Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Louie French Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We both represent constituencies with clubs that are good examples of what can be done, but our duty here is to safeguard our clubs and all clubs in this country from future failure. They are not businesses; as I have said, they are community assets.

Last season, 23.7 million people attended matches in EFL competitions, demonstrating the profound connection between these clubs and their local communities. It is not just on the pitch that clubs are contributing to their communities. In the same season, EFL clubs contributed over £1.2 billion of social value through their community programmes, with my local club’s community arm, the Stevenage FC Foundation, alone generating £10.7 million of social value in my constituency and the wider area. In that timeframe, the foundation also delivered 185 training sessions per week, engaging over 15,000 unique participants annually and delivering over 9,000 hours of activity. That is an incredible feat.

However, the financial stability of all clubs across the football pyramid is in a precarious place, with EFL clubs expected to lose around £450 million this season alone. Alongside this, the financial disparity between the premier league and the EFL is stark. In the 2022-23 season, 20 premier league and five EFL clubs with parachute payments received 92% of the distributable revenues, while the remaining 67 professional clubs shared just 8%. This imbalance undermines the systemic sustainability of English football, and I am glad that this Bill proposes change so that a 75%-25% split of combined media revenues between the premier league and the EFL will become the new normal and provide much-needed financial support to EFL clubs.

It is clear that the financial situation in which we find ourselves across the pyramid is untenable, and this has directly led to financial crises in clubs across England. It is beyond belief that the Conservative party, which sat on its hands for most of the past 14 years, claimed in its manifesto that it wanted an independent football regulator, so why on earth do we not have cross-party consensus on this principle?

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Quite simply, because it is no longer independent.

[Kevin Bonavia]

The hon. Member will know that the Bill has been improved to make the independent regulator more independent, for example—and there are plenty of examples of improvements in the Bill—by giving the regulator a greater ability to actually regulate the game. Conservative Front Benchers say they support independence and say they want regulation, but many of its Members do not like regulation at all. This is not a party that believes in protecting the national game; it is a party that wants to play party political football with something that should have cross-party consensus.

Alongside the financial stability that this Bill will bring to our clubs, we need to respect fans’ involvement in these community assets, so I want to pay tribute to all the clubs that already engage in good faith with their fans. I am proud of the work that Stevenage have done to involve fan representation in their yearly engagement plan, and for the initiatives of other clubs, such as Blackpool, whose directors I chatted with at the match with Stevenage last week. They explained how they had had a pint with Tangerine fans from across the country to hear their views on how the club should be run. That said, they did get a bit lucky at our place, although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) would agree with me that both our clubs have great foundations and trusts that support their fans.

I am also pleased that the amendments the Government have made to the Bill during its passage in the other place actually do strengthen that independence, as I said to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). Under this Bill, poor and reckless behaviour that ignores local fan communities will not be tolerated by the regulator. This Bill provides the safety net that clubs need to be financially secure and to be able to deliver for their local communities for a long time to come. Let us all support this Bill, and therefore support our fantastic football clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

I certainly do, and that should be the goal of the regulator. Fan engagement is great at York City, but it is not a given elsewhere. That is why the IFR should have a fan advisory board of its own feeding back on its own effectiveness, just as I saw at the FCA with its advisory panels.

Moving on, there is no greater problem in football that needs fixing than ticket pricing and I think the football regulator should look at it in future. This is all about giving back to the ordinary working people of this country: the grafters who pay their taxes, working hard all week, just waiting for those 90 minutes on a Saturday. Some championship clubs charged away fans £45 this season, and some league two sides will be charging over £30 a ticket next season. York could be playing in that league next season and it is just not on, so in my view the IFR should have a greater role in relation to pricing.

[Mr French]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Charters]

I am going to make some progress and allow other Members to speak.

Let us roll out an away ticket cap across the EFL and national league, like the one that already exists in the premier league at £30. That is up for review this year. It should not only be kept, but expanded across all divisions as a ceiling, not a target for clubs. I understand the careful balance to be struck on the regulators’ remit, but with prices climbing and no controls we must do something before it is too late.

The regulator will cover men’s football, but we should also consider how revenue could be shared to boost women’s football and foundation clubs. Perhaps that should be considered too. The IFR will cover the top five divisions, recognising the great progress the national league has made in recent years. Take Wrexham, who won a third successive promotion, to the championship, over the weekend. The problem, though, is the cap on promotion places, with only two teams going up this season from the national league. There has been a debate for some time about introducing a third promotion spot. In my view, with the IFR, now is the right time. I should declare an interest as York City would be all but promoted by now. This is about opening our wonderful pyramid up, not closing off competition.

If I may, I will finish by sharing a further idea about English football. It is 40 years since alcohol was banned in view of the pitch. Perhaps it is time for a modern approach to a modern game. The days of hooliganism are gone. Fans of other sports can drink in the stands, but football fans cannot. Limited trials of designated drinking zones in view of the pitch could be an interesting idea. For me, we should always keep family areas free of that, but let us give fans who want to drink in the stands the chance to do so responsibly, or at least let us have a conversation about it.

To conclude, fan engagement has to be at the heart of the reinvigoration of English football. This moment should kick-start a broader conversation about what fans want. It is this Labour Government leading the charge for the hard-working fans of this country. Today is about protecting the fans to inspire the generations of tomorrow and to protect the sport we all love.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to call the shadow Minister, but I am not sure whether he should declare an interest as a former apprentice of London Broncos.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am happy to declare it. We lost a lot of games back then.

The return of the ashes is welcome news for rugby league, but while the next generation will be inspired by the series, the Labour Government have dropped the ball. Encouraging grassroots participation is key to the future of all sports and community clubs across the country, but Labour has cut the £57 million opening school facilities fund, £21 million of investment in multi-sports grassroots facilities, and ended the £25 million Lionesses futures fund that invested in facilities to support women and girls’ sport. Arguably, the biggest owngoal for grassroots sport is the removal of planning protections for sports pitches across England. Why is it only the Conservatives who will protect grassroots clubs and the sports pitches that Labour wants to concrete over?

[Lisa Nandy]

The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to see economic growth but, on the other hand, they are not prepared to take the necessary steps in order to achieve it. The truth is that the Government take grassroots sport incredibly seriously. I am really proud that Sport England is able to provide financial support to clubs across the country through the £160 million movement fund with support of up to £15,000 for grassroots sport organisations. I have to say to the shadow Minister that it takes some brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and lecture this Government in the light of the mess that his Government left to us.

English Rugby Union: Governance

Louie French Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate.

Both rugby union and rugby league are games with proud traditions in this country. They bring together communities, inspire young athletes and represent the best of our national sporting spirit. I had the personal pleasure of playing both codes of rugby as a teenager and getting my coaching badges, and today I am proud to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which has two flourishing rugby clubs, Sidcup and the Dartfordians. Each club represents what rugby is really about: community, friendship and playing sport in the spirit of healthy competition, open to all, regardless of background, with thriving teams across all age groups. I look forward to wearing my half-and-half scarf next month, when the battle of Bexley takes place between the two senior first teams of my local clubs. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Mizen Foundation to promote schools rugby in my community.

Yet as we all know, the national game is at a crossroads, with major headwinds, including competition from other sports, club finances, as we have heard, and player welfare. Performances and results on the pitch have thankfully improved, with the men’s team having a strong Six Nations—sorry, fans of Wales and Scotland—and the Red Roses continuing to inspire girls and women across the country ahead of this year’s world cup, but the governance of English rugby union has been brought into the spotlight in recent months.

I want to be clear from the outset—I am sure Members across the House will agree—that this is not a criticism of the players or fans, or of hard-working individuals in clubs and the wider rugby community. It is about how we improve the governance structure of English rugby to ensure the long-term sustainability of the game, from the grassroots to the elite level. With the Six Nations under way, it is a good time to look at reforming the governance of the Rugby Football Union to ensure accountability, transparency and a long-term strategic vision for the sport.

Critics have argued that the governance structure of English rugby union has failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of the international game and, as a result, the game is beginning to suffer. Sir Bill Beaumont and the RFU board have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent months, but I am pleased that they have been out meeting clubs across the country and engaging on a range of concerns ahead of their special general meeting on 27 March. As a result of roadshow feedback, the RFU is planning to take action in the following areas: governance reforms, financial sustainability, continued growth of the community game, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying and modernising competition structures, investing in community club infrastructure and improving communications. It is ultimately up to union members to vote on proposals, but I believe that those are the right areas of focus and hope that the game will tackle these important issues in the months and years ahead.

First and foremost, we must ensure that the RFU is accessible and accountable and operates transparently. The days of a top-down approach to the governance of rugby are over. Rugby is a community game and its leadership structure must reflect that. We need a range of voices at the decision-making table, including people from the grassroots who understand the challenges faced by our local clubs and understand the game itself. I am sure that Members in this place and members of local clubs are pleased to hear that the RFU has promised more control over our community game. I appreciate that that is an olive branch from the RFU in the wake of a chorus of criticism from the game, but it should be welcomed none the less, alongside the £120 million of investment in community rugby promised over the next four years.

The RFU is beginning with a review of how the community game is run, which it expects will encourage

“a shift to a regional structure where more decisions can be made locally, with greater flexibility achieved in competition management and devolved funding to help local decisions to be made to drive participation growth, aid player retention and support club sustainability.”

I think Members here and fans across the country will welcome that.

We must also continue to ensure that financial decisions are made with the long-term health of the game in mind. We must not continue to see short-sighted financial choices that damage the sport’s infrastructure and leave our clubs struggling. There have been many media reports about the RFU’s record-breaking loss last year, and it has been mentioned during the debate, but what has not been reported on is the four-year financial cycle in which the RFU operates, which follows the fixture list. During half of the cycle, the RFU makes a profit; in one year it breaks even; and one year results in a loss. It announced a record-breaking loss last year, but the loss was actually less than it had planned. Having looked into the details and met the RFU, it is clear to me that there is a financial plan in place, but it is not always sufficiently headline-grabbing to be made clear to the public.

[Edward Morello]

I have also heard the RFU explain its four-year business plan. It is nearly impossible to imagine a business running on a four-year plan under which it makes a loss three years out of four. Given how long the RFU has been in charge of the game, I find it staggering that it has not found a way to create a business plan with a more even distribution of income and outgoings. If it is ever going to get on to a sustainable footing and provide cash to the game, it needs to find a way to be profitable in every single year.

[Mr French]

I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead.

Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure.

The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows.

The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish.

The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup.

From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that.

I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address.

Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility?

What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?

English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important debate. As we all know, football is more than just a game. It is a passion that unites millions across the country, from all backgrounds and communities. It is woven into the fabric of many communities, from grassroots clubs such as Foots Cray Lions and Welling United in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, to the premier league giants and those seeking to rival them.

Football and rugby were key to my own development as a teenager and although I do not get to play as often as I would like any more, sport taught me key life skills such as communication, teamwork and leadership, and taught me the positivity that comes from healthy competition. When I talk about football, it is personal to me. I want our beautiful game enjoyed for generations to come in the spirit of healthy competition. Football is nothing without its fans and the people who make football work throughout the year.

Although there are many debates to be had about the independent regulator in the months ahead, when the governance Bill finally returns to the Commons it is imperative that Members across the House do not lose sight of what a success story the evolution of English football is, in both the men�s and the women�s games. The premier league, for example, is the most watched competition in the world, attracting the best players and managers, and generating significant economic and cultural benefits to the United Kingdom. The EFL is also thriving, with attendances in the championship, league one and league two surpassing many European peers. But with the immense popularity and influence of this great British success story comes a responsibility for both the clubs and the governing bodies to ensure that the game remains viable, fair and open for future generations. In recent years, some clubs have suffered financial distress or, in the case of one of my local clubs, Charlton Athletic, they have been owned by someone who clearly did not have the club�s interests at heart.

Although we must be realistic about the global economics of football and the fierce competition from rival leagues, including the Saudi league, we cannot ignore the consequences on fans, communities and the wider football pyramid when clubs are run badly. I have great sympathy for Reading football club and the fans in the Public Gallery, because I see many similarities with the challenges that Charlton has faced in recent years. That is why the previous Government introduced a more measured, balanced and proportionate Football Governance Bill, which sought to ensure that English football was more financially sustainable for the future and more accountable to fans. It also sought to stop the breakaway European super league.

However, football clubs must live within their means. Clear and responsible financial frameworks are already in place within the premier league and the EFL, and are supposed to be overseen by the FA and the leagues. However, the FA is often overlooked in debates in this House�it has hardly been mentioned today�and in the other place, as many seem to forget that there are already many football regulations in place and that the FA and the leagues are the regulators. That is even before we consider the role of the likes of UEFA and FIFA, and we understand that UEFA has raised concerns with the Government about interference in our national sport.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Gentleman said that the previous Bill introduced by the Conservative Government was measured, and the Conservative party now opposes this version of the Bill. Could he state, really clearly for everyone here, what measures have changed that his party does not agree with?

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that question. The Bill is still changing in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but amendments from the Conservative party have been accepted by the Government; I will come on to one of those amendments on growth of the game. I appreciate the enthusiasm of new Government Members as they try to please their Whips and the Government, but amendments are still being made to this Bill in the other place. I understand their eagerness, but we have not seen the final Bill.

There are challenges in football, but we must not lose sight of the importance of the independence of the sport. We must prevent Government interference, which will assuredly diminish the unique nature of the game and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. A careful balance must be struck: regulation must not address just short-term issues; it should serve the sport�s long-term interests and it should not deter vital investment.

We should also acknowledge the progress in football governance over recent years. The Football Association, the Premier League and other key stakeholders have worked tirelessly to address issues such as financial fair play and racism and to improve safety standards at grounds. If we as legislators impose a blanket, top-down regulatory framework, we risk stifling the innovation and flexibility that has helped football to evolve. It was this innovation that allowed the premier league to come into existence in 1992, and that has provided world-class football in United Kingdom for more than three decades. It begs the question: would the premier league now be banned by this new Bill coming from the Labour party?

We cannot risk a return to the football of the 1980s, when English clubs were banned from Europe. Members may not be familiar with a letter from 2 September 2024 from the UEFA general secretary to the new Secretary of State raising concerns about the Bill. When we have requested sight of these concerns, the Government have denied us access. What are the Government hiding from football fans? Are there risks that our clubs, and even our national teams, may not be able to compete? Please can we have sight of this letter from UEFA raising these concerns? We have written to request it, and we have requested it in the other place. Members of Parliament must have complete transparency on what they are being asked to vote on and the risks of the Bill.

But it is not all own goals from the Labour party. It is welcome that this Government have now accepted some of the Conservative amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked a question about that, and I have an example for him: the Government�s regulator must now avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football; we will closely monitor how it does that as the Bill develops. Equally, we have to be mindful of unintended consequences on clubs, fans and ticket prices. The Bill will increase the regulatory burden on all clubs. One football chief executive has already said:

�We�ve two choices with those costs. We either stop doing some of the things we�re already doing, whether that�s academy, women�s, girls� football or whatever, or we pass those costs on to fans.�

Members must acknowledge that football is a delicate international ecosystem that is at huge risk if the Government get this wrong. As we look around at the various challenges facing football today, from financial stability to governance issues and from player welfare to fan engagement, one thing becomes clear: football is at a crossroads. The time has come for us to empower the sport�s governing bodies to use their expertise to lead the way and chart a course that puts the game and fans first. As the official Opposition, we will continue to closely scrutinise what the Government�s expanded new Bill does, and try to limit the number of own goals they score.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is right: the Government are on the side of football fans. That is why we have introduced the Football Governance Bill: to put fans back at the heart of the game.

[Mr French]

Given the last intervention and the ongoing auditions for Parliamentary Private Secretary roles among Labour Members, I must push the Minister: at what point will introducing a regulator and the measures that she is discussing lower ticket prices for football fans?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman should know that that is a commercial decision, but we have made a change so that fans will be consulted. We think that it is the right change. Our Football Governance Bill will put fans back at the heart of the game. It will protect club heritage, take on rogue owners and secure the financial sustainability of English football.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is topicals folks, thank you. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

At the end of last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) stated the importance of greyhound racing to the nation’s culture and economy, but last week Labour in Wales announced its intention to ban greyhound racing as soon as practicably possible. Will the Secretary of State tell us who she agrees with, her Sport Minister or the Deputy First Minister, and will she make clear whether she is planning to ban greyhound racing across the UK?

[Lisa Nandy]

I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly: I agree with the Sports Minister. We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.

Gambling Harms

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue.

As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission.

However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation.

Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years.

Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year.

I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons.

As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity.

Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact.

First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly.

We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating:

“On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.”

If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members.

There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play.

I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?

Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?

I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her that I would like very much to allow Alex Ballinger two minutes to wind up at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response.

The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year.

On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us.

We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years.

In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.

Draft Community Radio Order 2025

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 General Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Community radio serves a vital purpose in society, and especially for local communities, by providing services for the good of members of the public or particular communities. They have a specific role and community radio stations’ focus as not-for-profit is to provide social gain, not serve commercial interests.

We have some concerns, however, that the draft order, although well intentioned, risks restricting competition and weakening the very principles of community radio. For example, the extension of licences for community radio stations could come at the expense of new entrants. For new entrants, the order is a barrier to entry and cements the status of current operators.

When the media landscape is evolving, with urban and rural communities wanting culturally relevant radio, does the Minister agree that the order potentially limits growth in the sector? Not only does it restrict new entrants, but it fails to offer any review process on the service that community radio stations currently provide. Has the Minister therefore considered the benefits of a relicensing process, as well as a review of existing licences, to ensure that community radio stations are fulfilling their purpose to deliver social value and serve their communities? If the Minister does not intend to conduct a relicensing process or to review existing licences, what action will she take to ensure that community radio stations are delivering social benefits and providing community-focused broadcasting?

I am aware of issues relating to coverage, with many community radio stations reporting DAB coverage issues. This means that stations are being prevented from serving their communities and fulfilling their purpose as community radio stations. What assessment have the Minister or her officials made of coverage as a result of phasing out analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB?

I will end how I started: by highlighting the good work that community radio stations do. I hope that the Minister can see that for this sector to grow and thrive, competition should not be restricted, and effective checks should be in place to ensure that community radio stations are fulfilling their purpose to benefit society.

Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025

Louie French Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Almost a year ago, the previous Conservative Government, having commissioned the Gambling Act review in 2020 and published the White Paper in 2023, announced the introduction of a new £2 maximum stake for under-25s playing online, as well as a £5 limit for those aged over 25. The previous Government took that decision following a specific 10-week consultation period in which most respondents agreed with the proposals in the gambling White Paper to introduce statutory limits for online slot games. That was, as Members know, to help counter the specific increased risk of harm and life-changing losses from online slot games that had developed since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005. It was also to help level the playing field between land-based operators and those based online, as the Minister has acknowledged.

After more than a decade and a half, all parties recognised that the Gambling Act was analogue in a digital age and that reforms were needed. Unlike what the Labour Government are announcing today, the reforms proposed by the Conservative Government were relatively modest and sought to balance the need to better support those at risk of gambling harms with the safe enjoyment of gambling, as experienced by millions across the country in a sector that is a key contributor to our economy. That is the point in which I want to press the Minister with this first set of regulations.

It appears that the Government are continuing to miss the opportunity to promote growth in the sector and to engage in the modernisation of casinos more broadly. I have raised the issue previously, and, trying to be constructive in opposition, I do so again now. As the Minister knows, the White Paper set out a number of modest but important modernisation measures for land-based casinos to allow operators to continue to deliver a first-class leisure and entertainment experience offer to their customers. That included reforms to the formula of what type and quantity of machines venues could have, as well as allowing sports betting for all casinos, which I know from my own travels is common in other countries.

I have met a range of operators from across the across the country already and it is clear that there is still a desire to invest in those businesses, despite the significant headwinds and operational costs coming from the Chancellor’s Budget, which is pushing many into the red. Are the Government planning to reintroduce the draft instrument on casino modernisation, which I understand had already been drafted by the Department before the election? If so, when can we expect that, and if not, why not?

On the same theme of growth and investment, in light of the Chancellor’s rather strange comments that the Government will be reaching out to state regulators for ideas for growth, what discussion has the Minister’s Department had with the Gambling Commission on ideas for growth? Finally, what review mechanism will the Government put in place to ensure that these changes to online stakes do not further fuel the growth in the online black market? I know that many Members will share my concerns about this growth in the gambling black market, which I am afraid to say I did warn about both before and since taking up this brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. Unfortunately, that pleasure does not extend to the regulations that we are now discussing. The Labour Government have spectacularly managed to take a set of draft regulations that were largely settled and agreed on, after significant engagement by the previous Department for Culture, Media and Sport ministerial team prior to the election, and got them to the position we are in today, where there are major concerns across the sector about their impact and unintended consequences.

Before I highlight some of those concerns to the House today, and in the spirit of trying to be constructive in opposition, I urge the Government and the Minister, who I have a lot of time and respect for—I know she is covering today—to address a clear structural problem with how they are approaching this important policy area. As has been highlighted in some of the responses already, having the Minister for Gambling in the other place working part-time on major gambling reforms is clearly not working. While most Governments will face criticism at times for not listening, it is remarkable that in almost every conversation that the shadow DCMS team has with people across the sector, we are being told consistently that the Government are not even engaging, let alone listening. That major concern keeps coming up and is a constant theme. The Government have successfully, and remarkably, managed to unite the anti-gambling and pro-gambling sides of the sector, and everyone in between, in their concerns about the lack of engagement. Separate to the regulations we are discussing today, I ask the Minister to take that away and feed it back, perhaps through the Whips, because it is quite a feat.

Sadly, that failure to engage properly is why I believe there are a number of issues with the redrafted regulations in front of us today. First, in the broader economic context, Members might have seen the recent “Sunday Times Tax List 2025”, which highlighted what many of us already knew: the gambling industry already pays a lot of tax. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that in the year 2024-25, betting and gaming duties alone will raise £3.6 billion. That represents roughly 0.3% of all receipts, and is equivalent to £124 per household and 0.1% of national income. The Betting and Gaming Council estimates that its members contribute £6.8 billion to the economy each year, as well as supporting more than 109,000 jobs across the country. Although I understand that some might wish to bash the bookies, we must have a sensible debate about the collective impact of Labour’s tax rises on the sector, the thousands of jobs across the country now being put at risk and the potential unintended consequences for charities, sports such as British horseracing and the growth of the black market, as I have referenced already.

Betting revenues from horseracing are evidently falling because of flawed affordability checks, and the economic backdrop today is fundamentally bleaker because of Labour’s Budget, which adds to the broader sector concerns as the Government seek to squeeze even more money out of firms. We all must be clear that the levies being discussed will further push up costs for businesses and, when taken with Labour’s tax rises as a whole, will severely restrict or even remove the viability of smaller gambling operators and important community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses across the country.

That brings me to my next point: the scope of the amended draft regulations, which has been expanded from the previous proposals. There are deep sector concerns about who this Labour Government are targeting by expanding the scope of the regulations. For example, regulation 2 brings into scope trackside betting at greyhound and horseracing racecourses, while regulation 3 sets the minimum levy payment threshold, which had previously been agreed at £500,000 a year. However, the Government have gone much further, reducing the minimum threshold to only £10 for small operators, after which point they would need to start paying the mandatory levy and doing the administration that goes alongside that.

Unsurprisingly, the move has caused great alarm among independent and smaller firms, which are being brought into the scope of liability for levy payments for the first time. Independent bingo hall operators have also been brought into scope. Under regulation 4, these businesses will be charged at 0.2%, which I understand is double what had been proposed previously. If I am interpreting the proposed regulations correctly, they will see small independent bookmakers at courses around the country charged double the rate of pooled betting operators, such as the Tote. Can the Minister confirm whether my understanding is correct on that point?

The Government’s new proposals have also lumped independent high street bookmakers with a land-based retail rate of 0.5%, which is also up from the previous proposal of 0.4%. That means that small independent betting shops will pay an additional £1,000 a shop and an additional £500,000 in total. The Betting and Gaming Council has said that it is a real “hammer blow” to the 500 small independent bookmakers in the UK, which employ more than 2,500 people, undoubtedly leading to closures and job losses.

As if it is not bad enough that important community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses are facing a Labour battering, community lotteries are also expressing concerns about the risk of being charged the levy twice, because of how it has been drafted. That would negatively affect distributions to good causes.

I understand that the Department considered charging the levy at 0% for society lottery operators but concluded that that would amount to an exemption and would carry significant legal risks. Has a new impact assessment been carried out to analyse in greater detail the risks and concerns that are being expressed? Even if some Members are comfortable with bashing the bookies, they surely cannot be comfortable with the unintended consequences and risks resulting from less funding for good causes and a loss of jobs and community assets.

My final concern is about the potential impact on the charities and organisations that are already doing fantastic work to support those suffering with gambling addiction. As Members should already know, through the existing voluntary scheme, although it is far from perfect, hundreds of millions of pounds of contributions from gambling firms have been invested to help to fund a network of specialist charities and organisations that support those who need help. I understand that that network currently cares for roughly 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain, but there are major concerns and great uncertainty about how and to what extent that care can continue as the Government seek to change the system from voluntary to statutory.

First, on short-term funding, our understanding is that the regulations will lead to some firms paying a double levy this year. Ministers have been clear that they expect the industry to pay voluntary contributions this financial year, and that if these regulations come into effect, the industry will also be required to make payments on profits backdated to 1 April last year. The Minister must know that, faced with being charged twice in the same calendar year, many firms in the industry will look to minimise their voluntary payments for this financial year.

Moreover, according to regulation 4(6), the levy due this October for the first period is 33% higher than usual, so the Government not only are asking firms to pay twice in a year, but have added up front, in the fine print, an extra third on to the statutory levy. That clearly risks removing millions of pounds in vital funding from the treatment network before October when the first statutory levy payment is due. In the Minister’s response, can she tell us what risk assessment her Department has carried out on that potential drop in voluntary contributions and funding in the short term, and how many people she thinks will lose out on treatment in that time?

The new statutory levy also raises many questions and great uncertainty about how the money will be spent and the process behind the decision making, which has again been fuelled by a lack of engagement by the Government. The Minister might want to get a pen out—I can see she has one now. Who in Government will be setting the strategic direction and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?

Can the Minister please confirm what target percentage will be spent on prevention, treatment and support services, and what percentage the Government expect to be spent on research? How will the Government ensure that research is not duplicated at the cost of treatment and prevention? How will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy and will the Government ensure that all views are being heard rather than just those of vested interests?

Will the Government ensure that charities funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment, currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not have carte blanche for its approach, which will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?

Those are all serious concerns. I could go on, which highlights the scale of uncertainty hanging over the sector and, sadly, the lack of engagement and clarity from the new Labour Government to date. They are a loose horse with bad form and no jockey to give them strategic direction. On many of these issues, the Government are now asking us to take a leap into the dark with them—comparable with jumping Becher’s Brook blindfolded knowing it is odds on that there will be a very painful landing.

I am afraid that without some meaningful answers today, without evidence that a thorough and up-to-date impact assessment has been carried out on all these issues, and without changes to the draft regulations, we cannot support these policies. We know that they will do further damage to jobs and the industry, put community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses at risk of closure, and risk harming the very people and charities that the statutory levy is supposed to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

This has been a useful debate. The statutory levy has previously had cross-party support. I will respond to some of the shadow Minister’s questions, and then I will respond to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. In response to the shadow Minister’s opening point about the Minister for Gambling sitting in the other place, I think it was unkind to refer to her as working part time; she merely sits in the other place, and I gently remind him that the previous Government’s Foreign Secretary did the same. Perhaps we could put the political point scoring to one side.

[Mr French]

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Foreign Secretary, so I understand what the Minister is trying to say. I am not questioning the motives of the Minister for Gambling; the point is that she is tied up, as we all know, on the Football Governance Bill, because the Government have decided to put the Bill through the other place first. Hence, she can only work part time on the gambling reforms. That is the feedback we are getting consistently, and that is the challenge I am trying to make.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not recognise the logic of that argument. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman served as a Minister. He perhaps does not know that a Minister has to juggle a number of pieces of legislation, and a number of different issues. The Baroness is committed to being the Minister for Gambling, and she engages with a range of the sector, and as indeed did I when I was the shadow Minister, and I continue to speak to the sector when appropriate.

As for the economic picture, I will take no lessons from the official Opposition, given the state they left the economy in. Now I want to move on to discuss the actual statutory instrument.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The previous Conservative Government invested over £400 million to support grassroots sport, recognising the vital contribution of sport to our communities across the country. The Minister will already be aware of our concerns about the impact of Labour’s national insurance hike, and the impact that the schools tax will have on community access to sporting facilities. Equally concerning is Labour’s decision to quietly cut the £57 million opening school facilities programme from March. Does she understand why grassroots sport organisations are so concerned about access to school facilities, and schools potentially having to close them to the community? Has she raised those concerns with Cabinet colleagues, and what measures are her Department taking to support access to grassroots sport for the more than 200,000 people who previously benefited from Conservative programmes?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I think that was six questions rather than one. I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the state of the economy and the inheritance that we received. The Government are a huge champion of grassroots sport, and will continue to be one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hope that the shadow Minister will not fall at the first hurdle.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The horseracing industry has been left in the dark by this Government, following the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the national insurance rise would cost, on average, £800 per employee. With 20,000 employed across the country, the Government’s jobs tax could cost the horseracing industry £16 million and the gambling sector up to £100 million, even before the new levies. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether her Department has made any assessment of the impact of the increase in national insurance contributions on the industry? How many jobs will be lost? How many training yards and courses will close? How many of the 500 independent bookies will shut?

[Lisa Nandy]

Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman—who I welcome to his place—that he is well aware that in the decisions that we took in the recent Budget we protected the smallest businesses. More than half of businesses will pay either less or the same as they currently do. We will take no lectures from the Opposition about how to run the economy, after 14 years, given the mess that they left this country in. It really does take some brass neck to stand at that Dispatch Box and attack the Government.