Oral Answers to Questions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Ealing Southall is home to Ealing Studios, the country’s longest continuously operating film studio. A recent report found that west London is a hub for media and creative industries, with up to 7,000 companies. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s commitment to increase investment in the media and creative sector from £17 billion to £31 billion will create more jobs in west London while ensuring growth in every postcode, from Southall to Stockport and from Hanwell to Hartlepool?
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 4th November 2026
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 November 2026 - (4 Nov 2026)
Nigel Huddleston
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, please forgive me for the omission, but I neglected to refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I gave my speech some moments ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you, Mr Huddleston. That has most definitely been put on the record.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing.
The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner.
Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well.
The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created.
In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.
As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.
The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.
Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.
Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.
We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.
Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.
I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.
At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.
What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.
Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.
In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.
Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?
Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.
Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:
“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”
Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.
What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.
The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same.
I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.
This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I believe the Minister is just about to conclude—final word.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point.
We have had a very good debate on this issue, particularly in Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the whole House. We are a world leader in major events, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has done a fantastic job.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred Divisions will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for 25 minutes.
Third Reading
King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a slightly technical point, but with mega-events such as those the Secretary of State is talking about, unauthorised car parking can cause major problems to the event organisers—I have been one myself—requiring traffic management systems and other measures. Do you agree that it might be appropriate to have exclusion zones around stadiums and other sporting venues? Far be it from me to deter such entrepreneurial spirit, but do you also agree that any landowner who wishes to operate an unauthorised car park should work together with the event organiser so that they can better organise those traffic management plans?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind Back Benchers that it is not appropriate to say “you” and “yours” in the Chamber.
Lisa Nandy
I very much took the concern as being directed as me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, because it can be a significant problem. Transport provisions are already in scope of the Bill, but we would be happy to work with him and others who share our concerns about making sure that events are successful if there are particular issues that arise subsequently.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 is going to be an incredible moment for our country. It is projected to deliver a sixfold return on public investment, and we are going to use this opportunity to get more people playing football, strengthen our grassroots clubs and open up opportunities right across the country. Members will also know that we have bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup and the 2029 world para athletics championships. This Government are also committed to seeing the Ryder and Solheim cups hosted here.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week, we have committed £7 million to a detailed feasibility study for a potential bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England in the 2040s. This is personal for me: I grew up in the north of England, in Manchester, and I watched as we unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic games many years ago. Many people across the country told us that it could not be done—Manchester could not host major sporting events. Then, only a few years later, we went on to host a really successful Commonwealth games and show the world how it was done. Every part of this country deserves the chance to contribute to our incredibly rich legacy of major sporting events. We believe that the north of England has so much to offer, and we are determined to make sure that the rest of the world gets the chance to see that.
Underpinning all this is a belief that the benefits of hosting major events should not be confined to the host city or to those fortunate enough to secure a ticket. The benefits should be felt in towns and cities and in our schools, sports clubs and communities across all four nations of the UK. The events should inspire a generation of young people to go on and live the richer, larger lives that they deserve.
The Bill allows us to stand ready to host the biggest events in the world, to protect the integrity of those events to ensure that people can enjoy them, and to make certain that the benefits reach as far as possible. I am grateful to Members across the House who have engaged so constructively and thoughtfully with us during the passage of the Bill to improve it. I thank those who have supported our provisions, which we believe will improve the way that we host major sporting events.
I would like to thank in particular our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for her sterling work on this Bill. Our Whips are often unsung heroes in this place. Without them, the major benefits that we deliver to the people of this country would simply not happen.
In particular, the improvements that hon. Members have helped us to make have broadened the framework’s scope so that some of our world-class recurrent events can also benefit from its provisions. We have heard loud and clear the importance of getting the balance right to provide effective protections for major sporting events, while ensuring that the framework operates fairly and proportionately for businesses and communities. I am pleased that the safeguards are now strengthened in the Bill.
I want to address a few of the concerns that we have heard today head-on, in particular the questions about biological sex and the need to protect sporting events. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) that I have heard her points, and I know that she feels passionately about this issue, but I want to be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that participation in all events within the scope of the Bill is already based on biological sex. I do not want Members to misunderstand what we are doing through this Bill.
There were concerns raised by a few hon. Members about the prospect of sporting events being derailed by strike action. I have to say, and I hope Members will take this in the right spirit, that I could not disagree more with their proposals. It is notable that no Member could point to a single instance when a major sporting event has been derailed by strike action. When I was serving as parliamentary private secretary to Tessa Jowell, many Conservative Members raised concerns that the 2012 Olympics would be derailed by strike action. In the event, the only major disruption was when a private company, G4S, failed to deliver on its contract and the Army had to be drafted in to support. I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that if they want to avoid strike action, the best way is to treat the workforce of this country as partners in our national endeavour and to treat them properly.
I recognise the concerns about ticketing raised by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and echoed by the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I recognise the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I want to be clear: the Government rejected the amendment not because we are anything but committed to bringing in the strongest protection for fans, whether at music, sport or other live events, but because it would have, in effect, created a two-tier system where sporting events were covered but music events were not. That dilutes a comprehensive package that we are putting forward to the House to clamp down on ticket touts and to call time on the rip off that has been allowed to go on in plain sight for too long, in order to give music, sports and other live events back to their fans. I also gently say that in 14 years of Tory Government, and in five years of coalition, no action was taken on this issue. A Labour Government will deliver it.
I pay particular tribute to our devolved partners. From the outset, we have been clear that this must be legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely together to ensure that the Bill reflects that commitment and that the opportunities and rewards from hosting these events are shared across all four nations. When the world comes to our countries, it should be able to see and experience the very best of every part of our United Kingdom, of which we are so immensely proud.
Finally, I thank all of the individuals across Government who have worked hard to get us to this point. Major sporting events give us moments we remember for a lifetime, but their real value lies in what they leave behind: the communities they strengthen; the opportunities they create; the young people they inspire; and the pride that they help us share with the world. Through the Bill we stand ready to seize those opportunities and to make sure that when those moments come, the benefits belong to us all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 4th November 2026
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill 2024-26 View all Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62–I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (30 Oct 2026)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 11 November 2026.
The UK is subject to daily and unrelenting cyber-attacks, as cyber-criminals and state-linked actors blackmail businesses, steal data and threaten our very way of life. As our lives become increasingly digital, the threat comes not only from hostile actors, but from weaknesses in the resilience of our systems. We must defend against both and focus our attention where it matters most.
Although all businesses should secure themselves against cyber-attack using the National Cyber Security Centre’s free toolkits, it is right that we do not over-regulate every business. That is why the Bill is targeted at our most essential and critical services, relating to drinking water, health, transport, energy and the digital services that keep our economy running. If these services were disrupted, we would have nowhere else to turn. The Bill safeguards those services and, in turn, protects the individuals and businesses that rely on them. That is the priority of this Government.
We will not hesitate to take action when hostile actors seek to do us harm. The Bill delivers a step change in national security and equips the Government with the powers to act decisively on threat intelligence. This Government have gone further still; we have tabled amendments to introduce a new vendor risk management framework, which will assist businesses in reviewing their supply chains and working with the Government to mitigate those risks, and it will, if necessary, enable Government to step in and instruct organisations to take action.
This week, the Bill re-entered the House after completing Third Reading in the other place on Monday 2 November. I pay tribute to the Minister, the noble Baroness Lloyd, as well as Members of this House and the other place for engaging so constructively throughout the Bill’s passage. In many instances, the contributions have refined the Bill and made it more robust. I know that hon. Members will continue this constructive dialogue in their consideration of Lords amendments, and will pass a Bill that is fit to deal with the cyber-threats that we face now and in future.
Culture, Media And Sport
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I recently read Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”, which is a powerful account of life in a concentration camp. There is a poignant part of that book where victims and concentration camp prisoners, talking to each other at the end of the day when they could barely keep their eyes open, go and witness a sunset because its beauty brings out something in them that would keep them going for the next day. The reason I talk about that is that it demonstrates the importance of art, in any shape or form. It can help our young people and those who are looking to improve their ill health.
Creative art for young people is routinely treated as discretionary spending: nice if there is money left over, but expendable the moment that there is not. I pay homage to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who has done a lot of work on this subject. He recently held a roundtable where he showed that ill health currently costs the UK economy £212 billion a year, with 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. However, arts and health interventions are estimated to return up to £8.56 in social value for every £1 spent.
We also know that poor mental health costs the economy an estimated £300 billion annually. Conversely, cultural engagement among 18 to 30-year-olds shows an average wellbeing benefit of £854 per person. Evidence on social prescribing tells the same story in cash terms; reductions in GP and A&E attendance and hospital admissions could represent around a £4 saving on every £1 spent on a link worker’s salary. The 2023 “Creative Health Review” found that the problem is not a lack of evidence, but fragmented funding.
I will quickly pay homage to some organisations in my city that are utilising arts to improve the mental health of young people and the recovery of those who are unwell. Since October last year, the Shine programme, launched by the Curve theatre in partnership with the Randal Foundation, has brought drama-based sessions into five Leicester city-centre schools, reaching 250 teenagers in some of our most disadvantaged communities. The early findings from Dr Lyndsey Bakewell at De Montfort University are striking: every student involved has reported doing something they have never done before, and teachers have reported an increase in student resilience across the board. One participating pupil described feeling comfortable speaking in front of others—something that they had always found difficult. That is what early intervention looks like.
There is also Talent 25, which is De Montfort University’s extraordinary 25-year longitudinal study, led by Professor Bertha and funded by the Arts Council. It is following 440 children from across Leicester, from birth into adulthood, tracking the effects of regular access to arts and creativity on a child’s development. The early findings are positive among the children now starting school, with researchers reporting no unauthorised absences and parents describing real, lasting changes in their own lives, reduced isolation—
Oral Answers to Questions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Lady is testing the Chair by sitting in a part of the Chamber where she does not normally sit.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thought I would sit where the Chamber looks really packed. [Laughter.]
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Lady is a strong advocate for her constituency, and she makes a very important argument. As I have outlined, the Government are investing £400 million in grassroots facilities. We are also working with the sports sector and local leaders to understand the demands of each community, and I would be happy to discuss that further with her.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
This Labour Government have announced that they intend to remove Sport England—alongside the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust—as a statutory consultee in planning decisions, putting playing fields across the country at risk. The Conservatives oppose this move. Can the Minister explain how first scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities fund and now allowing developers to concrete over playing fields will increase access to sports facilities?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is not just a supply issue. There is a demand issue, but there is a supply issue as well. The Chancellor is very focused on ensuring that we create good jobs in every part of the country. He will know that as well as the national youth strategy which we have just published, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden) recently announced a new programme to ensure we specifically target 18 to 21-year-olds to help them get back into work and do not write them off at a very young age. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against the investment that was needed to make that happen. I hope he will reflect on that and get his side to change course.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Data suggests around 50,000 children are not getting the music education they deserve and the cuts to music PGCE—postgraduate certificate in education—bursaries will exacerbate the problem. While £25 million of new musical instruments announced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be left to collect dust in storage cupboards, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Department for Education to ensure we have the teachers to teach the musicians of the future?
Lisa Nandy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her role in securing planning permission for those new facilities. Those places stand in the centre of our communities as a shining symbol of how much we value our young people and the communities in which they serve. I would be delighted to work with her to make sure that we continue to roll out those facilities in her constituency and across the country.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of concerns across the culture, media and sport sectors about the 14-day cooling-off period in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. It could be exploited to allow people to sign up for an annual membership of a heritage, arts or cultural institution, visit the sites for free for two weeks, then cancel their membership and get a refund, causing considerable financial distress—on top of the recent national insurance increases, of course. There is cross-party support to close that loophole, so can the Secretary of State confirm the timeline for further action?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Shorter questions and answers please. I call the Secretary of State.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. The Government are very committed to protecting and supporting our minority languages, which are a vital part of the cultural fabric of our country. When we launched the charter review, it was intended to give space to consider how the BBC can best support minority language broadcasting, including Cornish, and I would be delighted to arrange a meeting for him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. When entering the Chamber, hon. Members must be aware that there is a debate taking place.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does the hon. Lady accept that there are practical consequences flowing from the intolerable delay in the Government making an announcement about the scheme? For example, repairs are under way at All Saints church in Mudeford and at Christchurch priory, and the consequence of the Government not doing anything about this scheme will be hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra costs for those churches.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his Jewish constituents. I have met Jewish community organisations over the last few days to give them that assurance that the Government will always defend and uphold their right to participate fully in public life, and that includes being able to attend football matches. In a number of the discussions that we have had with partners, they have made the point to us that many of the people who want to attend this match as Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are actually British citizens who live here in the United Kingdom. That should be in all our minds when we think about whom we are excluding from being able to attend.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending their team’s Europa league match because West Midlands police could not keep the fans safe is a serious mistake, and sets a dangerous precedent. We appreciate the difficulty in ensuring the safety of fans and local communities, but the Liberal Democrats believe that this decision must be reversed, and that the Government should work alongside local authorities and the police to ensure that the match goes ahead with both sets of fans. The situation at Maccabi Tel Aviv’s match in Israel this weekend reminds us of the importance of ensuring that our police forces have the resources and support that they need to keep major events safe. The UK has made significant progress in tackling football hooliganism, but the police must always be prepared for small numbers of fans who seek to cause trouble. Will the Minister recommend “bubble-like” security restrictions to boost security checks and police presence around the stadium to ensure that everyone is served and protected?
The Home Secretary said that she did not know about the fans being banned until the night before it was announced, but she was apparently aware as early as last week that a decision was being made. Can the Minister clarify when the Home Secretary was made aware of the potential ban? If she knew last week, why did she not intervene earlier?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I ask Members to temper their language and not accuse each other of being disingenuous.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Ensuring that all fans can attend sporting events in safety and without fear must always be our first priority, and we must fully respect the operational independence of the police. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that this Government will provide the necessary resources to support local policing in this case, particularly in the light of the heightened and very deep concerns around antisemitism, to ensure that resourcing is not the reason given for the block banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans?
Lisa Nandy
I can hear and understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration. We are working at pace and pulling every lever at our disposal to give the police and Birmingham city council the support they need. The police need to be able to conduct that risk assessment and review thoroughly, because the safety of fans and the community must be paramount. We are working as fast as we can and are determined to get there as quickly as we can, not least to provide clarity to both clubs so that they can make the necessary preparations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I know that this topic is very important, but I need questions to be short and answers to be just as precise.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the volunteers who serve on the safety advisory groups—a thankless but hugely important task—who will be really worried about today. The safety of football fans has, at times, been at the very bottom of priorities in this place. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the safety of supporters is absolutely paramount in the Government’s thinking, rather than the politics around this matter?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Birmingham’s best band is, of course, Black Sabbath and it has counselled us that:
“If you listen to fools, the mob rules.”
This is a case of mob rule here. The Secretary of State has done a tremendous job of setting out the Government’s position. Will she review, while maintaining police independence—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If Mr Kruger and Ms Zarah Sultana want to continue their own personal debate, they need to take it out of the Chamber.
John Cooper
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Back to the Sabs. Will the Secretary of State review the rules around sporting and entertainment events to make sure that this Government, and any future Government, are not rendered impotent in the face of the mob?
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Government, politicians from across the House and the media establishment have condemned the proposed ban of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans as antisemitic, yet this group has a record of violent behaviour and racist chants, including “Death to Arabs” and the mocking of the killing of Gazan children. Given the UK’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, which rightly warns against holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, does the Minister agree that the conflation of criticism of Israel—with its ongoing genocide, war crimes, breaches of international law and current genocide trial at the International Court of Justice—with antisemitism against British Jews or Jewish people in general actually undermines that definition? [Interruption.] I will not sit down.
Mr Hussain
And if the UK rightly imposes cultural and sporting boycotts on countries like Russia over war crimes, why should Israel be treated differently?
Lisa Nandy
In that case, can we have a little more decorum, because there are people outside of this place whose lives are being directly affected by the debate we are having and the tone of this debate.
The hon. Member tries to equate the two, but the truth is that he reveals himself in the language he uses. He refers to the “banning of football hooligans” and specifically to violent football hooligans, but this is not a decision to ban football hooligans; it is a decision to ban all away fans from a game, which a safety advisory group has not done in this country for nearly 25 years. It was a decision taken not on the grounds that he suggests, which was the risk posed by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans; it was a decision taken in no small part because of the risk posed to them because they support an Israeli team and because they are Jewish. I would gently say to him that if he is conflating everybody who supports an Israeli team—the vast majority of whom by definition will be Jewish—with violent football hooligans, he should consider whether he can really stand in front of this House and say that he is not behaving in a way that is antisemitic.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I do not want to continue the debate. Are the points of order absolutely necessary right now and relevant?
Ian Byrne
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated that Maccabi Tel Aviv have “played a game in Istanbul where there was no trouble at all.” UEFA moved the game to Hungary after Turkish authorities refused to stage it in Turkey. Hungarian authorities then had it played behind closed doors, hence no trouble.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not sure that was actually a point of order, and I do not want to continue the debate, but the hon. Member has indeed put his point on the record.
Zarah Sultana
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my question to the Secretary of State, I clearly stated that the Maccabi Tel Aviv football team is inextricably linked to the Israeli state, which is an apartheid state. The boycott of apartheid regimes, such as apartheid South Africa, is a legitimate political stance. To label such a position as antisemitic, as the Secretary of State did, is entirely false and dangerous, and the way the Secretary of State has referred to me and my colleagues is also laced with Islamophobia—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Ms Sultana, I should not have to repeat myself: that is a continuation of the debate, and the urgent question has concluded.
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 8th July 2025
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Act 2025 View all Football Governance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 July 2025 - large print - (8 Jul 2025)
Lisa Nandy
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been 14 years since the Culture, Media and Sport Committee first called for change for football fans, and four years since Dame Tracey Crouch began the fan-led review that set out to fix the foundations of football and end the misery that too many football fans have been forced to endure for far too long. We have had four years of promises, and today we make good on those commitments.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—the Minister for Sport—and Baroness Twycross, who have steered this Bill expertly and with care to get us to this place. I thank the civil servants in my Department, who have worked tirelessly for many years to get to this point, and I particularly thank the Bill, policy and legal teams, who will be as relieved and delighted as anybody to see this Bill finally become law.
I also thank the many parliamentarians who have worked so hard with us all to get this Bill into a better shape, particularly by strengthening the provisions for fans in order to put them back at the heart of the game and to improve the backstop process. This is a light-touch regulator that will help to enhance the game, and I am really grateful to all those parliamentarians for their support.
I pay tribute to somebody who has become not just an inspiration for a lot of football fans around the country, but a friend to us all: Dame Tracey Crouch. Her fan-led review highlighted how too many football fans have been left with nowhere to turn when faced with reckless owners, financial mismanagement and threats to their club’s very existence. Her dedication and expertise have been integral to getting us to where we are today.
Although I am sad that I am unable to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who steered the Bill through its first stages under the last Government and who no longer supports his own legislation, I want to acknowledge that, from the outset, it has been a cross-party effort to stand by football fans the length and breadth of our country.
Finally, I want to address our football fans, who are the best in the world. We are doing this for you, because for too long you have been treated as an afterthought at best, or as a nuisance at worst, in a game that is only great because of you. This Bill is for Macclesfield, for Wigan, for Bury, for Bolton, for Derby, for Reading, for Sheffield Wednesday, for Morecambe and for many, many more clubs that have had to endure the misery of being put last when they should have been put first. We promised in our manifesto that we would end years of inaction, and make the changes for which fans have fought for so long and which are so overdue. I am proud to be part of the winning team that have put our fans back on the pitch and at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Mr French
Here we are: the final opportunity for the Government and this House to trigger a VAR review before English football fans and the beautiful game are left in tears. We cannot support this expanded Bill as drafted, and we believe that passing it tonight risks harming the very game that it claims to protect.
We all largely agree on the problems in football: we have a minority of greedy owners, with loyal fans left powerless when a proud club is torn apart for profit or by reckless management. No one in this House wants to see another Bury or Macclesfield, but let us be clear and honest with fans: this Bill will not stop a bad owner damaging a club, market failure will not be removed, and clubs will not be bailed out by this Government. The risk of a breakaway league will now grow, not shrink.
This Bill risks replacing financial mismanagement with political interference, poor governance with endless red tape, and the soul of our game with a new quango that grows year by year, unchallenged by real scrutiny or accountability to Parliament or fans.
If we vote this Bill through tonight, we will not remove unaccountable owners; we will only create more unaccountable bureaucrats. This amateur Government will strangle the growth of a great British success story, rather than enable it, while Reform still struggles to manage its five-a-side team after yet another scandal—sorry, four-a-side now. English football does not belong to politicians; it belongs to the fans in the stands, the volunteers in the clubhouse and the kids pulling on the shirt for the first time on a Sunday morning.
Yet this Bill opens the door for mission creep on an extraordinary scale, with provisions that would let any future Minister expand the regulator’s powers and the leagues covered at will. As drafted, this Bill risks breaching FIFA and UEFA’s clear rules against Government overreach, putting our clubs and national sides in danger of sanctions that would shame the country on the world stage. It sets up a powerful new regulator with vast discretion, but precious little real democratic control, and it piles on costs that smaller clubs and fans simply cannot bear. If the Minister thinks that big clubs will pay for this quango alone, she needs to read her own impact report. Ultimately, the fans always pay—through higher ticket prices and higher merchandise prices—all to stand on the same terraces on which generations have previously stood.
The test of a good law is whether it solves a problem proportionately and properly, not whether it lets Ministers feel that they have done something. This Bill fails that test, and fails it spectacularly. It treats our national game not as a living tradition rooted in local pride, but as an industry to be micromanaged by the state. This is not how English football was built, and it is not how it will be sustained.
On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I say clearly tonight that football is at its best when the players entertain the crowd and the referee goes unnoticed, but this Bill risks creating more referees than players—referees who answer not to clubs or supporters, but to Labour Ministers and mandarins. If this Bill passes, and we expect it will tonight, I can confirm to the House and to fans at home that a future Conservative Government will trigger a review of Labour’s regulator as soon as possible, and if it is overreaching and strangling clubs—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not need any more of that disruption.
Mr French
If the regulator is overreaching and strangling clubs with unnecessary red tape, as we believe it will under this Government, we will act decisively on behalf of fans to promote the English game again. The real threat to football’s future is not a lack of regulators; it is the erosion of competition and trust between owners, communities and supporters. We would fix that with stronger transparency rules—such as the rules that Labour Members have just voted against—as well as the better enforcement of existing laws and real fan power, not a vast new quango led by a Labour crony working three days a week on a salary of £130,000.
This shameful Labour Government are already under investigation having once again put their party first, with cronies over clubs, favours over fans and greed over the beautiful game. Tonight, the Conservatives will be voting against this Bill in good conscience, because our national game deserves better than a Government whose only knowledge of football is free tickets and corporate prawn sandwiches. It is worth noting that Labour Members have tonight voted against fans having a drink on the terraces, while their Ministers drink alcohol in their corporate hospitality boxes for free.
We will continue to stand up for the fans, not the bureaucrats creating an even larger nanny state. We will continue to stand up for healthy competition and local pride, not a one-size-fits-all state interference that will relegate English football among global competition. We will be ready to revisit this when, as is likely, it fails to deliver the promises being made, and to review it, to rein it in, to scrap it altogether and to give powers back to our sporting bodies. That was the ultimate goal of the fan-led review, as Labour Members would know if they had read it. Football belongs to the fans, and no badly drafted Acts of Parliament should ever make us forget that. [Interruption.]
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
They think it’s all over!
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, it will be for you. I know who you are. [Laughter.]
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Youth Services
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am keen to get everybody in, so I will have to reduce the speaking limit to two minutes.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this critical debate. Youth services are integral to enabling young people to live safe, healthy and happy lives, but we cannot deny that issues and policy relating to children and young people often get pushed aside. We must recognise the contribution that they make and will make to our society by ensuring that they have access to youth services.
I was so pleased to hear the Government’s announcement earlier this year on developing a new national youth strategy. Just last week, I held a strategy session in my Ribble Valley constituency and heard from the fantastic Bowland high school council about what young people in my area need and want. It was a chance to hear them talk openly about their concerns. I was taken aback by the number of students who discussed the stress, worry and pressure that they felt, particularly in relation to their exams—I wish all those starting their GCSEs this week good luck. That emphasised the need for youth services to support young people through these big life stages. They also discussed the lack of places to go where they could feel truly safe.
Youth provision is personal for me. I have been a member and volunteer of Girlguiding since I started Brownies when I was seven, and I served on the Girlguiding national board for six years, so I have seen at first hand the impact that such youth movements can have on young people. I would like to think that my confidence and self-belief as I stand in this House today come from that provision. That is the power that good youth services have.
I highlight to the Government how powerful investment can be when it follows existing infrastructure and good practice. Many organisations, such as guides and scouts, have existed for over a century, but they are reliant on volunteering, and modern lifestyles cannot sustain that. The frameworks that those organisations have developed are cutting-edge, however, so I welcome building on those provisions.
One young woman I spoke to recently said that the private stage school she had enjoyed proved too expensive for her in the long run. I would love it if we subsidised great local youth offers where possible, rather than reinventing the wheel. Doing so would also support local businesses. We must ensure that youth provision is extended to our rural communities and can be accessed across the country. I would echo my—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank hon. Members for working with me—we got all the Back-Bench contributions in. We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this debate, because youth services are critical infrastructure in our communities. They are not luxuries, or a nice-to-have; they are a vital lifeline, offering young people safety, support and opportunity at the time they need it most.
There can be no doubt that we are, perhaps more than ever before, engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of young people. There have been debates and panics in this place and throughout the nation for generations concerning the challenges facing young people, but what is different in this moment is the sheer scale of the collapse in physical community spaces and, as we are here to focus on, youth services.
Many great points have been raised already, but I will focus on the most egregious consequence of not protecting and enhancing youth services: knife crime. In the fight against knife crime in London, these services are vital, because knife crime is not only a criminal justice issue but a public health issue. Like any other public health crisis, the solution lies in early intervention, community-based support and sustained investment. That starts with our youth services. In the past 15 years, youth services across England have been cut by more than 70%. That is more than half of youth centres gone, thousands of trained youth workers lost, and communities left to pick up the pieces.
Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that when a youth centre closes, young people aged 10 to 17 become 14% more likely to commit a crime. In areas already battling poverty, inequality and deprivation, a youth centre can mean the difference between safety and tragedy. In London we saw more than 16,000 incidents of knife crime last year. That is thousands of families affected and lives changed forever.
We know that young people susceptible to committing this form of violence require sustained relationships with services that can help them choose safer paths and that can offer children that vital third space when schools are struggling to maintain a learning environment and home is a worryingly hostile place. They are services that protect young people’s mental health in such troubling environments, and it is fitting that we are having this debate in Mental Health Awareness Week. Perpetuating the situation by failing to boost local council finances, whereby many councils have no choice but to cut youth services, is worse than short- termism; it is a failure to allow councils and other key stakeholders in the community to do what they want to do: invest in young people’s futures and keep them away from crime.
In Sutton and Cheam I have heard that many skilled youth workers are deterred from working in these declining services, and not just because they are not equipped to do their jobs properly, but because the financial pressures mean short-termism in grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and a reliance on temporary contracts.
We all know that local authorities are under immense pressure. Many are on the brink and, without proper funding from central Government, they simply cannot deliver what our communities need, so that must come first. But we Liberal Democrats are calling for more. First, we are calling for a statutory duty on all local authorities to provide youth services and pre-charge diversion schemes for young people up to the age of 25. Right now, access to youth diversion—the very intervention that steers young people away from offending—is a postcode lottery. That is utterly unacceptable. By making it a statutory duty, we would ensure that every young person in every community can access support before it is too late, not just after a crime has been committed.
We also want to see a national youth strategy that is co-produced with young people themselves, not cooked up in Whitehall without their voices. If we are serious about solving the knife crime crisis, we must treat young people not as risks to be managed, but as partners in prevention, with huge potential to be realised. The public health approach demands early intervention, but early intervention cannot happen if youth services are simply not there any more.
Natasha Irons
I thank the Minister for her response. It is amazing to hear about the extra funding going in, and the Government’s approach to ensuring a long-term sustainable future for our youth services. It is a different approach from that taken by the previous Government, who ripped apart that network. Given the themes of today’s debate, and the piecemeal, patchwork approach taken by the previous Government, it is great for us all that this Government are taking such a different approach.
I pay tribute to Members from across the House—although obviously not those on the Conservative Benches, because they could not be bothered to turn up. I will not name everybody individually, because I think we had over 26 contributions, but I would like to highlight some of the key themes that came up, including the need for a long-term strategy, which the Minister spoke about, and the need for statutory back-up. None of us wants a repeat of previous years and the mistakes of the previous Government, who took away support and the cover that youth services provide. We need to give them statutory back-up. The Minister is putting extra investment into this space; I urge her to really back up these services with the statutory protections that they deserve.
I will end with an African proverb:
“If a child is not embraced by the village, it will burn it down to feel its warmth.”
If we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will continue to see the mental health of our young people decline, and their experience will continue to be the unhappiest in Europe. No one who attended today’s debate wants that to continue, so let us learn the lessons and have long-term sustainable funding for our youth services.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Very touching.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the long-term funding of youth services.
Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We still have a number of Members trying to get in, so we will set the speaking limit at three minutes.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Every anniversary commemorating the allies’ victories on VE Day and VJ Day is a significant one. The triumph of liberal democracy over authoritarianism, nationalism and fascism is a lesson from history that we must never forget, and a sacrifice made by so many courageous men and women that must always be remembered.
This year is even more significant, as we mark 80 years since the end of world war two. But for the grace of God, this could therefore be the last significant anniversary that we share with surviving veterans of the greatest generation—heroes one and all. I extend my most profound gratitude to those heroes in Newcastle-under-Lyme, across our United Kingdom and in all parts of the then empire, now the Commonwealth of Nations. They fought so that we could have the privilege of living in the world we live in today, one in which we enjoy freedom and security, democracy and decency, and respect and understanding. Our world will be a darker place when we lose the last of the greatest generation.
Yesterday, back home in our ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I had the great privilege of attending a VE Day party in the Westlands. It was a celebration to rival those held on VE Day itself, full of families—some of which had three generations present—with much merriment, real gratitude, genuine loyalty, obvious patriotism and serious pride. My thanks go to Kay, Yvonne, Suzanna, Dianne and Sarah for their organisational prowess and for bringing so many members of the community together. I would also like to play my small part in paying tribute to and remembering those who we lost during the war and those who have passed since.
Fred Kite was a world war two veteran born in Newcastle-under-Lyme and who fought in north Africa, Normandy and Greece. He was the only second world war British soldier to receive the Military Medal three times. His third was awarded for the
“greatest personal courage and his example of remaining in action against odds that were much against him”.
That is a lesson for us all. I would also like to remember two Staffordshire-born Spitfire pilots; they were both born in my constituency and flew as part of the Photo Reconnaissance Unit.
There are countless stories from not just the United Kingdom, but the Commonwealth and the wider world—stories of normal people doing extraordinary things, all in the name of freedom. The Brampton Museum in our town centre has an exhibition looking at the contribution our community made to victory in Europe some 80 years ago, with some amazing stories about some amazing people. The spirit of togetherness and solidarity from the war forms the stories that my grandparents shared with me as a child, and they will live with me forever.
My grandfather came to this country from Jamaica in 1941 to serve King and country on his British passport. Many men like him came to roll up their sleeves and not just help defeat the Germans, but rebuild Britain too. How lucky are we that they did? Without the blood, sweat and tears of men and women from across the Commonwealth fighting on the beaches, in the air and on the mainland, we could not and would not have won the war. As we celebrate 80 years since the end of the most terrible global war in modern history—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. With a two-minute time limit, I call Luke Myers.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Thursday 6 March this year, I attended a poignant evening of commemoration in the Bathgate Regal theatre. I believe it was the first 80th anniversary of VE Day event in the UK, and it was a fitting tribute to our local heroes. It was an emotional evening right from the get-go, when the Whitburn Band kicked off with Glenn Miller, because my papa, John Sullivan, was a pianist in a big band. He was also a plumber from a small village north of Glasgow, who was plucked from that village and sent to serve with the RAF in Burma, thousands of miles from his home. He had probably never left the UK before—he might not even have left Scotland before—and he did not know when or if he would return home. But he did return home, and I am here today.
My mind also turned to my other grandfather, Jimmy Campbell, who served as a miner all his days, again making an essential contribution to the war in a dangerous role like so many others in those days. For example, the Linlithgow Munitionettes, the women who worked in the Nobel munitions factory, were exposed to hazardous toxins day in, day out. On 5 February 1943, four of those women went to work and never returned home due to an explosion. Thanks to the work of a local historian, Kathryn Welch, a light has been shown on the Linlithgow women once again, and efforts are under way to remember their service. These examples speak to the service of a generation—ordinary people who did extraordinary things in the name of service and democracy. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we cannot repay, but we must honour their legacy by standing united and resolute in the defence of democracy today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the co-operation of colleagues, we got everybody in. We now come to the Front-Bench speakers, starting with the shadow Secretary of State.
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 28th April 2025
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Act 2025 View all Football Governance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-II Second Marshalled list for Report - (13 Mar 2025)
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. With just shy of 50 Members wishing to contribute, the only way that I can guarantee the maximum number of contributions is by having a speaking limit of five minutes to begin with.
Clive Jones
Terms for the sale of Reading football club have been agreed, but we are currently waiting for Dai Yongge’s signature for a deal to go through. Sadly, we have been here before. His ownership has been a Shakespearean tragedy. He has attempted to asset-strip the club, bleeding it dry and holding it back from success. Does my hon. Friend agree that Dai must sell and allow Reading football club to enter a new era?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Cheadle responds, let me say that if interventions are long, even fewer colleagues will be able to get in. Interventions should be short. They should not be speeches.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is absolutely key. We have a history in this country of poor owners taking our clubs for granted, and it is the fans who pay.
There are things in the Bill that I would like us to consider further. I would like to see more detail and focus on how football governance can support the wider football pyramid outside the football leagues. I mentioned Cheadle Town Stingers at the beginning of my comments. Cheadle Town is a wonderful example of a community-run football club that champions excellence, not only on the field but off it. The club sits in the heart of Cheadle and plays an active role in its community, providing support for local food banks and coaching for local schools. It is also, in my view, an exemplar of how both the men’s and women’s game should be championed in this country. There is a true “one club” mentality in Cheadle Town, where the successes of both teams are worked for and celebrated equally, exactly as they should be. This is a true community club, and everything that the Football Governance Bill needs to protect.
The campaign organisation Fair Game puts it best:
“Addressing the deeply flawed financial flow in the game could see extra money flooding into the towns and cities that have lower league football clubs.”
We all know that the Premier League receives the lion’s share of the market revenue. In 2023, just 25 clubs received a massive 92% of the revenues across the English game, while the other 67 clubs in the football leagues received just 8%. This disparity is completely eye-watering, but it does not even begin to take into account the clubs further below. These are the clubs that are at real risk. They have to fundraise and save to make sure they can put the floodlights on. Many non-league clubs are now struggling with the rise in energy prices, which have quadrupled in the last few years, while others have had to sparingly cut the grass on their pitches to save further costs. Facilities are also a key issue. Across Cheadle, there are just three full-sized 3G pitches, which are shared between 40 different teams, while of the 18 grass pitches in Stockport, five have no changing facilities at all, which has a disproportionate impact on women’s teams and disability teams.
The issues in our game are not just impacting the premier and football leagues; they are having a massive and sometimes fatal impact on our grassroots game. Although the Football Governance Bill starts to mitigate these issues, it does very little to encourage clubs, particularly the larger premier league clubs, to support the very lower tiers of the football pyramid. I would like to see that changed as the Bill progresses and more thought given to how our grassroots game can be supported. Football is about community and often represents what is best about community spirit, so supporting the game at its very base needs to be more of a priority. This Bill is a step forward for football in this country and should be welcomed, but there is more to do. I hope the Government will take that on board and introduce a regulator that not only protects this wonderful game but promotes it at the community, grassroots level.
Finally, if I may crave your indulgence for 10 more seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to channel that seven-year-old who was obsessed with the likes of John Barnes, Jan Mølby and Ian Rush, and say this: Arne Slot, Big Virg and Mo, thanks for bringing home No. 20.
Rupert Lowe
I think the passion of fans can be a dangerous thing if they are on a board, yes. The FA Premier League’s success has been driven by the prescient founding formula for financial distribution, ensuring a competitive league. Under the Bill, fans collectively will suffer, and another more innovative league in another geographic region, probably in Asia, will emerge as a leader. Members might all feel good about themselves, but billions and billions of pounds will be driven out of the country. There is no need for a football regulator or indeed any more wokery in the game, exemplified by the support for a questionable organisation such as Black Lives Matter, when the knee was taken before each game: the world’s best football meets the world’s best virtue signalling.
Just last week, I uncovered two coaching roles offered by Ipswich and Fulham, both specifically excluding white men from applying. Ipswich made the right choice and removed the racist ad; Fulham have not. These roles have been pushed by the Premier League itself. Match-going fans are overwhelmingly male and overwhelmingly white. They would be surprised to hear that clubs are banning them from applying for certain roles based on their skin colour. Racism is racism, even when white people are on the receiving end of it. I hope that all of us in this House call it out for the wickedness that it is.
We must eradicate the poisonous DEI from our beautiful game. Fans attend football to escape all that nonsense. A functional football team is the perfect analogy for any successful society, based on merit and merit alone. Fans do not want ideological lessons from their clubs; they want to watch exciting football, enjoy a beer and have a proper day out. Good for them, I say. All of us here need to leave them alone.
Those responsible for this Bill must also take full responsibility when the premier league inevitably wanes as the woke do-gooders perpetrate the damage that history teaches us is inevitable. The Chancellor speaks oxymoronically about trying to revive our financial markets by regulating for growth, after the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 destroyed London as a centre where capital meets risk. You do not regulate for growth; you deregulate for growth. We do not need this interference by tyre-kicking regulators in our national game. Judging by this debate, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport looks like she is pretty handy on the terraces. I say to her, in football lingo: you don’t know what you’re doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Lengthy interventions are eating into time, so the time limit is now four minutes.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I broadly agree with the Bill, but I hope you will kindly indulge me this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially as my team, Leicester City, which has languished near the bottom of the premiership, is now confirmed relegated to the championship. Relegation is not a new experience for Leicester City fans. What is new, however, and what made this season hard to bear, was the absence of fight and passion and the complete lack of competitive edge, which brings me to the heart of my remarks today.
Those of us who have long admired the beautiful game will remember why English football captured the imagination of the world. It was not merely a technical exercise; it was a game of passion, grit, and blood and thunder. Teams would throw the kitchen sink at the opposition to get a goal, and games were contested with courage as much as skill. Within the fabric of the sport lived characters, mavericks and personalities who made the game more than just a business—they made it a spectacle.
Football today is different. While there have been many improvements, as has been mentioned by other Members, it is now is a highly technical game. Players are physical specimens, sculpted by science. There is widespread feeling that character is being coached out of our players, leaving behind robotic individuals tasked with executing tactical blueprints. If football on the pitch is already at risk of losing its fire to rigidity and over-formulation, will regulation off the pitch risk extinguishing the spirit of competition entirely?
Let me speak from a personal experience. Under the late Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha—a man we still sing about from the terraces; a man who dared to dream—Leicester were promoted from league one to the championship and, within six years, were crowned premier league champions in perhaps the greatest miracle in sporting history. How did that happen? It was by taking certain risks. One such risk was spending £1 million on a non-league player in his mid-20s—an absolutely unheard of move at the time, and an absolute gamble for a club of our size. That player, of course, was Jamie Vardy, who went on to break records, represent his country and inspire an entire generation. As Jamie now announces his departure after 13 magnificent years, I will take this opportunity to say: Jamie, you are the GOAT—thank you for everything you have done for us.
Leicester City’s success gave hope to every so-called smaller club, showing that ambition, risk taking and dreaming could defy the odds—the essence of competitive sport. That is why some of us are concerned about this Bill. Will regulation inadvertently consign clubs like Leicester to knowing their place and simply participating, rather than competing? Will it entrench a system where a few are dominant and others merely survive? Of course, reforms are necessary; we must improve fan engagement, protect club heritage, stop breakaway leagues and insist on proper conscientious ownership. However, we must not create a sterile landscape where ambition is stifled and dreams are confined to the past.
I seek reassurance on a couple of points. Will the funding from this legislation be channelled properly into grassroots clubs—the lifeblood of our national game? Will the financial distribution address, rather than exacerbate, the widening gap between the premier league and the lower divisions, particularly regarding parachute payments? Will the arbitration process be fair, promoting compromise rather than extreme outcomes? Lastly, will club reviews be targeted and proportionate, instead of Ofsted-style tick-box exercises?
We invented the beautiful game and shared it with the world. It is played in every gully, alley and favela across the globe—