Stephanie Peacock MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2025 · Diabetes in Sport · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and I will come on to discuss that shortly. We all share a responsibility to enable, support and include people who are managing health conditions such as diabetes, including in sporting environments. Increasing physical activity and reducing inactivity is part of the Government’s health agenda to shift from treatment to prevention. Our 10-year health plan published in July 2025 commits to taking a place-based approach to physical activity. We will invest £250 million in 100 places through Sport England, invest £400 million in local community sport facilities, and develop new school sport partnerships to support schools and families in establishing healthy physical activity behaviours early on. Sport England’s place-based partnerships show that where investment in physical activity is designed with local people, physical inactivity rates were nearly 4 percentage points lower.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Diabetes in Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work with the all-party parliamentary group. In summary, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and Members across the House for their contribution to this debate. As much as anything else, public awareness is key to this agenda. I hope that my hon. Friend can take from my response that the Government are committed to getting more people active, no matter their background. I am hugely passionate about this agenda, as I know that being physically active and playing sport is genuinely life-changing, and, if anything, can be even more important for those with long-term health conditions. I will happily continue to work with him on this issue. Question put and agreed to.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I hope I have outlined this in my contribution, but I reiterate that we want veterans to be front and centre of these commemorations. Importantly, commemorative activity is taking place across the UK, with each of the devolved Governments marking VJ Day 80. The Scottish Government will be leading a concert at Edinburgh castle, where I recently visited the national war memorial. In Northern Ireland, a charity concert will take place in Lurgan, and I was pleased to visit the area a few months ago when I was invited by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I recently visited Cathays cemetery in Cardiff to see the work it carries out to honour the Commonwealth war graves. National wreath-laying at the Wales national war memorial will lead a programme in Wales centred on peace and reconciliation. Those are just some of the events taking place across our devolved nations, and together they reflect a shared commitment to remembrance and recognition across the UK. More than 144 commemorations are taking place across the nation throughout August to mark VJ Day, from those that I have already mentioned to services in Lichfield and Norwich cathedrals, which the public are encouraged to join. We commemorate the end of the second world war throughout the year, and not only on VE Day on 8 May or VJ day on 15 August; troops returned home gradually throughout the year until Alderney’s Homecoming Day on 15 December. The strength and courage of those who fought are truly unmatched, and the horror that they suffered as prisoners of war in the far east is unimaginable. Strength is what we remember about VJ veterans: their unshakable resilience, determination, service and sacrifice in unimaginable circumstances, and the way in which they came together to support one another long after the war had ended. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in expressing our deep gratitude to our great second world war generation. We come together in the House in a moment of unity today to mark 80 years since victory over Japan, in awe of those who gave more than many of us will ever have to give.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan. It is an honour to open today’s debate as we come together as a House and as a country to mark 80 years since victory over Japan, which brought an end to fighting in the far east. The anniversary will be commemorated on 15 August. On 15 August 1945, King George VI delivered a speech to the nation and the Commonwealth, saying, “now we shall have to work hard to restore what has been lost, and to establish peace on the unshakable foundations”. Eighty years on, we remember the British, Northern Irish and Commonwealth veterans—the second world war generation who gave so much, and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to secure our freedom and peace. To them, we say thank you. VE Day 1945 marked the end of the second world war in Europe, but thousands of British, Northern Irish and Commonwealth troops continued to battle against Japanese forces in Asia and the Pacific. Three months later, victory over Japan was declared on 15 August, following Japan’s agreement to surrender unconditionally to the allies. The Prime Minister of the day, Clement Attlee, gave a radio broadcast to announce the end of hostilities, declaring: “Japan has today surrendered. The last of our enemies is laid low.” Eighty years on, this Government recognise the huge importance of commemorating this anniversary. VJ Day is a moment to reflect on the remarkable perseverance and bravery shown by those who fought, or endured, the war in the far east. The human cost of the second world war was overwhelming. It led to death and destruction for millions of people. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities—one on Hiroshima on 6 August and the other three days later on Nagasaki—resulted in enormous devastation, bringing the six-year global conflict to a rapid end and introducing the atomic age. The end of the war brought sadness, relief, and renewed hope that families and soldiers who had long been separated would soon be reunited. However, it would take months and much effort to bring British service personnel back home. Shortly after VE Day, we saw the liberation of Jersey and Guernsey on 9 May, and Alderney on 16 May. It was a huge honour to visit Jersey and Sark this year for the celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Liberation Day. The story of the islands is one of perseverance, which I was grateful to hear more about when I attended a number of commemoration events there, but the period of time from May 1945 through to VJ Day on 15 August was a period of suffering. Tens of thousands of service personnel from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth fought and gave their lives, including thousands of allied troops who were taken as prisoners of war and forced into hard labour. Many allied prisoners of war in Japanese captivity died before liberation in August 1945. Those individuals experienced unimaginable suffering, including starvation and disease, and their memory and sacrifice must not be forgotten. Alongside the British armed forces, hundreds of thousands served in the far east from countries including pre-partition India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Nepal, and from east and west Africa. The British Pacific fleet worked in parallel with our US allies, making the second world war an international effort. This year’s commemorations to mark VJ Day have been, and will continue to be, led by those with first-hand experience of the war. We acknowledge the importance of this, as this year is likely to be the last significant anniversary at which veterans who served in the second world war are present. The Government are honoured to be working closely with the Royal British Legion to put veterans front and centre of the VJ Day commemorations. I take this opportunity to thank the partners who have worked with us throughout this commemorative year, including the Royal British Legion, Imperial War Museums, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the National Theatre, Arts Council England, Historic Royal Palaces, the Together Coalition, the Big Lunch, Atlantic Productions, the BBC and the National Lottery Community Fund. I also thank officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and from the Ministry of Defence. Of course, we have been working across Government, and in particular with the Ministry of Defence. I am joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I have worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Coaker, who is with us this evening. As living history fades into the past, it is more important than ever that we listen to the stories of the remaining veterans who fought for their country in that conflict. The diverse armies that fought together for our freedom reflect the very fabric of modern Britain. The national commemorations will commence with a Government reception to celebrate and commemorate VJ Day with veterans. On Friday 15 August, the Royal British Legion will lead the nation in honouring and remembering those who fought and died during the war in the far east, with a service marking the 80th anniversary of VJ Day. That will take place at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire and will be broadcast live on BBC One from midday. It will pay tribute to British, Northern Irish, Commonwealth and allied veterans who served in the far east theatres of war, the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories. With veterans in attendance, the VJ service will be a tribute to them, involving 400 members of the armed forces, and the Red Arrows. The event will feature a guard of honour of the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force. Music will be provided by military bands, and the battle of Britain memorial flight will lead a breathtaking flypast. The national two-minute silence will be held on Friday 15 August at midday to remember and thank those who fought for our freedom. The silence will be marked by all UK Government Departments, which will also fly the Union flag at full mast. The Government continue to support and promote a range of initiatives to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the ending of the second world war throughout the year, to Remembrance Sunday and beyond. To mark VJ Day specifically, the Imperial War Museum will screen a short film, “I Saw the World End”, produced by Es Devlin, to commemorate the dropping of the atomic bombs. There is a new augmented reality experience offering a deeper exploration of the second world war in Asia and the Pacific. Children and families will be welcomed to the museum’s sites in London and the north to participate in making paper cranes as a symbol of peace. We continue to promote a range of educational and cultural activities to help schools and communities to engage with the 80th commemorations designed to mark both VE and VJ Day, including: “Our Shared Story”, a collection of educational resources; “Letters to Loved Ones”, a project encouraging people to share family letters from the war to illustrate what everyday life was like—it was lovely to discover some of my grandparents’ letters from when my grandad, Bobby, who I am very proud of, was serving in the RAF during the war; and “The Next Morning”, a new production written by James Graham that focuses on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people after the second world war. The Government have provided funding to support arts centres, libraries and museums across the country to work with their local communities to develop activities that commemorate and reflect the VE and VJ Day anniversaries. I look forward to visiting one such project in my area, taking place at the Barnsley Civic, to hear more about its work exploring community solidarity in Barnsley from the 1940s to the present day. My Department has been working with the Common-wealth War Graves Commission on the “For Evermore Tour”, which is travelling across the UK and global sites including cemeteries in Kenya, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. The tour will honour and shine a light on stories from those across the world who fought in the second world war, and I was grateful for the opportunity to see the tour at first hand in May. UK landmarks, high commissions in Commonwealth countries and prominent memorials will be lit up in white on 15 August as beacons of strength and national unity, as they were 80 years ago.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for your guidance. I am pleased to be speaking to these orders, the first of which was laid before the House in draft on 26 June and the second of which was made on 26 June and is subject to the made affirmative procedure. The Government are clear in our commitment to a free and pluralistic media whereby all citizens in all parts of the UK can access high-quality news and other information from a range of sources, enabling them to form their own opinions. The public’s continued access to diverse news, views and information is fundamental to the health of our democracy as well as our nation. That is why the Enterprise Act 2002 contains powers that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in media mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to public interest concerns —about, for example, the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion—and to take appropriate action to remedy any such concerns that arise. Owing to the more limited nature of the news market in 2002, when the Enterprise Act became law, only print newspapers published on a daily, Sunday or local basis and broadcasters are in scope of the core media mergers regime. The media landscape has undergone significant changes in the intervening decades, and our laws need to keep pace with technology and evolving news consumption habits. The shift to digital news was clearly evidenced in the Ofcom report “News consumption in the UK: 2024”, which showed that 71% of UK adults now consume news via online sources. We need to reflect the fact that news is increasingly accessed and consumed online. That is why we are here today; these orders are designed to address that very issue. In its 2021 statutory review of the operation of media ownership rules, Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State broaden the scope of the public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators. Ofcom set out its belief that that would better reflect the way in which people access news now. Between 6 November 2024 and 13 January 2025, my Department ran a technical consultation on proposals derived from Ofcom’s recommendations: to expand the scope of the media mergers regime from print newspapers and broadcasters to encompass online newspapers and periodical news magazines, and to extend the application of key media public interest considerations to this new definition of newspapers, and broadcasters carrying news programmes. Those public interest considerations are: the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers; the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers; and the need for sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. At the same time, the Government proposed to extend the scope of the new foreign state influence regime to online news publications. Having taken into account the views of industry, Parliament and the public, we are confident that our changes balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment. Two related orders—the ones that we are discussing today—are required to enact the policy changes. First, the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 will amend the definition of “newspaper” in the Enterprise Act 2002 so that it encompasses print and online newspapers and print and online periodical news magazines. Provision has been made to ensure that the scope of the regime extends only to publications that are connected with the UK. In effect, the amendments will expand and align the scope of the media merger standard and special public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime. All three regimes will now apply to acquisitions of print newspapers, news magazines and online newspapers. That will create a consistent and forward-looking public interest regime. Importantly, the draft order will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest grounds—subject to jurisdiction—in the acquisition of an online-only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so. The second order, the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, will extend the application of public interest considerations in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to “news media”—a new term defined as newspapers or broadcasters of news programmes. Those public interest considerations include the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers, and the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers. Whereas the public interest considerations I have just mentioned can already be considered in the context of newspaper mergers, the changes made by the section 58 order will mean that the Secretary of State will now be able on any of the aforementioned public interest grounds to intervene in mergers involving the broadcasters of news programmes. The order will also extend the public interest consideration on the need for sufficient plurality of control of the media in relation to every different UK audience. That public interest consideration currently applies to mergers involving broadcasters, but the Secretary of State will now also be able to consider its relevance to mergers involving print and online newspaper and news magazine enterprises. We recognise the challenging financial context for newspapers, and the importance of the balance between encouraging investment in the sector and being able to protect against market consolidation that might be detrimental to our plural and thriving news market. It is important to note in relation to the changes made by the section 58 order that the Secretary of State’s powers under the public interest regime continue to be discretionary. There is a range of possible outcomes to any investigation that she may commence, and in assessing an individual case, the Secretary of State would need to consider the facts of the case and the evidence at hand. Returning to the orders, the foreign state influence regime introduced in May 2024 already prohibits foreign states from acquiring control or influence over the policy of print newspaper and periodical news magazine enterprises. The regime will be extended by the definition of newspaper order such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control or influence over the policy of an online newspaper or news magazine enterprise. The benefit of extending the scope of the prohibition in this way is to protect plurality of views and to prevent potential editorial interference or censorship from foreign states in online-only newspapers, which form a large part of the UK’s news consumption. That expansion will also ensure alignment across the media merger regime for both print and digital news publications, creating a consistent, forward-looking regime. The amendments to the definition of newspaper for the foreign state influence regime will apply with retrospective effect from the day that this change was announced: 15 May 2025. The Secretary of State will be required to intervene in any completed or anticipated mergers involving an online newspaper enterprise that completed or were in progress on or after 15 May. If she has reasonable grounds to suspect a foreign power is or will be able to control or influence the policy of the online newspaper enterprise as a result, all other changes will apply prospectively. Both the definition of newspaper order and the amendment of section 58 considerations order will make the public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime reflect the various ways people access and consume news today. With those changes, we are modernising protections for our world-class UK news market, by enabling or requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in a broader range of news mergers that may operate against the public interest. The orders balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It has been an important debate, and I am grateful for the contributions—in particular, that of the official Opposition. It is a delight to see the shadow Minister in his place; I am used to calling him Minister, as I used to sit in where he is now. I appreciate his contribution, his questions and his support, as I do the always cordial approach from the Liberal Democrats. The debate shows the wide support for protecting a thriving and plural news market that acts as the cornerstone of democracy, especially in this digital age. The debate also highlights the challenges of striking the right balance between encouraging a range of investment in the sector and safeguarding the public’s ability to access high quality news that they can trust. That balance is especially fine in the light of the continuing evolution of the digital and online space. In answer to the point around investment, the Government have decided to take a proportionate approach that reflects the most important changes to the way in which the public consume news in the present day. The approach will balance not stifling or chilling investment and protecting the public. The Government are committed to supporting a financially sustainable press sector, recognising the financial challenges that many have faced over recent years. We acknowledge the role that consolidation can play; we are developing our local media strategy in recognition of the importance of this, and are working cross-Government with other stakeholders as the strategy develops. We agree that encouraging a range of investment in the sector is important, and the Government are committed to maintaining a thriving and pluralistic media landscape, but that obviously has to have a balance. Moving on to the questions about the foreign state ownership regime, we of course debated that last month and it was passed by a vote of the House earlier this month. I committed to updating the House by the middle of this week, and I shall. Obviously, this issue emerged under the previous Government; it was very clear that we do not want foreign states having influence. The 15% cap balances the need to protect the sector from state influence with the reality that newspapers need to access new investment. Of course, if there is any hint that that is anything other than a passive investment, the Secretary of State is obliged to act. We have debated that. I will introduce a further SI and update the House later this week. Question put.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing this important debate. She outlined the huge contribution that Onna Ju-Jitsu has made to her area. I join her in thanking that organisation for the contribution that it has made to Bradford and the young people that it works with. I want to say from the outset how awful, concerning and unacceptable the experience is that my hon. Friend has outlined to the House today. I will encourage Sport England to learn and develop processes as a result, and I will go into more detail in the very short time that I have. I am happy to meet her if I cannot cover it all in the time I have left. Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror to our society, reflecting its strengths and at times its challenges. It is one of the most pressing challenges—racism—that we are discussing today. The Government’s stance is unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society and no place in sport and activity. We are committed to stamping it out, from the elite level to the grassroots, ensuring that sport is truly for everyone, regardless of their background or ethnicity. My hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to Sport England and its handling of a specific case relating to the British Ju-Jitsu Association. Given the issues raised, I have met Sport England to talk about the specifics of the case and how it addressed it. I want to start by saying that I recognise and appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituent. National governing bodies are central to our sporting system, and are responsible for the management, administration and regulation of their sports. As such, they should rightly be held to high standards. In this case, it is clear that the British Ju-Jitsu Association fell short of those standards. My hon. Friend spoke about how there has been an extensive process over a number of years, which initially led to beginning the process of derecognition of the governing body. As part of that process, and in line with the criteria, the British Ju-Jitsu Association was given a deadline to submit relevant evidence and information showing that it was capable of meeting set policy criteria in order to maintain its NGB status. Following a review in May 2024, the home country sports councils agreed to the continued recognition of the British Ju-Jitsu Association providing it complied with agreed conditions. It is worth pausing on those conditions, as they remain extremely relevant. First, the governing body needed to publish a commitment to cultural change. Secondly, it needed to establish an equality, diversity and inclusion working group, and monitor processes. Thirdly, it needed to move to being a more inclusive organisation through a plan agreed with Sport England. I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns that the change has not been comprehensive. The approach taken by Sport England has given the best chance of delivering long-term change by trying to keep the British Ju-Jitsu Association within its scope rather than cutting it adrift. However, I strongly believe that culture change means action as well as words, so I will be paying close attention to how the British Ju-Jitsu Association rebuilds the confidence of those who take part in the sport, which it has clearly lost. I will say at this stage that those conditions must be ongoing. It is clear that there remain concerns about the culture at the British Ju-Jitsu Association. I know that Sport England takes its role very seriously in supporting an inclusive environment where participants have confidence in the leadership of sport, so I will continue to engage with it to make sure that scrutiny is maintained, and that action is taken when the British Ju-Jitsu Association does not meet the standards required. I also want to address the wider situation of sport governance within this context. As a Government, we want to see as many sports clubs and organisations affiliated with their recognised governing bodies as possible. For participants, that is vital information to be aware of. The recognition process ensures that the home country sports councils, including Sport England, have the ability to change behaviour and drive progress. It also allows clubs and other affiliated organisations to apply for public funding. I refer hon. Members to the Adjournment debate last night on safeguarding in combat sports, which shows precisely why we need to use recognition to improve sport and sport safety. In the case that my hon. Friend has raised, it is entirely right that Sport England continues to use all available levers to drive culture change within the British Ju-Jitsu Association, while maintaining its ability to take all possible actions, including derecognition should that change not be taken forward. In her speech, my hon. Friend raised concerns with how Sport England has handled the case. I recognise that it is always difficult to reach a conclusion that satisfies all parties in such cases, but I have been assured by Sport England that it takes the allegations seriously. I also recognise that, when it comes to assessing individual cases, its powers are limited. As a result of this case, Sport England is in the process of reviewing the current recognition policy. At the moment, the criteria are very factual and based on whether a governing body has the right policies in place. That does not allow the sports councils to take into account wider factors that are clearly relevant to the confidence that individuals have in the leadership of their sport. The current review will look at those wider issues, including whether the sport has been brought into disrepute. That will allow sports councils to take a broader look at whether it is appropriate for governing bodies to continue to be recognised. A review of that nature, and the ability to consider the leadership and culture of a governing body, is something that I wholeheartedly support and strongly encourage. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding the sharing of information, and I know that she has been speaking to the Information Commissioner’s Office about those concerns. As Sport England is a public body, it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take an independent view on what needs to happen, but I am sure that those at Sport England will have heard the issues in this debate. I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituent can take from this debate just how important this issue is to me and the Government. I will be keeping a close eye on developments in British jiu-jitsu, but I am also taking steps to ensure that everyone who participates in sport feels included and welcome. It is a sad fact that racism continues to plague our society, and we must do more to tackle it. Sport England is at the heart of our sporting system. It is therefore essential that it sets an example and creates the right culture in sport. I have heard at first hand Sport England’s commitment to do so, but given this debate, I will continue to discuss it with the organisation and ensure that it remains a central priority, as there is clearly more to do. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 8 Jul 2025 · Combat Sports for Children: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his work, his moving contribution and for putting that important point on the record. As he said, sport should be a safe and welcoming environment that participants, parents and carers can have confidence in. Many martial arts providers work hard to safeguard children who participate under their supervision, and there are strong safety practices in place across many areas of combat sport, but more must be done to ensure that safety standards are strong, consistent and transparent. Standards of practice should be robust and widely adopted across the sector, and it should be clear to parents and carers which clubs and competitions comply with shared standards and which do not. Nothing can bring Alexander back, but as the Secretary of State said to me before the debate, we are determined to work with his family to make sure that part of his legacy is real change, so that a tragedy like this never happens again. Question put and agreed to.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Combat Sports for Children: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for his moving speech. The death of his constituent, Alexander Eastwood, as a result of a kickboxing bout is devastating. I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about child safeguarding and I can reassure him and the House that it is a priority for this Government. He advocates with care and thought for his constituents, making a powerful and moving speech—one that I have heard very clearly. In the time available to me, I will set out the Government’s plans to strengthen safeguarding for children in combat sports. I will begin by outlining key safeguarding issues in those sports; then I will set out the Government’s next steps in addressing this incredibly important issue. First, I recognise that this is a debate that everyone would have hoped we would not have to have. The tragic death of Alexander Eastwood is something we hoped would never have happened. I am sure I speak for the whole House in extending our deepest sympathies to his family, who are here this evening. As my hon. Friend has said, they have shown incredible courage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Alexander’s family next week, and we are both committed to making sure that meaningful change happens so that no other family has to go through the pain that they have felt. It is a priority of my Department that the safety and wellbeing of children taking part in sport are paramount. Alexander’s death is such a tragedy, and it has made it very clear that more needs to be done to protect the safety of children in combat sports. Ahead of the inquest into the death of Alexander Eastwood, the assistant coroner for Manchester West filed a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths. The report highlighted specific areas of concern for children in martial arts. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out plans to work with the martial arts sector to address those concerns. In considering our next steps, we must take account of the entire martial arts sector and its complexity. The sector is made up of many different disciplines, including judo, taekwondo, kickboxing and more. Many, though not all, of these disciplines have publicly funded national governing bodies. Many providers across the sector have robust safety measures in place. National governing bodies set minimum safeguarding standards for their affiliated clubs and competitions to comply with. These standards are in line with guidance issued by Sport England, our arm’s length body for grassroots sport. Many clubs and competitions are not affiliated with a publicly funded governing body. However, many unaffiliated providers choose to sign up to the safeguarding code in martial arts. Organisations such as the British Martial Arts and Boxing Association support unaffiliated martial arts providers to adopt the safeguarding code. The code is funded by Sport England, and recognises clubs and associations that demonstrate strong safeguarding practices against a set of minimum standards. Providers with recognition under the code can display a logo on their promotional materials to show participants that their safety measures have been vetted. The coroner’s report on the case of Alexander Eastwood highlighted specific issues around clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with a national governing body. We are now looking into that as a matter of urgency. The coroner identified that without set standards, clubs and competitions may not have adequate regulations around medical checks and support, the number of rounds and periods of rest, participant welfare checks and critical incident plans. Despite the programmes in place to support robust safeguarding practices in martial arts, unaffiliated providers are not required to meet any shared safety standards. I recognise that coaches and providers work hard to make martial arts available to communities across the country, and I recognise the work done by clubs and associations to comply with the safeguarding code in martial arts, but there must be strong, consistent standards for safeguarding children across all martial arts. Clearly, more must be done. Clubs and competitions across martial arts should share consistent standards for safeguarding children. Parents and carers should be able to trust that appropriate safety measures are in place, regardless of where their children participate. Existing safety standards for martial arts set by Sport England and its partners must be robust and fit for purpose, but national standards must also translate into strong safety practices across all martial arts. The sector should look to encourage as many clubs as possible to adopt shared safety standards. The Government will consider what more can be done in this space. Parents and carers deserve to be able to make informed decisions about where their children participate in martial arts. Information on best safety practices and which clubs and competitions meet shared standards should be readily available to participants and their guardians. Of course, the burden of finding information should not only lie with participants and their guardians; clubs and competitions with robust safety practices should be supported to promote the standards they meet. The Government are looking at all these areas to assess what more can be done to safeguard children in combat sports. As promised in her response to the coroner’s report, the Secretary of State will meet the family of Alexander Eastwood to hear about their experiences and views, and to discuss our thinking before we go into more detail publicly. I hope everyone can appreciate why that approach is being taken. In addition, in response to the coroner’s report on this case, my Department has tasked Sport England with working with the martial arts sector on this issue. It will identify improvements and present a plan in the coming months. That work will include developing guidance for the martial arts sector and reviewing the safeguarding code for martial arts to ensure that it reflects best practice and is fit for purpose. Sport England will also work with the NSPCC to help educate parents and carers on what to look for in choosing where to participate in martial arts. That will involve the NSPCC’s Keeping Your Child Safe in Sport Week—a week of educational programming in October. My Department is also exploring ways to strengthen safety standards in clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with national governing bodies. We are having conversations with the martial arts sector to understand how we can help parents and carers to be confident that their children will be safe when they participate. Our aim will be to ensure that safeguarding practices in martial arts are consistent, effective and transparent.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to be responding on Report as the Football Governance Bill enters its final stages in the House of Commons. I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Liverpool’s Diogo Jota, who tragically lost his life last week at just 28 years of age, alongside his brother. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to their loved ones. English football is one of our proudest traditions. It is more than just a game. Football brings us together, providing a source of local pride and uniting us in victory and in loss. The premier league, the EFL and the national league attract some of the best players in the world. In return, we find fans of English football clubs in almost every country. However, despite the global success story of English football, there are underlying fragilities in the game, and this Labour Government are committed to tackling them, as we are the party on the side of football fans. We have seen too many instances of irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate regulation casting a shadow over too many clubs, as fans of Bury, Derby County and countless others know all too well. The current issues at Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe need resolving now, and they demonstrate the urgent need for this Bill to become law. This change has been a long time coming, dating back in this place to the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee report of 2011. The ill-fated super league attempt led, of course, to the fan-led review, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, who pioneered that work.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am really grateful for that intervention. Again, I know that my hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work on this issue. I have heard the calls from Members across the House, and indeed from retired footballers, and the Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. The Government are committed to looking further at this issue and supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address the lifelong consequences from concussion, as well as post-career mental health and financial crises. I am afraid that these measures are not within the tight regulatory scope of the Bill, although that does not mean that the Government are not aware and sympathetic to the calls being made on this issue, both in this House and from many former players and their families. The Bill is focused on the financial sustainability of football clubs up and down the country. Too many fans have watched as their clubs make changes on which they have no say, from selling their stadium and changing club colours to, in the worst case, collapsing under inadequate ownership. This is unacceptable. It is devastating for fans and for local communities. It is this Bill, delivered by this Labour Government, that will help to protect one of our great sporting assets and ensure that fans can focus on what is happening on the pitch, rather than off it. Today, Members across this House can vote with football fans, or they can vote against them. Today, we can deliver an independent football regulator. I commend this Bill to the House.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; I know that he has worked very hard on this issue. I am hugely sympathetic to the issue of player welfare. It is important to say that the safety, welfare and wellbeing of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service on the Bill Committee. He is right that we had a very good debate, and the impact assessment was of course approved by the previous Minister for Sport. On amendment 18, the governance code on appointments is clear that political activity is not a bar to appointment. David Kogan has been found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and has now been endorsed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, adding a further layer of robustness. We will not set a new precedent with the football regulator by going further than the governance code on appointments, as the amendment proposes. More broadly, on amendments 19 and 20 on conflicts of interest, if the interests of a board or expert panel member might prejudice their ability to carry out their functions, the Bill already captures that as a conflict of interest. On the owners and directors test, membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Such offences would already be considered when testing an individual’s fitness, so amendment 15 is not required. On amendment 17 on the corporate governance code, reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. Clubs will simply have to state what they are doing on the issue. On amendment 27 on club charities, I know from my area of Barnsley the brilliant work that the Barnsley FC Community Trust does. Through changes made in the other place, the corporate governance code gives a club the flexibility to detail what action it is taking to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community. That can include the work of the club’s official charity or wider work in the community, so the amendment is not needed. New clause 1 calls for a consultation on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch. That is outside the scope of the Bill, which focuses on the sustainability of clubs and the game overall. I have raised the issue with the Home Office, which is the policy lead, as I committed to doing in Committee.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have reflected those comments to the relevant Home Office Minister, as I said. I will turn to the amendments in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I thank him for his constructive approach to the scrutiny of the legislation and for his party’s support. Several of his amendments are outside the scope of the regulator, but I am sure that he will put on record some important and valid points. On free-to-air TV in new clause 3, the Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between giving access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against investment, and not risk it. On new clause 4 on the golden share, we expect that the regulator will welcome clubs taking any measure to improve fan engagement and protect club heritage, including a golden share, but it will not mandate them to do so. That brings me on to the issue of fan engagement, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in their amendments. Let me be really clear: the Government have strengthened fan engagement. The previous Government’s Bill required clubs to have a framework in place to ensure that they regularly meet and consult with a representative group of fans on key strategic matters at the club and other issues of importance to supporters. We have improved that by requiring fan engagement to continue even if a club enters into insolvency, and by introducing a requirement for consultation on ticket prices. We have not prescribed a fixed, one-size-fits-all approach to fan engagement. We of course expect the regulator to consult the Football Supporters’ Association where appropriate on fan issues, and I know the shadow regulator is already engaging with it. We do not want to place an unmanageable burden on clubs unnecessarily, which is why new clause 4 is not needed. The hon. Member for Cheltenham has also tabled amendments on protections for home grounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has also raised and we have recently discussed. Home grounds are vital assets for clubs, which is why the Bill introduces protections to prevent inappropriate stadium sales and relocations. Clauses 46 and 48 require a club to get approval from the regulator before they sell or relocate their stadium. On the sale of a home ground, let me first clarify that the legislation uses the term “disposal” rather than “sale” for technical legal reasons. For example, a club might sell a portion of the stadium, rather than the whole stadium. That is because a club might divest a shareholding, or transfer interest, in the stadium without it amounting to a full sale. Under clause 46, the regulator’s approval is needed in all instances for the sale of a stadium by a club. A sale can be approved only if it would not undermine the sustainability of the club. If a sale might mean that the club will have nowhere to play a few years down the line, that means the club may not be sustainable and the regulator is unlikely to approve the sale.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, absolutely, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further. I will move on to the issue of player welfare.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. “I hope that whoever wins the election on 4 July will see this as a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans.” –– [ Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 244.] Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), for whom I have huge respect and affection. That brings me on to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the amendments standing in his name. Amendment 14 is on the issue of listing in primary legislation the competitions in scope of regulation. The approach in this Bill is consistent with similar sports legislation. The Opposition’s amendment would be likely to make this a hybrid Bill, which would mean years of delay, in effect killing off the Bill that they introduced and which was in their manifesto. We have been absolutely clear that the regulator will be operationally independent of Government. It will not exert any influence on the Football Association’s autonomy to govern the game. The shadow Minister is obsessed with the publication of private communications with UEFA and FIFA. Despite his obsession and what I would say were his quite strong remarks about me at the Dispatch Box, did his Government publish private correspondence? No, of course they did not. I have been very clear throughout that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill as it is currently drafted. Amendment 25 is simply scaremongering on the part of the Opposition. It is also curiously at odds with one of their other amendments—amendment 21. The football governance statement, which was also in the previous Government’s Bill, allows the Government of the day to set out their priorities for the regulator. This is no different from the strategic steers that the Government can and do give to other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, without undermining their operational independence. The statement will be published and laid before Parliament. Parliamentary approval is neither appropriate nor necessary, especially given the need to avoid political interference. Amendments 24 and 28 on levy exemptions are simply not needed. The cost of regulation should not place an undue burden on clubs and costs should be transparent, as set out in clause 54. The regulator already has the power to exempt clubs from paying the levy through its levy rules.