WESTMINSTER RADAR
Search
My MPs
Menu

Stephanie Peacock MP: speeches 2025

499 published records · newest first.

Speeches

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

    Before speaking directly to these amendments, I want to address the comments made about the chair appointment. I am very aware of the direction that you have given, Sir Jeremy, so I will focus my remarks on the comments made by the shadow Minister and Opposition Members. David Kogan brings with him a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries. The shadow Minister’s speech had three parts, so I forget when he said this, but he made the point more than once that it is about attracting the right candidate with the right experience, and how that is a challenge. We are confident that David Kogan is the right person. He was found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member who was agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. David Kogan declared his political activity to the DCMS Committee, as the shadow Minister has stated, which endorsed his appointment, adding a further layer of robustness to the appointment process. The donations were declared during the Committee session, as the shadow Minister also stated, and the Committee was sufficiently aware when it published its report endorsing him.

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

    There were 42 employees as of 1 June; 11 joined having previously been employed by DCMS and two joined having formerly advised DCMS. The answer is due by 6 o’clock today and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives it in writing by then.

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

    The hon. Gentleman gets ahead of himself; he is somewhat excited this afternoon. That was my second point—I have numbered my points one and two, and I have a third to make. He asked about members of the Committee. It is for hon. Members to declare relevant interests, and when we began the sitting this morning hon. Members did indeed refer to their entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not want to be drawn any further on the details of the process as that would not be appropriate. I have made all the comments I can within the confines of the topic and the yellow card you very kindly gave, Sir Jeremy. I will therefore move on to talk briefly about the amendments. I will explicitly state that the independence of the regulator is paramount. The Bill is, as the hon. Gentleman said, designed to create an independent football regulator free from any undue political or industry influence. That has always been and continues to be our aim. In the service of that, we have already strengthened the Bill further, now requiring the regulator to establish and maintain a register of relevant interests of members of the board. That already includes the chair, so any further amendment is not necessary. The definition of relevant interests in the Bill is already broad enough to include political donations if they are relevant to the regulator’s functions. The appointment of the chair is subject to the governance code on public appointments, which clearly sets out that any political activity “should not…be a bar to appointment”, as well as the requirements in relation to the declaration of political activity. That point has been well rehearsed; indeed, the Liberal Democrat spokesman made it earlier, as have other hon. Members. The chair of the regulator is already required to undergo a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing, which we have debated at length. Pre-appointment scrutiny is reserved for the most significant roles, including those where demonstrable independence from the Government is required. The chair and other non-executive members of the board would also be bound by the code of conduct for members of public body boards, which sets clear expectations around political impartiality once in a role. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is robust in ensuring the independence of both the chair and board members more widely. The amendments would not in any substantive manner increase the level of protection in the Bill against undue political influence over the chair. I turn to the amendments 118 and 119 about conflicts of interest for the board and the expert panel. I reassure the Committee that the Bill, supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest, irrespective of sector. It is also important that the widest possible range of people are encouraged to apply to contribute their skills and experience so long as any and all conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North. Government amendments made in the other place have strengthened those protections even further, and beyond doubt. Paragraph 17 of schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters that fall for consideration by the board, and for that declaration to be recorded. The board member would not be permitted to take part in any discussions related to a matter if they have a significant direct or indirect interest in it. With specific regard to the expert panel in amendment 119, the Bill already places an onus on the chief executive officer to check for conflicts of interest at the point of making an appointment to the expert panel and on an ongoing basis from time to time. The Bill sets out that the chief executive officer must ensure that the expert panel has all the relevant range of skills, knowledge and experience. The amendment might limit the ability of the chief executive officer to do that, as it would restrict the pool of potential members of the expert panel. It may well be appropriate for the expert panel to have expertise in media or broadcasting, but the amendment would outright preclude that, and so might hinder the regulator’s ability to fulfil its objectives. All in all, the Bill contains comprehensive safeguards to examine and manage genuine conflicts of interest appropriately. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

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

    I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. On the broad question of why we are making the change, to be quite blunt, it would be easier not to. We have a big majority in this place, but we spoke earlier about parliamentary scrutiny and we genuinely listened to the debate in the Lords, where there was quite a lot of discussion around the mechanism of the backstop. It is important to make it clear right now that the backstop is a backstop. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a very succinct speech—it is worth reading—about how the backstop should be a backstop. Understandably, a lot of the debate has focused on the backstop—that is not a criticism—but it is genuinely meant to be a backstop. To be quite blunt, it would be easier not to make the change, but we think that it is the right thing to do. I could understand the previous Government’s pendulum arbitration and why it could be successful, but it was more risky, and that prompts more nerves from stakeholders. I am straying into debating the backstop, which I do not want to do because we will debate it later on. On the question about specifying that the board can delegate these decisions to a committee, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not changing the way that the backstop can be triggered— again, we are straying into the backstop. There is a set of criteria for when the backstop can be triggered by a league, and the state of the game report must have been written and the regulator must agree with that. That stays the same. I am straying into a future debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying—he can correct me if I am wrong—that under the previous mechanism it was pendulum arbitration, where party A would put forward a proposal, as would party B, and an expert panel would decide on one or the other, in a completely binary way. This changes it so that there is informal mediation and then a proposal stage. Because the regulator is more involved in saying, “We like that but go and speak a bit more about this,” or, “Seek some more evidence on that,” it makes sense that they do not then delegate that decision. That is the point that I am making, though it is quite difficult to debate this outside the backstop, as I acknowledged in my remarks. I am happy to take his comments away, and when we come to part 4, I believe, and we debate the backstop and the changes more thoroughly, I am really happy to go into more detail. Amendment 61 agreed to. Amendment made: 62, in schedule 2, page 91, line 41, at end insert— “(da) the function of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under section 59; (db) the function of making a distribution order under section ( Distribution orders );”— (Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment provides that the Board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or making a distribution order under NC4 to another committee of the Board. Amendment proposed : 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, at end insert— “4A No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”— (Mr French.) This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel. Question put , That the amendment be made.

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

    As I have outlined, a benchmarking exercise will be done thoroughly on that. I am intrigued by the mock outrage from the Conservative party, who did not in any way put in a staffing cap or a salary cap when we were in this room previously. To take some examples of other salaries, they are much higher: at the Financial Conduct Authority, the salary is £400,000, at the Competition and Markets Authority, it is £200,000, and at Ofcom, it is £350,000. This is the current salary now but it was not wildly different under the last Government. I did not see them making these amendments to their Bill.

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

    I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 89, line 29, leave out “sections 61 and 82” and insert “section 82”. This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC3.

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

    I have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I do not have the quote in front of me, so I will paraphrase, but I believe that the Select Committee also praised, or acknowledged, Mr Kogan’s candour and transparency—the fact that he was open with them—and of course the Committee did endorse him. I will heed your yellow card, Sir Jeremy.

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

    I am not going to be drawn on figures. I will say that we think that the regulator should be as light touch and slim as possible. We do not think that it should be unwieldy and we do not think there should be staff for staff’s sake. It is not for me as the Minister to prescribe a specific number. I do not agree with that. For those reasons, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should withdraw his amendment.

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

    I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that it was a unanimous decision by the cross-party Select Committee. There will have been similar instances in the previous Parliament, so I think his point is somewhat unfair, but it may be a reflection of the fact that he is new to this place. Reference was made to the fact that we have received a letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will of course co-operate fully with his office. No conclusions have been reached at this stage, and we will completely co-operate. Some points were made about what was said on Second Reading and to the Select Committee. The governance code already sets out the requirements for political donations. Donations in scope of the governance code were provided to the Select Committee in advance of the hearing. The leadership campaign donations fall outside the reporting window and the threshold for declaration; however, they were disclosed to the Select Committee in the interests of transparency, which endorsed the appointment on a cross-party basis.

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

    I say gently to the hon. Member—this is a point that has been made by my hon. Friends behind me—that his Government did not publish any private correspondence from UEFA. There will be letters in existence similar to the one to which he refers. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), whom I like a great deal—indeed, I respect both gentlemen—did not publish those, so I am a bit confused about why the hon. Gentleman is making this very well-rehearsed argument, which is contrary to what his Government did.

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

    I am happy to provide the Committee with a copy of the impact assessment. I will address the point on staffing in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

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

    I am absolutely happy to do that. It is obviously up to the Select Committees, and they can scrutinise if they want to—it will be up to individual Select Committees to decide. The IFR has to publish an annual report, and there is a review clause in there, too. We are happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail if that would be helpful. Question put, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    My hon. Friend is a strong champion for her area, and I have met her to talk about grassroots facilities in Dudley. We are working with the Football Foundation to ensure that we invest up and down the country in our grassroots facilities.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    There is no suggestion of wrong- doing. Indeed, David Kogan was approached under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government for the role. We have full confidence in him; he was endorsed by the cross-party Select Committee.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    I simply do not recognise the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government are committed to our manifesto commitment. The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism reminds me that it is a year since the general election; prior to that, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and I were on the previous Football Governance Bill Committee, where we spent many hours together. This Government have strengthened that Bill, and fans will now be consulted on ticket pricing.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    I know from my constituency the huge benefit that grassroots club bring. Of course, the Premier League sends a huge amount of money down through the pyramid. We are introducing the football regulator, which will be able to help secure a deal if a voluntary deal cannot be reached; we also have the Football Foundation, which works with the Premier League to put money into grassroots football. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    Continued delays to a potential new distribution deal serve no one, and we understand the uncertainty and instability that they can cause many clubs, including Swansea City. We are backing the football regulator, which is what I encourage Members to do. The Government are keeping our manifesto commitment.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    David Kogan was appointed to the board of Channel 4 under the previous Conservative Government. He has been welcomed across this House and across the media and footballing world. My hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has dismissed those rumours. Let us not believe everything that we read in the papers.

  • 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source
    More

    The Government recognise the importance of distribution to the health of English football, and have engaged extensively with football authorities, including the Premier League, to encourage industry to come to an agreement that works for the football pyramid. If industry is not able to solve the issue, we, of course, have the Football Governance Bill, which gives the independent football regulator the power to ensure that such an agreement is made.

  • 22 May 2025 · Sports Facilities: Areas of Housing Growth · Hansard source
    More

    Leisure facilities are vital to getting people active, and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member.

  • 22 May 2025 · Sports Facilities: Areas of Housing Growth · Hansard source
    More

    We have had some very cheery messages about tennis. The Lawn Tennis Association has done a very good job ahead of these questions. We are committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but we want to make sure that they are communities. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and I would be delighted to discuss it further with her.

  • 22 May 2025 · Sports Facilities: Areas of Housing Growth · Hansard source
    More

    Access to places and spaces to be physically active, including in high-quality sports facilities, is vital for all local communities across the country. That is why we are investing £100 million via the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme to provide access to high-quality facilities and support more players getting on to the pitch wherever they live.

  • 22 May 2025 · Remote Betting and Gaming Duty: Horseracing · Hansard source
    More

    I absolutely will reflect those comments to the Treasury. I have had many a fun time at the St Leger, which is just down the road from me in Barnsley, and I would be delighted to visit again, if I can.

  • 22 May 2025 · Remote Betting and Gaming Duty: Horseracing · Hansard source
    More

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am a big supporter of racing, and I appreciate how many jobs it contributes to the economy—according to the British Horseracing Authority, it is 85,000. I know that racing is really important to rural areas and towns. Of course, the consultation to which he refers is a Treasury lead. It is open till 21 July, but I will reflect his comments to the Treasury.

  • 22 May 2025 · Remote Betting and Gaming Duty: Horseracing · Hansard source
    More

    The Secretary of State is in Japan for the world expo conference in Osaka, strengthening UK-Japan relations. I know that she has written to you, Mr Speaker, to explain her absence. The Government recognise the significant contribution that horseracing makes to the British economy. In that spirit, I pay tribute to Rachael Blackmore. She has had a fantastic impact on the sport and has enjoyed enormous success, and I wish her well with her retirement. His Majesty’s Treasury leads on the consultation on the tax treatment of remote gambling. The consultation is open till 21 July, and any impact assessment of any legislative changes will be a matter for that Department.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →