Louie French MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 138, in schedule 2, page 88, line 37, at end insert— “(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.” As always, you are keeping me on my toes today, Sir Jeremy; I thought we were about to vote on amendment 119. We always learn something new in Bill Committees. Amendment 138 raises a serious and growing concern, so I will be very clear about what the amendment would do. We seek to limit the number of employees of the Independent Football Regulator to a maximum of 50. We think that is quite fair. I could have proposed 20, 10 or some other number, but I thought 50 was fair, based on the conversations that we have had with the football world. Our serious and growing concern is about not just what the legislation says, but the consequences of the way this Government have chosen to structure the regulator. The amendment uncovers and seeks to prevent the key problem with the Government’s regulator, which we believe is purely that it will ultimately put up prices for fans. This morning, the Minister said that her Government have not claimed that the regulator will solve all the problems, and while that may be true, we believe that her regulator will actively create more problems for clubs and for fans. I will come on to the problems that we believe it will cause for clubs later in the Bill, but, to be clear, we put fans first and that is what this amendment seeks to do. The creation and operation of the Government’s regulator and the burdens it generates will impose a very real cost on clubs. I suspect that will not have a massive impact on the billionaire owners of the big clubs, or the executives, consultants and lawyers employed in the football industry, but it will significantly affect clubs that are already subject to serious financial constraints and those lower down the pyramid. Let us begin with the principle. I do not believe that anyone here disputes the need to protect the long-term sustainability of English football and the need for English football to be sustainable, even if definitions of “sustainable” differ. However, if the Government genuinely intend to safeguard the game for future generations, creating a vast and costly bureaucracy is not the way to do that—yet that is what this regulator will do. It will increase the costs on clubs, which will ultimately have no choice but to pass them on to fans. That view is accepted by those in the industry that I have discussed this with. This Government have chosen bureaucracy over the beautiful game and its fans. It is the ever-present home and away supporters who will end up bearing the brunt of the costs of this regulator. Turning to the specifics of amendment 138, last week I submitted a written question to the Secretary of State to ask how many appointments had been made to the shadow football regulator already and how many of those appointed were previously employed in her Department. I know from conversations I have had with the EFL, the National League, the Premier League and the FA that the shadow regulator has already begun to scale up. When my noble Friend Lord Moynihan asked the Lords Minister a similar question in the other place in December, the answer, which was received in January, stated that the number of IFR employees already stood at 38. As it happens, the answer to my written question is due today. Can the Minister save me the trouble of waiting for that response to come through online and tell us here and now how many full-time equivalent staff are currently working on the shadow regulator and how many of those were previously employed in her Department as employees, advisers or appointees?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate those comments. We will come on to conflicts of interest, and it is a question that I will put to the Minister, because the Committee and the House have to be clear and confident about what a conflict of interest might look like for the regulator. We will come on shortly to appointments to the expert panel. In such appointments, if there are no clear lines of accountability on what we believe to be conflicts of interest, I fear that we could have a situation like the one we have just had with the chair, in which the Government did not feel that there was a conflict of interest, but most people observing the appointment would say that there was a quite clear conflict, given the donations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Labour party. Those are the points we are making, and I am happy to debate the matter further as we make progress. I have given the Minister some extra reading time on what I plan to ask about conflicts of interest. A crucial point was made about how boards work differently in different sectors, and about whether conflicts are transcribed early on, so that everyone understands what we believe a conflict of interest is. We want to ensure that there are no vested interests in the process and that no one side will benefit from the simple fact that a chair is interested in that same side; that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. By accepting the amendment, alongside our other amendments, the Committee could ensure total independence of the chair of the regulator both from this Government and from industry insiders. That is our objective. Amendment 114 would make it explicit that there must be a system for the chair of the board to declare their relevant interests. As we have discussed, this needs to be explicit within the Bill because of how the Government have conducted themselves in the appointment process. We have seen that this Labour Government cannot be trusted to run the process properly or ensure that full and proper declarations are made. The amendment would make sure that nobody in this Government’s regulator can avoid being transparent with the public on their conflicts of interest. This amendment has become necessary because of the Government’s actions and their disdain for Parliament and public accountability. It could be argued that the Secretary of State has hidden her interest in the appointment process to date, especially because she did not declare her interest on Second Reading. This amendment would provide much-needed transparency on the future of the regulator and its chair, whoever he or she may be. I would like to think that Ministers are in favour of full and proper transparency, unless there is something that the Government wish to hide from us. As I said, we found out about the donations only at the last minute, through a declaration made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This House would not otherwise have known. It troubles me deeply, regardless of which parties were involved, that Members made decisions without knowing about the donations. Alongside amendments 117, 118 and 114, I have tabled amendment 115. As I have said repeatedly, this Government’s behaviour throughout the process has been nothing short of a disgrace. We found out about the appointee’s donations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State only via a Select Committee, and we did not know about them on Second Reading. Without the appointee’s last-minute admission, we would have been in the dark. We do not know whether the Secretary of State would have been transparent about the donations she received. She has now recused herself, but we must remember that she nominated that person for the Select Committee’s consideration, which is a really important point that I am sure the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will look at closely. We cannot allow this sort of cover-up to continue, as we need a sustainable independent regulator. Amendment 115 would make it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest, as they have been proven to be by this Government. I have also tabled amendment 116, which would ensure that politics is kept out of football. This debate is making me very uncomfortable as a football fan. I do not believe that politics should be anywhere near football, and it is because of this kind of issue. This has brought football into disrepute, and it is not just me saying that—it is across all the sports pages. I am concerned about politics being dragged into football, and this amendment would require that the chair is not a member of a political party and does not publicly campaign or demonstrate support for one. It has been drafted in line with other such roles where chairmen are required to be politically neutral. Again, I believe this is common sense, and I hope all Members would support it. Once again, this is an issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Requiring the chair of the board not to be a member of a political party or to campaign in a political way would protect the integrity of football and the regulator.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to an impact assessment based on the previous Bill. Given that there are changes in this Bill, will a new assessment with estimated costs be published for hon. Members to understand?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving amendment 1 so that we can have an initial conversation about this very emotive and important issue facing ex-players, and about the campaigns on these well-known health challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot be part of these discussions because she is a Deputy Speaker, but I have agreed to meet and listen to the group in the Southampton area. I draw the Committee’s attention to the new clause we have tabled on player welfare, as we believe there are strong links to the arguments made on amendment 1. I will park those for now, as I am conscious that I am close to a red card following my initial yellow card—I will not go too far on that, Sir Jeremy. Clause 6 defines the core objectives of the independent football regulator as “to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs… to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football…to safeguard the heritage of English football”. Amendment 1 seeks to add another subsection that would clarify this particular issue, and I understand the arguments that have been made. We have already engaged with some of the leagues on this issue, and I draw the attention of the Committee, and of anyone listening at home who may be seeking assistance and support on this issue, to the funds that are available. I am not taking a particular position; I just want to highlight the existing scheme to support former footballers in this regard, as I think it is very important for those families around the country. My understanding is that the scheme was set up in 2023 by the Premier League and has distributed over £1.4 million to date. If this Bill Committee can achieve anything, we will be performing a good public service by advertising that the fund is available for ex-players to ensure those families can get the support they desire. I will return to our player welfare new clause, but my understanding is that the drafting of the Bill, however well intentioned, does not look to include either the PFA or the LMA, both of which are key stakeholders in how we protect the rights of footballers and managers, who are under a lot of pressure. I think we all recognise that as politicians, because we have a lot of pressure placed on us in our duties in the workplace. With an increasing fixture list, as clubs look to add more fixtures to be more commercially viable, there is broader concern about player welfare. That is why I am keen to have that debate later in our considerations. It is key that once this football regulator is established—and we know that it will be established—it considers the welfare of players. It is important that it does that with the bodies that represent both players and managers. I look forward to debating this further, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment for discussion.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do, Sir Jeremy. I am hoping for a different outcome on this one. Amendment proposed : 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert— “7A The Chair of the Board must not (a) be a member of a political party, (b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or (c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”— (Mr French.) This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to answer that question. I think it is quite clear. The comparison is drawn and it is argued that this is the same regulator as before, but it is not. We clearly have different political opinions about what regulation might look like and how big it might be. These are the questions that we are trying to tease out. We are trying to put a cap in place because we are concerned that what is being proposed in the Bill will significantly increase the size of the regulator and its cost. These are the key points the amendment is designed to draw out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he has concerns about the cost of the regulator, will support it. It is clear that the Government’s Bill for the regulator is not about lowering costs for fans or improving the experience of football. It is about Government control and intervention into more aspects of our lives. By limiting the number of employees that the Government’s regulator can employ, as those across the industry have suggested, we can make sure that fans are protected and clubs not over-burdened with new costs and regulations, because in football, as in politics, promises are easy but the bill always comes due.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to answer the question, and I appreciate how it was put: it was not adversarial, but on a factual point. We are trying to clarify the point. In the Bill, as drafted, it is not clear what a conflict of interest is. The amendment seeks to make a specific example of an area that we think would be a particular problem for the regulator, and clarify what a conflict of interest is in this regard. I hope that that explains the amendment.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman actually makes the point that I have made already, because we believe that Parliament should have a say on what the regulator looks like in future. We have already made the case that the Bill gives unchecked powers to the Secretary of State. The hypothetical situation that hon. Members have referred to, where we come back with another Act of Parliament, would give Members the opportunity to scrutinise what the regulator has done and scrutinise its costs. It would give Members the opportunity to explain to fans around the country why they are increasing ticket prices and other costs. Members should have the opportunity to keep a sensible check on the regulator in future. I will get back to my comments, as I appreciate that I am testing your patience again, Sir Jeremy. I am sure that the Minister will understand the serious concerns around not only the cost of the chief executive but, importantly, who determines the pay, which is the second part of the amendment. I hope that the Minister can also answer my questions about the other issues that my amendment brings to the fore today. On paragraph 8(4), why must a non-executive member of the board of the Government’s regulator notify the Secretary of State when they intend to resign from said board? Why do they not need to inform the chairman, deputy chairman or even the chief executive of the regulator? From my experience, it would be commonplace on most boards for someone to notify the chairman of the board rather than—obviously this is a unique situation—the Secretary of State, so the focus of the Bill seems unusual. Does the Minister understand that, once again, that makes it look like a political regulator? By maintaining the legal ties between the employment of non-executive directors and the Government, it is clear that they are not independent of Government, but reliant on Government. Will she clarify why that is the case? Paragraph 9(b) states that the Secretary of State can remove a board member if they are satisfied that there is a conflict of interest. Will the Minister tell us what qualifies as a conflict of interest and how the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, will decide what meets those qualifications? Would donating to a political party not in government count—or perhaps donating to a political party that is in government? Would having an interest in related broadcasting companies qualify? Paragraph 10(1) sets out that the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of non-executive members of the board. That gives the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, extensive powers over patronage. Can the Minister tell us how many board members does she anticipate will be needed and how many will be appointed? What will the remuneration per board member be, and what is the total cost of the board’s operation? Does the Minister agree with the spirit of my amendment that the Prime Minister should be paid more than whoever is the chairman or the chief executive, whoever that may be? Those already large salaries may encourage the Prime Minister, perhaps on the advice of the current Secretary of State, to appoint somebody to the role to make sure they get a good return on their investment into Labour leadership bids.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fair question. We know how the media works. How can I put this? There is a desire for certain people to make certain comments that might be controversial. Our concern is that such comments could undermine the regulator straightaway. With the amendment, we are trying to be as clear as possible and avoid a headache down the line for the Government, so that the Bill not only covers interests such as shareholdings but ensures that no conflict of interest could arise from working for the regulator.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If we follow that train of thought and bring it back to what we have been talking about today, which is a regulator, does the hon. Member believe that such a hands-off approach to a regulator is common sense, given the issues of regulation that we now see across our country—issues that the Liberal Democrats often campaign on—which call into question the expanded powers that regulators have failed to act on. Using that same philosophy we should try to ensure at this point in time that this regulator does not end up in the same bad place as regulators in other parts of our economy.

• 22 May 2025 · Grassroots Sports: Cannock Chase · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for our investment in his constituency while we were in government. In all seriousness, however, I would like to put on record our condolences to the families of the two Israeli embassy staff killed overnight in Washington. Grassroots facilities are key to our communities and our sports clubs across the country, which is why we Conservatives invested more than £500 million in the next generation of athletes. However, in just 10 months, this Labour Government have cut the £21 million multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, scrapped the £30 million Lionesses fund and cancelled £57 million of opening school facilities grants. Equally worryingly, they are now trying to remove Sport England’s statutory role in protecting sports pitches and playing fields across the country. Is it not clear that only the Conservatives will save our sports pitches from this “say one thing and do another” Labour Government?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman references a returns agreement with France. The Labour party amendment to the motion talks about a deal with France. Is he confident that the French will agree to take illegal migrants back from the UK?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate. I know that she has regularly championed this issue since coming to this place. As Lord Cameron famously said, “I was the future once.” —[ Official Report , 13 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 294.] Although I am no longer viewed as one of the younger Members in this place, I am grateful for the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and in the limited time available, to close today’s important debate on the long-term funding of youth services. This subject goes to the heart of how we support the next generation to thrive, contribute and belong, and it is crucial to the future of our great country. In government, we allocated £560 million over three years to the national youth guarantee, which ensured that every young person in England aged between 11 and 18 had regular access to clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home, and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing over 300 of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) always made sure that young people were around the table when we made decisions that would affect them. We made sure that young people were not just talked about but listened to, and next week the shadow ministerial team will host a youth roundtable as part of our wider policy renewal. I want to be clear that Conservative Members believe passionately in the power of civil society. We believe in the social fabric that holds this country together—not just the big institutions of state, but the small charities, volunteers, faith groups, sports coaches and mentors who give their time not for profit, but for purpose. They include such organisations as the National Citizen Service, which the Labour Government have cancelled. More than 750,000 young people participated in that programme over 13 years, and it had a 93% satisfaction rate, which is something that this Government can only dream of. We recognise the vital role of youth workers, who are often unsung and under-resourced, but who are always on the frontline. We must be honest: money alone will not solve all the challenges facing young people. A cheque from Whitehall, however large, will not guarantee that a child finds a mentor, stays off the streets or gets a first step on the ladder. However, since coming into office, this Government have made it more difficult for every single charity in this country to provide their essential services. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) recognised that in his speech, and he was the only Member who spoke about the national insurance hike. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as the Chancellor knew when she made her decision, youth charities, like all employers, pay national insurance contributions, and they need to find additional funds to cover the rise in those contributions. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion per year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and limited core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. Yesterday, we heard from representatives of Place2Be, a leading children’s mental health charity that has provided expert, school-based mental health support over the past 30 years. They told us that thanks to this Labour Government’s national insurance hike, they now have to find an extra half a million pounds every single year, just to pay tax. As a direct result of this Government’s decisions, it is likely that fewer children will receive the care and support that they need in an environment that is familiar to them. That is why we supported exempting charities with an annual income of less than £1 million from the national insurance rise. However, Labour Members cruelly voted against that, and they must reflect on that, now that they are in government; they are in control. When the Conservatives were in government, we did not just talk about aspiration; we built the conditions for it. We empowered local communities and launched countrywide programmes, such as the National Citizen Service, which had a proven track record of success before this Government closed it down. The Labour Government are dismantling the NCS. In doing so, they are actively and deliberately limiting the life chances of this generation and generations to come, without giving us any answers on what comes next. I hope that this Government will start to think properly about young people. Instead of making young people’s lives more difficult, the Government should put them at the heart of policymaking, and should reverse their callous tax on charities, youth organisations and businesses, which will likely mean a rise in youth unemployment this year. It is time for actions, not words.

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship again today, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate. It is great to hear from Members from across the House and across the country, and I thank them for championing libraries in their constituencies. Libraries matter; they are one of the few places in public life where people of all ages and backgrounds are welcomed in without cost or condition. Whether it is a child discovering books for the first time, students revising for exams, pensioners playing bridge or Scrabble, or those needing digital support or wi-fi to apply for jobs, libraries quietly meet a range of needs every single day. Baroness Sanderson put it very well in the other place: “no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC128.] — well, apart from maybe to return your book on time. That civic spirit, quiet, constant and universal, defines the best of what public services should be, and demand for libraries nationally continues to highlight this popular public service. Recent published data from DCMS highlights that nearly one in three adults in England—around 13.7 million people—have used a library in the last year. As we all know, libraries are a statutory service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and rightly so, but how they are delivered is a matter for local councils. That is consistent with the principles that we Conservatives believe in: local services delivered by local people, community engagement, and fiscal responsibility. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the challenges of funding and provision that local authorities and libraries face. As a former local councillor, I understand the scale of those challenges for many councils, and the new duties and demands on precious resources, but it is not all doom and gloom, as my home area has demonstrated. In my borough of Bexley, the Conservative-run council has built two new state-of-the-art libraries, in Sidcup and Thamesmead. The Sidcup library on the high street has been extremely popular since its opening, with a new cinema, and was very busy when I visited on Saturday to view the fantastic VE Day display arranged by the Lamorbey and Sidcup local history society, alongside brilliant local archive and history volunteers. Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling was home to Roald Dahl for part of his life, as it was for other creative talent such as Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and, perhaps most famous, Gary Oldman, who portrayed Winston Churchill in the motion picture “Darkest Hour”. Lots of entertainment for readers and film fans comes from Bexley, and I hope many will enjoy it during this summer’s reading challenge. I am happy to support the people taking part in that this year in our libraries. Councils across the country have adapted creatively to the challenging backdrop for libraries in the online age. From traditional council-run libraries to commissioned trusts and community-supported services, delivery models have evolved, but the mission remains unchanged: to provide a comprehensive and efficient service that meets the needs of local people. I take this opportunity to thank all library professionals around the country, but particularly those in Bexley and the House of Commons Library, and the incredible volunteers at Blackfen community library in my constituency, which has gone from strength to strength since opening as a real community hub in Blackfen. I am proud to support it throughout the year. That library and the new Sidcup library on the high street highlight the powerful role that libraries can play in generating local economic activity and footfall in town centres. That point has not been made much today, but it is important. In government, the Conservatives supported that evolution. Through the libraries improvement fund, we invested more than £20 million to help modernise buildings, improve digital access and ensure that libraries remained fit for purpose in the 21st century. We commissioned the independent review of English public libraries, excellently led by Baroness Sanderson, which laid out a practical vision for renewal through stronger data, better branding, wider membership and deeper community connections. We supported the idea of a universal library card, a national data hub and closer alignment with institutions such as the British Library to strengthen the sector’s long-term sustainability. This is not about centralisation; it is about enabling the sector to thrive by giving it the tools, visibility and consistency it needs. We must acknowledge the vital role that libraries played during the coronavirus outbreak, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned. They moved swiftly online, offering ebooks, streamed activities and virtual learning. In the most difficult circumstances, libraries kept people connected to culture, community and one another. We must be honest though. We understand that local councils face financial pressures, which are being made worse by the Government’s Budget decisions. Bexley council is already £5 million worse off this year, so it has to make more difficult decisions. I encourage councils in that situation to look at the community library model, which has worked well in my constituency and has prevented closures. We must help councils to protect core services while encouraging partnerships, co-location with other services and volunteer engagement where appropriate. I urge the Government to build on the momentum of the cross-party Sanderson review, which provided a road map that balances modernisation with the values that have always underpinned public libraries: access, education, community and trust. It is disappointing that a refreshed public libraries strategy was not published before last year’s general election, but I am sure the Minister agrees that that work must not be lost. This is why we are disappointed that the Minister, Baroness Twycross, has so far avoided giving a direct answer to a direct question on this matter, so I ask the Minister here today: when will his Department publish a strategy for English public libraries, as many Members have called for? I know he understands the need for a new strategy that is informed by data, rooted in localism and underpinned by a longer term vision for this essential local provision. That would allow libraries not just to survive but to flourish in the years ahead. Members on both sides of this House believe in the quiet power of public libraries to educate and inspire, and we stand ready to work across the House to ensure their future is every bit as valuable as their past.

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  One of the key asks from this debate from Members across the House is that the Government publish a national strategy on the back of the Sanderson review. Can I push the Minister to commit to that today?

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way briefly?

• 8 May 2025 · St George’s Day and English Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to rise on behalf of the shadow Culture team to mark St George’s day. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate. “With St George in my heart keep me English, with St George in my heart I pray, with St George in my heart keep me English, keep me English till my dying day.” Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be English and so should we all. Far from being just a nation of shopkeepers, as wrongly claimed, England’s accomplishments are vast. We have given so much to the world: from the writings of Shakespeare to football, rugby and cricket, and to parliamentary democracy itself in this mother of all Parliaments. England’s history is one of heroes and bravery: Nelson, Wellington, Churchill; good triumphing over evil; freedom overcoming tyranny; and the sacrifices of the greatest generation, which we rightly celebrate this week for VE Day, 80 years on. And we give thanks to our incredible armed forces serving today. We Conservatives are not ashamed to celebrate England’s long and storied history; to remind the world that England is not a sleeping lion, but a proud and great nation ready to roar again. England’s culture is living, breathing and shaped by the people who have called this green and pleasant land home in times gone by, and by all of us today. We should never take that inheritance for granted. Culture matters: it binds us together, gives us a common identity and pride, and it provides the foundations for our civic life. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that one of the most important roles of every Government is to protect and promote the cultural fabric of our nation. St George is more than a figure of legend. As our patron saint, he represents ideals that are woven deeply into the English character: courage, service and honour. His story has inspired generations to stand firm in defence of what is right, and it remains a powerful symbol of national unity and Christian faith. Those values and his inspiration were exemplified by those we commemorate throughout this week with our VE Day celebrations nationwide. While in this House on the anniversary of VE Day itself, I want to recognise the immense sacrifice those veterans made for us. For our tomorrow, they gave their today. Their courage, service and duty must inspire us all in this House. I am a proud uncle today, as my seven-year-old niece took my great-grandfather Jack’s and my great-uncle Bill’s medals to her school party. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote Sir Winston Churchill’s words 80 years ago today: “We were the first, in this ancient island, to draw the sword against tyranny. After a while we were left all alone against the most tremendous military power that has been seen… But every man, woman and child in the country had no thought of quitting the struggle… This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.” I am sure that every Member will have seen how these values are preserved and expressed in not only our institutions, but our everyday lives and throughout our history, traditions, literature and music, and in the spirit of local communities around the country. We must make sure that English culture—both historic and contemporary—is properly supported and celebrated, which means protecting heritage sites, funding grassroots arts, civil society and music, championing English literature in our schools, and giving local communities a stronger voice in how their stories are told and preserved. This is not about nostalgia; it is about an enduring national pride and having the confidence to tell England’s stories, warts and all, and teach the next generation that our past is not to be erased, but to be understood and learned from. We must be clear: English identity is not exclusionary. It is inclusive, civic-minded and rooted in shared experience. From the village green to the city high street, from brass bands to bustling markets, English culture thrives in our community—not in Whitehall, but in areas such as my home of Bexley, and in every town and city across our great country. In this House, we rightly celebrate the Union of our United Kingdom. But England, with its unique blends of peoples, cultures and voices, must never, ever be taken for granted. In this St George’s day debate, the Conservatives will continue to proudly fly the flag not just for tradition’s sake, but for what it represents: an England that is resilient, creative and confident in its future. Let us therefore support and invest in the cultural life of our nation, not only for the obvious economic return, but because our culture is the heart of our nation and we should be proud of it—every field, every hedgerow. Together across this House, let us reaffirm our commitment to telling England’s story—rich, complex and full of hope —with a renewed pride. In closing—if you would indulge me one final time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will quote Shakespeare’s “Richard II”: “This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself… This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England”.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  The barbaric terrorist attacks in Kashmir on innocent Indian and Nepali tourists caused deep distress in my constituency, which is home to many Indian nationals and those of Nepali nationality. I welcome the Minister’s tone about de-escalation—he is getting the tone just about right—but may I also urge him to ensure that none of the escalation of tensions in that part of the world happens here in the UK, and that Hindu temples in particular are offered the same funding and security given to mosques around the country?

• 7 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning we learned that Labour’s choice of football regulator, David Kogan, made personal donations to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary. We believe that the Government’s decision not to disclose that fact when Mr Kogan’s appointment was announced constitutes a potential breach of the governance code on public appointments, and represents a clear discourtesy to both this House and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. This appointment clearly puts cronies over clubs and favours over fans, and brings major risks to English football. Can you please advise me on the best way to ensure that this House is able to scrutinise such appointments and ensure that all rules were followed by the Government?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I put on record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and everyone who has engaged with the process outside the Chamber. Like in politics, in football there is always a risk of scoring an own goal, and the Government have just done that with this Bill. It is plain common sense that a Labour donor and a key crony cannot lead an independent football regulator. It is yet another spectacular own goal by this Labour Government—so bad that one has to question whether match fixing is in play. Is that highly controversial appointment the reason that it has taken so long for Labour to bring the Bill back to this place? For months, this Labour Government have held the ball in the corner, counting down the clock as the Prime Minister enjoys his free prawn sandwiches in a suit paid for by Lord Alli in his free box at Arsenal. So delayed is the Bill that Liverpool have already won the premier league, Leeds and Burnley have already been promoted to the premier league, the Toon Army have ended their long wait for a trophy, Birmingham and Wrexham have been promoted to the championship and a Labour MP has been sent off for punching a constituent in the street. Introducing the Bill in the other place was an attempt to avoid the issue here for as long as possible, and the question that fans across the country will want an answer on is why? Was it because of Labour Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or because they would not know a football if it hit them in the face? We Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game. The review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association. Having spoken to a great many football fans across the country and in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football. As we have heard, the Government are putting our football clubs’ participation in UEFA-licensed competitions at risk. Does the Minister recognise that one particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football? Those are not my words but those of UEFA. Reports also suggest that UEFA has made it clear that it has specific rules to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition, the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding any federation from UEFA and teams from competition. Are the Labour Government prepared to be the reason that English football clubs risk being banned from the champions league, the UEFA league, the conference league, the super cup or—even worse—national competitions? Moreover, UEFA, like the Conservative party, reportedly has concerns about scope creep from the Government’s regulator. Our Bill intended that the regulator would oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and help protect fans and heritage assets. However, this new Bill makes it more likely that, once established, the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond those areas and amount to Government interference. If Labour has nothing to hide, it should publish the letters. There are already obvious ways in which the Government’s regulator will increase its own scope. The Minister in the other place was unable to provide a clear answer to questions asked on the following two matters. First, on a concern raised with me by serious and senior football people, where does the Government’s new Bill leave Newcastle United’s Saudi majority owners in relation to the regulator’s powers to investigate club owners? Are the Government saying to all those Newcastle fans who have seen cup glory for the first time in a generation that that will have to stop? Where will the Labour Government’s interference end? Labour and Liberal Democrat peers have voted down Conservative protections for such investment, risking the withdrawal of billions of pounds in investment from clubs. Fans will have heard the comments today from MPs about scope creep in the ownership test. Could the Minister also clarify where this will leave clubs that are involved in multi-club models? For example, Manchester City head a worldwide group of partner clubs, and in 2023 Chelsea acquired a majority stake in the French ligue 1 club Strasbourg. How will the regulator assess these clubs? Will they assess the whole ownership group, in which case they suddenly become an international football regulator, or will they assess only clubs in England, in which case the super-wealthy clubs will simply hide losses in other jurisdictions, as other Members have pointed out. This could directly impact the flourishing women’s game, given the multi-club model in English football. The own goal is already so much bigger than this place and politics. We on this side of the pitch understand football and we know why the independence of a football regulator is so important. The Labour Government do not. Apart from their donor, this Government already have 38 civil servants working on their regulator, making it clear that there is already political and Government interference in the function of football. This legislation and the Government’s action in proposing their own donor, David Kogan, as the chair explicitly and deliberately compromise the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England. It is also clear that this compromises the competitiveness of English football in its purest form: using your jumpers for goalposts in the local park and standing on the terraces with family and friends to support your local club. We cannot lose sight of the business side of professional football and the delicate international ecosystem that sees fans from around the world enjoying English football. For example, only a handful of owners in the premier league are actually English these days. This country is a football global powerhouse, and every single one of us benefits, with billions of pounds for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country and tens of thousands of jobs. A phenomenal export, our beautiful game is watched across the world, with the premier league a true British success story that attracts the most fans and the best players and managers. The EFL and the national league are also fantastic competitions enjoyed by many across the country. Football clubs up and down the pyramid are at the heart of our communities and are a force in many people’s lives, so much so that they even have the ability to split family loyalties. That is the case in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency, where historically you tend to be either a Millwall or a Charlton supporter. But as any football fan will know, competition across the world is rising fast, not just across Europe but in America, the far east and, of course, the new Saudi league, all of whom want a slice of the premier league’s success. Let’s be honest today: if this Labour regulator had been created many years ago, the premier league and all the benefits that Labour talks about would not exist. Let’s be honest with the fans about that. I understand that the premier league is the first and only domestic competition in the United Kingdom where the international media rights strip out those of the domestic rights deals, and the Government are hitting it hard. As we have heard, the premier league alone will be hit across the course of this Parliament by £250 million of costs by this Labour Government’s Budget of broken promises. All clubs will see their costs increase, first from the Chancellor’s tax rises and secondly from the ever-increasing amount of red tape introduced by this Government and exemplified by this Bill. Football might have changed over the years, but the Labour party has not. A Bill touted as reducing costs for fans does nothing of the sort. In fact, plain as day, it will increase the costs for every fan across the country. The Government can stand at the Dispatch Box today but they know full well that this regulator will increase the cost on fans, so much so that Labour peers voted against an amendment that would have disclosed the true cost of this regulator on football ticket prices. What are the Government trying to hide? I ask the Minister: why is she blocking transparency over ticket prices? Not one Labour MP has been able to say how their regulator will reduce ticket prices for fans across this country. I will conclude, as I am conscious of time and want to give the Minister a chance to speak. This shameful Labour Government have once again put their party first—cronies over clubs, favours over fans, greed over the beautiful game. It seems that the Government have taken inspiration from John Barnes and taken his lyrics too literally when he sung, “They’ll always hit you and hurt you”. I am sure he did not mean that the Government should hit fans with increased ticket prices and hurt English football. The Conservative party is under new leadership and will not shy away from telling the fans the truth. Labour has shamefully cut grassroots sport funding across the country, including the Lionesses fund, and its regulator will mean even higher ticket prices for fans at every level of the game. As every Conservative knows, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” We are calling full time on Labour’s shameless power grab over English football, which will certainly see them relegated in the minds of voters and put English football at major risk internationally.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Quite simply, because it is no longer independent.