Clive Betts MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the Minister said, but I want to think about that. I know what her good intentions are, but I also know there may be some people out there with bad intentions; it is about making sure that they come in line with the Minister’s good intentions. I am holding back to see what further discussions we have, but this is really important. It is a wider issue: there are so many clubs with so many disparate fan groups, and owners will pick and choose if there is not certainty. That is why I raised the issue, which I think we ought to come back to, of a clear role for the Football Supporters’ Association, the body that oversees fan groups in this country. It has a neutral view of which groups are the most important and relevant in different clubs, and it can help the regulator enormously in what, in some cases, will be a challenging process of trying to identify the fan groups who really speak for fans in those clubs.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The purpose of this group of amendments is to introduce a wider definition of a club’s home ground that includes the training ground, which is how the different amendments link together. Amendment 86 sets out the wider definition that is then used in the other amendments. In the end, in this day and age, most professional clubs cannot survive with just a home ground and need additional facilities. If those additional facilities are sold off, the club can become unviable. That is what some unscrupulous owners will seek to do, because sometimes the training ground is the most valuable asset in potential for development.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does that mean that if the regulator felt that an owner was proposing to divest themselves or the club of a training ground that could influence the club’s financial sustainability and competitiveness, it could act to prevent that before the sale was completed?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 46, page 38, line 26, leave out first “home ground” and insert “specified properties”.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  At this stage, my amendments cover the facilities that are within the scope of the regulator, so I do not think they apply to any properties that are outside the scope of the regulator. Obviously, the regulator cannot deal with things outside its scope. I hope the Minister might give some consideration, even if the wording of my amendments are not absolutely right, to how the Bill can be better drafted to cover the point. Straying slightly on to amendment 83, there is a similar point about trying to ensure that, where there is a sale of certain assets, before they are sold, suitable alternatives are in place so that the club does not potentially lose its licence, as it has nowhere to play and train. I appreciate that I have strayed there; you have been very considerate, Ms Butler, in helping me to do that. I just thought it would help move proceedings along.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister saying, then, that a club owner could sell the ground without even consulting the fans—just present it as a fait accompli—and then, because there would not be a home ground to play on and the club might have to relocate, at that point they could say to the fans, “Well, the ground’s gone; we’re now going to ask you whether you want to move.”? There seems to be a gap in the thinking somewhere.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Minister can take this seriously; it is a worry that the Bill does not quite go far enough at present. The reality is that this legislation tries to deal with bad owners and anticipate how they might behave. The more restrictions that we can build around bad behaviour, and possibilities for controlling it, the better.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 43, page 34, line 38, at end insert— “(e) following the revocation by the IFR of the club’s operating licence under clause 19 or under paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 9.” I am pleased to see you in the Chair again, Ms Butler; it is a pleasure to have you presiding over us. The amendment is fairly simple, and I hope the Minister will consider it. Clause 43 is quite an important clause, because it deals with the removal of ownership. Ownership, in the end, is of a private asset. A club is a public good for the fan base, but in the end, it is owned by an individual or a corporate entity. The clause provides the regulator with a power, not a duty, to remove owners in certain circumstances if appropriate. All my amendment would do is add the revocation of a club’s operating licence to the circumstances in which the regulator can act. In other words, if the club does not have an operating licence, should not that be a factor that allows, but not forces, the regulator to deal with the ownership of the club?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I really do not understand the way in which the Bill is written at present; perhaps the Minister can help me with that. We will come on to clause 48, which is about the relocation of a club; of course, that means moving grounds. As set out in clause 48 4(c) and (d), there is a specific requirement on the club to consult with fans. We can have another discussion at some point—we may do—about consultation with which fans and which groups. I still think that this is a challenging issue that we need more clarity about. Clause 46 is about the disposal of a ground, which is a very emotive subject for fans. It may not be the wrong decision to relocate, and clubs can relocate and take their fans with them, with proper involvement; the Everton example is probably in that category. However, there is no requirement at all to consult the fans on the potential sale of a ground. That seems to be a big omission in the Bill. Fans would not have a veto, because it is understood that sometimes there are very good commercial reasons as to why a club needs to move, which can be accepted and explained to the regulator. Therefore, I am not saying that the disposal of a ground has to get the full approval of the fans, but surely there should be a measure whereby the fans are at least consulted and their views taken into account before the home ground of a club, where the club may have played for 100 years, is disposed of. That would not be inappropriate.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 84, page 39, line 5, at end insert— “(c) in the case of a disposal under subsection (1)(a), it has taken reasonable steps to establish that the majority of the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales approve of the disposal.”

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sometimes the Minister has partially satisfied me with her responses; this time she has wholly satisfied me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has taken a very sensible approach. I accept that accepting an amendment here and now, out of the blue, is not how Government operate; but there is a lack of consistency between the two clauses, so I appreciate her agreeing to go and have a look at them. She has not committed to a change, but she has agreed to have a look, and that is very helpful. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is doing quite well today: she has satisfied me once again. I am reassured that the regulator does have the power that I sought to put in the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to raise one small point with the Minister. Some time ago, when we debated clause 6, I raised the ability of the regulator to take a view about the impact of new competitions, particularly the world club championship, on the legacy of important domestic competitions like the FA cup. Those competitions will now be constrained for time, with replays being abolished, because a few clubs had to go and do more things in Europe, depriving the majority of clubs of their traditional way of playing in competitions. The Minister’s answer at the time was that a regulator cannot deal with competition matters. The headings for part 5 and clause 45 include the word “competition”. Indeed, the fan-led review came about because of the European super league, and the then Prime Minister deciding it was so awful that we needed to do something about it. Given that competition can be looked at by the regulator, does the Minister want to have another think, perhaps before Report, about whether, without putting this in the Bill, the regulator should be able to consider such matters, when clubs’ finances and their fanbases’ enjoyment are particularly affected by a competition for a few that prevents more competition for the many?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe that is the case. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I think what we are saying here is that this gives the regulator the power to look at that situation. The worry is that some owners will try to exploit not for good football purposes but because they can see themselves making a profit on the side. That can damage the competitive ability of the clubs that they own. Unfortunately, some owners take that capricious view, and it is for them that we must legislate. I do not believe my amendments would adversely affect good owners, as I do not think the Bill does either.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 46, page 39, line 2, at end insert— “(ii) in the case of the home ground and training ground, it is satisfied that there are suitable plans in place to ensure the club’s continued long-term use of the home ground or training ground or to secure an alternative home ground or training ground for the next football season; (iii) in the case of a home ground, it is satisfied that any alternative under sub-paragraph (ii) will have been actively approved by the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales if any of the following non-exhaustive factors represent a significant upheaval of the connection between the fans of a club and the club: proximity to home ground, proximity to other clubs' grounds, journey time for fans and any other factors that the Regulator deems relevant;” I have a simple question for the Minister. If the regulator decides that a sale can go ahead, is the power there to allow it to be satisfied that there are suitable plans to ensure that the club will have long-term use of a home ground and training ground? That may not be the ground it had before, but there must at least be a replacement. Does the regulator have the power to ensure that?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Theft of Tools of Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they may speak in this debate only with permission in advance from the mover and the Minister, but they may intervene with the permission of the speaker who has the Floor.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Space Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Five people want to speak and we have about 40 minutes before the wind-ups, so you can work out between yourselves roughly how long you have to make your contributions.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Space Industry · Hansard source

  More

  We now move on to the Front-Bench speakers. I call Victoria Collins, for the Liberal Democrats.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is helpful of the Minister to have elaborated on that. Would she go a bit further and say whether she anticipates that the regulator will engage with the Football Supporters’ Association when difficulties arise and there needs to be an independent look at fan engagement with a club?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Minister and I are getting there. Obviously, the business plan and the source of funds come with a new owner and then continue. However, with an owner already in place, does that still apply? Can the regulator say, “Wait a minute. I need to see a business plan and a source of funds to ensure that you are a fit and proper person”?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me because this is a big question in football. There are owners who promise the world and then find that they cannot deliver it; indeed, they can deliver very little. I come back to Sheffield Wednesday, but there have been other owners, such as Ken Bates at Oldham, who set up a structure that could not then be financially maintained. It is important to understand whether the regulator has power in that circumstance to intervene.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to be clear about the grounds on which the regulator can investigate or intervene. We talked about the source of wealth being criminal, which has been clearly laid out. However, if the source of wealth is one that has diminished substantially, so the owner cannot now show that they can continue to run the club, is that a reason for the regulator to consider intervening?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mr Turner. The Minister is doing all she can to deal with situations that will apply to most clubs. The problem is those owners that do not want to engage. They will try to avoid this responsibility because they see it as an infringement of their right to run their club in the way they want. I have to come back to Sheffield Wednesday because Mr Chansiri has a track record on this. He set up an engagement panel with fans, but he invited the fan groups he wanted to invite. Worse than that, once someone goes into a meeting with him, they have to sign a statement to say that they will not divulge any of the things that happen in that meeting. It is a closed shop. I sat down with a myriad of different groups including the supporters’ trust, which is the biggest fan group by a long way, and several other groups, including the women’s group and the 1867 group. We formed an umbrella group to try to bring all the fan groups together. The club spoke to the groups and said, “If you get involved in the umbrella group, you will not be allowed on the engagement panel.” It is either/or because that is seen as an attack on the club and the chairman. You could not make it up—well, you can make it up, because we can see how the club is run. That is the problem. How do we get around that situation? I was told the other day, “The chairman engages with fans. He has actually had two meetings of five hours each with fans.” But he does not answer any questions. When I asked one of the officers at the club why he will not answer questions, they said, “Well, they wanted to know what his business plan was.” It is not a bad question to ask, and that is exactly what the regulator is going to have the powers to do. I am still not absolutely certain on what happens when the club tries to control the situation. Does the regulator then arbitrate? Does the regulator come in and say what they think good fan engagement looks like? It would be very helpful if the Football Supporters’ Association were to be given some role in that, because it understands fan engagement and fan involvement better than anyone. It knows what happens on the ground, it knows the tricks that the clubs pull and it knows how genuine fan engagement can be developed and implemented. I am not sure a new regulator will necessarily have all that intrinsic knowledge about what happens at clubs. Some role for the FSA in this would be helpful. In particular, it would help when problems arise of the sort that I have just explained. I am sure Sheffield Wednesday are not the only club where owners do not really want fans around—they just want them to turn up, pay their money and go away. The Chair probably cannot get involved in the debate, but I can see you nodding, Mr Turner, because I am aware that there have been a few problems at Hull in that regard in the past. I ask that the Minister provide a bit more of an explanation and flesh this out further. In particular, sub-paragraph 8(2) reads: “So far as the condition requires consultation with persons within sub-paragraph (1)(a), the condition may require the club to constitute a group of such persons”. I know immediately how some clubs will constitute that group, and it will not be proper fan consultation.