to the extent that the enjoyment of the game is now, for so many people, culturally intertwined with placing bets. It cannot be right that broadcasters can launch their own gambling platforms, and use advert breaks to promote those platforms, using the pundits who describe the games as mouthpieces for gambling. That merger of journalism and advertising should give us all pause for thought.

[Graham Stuart]

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.

[Max Wilkinson]

The football regulator would have a wider role than currently envisaged in the Bill if the Liberal Democrats were in charge.

When the Lords tried to tackle the proliferation of gambling ads, the Government committed a professional foul. As the Bill makes its way through this House, we hope that MPs will show gambling companies a yellow card—yellow cards on this matter are very Liberal—not a red card; we do not propose the banning of gambling, shadow Ministers will be pleased to hear.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We can see from the attendance on one side of the Chamber how important charities are to Opposition parties of all sorts. We are united in opposing the change, not least because those who are the most vulnerable, such as users of Citizens Advice, are likely to see services cut. There is an £88,000 impact just on the Citizens Advice service in Hull and East Riding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to go back to her colleagues and change direction? No one voted for a Labour Government to attack charities and the most vulnerable.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Minister needs to go back and do that. That is why I secured the debate.

The chief executive of Crisis said:

“Increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions will have a dreadful impact on charities at a time when we are seeing unprecedented demand for our services.”

Some 75% of charities are reducing or considering withdrawing from public service delivery. Who will pick up that shortfall? In the worst case, no one will pick up where charities withdraw, or the Government and the public sector will have to, and I am fairly sure it will cost them more than £1.4 billion to do so. I prefer to put my trust in charities with experience in what they do, rather than the Government having to put emergency measures in place because charities are forced to withdraw. Some 61% of them are likely to cut staff.

The Government’s stated aim is not backed by their tax policy in three areas in particular: in health and social care, which we have already spoken much about; in poverty and homelessness; and for vulnerable groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions. As the Minister for Civil Society, I have seen at first hand the huge contribution that charities and voluntary groups make to our country; and as the MP for Barnsley South, by working directly with local groups, I have seen the impact that they have in my area.

As part of the autumn Budget, the Government took a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. In an open letter to the voluntary sector on this issue, the Chancellor stated that raising the rate of employer national insurance contributions was one of the most difficult decisions in the Budget. I will address the specific point around the change to national insurance alongside some of the questions and issues raised in the debate, before discussing the wider support that the Government provide to the sector.

The Government recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance, from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that more than half of employers, including charities with NI liabilities, will either gain or see no change next year. In addition, we are expanding the eligibility of the employment allowance by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold to simplify and reform employer NI, so that all eligible employers now benefit. Almost all charities are eligible for the employment allowance, as outlined in the HMT guidance. The changes will mean that a small to medium-sized charity could employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer NI, to give one example.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister agree that if it turns out that it will cost the NHS more to bring in the changes than it will gain, as colleagues from across the House fear, then it would be worth reviewing them? I know that she is not personally responsible for the initiative.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As the right hon. Gentleman makes clear, I am not personally responsible for the specific policy, but I will reflect his point to the Treasury.

Employers, including charities, will still continue to benefit from employer NI reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. I am aware, however, of the concerns of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector about the impact that the changes will have on their organisations. I acknowledge that the last few years have been difficult for voluntary and community sector organisations, many of which have seen a rise in demand for their services while dealing with increased financial pressures. After the last 14 years, where the state at every level has been cut back, more demand has been placed on charities. Indeed, my local authority saw some of the worst cuts in the country, despite being one of the areas of greatest need, so I completely appreciate the role that charities have played during that time.

The simple reality is that the situation cannot be reversed overnight. To grow our economy and our country, tough decisions have to be taken, and I appreciate that that is difficult.