Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Football is irrevocably intertwined into our national story. It is about belonging, about the communities we live in and about what we do in our spare time, and it is what we daydream about when we are supposed to be working—I feel that on a very personal level every day.

Today I speak primarily not as a politician or a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but as a football fan. I have been to more than 50 football league grounds, and to a fair few non-league grounds, too—Brimscombe and Thrupp FC in the Stroud constituency is well worth the attention of the non-league ground-hoppers out there. I have followed England home and away. These days, I mostly watch my local team Cheltenham Town, who have enjoyed a thoroughly mid-table season, but I grew up watching Southampton, and when time allows, I still watch them now—through the gaps between my fingers at the moment.

Despite that, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, will remember when times were so much worse for Southampton. I am sorry that he is not here to hear this. I had a season ticket when he was chairman—[Hon. Members: “He’s there!”] Oh, there he is, speaking to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not listening to a word I am saying. I remember this from when I was a fan in the stands, calling for so much better. I hope for the sake of football that today this Bill does not go the same way as the Saints’ season.

As Ministers know, the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because the game needs financial sustainability. There have been too many Burys, Chesters, Herefords, Macclesfields and Readings. The heritage assets in our game need protection. Who can forget when Cardiff were forced to play in red, or when Wimbledon were moved against their will to Milton Keynes?

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The Bill must expand the list of protected assets to include training grounds, car parks and hotels. The owner of Reading football club, Dai Yongge, tried to sell the club’s training ground, Bearwood Park, which is in my constituency, without any consultation with the fans. When I was leader of the borough council, I worked to stop the sale with fan groups such as Sell Before We Dai, and we were successful. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill needs provisions to ensure that assets such as training grounds are never again sold off for the gain of the owner?

[Max Wilkinson]

I agree. There are too many examples of football clubs being separated from their stadiums, training grounds and assets, and it is a disgrace every single time when football clubs are asset-stripped.

I mentioned sustainability, heritage and fan engagement. Those are the three things we think the Bill will bring about—those are its aims. Although the Bill is not perfect, it will make important progress on all those points. Indeed, shortly after I was elected, the board of Cheltenham Town and the Robins Trust both asked me clearly to back the Bill. We will do so because it is the right thing to do.

The Bill is cross-party in origin. We should all thank Tracey Crouch for her work on the fan-led review and the shadow Minister for his subsequent work on the Bill in the last Parliament. It is a shame that Dame Tracey’s party has decided to score an own goal today. The Conservatives might seek to present themselves as akin to the England heroes in 1966, but in trying to kill the Bill, they are more like the villainous Maradona and his “hand of God” in 1986. By seeking to kill the football regulator, they are betraying football fans the length and breadth of the country—they are going in studs-up on football fans. That is the kind of political acumen that means that they represent only one football league club. Can anyone name it?

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Bromley FC!

[Max Wilkinson]

Bromley—there we go. I think that has rather proved my point for me. The Conservatives’ reference to the risk of increased ticket prices suggests that they are either uninformed about or wilfully ignorant of the existing problems that football fans suffer every week with ticket price inflation, as tens of thousands of fans will confirm. Unaccountable football club owners are not forced to engage with football fans on the issue of ticket pricing.

In my reflections on how to improve the Bill, I will begin with financial fairness. According to Simon Perruzza, the chief executive of the Cheltenham Town Community Trust, the Bill is needed

“to ensure clubs like ours continue to make a valuable contribution to supporters and the community, the game’s fractured governance model and inequitable distribution of finance need to be urgently addressed”.

The Premier League generates more than £3 billion each year from media rights alone, yet the share reaching clubs further down the pyramid is dwindling; it keeps 84% of the revenue now, up from 74% in 2007. Any suggestion that the Premier League is a golden goose that will be killed by the Bill somewhat misunderstands the problem in our game. The campaign group Fair Game warns that the balance of funding between the top division and lower leagues in this country stands in stark contrast to that in other major leagues. The fact is that the money simply is not trickling down here as it does in other European leagues.

[Lincoln Jopp]

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?

[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.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Do you want to bet?

[Max Wilkinson]

I will not be placing any bets from this Chamber today—not to the benefit of myself anyway.

On ownership, this Bill provides a stronger defence against owners who might have a dodgy track record, but there are still gaps at the back. The new owners and directors test still makes no explicit mention of human rights. That is a glaring miss. Sportswashing is an all-too-common tactic used by oppressive regimes to launder their reputations through our national game. As the historic home of the global game, we have a moral duty to seek to use the soft power of football. Those who want to run a football club in this country should not be able to do so while running roughshod over human dignity elsewhere in the world. Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to replace the red carpet for dodgy foreign owners with a red card.

On broadcasting, not a single premier league match this season has been shown on free-to-air television. All 380 matches in the premier league now lie behind a paywall, while matchday tickets are increasingly expensive. The latest deals will see Sky Sports and TNT Sports have the rights to show premier league matches for a four-year period. That means that those without a subscription will have no opportunity to watch a live match on television until the 2030s at the earliest.

Spain’s la liga has one free-to-air game per week, as does England’s women’s super league. We will continue to champion expanded access to free live sport broadcasting in this Bill. We will also call for the strengthening of the Bill to ban domestic games being played abroad. The thought of Manchester City playing Arsenal in Dubai should leave us all reaching for the sick bucket.

We can go further to build a game that is open, accountable and properly rooted in its communities. Every good manager knows when to switch to a 4-3-3 and bring on the super-sub. It could be Steve Howard—I understand that the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is a Birmingham City fan. Now is the time for Ministers to embrace that principle of bringing on substitutes, changing the formation and being even more ambitious about this Bill; after all, they have more than enough players sitting on the Government Benches to be more ambitious. They should do that because football is not just a business. It is part of who we are as a nation, so let us treat it that way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Music fans were left outraged last summer by rip-off prices for Oasis tickets. Many paid hundreds of pounds over resale value to access the concerts they wanted to get to as dedicated fans. Liberal Democrats are calling for an outright ban on resales above face value. At the moment, it seems the Government are “Half the World Away” from a solution. When the Ministers answer, “Whatever” they say, please promise me that the answer to whether we will have a ban above resale value is not “Definitely Maybe”?

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, a consultation is ongoing and will close on 4 April. It was a manifesto commitment of ours to ensure that the secondary ticketing market works for everybody. If someone is not able to turn up to a gig for whatever reason—family reasons, a funeral or whatever—they should be able to sell the ticket on. We have asked specifically whether people should only be able to sell it at face value or face value plus 10%, 20% or 30%. I note his response to the consultation. I hope he has responded to all the other issues in the consultation as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Touring performers contribute hugely to the creative industries, but, sadly, Best for Britain estimates that, since Brexit, the number of UK performers touring in the EU has fallen by a third. Elton John and David Furnish back the Cut the Red Tape campaign, which asks for an exemption to the trade and co-operation agreement. Touring performers are “still standing”, but they should not be asked to make a sacrifice imposed by the previous Government’s failed Brexit deal. Will Ministers show me that they do not have “a cold, cold heart” by agreeing to meet me and representatives of the campaign, and will they promise me that it will not be “a long, long time” before touring performers get the support they deserve? I am pleading with Ministers: “Don’t go breaking my heart”.

[Lisa Nandy]

All I can say is that the hon. Member is lucky that I am answering this question, not my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore, or we would be here for several hours. My hon. Friend met the EU commissioner on precisely this issue yesterday. We firmly believe that closer co-operation with our friends and allies across the European Union is not just in our interests, but in their interests, and we are seeking closer agreement on this issue.

Gaza: BBC Coverage

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the Secretary of State for her response to the urgent question; we agree with the position being taken. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a Palestinian child in Gaza. In the first six months of the war alone, 2% of the child population was killed or injured, and tens of thousands more will have been orphaned or left homeless. Given this humanitarian catastrophe, many in this House today will find it deeply disappointing that, due to errors made in the production of this documentary, we are instead discussing why it was pulled, rather than the pressing matter at hand. Many of us will share the regret that we have ended up in this situation. Clearly, innocent Palestinian children have suffered terribly over the past 16 months. Does the Secretary of State agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of children in Gaza?

[Lisa Nandy]

Yes, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful and considered words on this. In the last year I met with the British families of some of the children in Gaza and the stories are absolutely horrifying. We have a duty to ensure that those stories are told, and that people can have confidence in what they are being told.

Gambling Harms

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate. As the MP for Cheltenham, I am no stranger to gambling, and as a liberal I believe in holding power to account. That includes powerful and predatory gambling companies.

As hon. Members have said, it is important at the outset of the debate to separate the vast majority of gambling on jump racing and harmless flutters—mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place—from the pernicious practices that are commonplace in the gambling industry. They are up in our grill 24/7, 365 days a year.

Where once sports betting was done in the relatively sterile environment of betting shops, markets can now be accessed 24/7 from the comfort—or, in many cases, the extreme discomfort—of someone’s own home. A few thumb presses on a screen at 3 am is all it takes to lay a bet on a Peruvian second division football game they have never heard of, an obscure tennis match in the far east among players they have never heard of, or an amateur Australian basketball match. If that is not their bag, they might register for online games such as bingo, roulette or slots.

That convenient 24/7 availability is advertised to us forcefully by people with limitless pots of money. It is on the front of football shirts until 2026 and on every touchline. It is in every advert break during football matches, with the pundits commentating on that day’s game often encouraging us to get involved in the fun. The splicing of journalism and commentary with advertising should give us all pause for thought. If I might say so, without naming anyone in particular, those pundits should think hard about the difficulties created by their dual role as commentators and advocates for the betting industry. That is not an acceptable way for public figures to behave.

[Ben Coleman]

On people appearing to be one thing and actually being something else, does the hon. Member agree that 100% of the gambling levy should be given to independent bodies that are answerable to Ministers and Parliament, not to charities backed by gambling companies?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. There is a role for a separate levy as well, which I will come to later, to support the horseracing industry, which needs to be viewed separately from the rest of this, as I said.

The Government must also think about the broadcasters who screen games and run their own associated betting operations, because the gap between the scenarios portrayed in gambling adverts and the reality is nothing short of sinister. In gambling adverts, people are having a great time in the pub with their mates. They are in fun scenarios, playing roulette, wearing sharp suits or sparkly dresses, with dancing and jolly times being had by all. In reality, such gambling is, in the main, far from a social occasion. It is undertaken mostly by people who are addicted to gambling apps, losing money at home alone, often desperate and with nobody to talk to.

[Chris Evans]

I have in front of me a press release from Entain, which announces that Liverpool has become Ladbrokes’ official betting partner. It says:

“The partnership will provide Ladbrokes with a range of exclusive content opportunities and activations to reward and entertain customers and fans”.

What does the hon. Member think those rewards and entertainment will be?

[Max Wilkinson]

In most cases, a financial loss to the individual who takes part.

These people are unable to talk to their friends and family about the losses and their addiction. They are unable to seek help, despite the repeated suggestions from gambling companies that when the fun stops, people should stop gambling. The gambling companies know what we in the Chamber know: addicts cannot stop. They are not able to, no matter how many times they see a gentle nudge on a fun advert on the television. It is estimated that 48% of people in the UK regularly gamble and that the gambling market is now worth about £15 billion. But, as has been said, that is revenue, and then there is other revenue. We must be clear about where the revenue is coming from.

Receipts from April to September last year total more than £1.7 billion, a 6% increase on the previous year. A study by the University of Liverpool found that over 290,000 betting accounts experience losses of over £2,000 each year. This leads directly to loss of life. Public Health England estimates that there are 400 gambling-related suicides every year: more than one a day. Every single death is a tragedy. Despite this worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow and has lagged behind the technology, the pervasive level of advertising and changing consumer habits.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

Does the hon. Member agree that we cannot allow the sector to regulate itself? If allowed to, its members will do what benefits them and ensure they prioritise profit, not the needs of vulnerable users.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

Of course. I started by talking about the need for liberals to hold power to account. That goes for Liberal Democrats and small-l liberals, and there are many small-l liberals in the room, I am sure. We know that power does not hold itself to account. Those in positions of power, where they have the power to literally print money, will not regulate themselves. That is obvious to everyone—and, I am sure, to the Minister too.

As I said, despite the worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow. Since the Gambling Act 2005, we have seen action on fixed-odds betting terminals and bans on credit card gambling to reduce harm. That is to be welcomed. The 2023 White Paper on gambling sought to modernise regulations, and the new Government increased the gambling levy. That is also welcome, but more action is urgently needed.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the remote gaming duty should be raised from 21% to 42% to provide more funding for initiatives to tackle problem gambling. It is also clear that to tackle problem gambling we need more restrictions on the bombardment of gambling advertising on all of our screens. A new ombudsman must be set up to provide redress for people wronged by gambling companies, who are the victims in this discussion. Effective affordability checks must be put in place, and we must start treating gambling addiction as a public health problem. It is simply not good enough to continue under the pretence that this form of addiction does not require the sort of help and therapy provided to the sufferers of other addictions. It makes no sense.

Those asks must be funded by duties on the industry, not taxpayers. The gambling industry reportedly costs the economy a net £1.4 billion per year. Organisations like GambleAware and others mentioned today have carried out important work in this sector. That should be commended. While making these changes, which are all about the stick, it is important that the heritage asset that is our horseracing sector, which I represent in Cheltenham, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), must be given a carrot too. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors, and I know that Ministers are looking at this. We have previously discussed in this room reforms to the gambling levy to better provide support for our domestic racecourses. Could the Minister update us on her discussions on that? That is not the main point of this debate today, as I have been very clear.

In conclusion, action to prevent harm to problem gamblers is long overdue. The sector requires widespread reform so that the bombardment of gambling adverts luring people into 24/7 betting cycles is ended. We cannot continue to ignore this problem that is costing our economy, splitting families and causing so much unnecessary suffering.

Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely agree. The women’s rugby game has been a huge success story over the last decade, and the free-to-air coverage that we have of the women’s Six Nations has been a key part of that. I pay tribute to all the clubs up and down the country that have done such a huge amount of work to get more girls and women into the game and to play it.

To go back to what I was saying about free-to-air access across the board, all current matches are shown on the BBC and ITV. That ensures that the sport has a vital window to the wider population; that is key to keeping it in the national spotlight. It is worth recalling that the last comprehensive free-to-air broadcast deal for test cricket was for the 2005 Ashes series—arguably the greatest of all time—but I question whether that rollercoaster summer of cricket would have grabbed the nation’s attention in the same way had it not been accessible to all.

Since then, cricketing authorities have been battling for the survival of the test format; this is 20 years after it went behind a paywall. They have had to invent what I will call a new gimmick format for free-to-air television in an attempt to win over the next generation of fans. Thankfully, today’s is not a debate about the pros and cons of the Hundred, so I will return to the matters in hand.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We could go on for hours on that.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

We could. Perhaps that is an opportunity for later in the year; we could return to Westminster Hall.

There were several reports in the media last week that a deal between the Six Nations and TNT Sports for coverage in 2026 and beyond was imminent. I am grateful to the Six Nations for providing me with clarification on that point, and I can confirm that those reports are inaccurate, as any deal has yet to go out to tender. That does, however, set the backdrop for today’s debate, as it will be vital that any new deal maintains free-to-air coverage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Sport and physical activity must play a bigger part in the debate on our nation’s collective health and the future of health services. Sport England reports that almost one in three children are classed as inactive. More than a third of adults do not meet the chief medical officer’s recommendations for physical activity. Sedentary lifestyles are associated with one in six deaths, and obesity costs the economy £58 billion per year. Those are truly shocking statistics that we should all be ashamed of. What conversations are Ministers in the Department having with colleagues in other Departments, most notably Health, to ensure an increased focus on physical activity to improve our nation’s physical and mental health?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important question. Through our health missions, and the health mission board, we work really closely across Government. This is a pivotal issue. Sport plays a huge part in getting people more active. I know that from my own area: over 30% of people in Barnsley are inactive. Just yesterday, I met with the Richmond group of charities, which works on this sort of issue, and I continue to have both Government meetings and meetings with stakeholders. We really want to make progress in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Small music venues such as the Frog & Fiddle in Cheltenham are part of the lifeblood of the creative industries, but the Music Venue Trust has warned that after years of economic pressures and the recent Budget, more than 350 venues are on the brink of closure. How are the Government supporting small music venues, and what steps will they take if the voluntary levy on arena and stadium tickets is not agreed by the large venues whose participation is vital?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. My constituency of Wigan is home to The Verve, and it is difficult to know where such a band would now cut their teeth in the industry, because many of the live music venues that they played in as an up-and-coming band have disappeared. I very much recognise the problem that he raises. He will know that this Government have supported the voluntary levy that the industry has backed, but if that levy is not implemented we will be forced to take action. My hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism will be writing to the industry in those terms this week.

National Youth Strategy

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome today’s announcement. A national youth strategy can finally bring the joined-up thinking that is needed to deliver the outcomes that our young people deserve. On the point about putting rocket boosters behind young people, those kinds of high-octane opportunities were not available at the youth clubs that I attended, but it sounds like an innovative form of youth work.

I have seen the results that can be achieved by youth work when an effective approach is taken. One success story is that of Cheltenham Festivals, which supports tens of thousands of young people in the arts and culture every year. I know that the Secretary of State learned more when Cheltenham Festivals recently visited Downing Street and she got to meet Supertato—one of her heroes. What role is there for organisations such as Cheltenham Festivals as part of the strategy? Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to deliver long-term, joined-up strategic thinking, now is the time for a Cabinet Minister for children and young people, as called for by the Liberal Democrats? Will whatever follows the NCS continue to report to her Department or another—perhaps the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, if local councils are to have a broader role?

The scale of the mental health crisis among young people in this country gives us pause for thought every day. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to commit that this Government will deliver a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school? The physical health of our children and young people is also in urgent need of support as we seek to fight childhood obesity. Will the Secretary of State’s announcement on dormant assets funding bring any benefits in the area of sports and physical activity?

[Lisa Nandy]

It was indeed a pleasure to meet Supertato at the recent reception that we hosted in Downing Street. I know Mr Speaker got the reference, but I am not sure that anybody else did—Supertato is a legend.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s emphasis on Cheltenham Festivals, and on arts and culture. We think that every child and young person in this country has the right to a richer, larger life, and he will have seen that one of the first things that the Education Secretary and I announced was a review of the curriculum in order to put arts, creativity, sport and music back at its heart. For too many young people, the experience of the last decade and a half has been of arts, culture and sport disappearing not just from their classrooms but from their communities, and we are determined to set that right.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about having a Cabinet Minister for children and young people. I am pleased to tell him that we have one—he is known as the Prime Minister. Having worked for the Children’s Society and Centrepoint when the last Labour Government were in office, my learning in this area was that although it was a great innovation to have a Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Every Child Matters programme was able to succeed only because there was a strong direction from the Prime Minister that every single Cabinet Minister had to play their part. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can see that, through the work we are announcing today, we are absolutely determined to ensure that.

Horseracing

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate. I also thank Sporting John, the most recent horse that I successfully bet on at Cheltenham. The fact that it was in November 2021 tells us something about my record of success.

This debate is on a subject of crucial importance to our country and of central importance to my constituency. The breadth of the contribution of the horseracing industry to our nation’s economy and sporting and cultural life is undeniable. Indeed, as was mentioned, the world’s oldest classic race took place around a century before the first FA cup final. The first Cheltenham gold cup took place in 1819, although I am told that it was very different in those days. The hon. Member set out the economic contribution of horseracing to the country, and I will not go over that. However, it would be a disservice to local areas like my constituency if we failed to do everything possible to secure the future of the sport in a way that is good for racecourses, spectators and the economy of those local areas.

Racecourses are understandably frustrated that agreements reached prior to the general election have effectively timed out; that is why it was important to hold this debate today. Racecourses rightly seek clarity on the new Government’s position. On that note, I wholeheartedly back the hon. Member’s call for reform to the levy, which is a crucial part of the solution. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors; reform of the levy can help us support that goal. Extending the levy to cover bets placed in this country on races taking place abroad would help our racecourses and those who rely on them to achieve long-term financial sustainability. Can the Minister confirm that that is being considered alongside other reforms and the potential for uprating the levy to help racecourses?

Reforms to protect problem gamblers from the harm they encounter are long overdue, and it is good that there is cross-party consensus on the matter. Doing so in a way that protects racecourses is a key challenge for the Government, and I know Ministers will take that seriously. Can the Minister confirm that when the Government take much-needed action to address problem gambling, that will be done in a way that tackles the root cause by asking betting companies with the deepest pockets to bear the brunt of any changes, and not racecourses?

On local matters in Cheltenham, a study by the University of Gloucestershire found that the contribution of the 2022 Cheltenham festival to our local economy was a staggering £274 million over just four days. There are many other days of racing, which means the contribution to our town is significant. The festival helps our brilliant local hospitality industry. Many of its members tell me that they exist entirely on those four days; if they were not there, we would have far fewer excellent pubs, restaurants, nightclubs and bars. That industry has of course suffered so much in recent years. It also provides good jobs for local people.

I am a strong supporter of the racecourse and that will continue, but its positive impacts in Cheltenham do come with antisocial behaviour, which too often spills over into unacceptable behaviour, misogyny and practices that many local people find distasteful. It is to the racecourse’s credit that it has campaigned proactively to try to bring an end to the things that local people find difficult.

The Love our Turf campaign is helping. As part of that, over the last two years I have declared a war on wee during race week. That is against the legions of men—it is always men—who feel it is appropriate to urinate publicly in our town centre, in broad daylight, on their way to the racecourse. The use of hydrophobic paint on town centre walls and extra public loos have helped to reduce reports of public urination. The racecourse’s deployment of staff on routes to and from the town centre has also helped. But we must go further: the war on wee will be fought again this coming March.

On the subject of undesirable impacts, there is no demand for sexual entertainment venues in Cheltenham town centre for 51 weeks of the year, but during race week, the on-the-ground impact of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 appears to be that sexual entertainment venues can pop up in a local pub or bar with little reference to the local authority. That puts local councils in an invidious position. If they award a licence to an establishment, it is unpopular, divisive and unwanted by the local people, but if they do not, SEVs pop up in a seemingly haphazard way that places women at much greater risk of harm. The Minister probably cannot comment on that issue today, but I would be grateful if she raised it with appropriate colleagues.

I do not want to take away from the importance of the debate, but as the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I cannot stand up and support national hunt racing without raising these points of difficulty. It is not the racecourse’s fault—local people in Cheltenham know that—but the fault of many different authorities that need to get a grip. I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk for giving me the opportunity to make that point, which does not take away from my support for the racecourse.

Another important matter, already raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), is animal welfare. The industry takes it seriously, but that is often badly misrepresented by those who seek to undermine the good work being done. It is important to get on the record that the Jockey Club has made significant improvements that are worthy of praise, such as lowering the height of hurdles at Cheltenham in recent years. The industry will do more in the coming years; it is listening.

An industry worth £4.1 billion, which supports 85,000 jobs and brings so much joy to so many people from all walks of life, must be cherished. There is cross-party consensus in the Chamber today, and Minister will have heard that. I am pleased to lend support through my comments, just as I will lend support to my picks at the Countryside day at the November meeting in three weeks’ time.