Stephanie Peacock MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will use the opportunity presented by amendment 130 to talk to another of this Government’s changes to strengthen the Bill. The Opposition amendments would amend clause 57, which sets out how and under what conditions a league can apply to the regulator to trigger the backstop. We will discuss clause 57 in more detail in the next group, but in brief, one of the conditions for triggering the backstop is that there has been no new distributions agreement between the leagues for at least five years. The amendments seek to reintroduce drafting from the previous version of the Bill that allowed leagues to reach an agreement to extend that five-year period. The Government removed that drafting when we introduced the Bill, because in our judgment five years is an appropriate period. Our strong preference, of course, is for football to reach an agreement without any regulatory involvement. We have done everything in our power to push for an agreement and continue to urge everyone to find a solution that works for all of football. The five-year period in the Bill has been chosen to ensure the regulator can only intervene in cases where a sufficient agreement has not been reached for a significant period of time. We believe that this is the correct amount of time. That is not to say, however, that the backstop will be triggered every five years. This is not the only threshold that has to be met to trigger the process. It is a two-stage test. The regulator must also see a tangible risk to its ability to deliver its objectives before the process can be triggered. If the leagues agreed a good deal for a period longer than five years, while a league could still apply to trigger the backstop, the threshold of jeopardising the regulator’s objectives would not be met and the backstop would not be triggered. There is an inherent imbalance of negotiating power between the distributing leagues and the recipient league. Allowing industry to contract out of the backstop completely could inhibit agreements that appropriately finance the football pyramid while preventing involvement from the regulator. That would badly damage the regulator’s ability to protect and promote the sustainability of English football and leave it unable to address what is currently a clear issue in the industry. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will withdraw the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will discuss that in more detail in a moment, but I gently say to the hon. Member that it will not be a personal decision by the regulator; as we have discussed, the regulator will make a decision based on the findings of the state of the game report and will be guided by the regulatory principles. I do not want to get drawn into speculating whether they will or will not do that. We need the state of the game report to be done quickly, so that if the backstop is triggered, the regulator can consider the findings in the whole and make an informed decision. On amendment 4, as the Government amendments show, the regulator will issue a notice that sets out the relevant findings of the state of the game report, which will need to be addressed by a distribution order, and the order must explain how it addresses those findings. We are absolutely aligned on the intention behind amendment 5. This exact change—to ensure that the regulator need not adopt league proposals wholesale but can instead design its own solution—is core to new clause 4. Amendment 141, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, seeks to shorten the transition period for parachute payments. While a timely distribution order is a priority, we must ensure that there are adequate protections for relegated clubs, to prevent a cliff edge. That is why the Bill guarantees that there can be no reduction at all in parachute payments, for an absolute minimum of one year from the end of the first season to which a distribution order applies. Shortening that period would give relegated clubs less time to plan financially, putting them at greater risk of financial trouble. That is, after all, the issue we are seeking to address through the legislation. I know that may not be the answer that my hon. Friend wants, but for those reasons I hope he will withdraw his amendments.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment. We will discuss clause 59 in more detail in the next group. It sets out the tests that must be met for the regulator to justify accepting a league application so that it can then trigger the backstop. The amendment adds to clause 59 to give the regulator an additional basis on which to justify triggering. It could accept an application to trigger the backstop if it has tried and failed to resolve the disputed distribution issues using its other regulatory functions. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the amendment is not necessary. Clause 59 already allows the regulator to accept an application to trigger if it considers that its other functions would not be able to resolve the disputed issues in a reasonable timeframe. That appropriately covers the scenario set out in my hon. Friend’s amendment. If the regulator has already tried and failed to resolve a distribution issue using its other functions, that would be a reasonable basis for it to conclude that its other functions were not up to task. The existing test in clause 59 could then be met and an application trigger at the backstop could be accepted. It is important to clarify once again that the regulator would not be triggering the process itself. This is simply a clarification regarding a situation in which an application was submitted and the regulator had tried and failed to resolve the issue outlined previously using its other powers. In this situation the regulator would still have the discretion as to whether or not it triggered the process based on whether the application met the other high threshold. I hope this provides some reassurance. We will discuss this a little further in the next group.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Not very often, is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, and it might be helpful if I give a brief example. If there was a very significant reduction in broadcast revenues, complying with an order might actually threaten the sustainability of clubs in the distributing league. It is not a measure we expect to be used frequently. Question put and agreed to. Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 64 Review of distribution orders, payment of costs, etc Amendment made: 54, in clause 64, page 54, line 18, leave out “62(8)(b)” and insert “(Distribution orders)(10)(b)”. — (Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4 . Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. I noted as many down as I could, but I will endeavour to check Hansard if I do not cover all of them. First, he spoke about scope creep. I draw his attention to my comments earlier about how any conduct that is not listed in schedule 7 as a relevant infringement will not warrant enforcement action, and how we believe a closed list of possible relevant infringements in legislation provides clarity to the regulated industry and other persons as to what conduct is not permitted. The scope therefore cannot expand. I absolutely agree that things should be done in a timely fashion. In debates on the Bill, we have talked continually about proportionality, and we would expect cost and disruption to be kept to a minimum. On the shadow Minister’s point about reasonable excuse, I draw his attention to my previous comments that it is not about sidestepping responsibility, but about being collaborative throughout. We expect the regulator will publish some information about investigations that it undertakes. It is required to publish an investigation notice issued to a person under clause 68, as well as an investigation closure notice under clause 69. However, the Bill allows for certain information to be withheld from publication if the regulator believes the disclosure or publication would significantly harm a person’s personal or business interests. The regulator is not required to publish revenue and customs information or information that might contravene data protection legislation or prejudice the prevention of crime. Question put and agreed to. Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 7 agreed to. Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 8 Investigatory powers Amendment made : 65, in schedule 8, page 109, line 14, leave out “a period of three months” and insert “so long as is necessary in all the circumstances”.— (Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment provides that information obtained by the IFR under a warrant may be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances . Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 69 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 75 Sanctions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The effect of the clause is that it is a criminal offence to destroy, dispose of, falsify or conceal relevant information; to permit the destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment of relevant information; to provide false or misleading information to the regulator or an expert reporter; to give to another person information that is false or misleading, knowing that the information will be given to the regulator; and to obstruct an officer of the regulator exercising a warrant. We are talking only about information-related offences, so it is fairly unobjectionable that persons should not be able to conceal or destroy information that the regulator asks for. The potential for criminal sanctions is normal for offences of that kind at other regulators. Those regulators tend not to have to ever use criminal sanctions, but having them available sends a clear and strong message that misconduct related to information will not be tolerated. Question put and agreed to. Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 79 Urgent directions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to build safeguards into the backstop process, and clause 63 outlines what happens if circumstances arise in which a distribution order made under clause 62 is no longer viable or necessary. To provide clarity to the leagues, any distribution order will need to specify when it comes into force and how long it is in force. In ordinary circumstances, an order will remain in force until the specified period ends, but clause 63 allows the regulator to revoke an order in exceptional circumstances. The regulator might choose to do that if there was an unexpected change to the broadcast market that meant an order was no longer fit for purpose. It is important that the Bill provides that flexibility to prevent a scenario in which an unsuitable arrangement is left to stand. Similarly, the clause ensures that the regulator will revoke an order if a league subsequently strikes a distribution deal covering the same seasons as the order. That again demonstrates the Government’s commitment to prioritising and encouraging industry-led agreements wherever possible. Whenever the regulator revokes an order, it will need to notify the parties and set out the reasons for its decision, continuing the underlying commitment to transparency at every stage of the process. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 57 sets out a basic set of conditions that must be met for a league to be allowed to apply to the regulator and request that the backstop be triggered. The regulator cannot unilaterally trigger the backstop process; it must receive an application from one of the leagues under clause 57. This clause sets out that a regulated league can apply to trigger the process if there are unresolved issues between it and another league in relation to the distribution of relevant revenue. We discussed the definition of relevant revenue when we debated clause 56. For a league to apply to trigger the backstop, at least one of the four conditions outlined in clause 57 must be met. Those four conditions are as follows: no distribution agreement is in place between the relevant leagues; there has been a material reduction in the amount of relevant revenue received by a relevant league since the last distribution agreement was reached; there has been a material change in circumstances in relation to the relevant revenue received by one or both relevant leagues since the last distribution agreement was reached; and at least five years have passed since the last distribution agreement between the relevant leagues came into force. Each of the conditions is designed to mitigate a specific risk to the sustainability of the pyramid. Those are a complete absence of any distribution deal; a reduction in distributed revenue; a significant change in the circumstances surrounding distributions; and an old deal no longer fit for purpose but unable to be refreshed because the industry cannot agree. The conditions set an appropriate framework for when a league can apply to trigger the process. They help to avoid vexatious applications or fishing expeditions when a perfectly good, up-to-date industry deal is already in place. That is why clause 57 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 specifies procedural steps and requirements. The applicant league has to comply with those for its application to trigger the backstop to be valid. Before making an application, the league must first notify the other relevant league and the regulator of its intention. That prevents either league from being blindsided by the process being triggered. The notice must list the issues in dispute, explain why one of the relevant conditions in clause 57 is met, and invite representations from the other specified competition organiser. That act, in and of itself, may help to trigger useful discussion between the leagues, as clearly outlining the issues preventing an agreement from moving forward will bring the leagues closer to compromise. After the other relevant league has had a chance to make any representations, the applicant league may apply to the regulator to trigger the process. It must include the other league’s representations with its application. That ensures that the regulator has the information that it needs from both leagues, so that it can make a considered decision on whether to trigger the backstop. The exchange of representations is also an early opportunity for the leagues to come to an agreement themselves, before the process is triggered. Ultimately, this clause is about creating transparency and promoting dialogue, which sets the tone for the rest of the backstop process. Clauses 57 and 58 together outline the requirements that must be met for a league to apply to trigger the backstop process. The requirements in clauses 57 and 58 are just the first hurdle that a league has to clear in order for the regulator to consider its application. In order to actually trigger the backstop the regulator then has to assess whether the application meets certain legal tests set out in clause 59, which we will discuss further in a later group. I beg to move that clauses 57 and 58 stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 57, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 58 Applications under section 57: procedural and other requirements Amendments made: 30, in clause 58, page 48, line 7, at end insert— “(za) set out details of the question or questions for resolution mentioned in section 57(1) to which it is intended the application will relate,” This amendment provides that a notification under clause 59(1)(a) must set out details of the question or questions for resolution to which it is intended the application will relate. Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 48, line 8, leave out “the application relates” and insert “that question relates or those questions relate”. This amendment provides that a notification under clause 59(1)(a) must specify the qualifying football season or season to which the question or questions for resolution relate. Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 48, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30. Amendment 33, in clause 58, page 48, line 22, at end insert— “(za) set out details of the question or questions for resolution mentioned in section 57(1) to which the application relates,” This amendment provides that an application under clause 57 must set out details of the question or questions for resolution to which the application relates. Amendment 34, in clause 58, page 48, line 23, leave out “the application relates” and insert “that question relates or those questions relate”. This amendment provides that the application under clause 57 must specify the qualifying football season or season to which the question or questions for resolution relate. Amendment 35, in clause 58, page 48, line 27, leave out paragraph (c) —(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33 . Clause 58, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59 Decisions by the IFR on applications under section 57 Amendments made: 36, in clause 59, page 48, line 33, leave out “the qualifying football season or seasons” and insert “one or more of the questions for resolution”. This amendment provides that the IFR must decide whether the resolution process should be triggered in relation to one or more of the questions for resolution to which the application under clause 57 relates. Amendment 37, in clause 59, page 48, line 33, after “relates” insert “(or a modified version of one or more of those questions)”. This amendment provides that the IFR may decide that the resolution process should be triggered in relation to a modified version of one or more of the questions for resolution set out in the application under clause 57. Amendment 38, in clause 59, page 48, line 36, leave out “qualifying football season” and insert “question or questions for resolution”. This amendment provides that the IFR must be satisfied that the conditions in clause 59(2) are met before deciding to trigger the process in relation to a question or questions for resolution. Amendment 39, in clause 59, page 48, line 38, leave out “that season” and insert “each season to which the question relates or the questions relate”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38. Amendment 40, in clause 59, page 48, line 41, after “triggered” insert “in relation to the question or questions for resolution”. —(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  For the backstop process to be viable as a regulatory solution, it needs to be legally enforceable. The clause sets out that, once the regulator has made a distribution order, it must keep the relevant leagues’ compliance with the order under review and monitor whether there is any need to take enforcement against the relevant leagues if they do not comply. Without this power, the sustainability issues that the backstop seeks to address will remain present. Although constructive engagement with clubs will be the regulator’s default first step, the clause references its ability to take enforcement action, as outlined in part 8 of the Bill, to ensure that a distribution order is upheld. Furthermore, the clause allows the regulator to make rules on how costs associated with the backstop are to be paid. That could, for example, allow it to pass on the cost of mediation to the leagues. Finally, the clause also explicitly highlights the ability, at any stage, for the leagues to come to an alternative agreement. It is important to reiterate that the distribution order is a last resort power, only to be used in cases where football cannot come to an agreement itself. If the leagues reach an agreement to resolve the issues in dispute before the backstop process concludes, the regulator will not impose an order. If they reach an agreement after the backstop has run its course, the regulator must revoke its order. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Together, the clauses and schedule in this group cover the sanctions available to the regulator for a variety of infringements, and the procedure for taking enforcement action. Clause 75 sets out the enforcement actions that the regulator may take and the sanctions that it may impose, by reference to schedule 9. We expect that the regulator will seek to pre-empt and address instances of non-compliance through constructive engagement where possible, but that will not always be appropriate. That is why this clause empowers the regulator to reach for stronger and more direct tools, and gives it the mandate to use them boldly when necessary. The range of sanctions set out in schedule 9—sanctions of varying type and severity—will help the regulator to deter any non-compliance with its requirements. In particular, they include “name and shame” censure statements, and financial penalties. Where relevant, these sanctions can be applied to individuals making the decisions at clubs, as well as or instead of the clubs themselves. This can act as a better deterrent and avoid indirectly hurting fans. The regulator will also have the ability to appoint a skilled person to a club where relevant, to help the club to return to compliance. This presents a less punitive and more assistive enforcement tool for certain circumstances that call for it. Schedule 9 also provides for the ultimate sanction—suspension or revocation of an operating licence. That can apply to either a provisional or a full licence, but it has a very high threshold for use, in that one or more of the “aggravating conditions” specified in the schedule must be met. We do not expect the regulator to need to reach for this sanction, particularly given that it can target owners and officers at clubs first. However, it is a necessary part of a licensing system, and a deterrent for the most egregious behaviour—for example, the threat of clubs joining a prohibited breakaway competition. Clause 76 requires the regulator to give a warning notice before it takes any enforcement action. This is common practice and ensures a transparent and fair process by providing early warning and an opportunity for the target to make representations. Clause 77 requires the regulator to issue a decision notice once it has considered any representations received on the warning notice. The decision notice will set out whether the regulator has decided to take enforcement action and, if so, what that action is. As set out in clause 80, which we will debate in the coming groups, the regulator is obliged to publish warning and decision notices, to ensure complete transparency.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The regulator will be able, if it is thought appropriate, to provide for the club concerned to cover the costs associated with the expert reporter. That is because it will not be a commonly used tool and the cost will be specific to a single club, so, rather than all clubs picking up the cost through the levy, where possible, the regulator can ensure that the regulated party pays. However, the regulator will have discretion, and it might be the case that the club’s financial means are low and the regulator does not think it appropriate to impose additional costs on it. Question put and agreed to . Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 67 Meaning of “relevant infringement” Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Draft Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Opposition spokesmen for their contributions. It has been an important debate and I am grateful to Members for their attendance today. It is clear that the official Opposition share our commitment to allowing this historic sector to thrive and to ensuring that those who want to gamble can continue to do so safely, while the public is protected from the risk of gambling-related harm. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s support; as he rightly pointed out, this process began under his Government. I very much heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Treasury. We continue to engage with the Treasury, and I encourage hon. Members to take part in the current consultation. He also touched on adult gaming centres, and I appreciate that a different approach has been taken to those. The Minister with responsibility for gambling has not ruled out the relevant changes to the 80:20 rule, but intends to look again at the matter later this year. I simply have to disagree with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that the regulations represent a race to the bottom; we simply do not think they do. We think they have been improved and brought into the modern age, given the rise of online gambling, and support our land-based casino sector. Casinos are highly regulated environments and there is a significant amount of player supervision alongside a number of protections on gaming machines themselves. Importantly, the regulations contain a number of protections that will ensure that customers continue to be offered a range of gambling and non-gambling opportunities. That will help reduce the risk of harm. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support the regulations. Question put and agreed to.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Draft Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this Committee has considered the draft Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am pleased to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House, in draft, on 12 May 2025, and to be talking about this package of measures that will unlock additional investment up and down the country. I will set out the aims of this package, including the linked statutory instruments, how they will benefit the casino sector and what protections will be in place for consumers. I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to other linked statutory instruments that have been published in draft in parallel to the regulations being debated today. The other instruments are the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order and the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licences and Provisional Statements) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations. The Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions Order extends existing gaming machine entitlements for converted casinos, meaning those not licensed under the Gambling Act 2005. The regulations that we are debating introduce protections for converted casinos as a result of the extended entitlements and are consistent with the protections provided to casinos established under the 2005 Act. The Premises Licences and Provisional Statements Regulations amend existing procedures so that a converted casino operator can apply to its licensing authority, usually its local authority, to vary its premises licence to enable it to exercise the extended entitlement. Together, these three statutory instruments will make a number of important changes to the legislative framework for land-based casinos. While only one of these instruments is being debated today, the other two will follow the negative procedure and were published in draft on 12 May, the same day on which the regulations that we are debating were laid. Given the linkages between these regulations, that was done to provide proper transparency about the range of changes that we are proposing, and to allow for proper scrutiny. If the regulations that have been laid using the affirmative procedure are approved by Parliament, it is our intention to lay the remaining two instruments using the negative procedure so that all three would then come into force on the same day, 22 July 2025. I now move on to our aims for these measures. The Government are focused on economic growth, and I believe that enabling a responsible gambling sector to grow is compatible with an even safer one. We acknowledge the difficulties that land-based gambling businesses, particularly casinos, have faced since the pandemic. We have already brought forward measures to improve consumer protections, including the introduction of stake limits for online slot games and establishing a statutory levy on gambling operators to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. Therefore, following a consideration of the best available evidence, the time is right now to proceed with a series of reforms for the land-based casino sector. The gambling landscape has significantly changed since the legislative framework was updated under the Gambling Act 2005. It had not envisaged the rise of online gambling and the unlimited availability of gambling at any time. Given the rise of smartphones, we believe that restrictions on product availability in casinos are now less important for protecting customers than factors such as the product design and quality of monitoring. Casinos are an important part of our late-night economy, provide thousands of jobs and contribute millions of pounds every year to the UK’s tourism economy, but they have been stifled by excessively strict regulations that mean the vast majority of our casinos can offer only 20 gaming machines. That makes no sense in venues that can be thousands of square metres in size and accommodate thousands of people. While these venues offer a variety of ways to entertain their customers, including bars, restaurants and table games, the current rules mean that people are queueing for machines at peak times, which can mean that customers extend gambling sessions out of fear of losing their place at machines, and casinos miss out on vital revenue. These restrictions, combined with a variety of headwinds for businesses, most notably the pandemic, have seen 17 casinos close since 2020 and a loss of over 750 jobs. This package of measures will put the casino sector back on a sustainable footing. It will give converted casinos the option of increasing their gaming machine allowance from 20 to 80, if they are sufficiently large. That will align with the different licensing regimes, as small 2005 Act casinos are already allowed to offer 80 machines. For converted casinos that are not able to meet the size requirements to site 80 machines, a sliding scale will apply in line with their size. This will allow slightly smaller casinos to site between 25 and 75 machines in total. We are already making changes to allow real event or sports betting to take place in all converted casinos. The current rules prohibit these casinos from offering that, whereas venues licensed under the 2005 Act are able to. The prohibition no longer makes any sense, because a casino customer can place a bet on their mobile phone while in the venue, but not with the casino itself. The change will allow converted casinos not only to offer a new gambling product, but to invest in other parts of their venues, such as sports bars, which would be a natural companion to a betting offer. As the impact assessment sets out, we estimate that allowing a modest increase in gaming machines will make a significant difference for casino operators. We estimate that the changes will increase gross gambling yield by £53 million to £58 million each year once the new rules have bedded in. We also expect much wider benefits across the casino ecosystem. The new rules will provide a boost for gaming machine manufacturers, and we expect a number of venues to be modernised and refreshed. We also anticipate that this capital investment will be spread across the country, not just in London. It is also important to outline the protections that will accompany any increases in gaming machines under the draft regulations. As I have said, the Government believe that a growing gambling sector is compatible with creating an even safer one. The draft regulations therefore set out a number of requirements concerning table gambling and non-gambling areas, which casinos will have to abide by to access the new entitlement. They are vital to ensuring that customers are offered a mixture of gambling and non-gambling opportunities when they visit a casino. The strict requirements on how much space can be allocated to each activity mean that, even with an increase in the number of machines, casinos and their customers will not be overwhelmed by an electronic offering. It also means that table games, which are more sociable in nature, and spaces for bars, restaurants and other non-gambling activities will be continue to be central features of our modern casinos. That approach is fundamental to protecting customers and ensuring that casinos provide a wide range of entertainment. We will also put protections in place for casinos that decide to offer betting. We will restrict the number of separate betting positions or self-service betting terminals that casinos can offer. Casinos licensed under the 2005 Act are limited to a maximum of 40 separate betting positions. We believe that a limit of 40 betting positions is appropriate for casinos with a gambling area of 500 square metres or more, and a lower limit will apply for smaller casinos. That will ensure that there remains a link between gambling space and betting terminals, so that the electronic offering in a casino does not overwhelm the live table offering. These changes are in addition to the range of measures already in place in casinos. These venues offer substantial supervision and oversight of any player’s activity. A number of features on the machines themselves can also help players to keep track of their play and spending. I also highlight that it will be completely optional for casinos to take up the new entitlements. Operators can choose to stay within their existing allowances or seek to increase the number of machines that they offer. In addition to the changes for converted casinos, I would like to mention the two changes that the instrument will make to small 2005 Act casinos. Small 2005 Act casinos are currently required to comply with a maximum machine to table ratio of 2:1. That means that for every table that is in use, the casino is permitted to offer a maximum of two gaming machines. This ratio will be updated from 2:1 to 5:1, in order to align small 2005 Act casinos with large 2005 Act casinos and prevent operators from having to provide tables for which there is no customer demand. Small 2005 Act casinos are also currently required to have a minimum table gaming area of 500 square metres. That will change to 250 square metres, amending an anomaly whereby the minimum gambling area and minimum table gaming area were required to be of the same size. This is a sensible package of measures that will update the outdated restrictions that currently apply to land-based casinos. It strikes the right balance between supporting the sector to grow and ensuring that those who visit such venues will be protected from gambling-related harm. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 56, page 46, line 27, leave out “means an order under section 62(1) or (3)” and insert “has the meaning given by section (Distribution orders)(6)”. This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4. The amendment is consequential on Government new clause 4, which we will debate later. Although it depends on that later change, the amendment would change clause 56, which is why we are discussing it now. We will also discuss clause 56 in more detail later, but one of the things it does is set out key definitions of key terms used throughout the backstop provisions. One of those defined terms is “distribution order”, which is the order made by the regulator at the end of the backstop process. It is designed to resolve the questions for resolution if the leagues have not managed to do so during mediation. Currently, the Bill’s definition of “distribution order” refers to clause 62, but we propose to remove clause 62 and replace it with new clause 4. New clause 4 completely changes the final stage of the backstop process. I met the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, to discuss this ahead of the Bill Committee. It moves the backstop away from a binary, winner-takes-all model, and allows the regulator discretion to design a solution to distribution issues. We will have a chance to debate that fully when we debate clause 62, so I will withhold some of my comments until we get to that point. This simple amendment just updates the definition of “distribution order”, so that it appropriately refers to new clause 4 instead of clause 62. It is vital that we make these sorts of consequential changes, to ensure that the legislation remains coherent. Therefore I hope that Members will support this amendment.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he touches on something we will discuss later. It is important that the state of the game report takes place swiftly. That is an important part of the Bill. Of course, it is a backstop, and we are keen that a football-led solution is the priority and that people get round the table. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, who was one of my predecessors as sport Minister, and obviously we know how involved she was in the Bill. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a short but very focused speech, which I encourage hon. Members to read, on how the backstop should be a backstop. I often quote that speech. For the reasons I have set out, the amendments are vital for supporting our new backstop model, and I hope that they will be accepted. I commend them to the Committee. Amendment 28 agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  We will come on to enforcement, but a range of enforcement options will be available to the regulator, if it feels that a club is not doing what it asked the club to do.

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

  More

  I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. We believe that we have strengthened measures in the Bill to put fans and communities back at the heart of the game and to protect football heritage. All regulated clubs will now be required to have an effective framework in place to meet and consult regularly a representative group of fans on the specified relevant matters, including any proposal to relocate the home ground and some of the issues we have just discussed. We expect that the regulator will be best placed to understand the circumstances of individual clubs across the country. It will produce guidance to support clubs in meeting its requirements, and it will take into account things like precedent and ensuring proportionality. Question put and agreed to. Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50 Duty to notify of changes in circumstances relevant to the IFR’s functions Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I begin by acknowledging the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. I appreciate him putting that on the record. Of course, we will have a fuller debate on the broader change later, so as I said, I will reserve my wider comments till we get to that point. The backstop aims to ensure that where the industry cannot resolve the issue, revenue is distributed between the leagues in a sustainable way that furthers the regulator’s objectives. As I will set out in more detail when we debate clauses 57 and 58, it allows the leagues to apply to the regulator to intervene and help them to resolve specific issues that are in dispute between them. The issues that need resolving are referred to in the Bill as the “questions for resolution”. We will further discuss the process for triggering the backstop when we come on to debate clauses 57 to 59. Put briefly, the triggering process requires a league applying to the regulator, showing that certain conditions listed in clause 57 are met, and putting forward a set of proposed “questions for resolution”. The other relevant league has a chance to respond to that proposal. The regulator will then consider the application and the response, and will decide whether to trigger the process. If it decides to trigger, it also decides exactly which questions must be taken forward and resolved through the backstop process. Therefore, the questions for resolution are set out at the very beginning and carry through, determining the scope of the whole process. They are the questions that the leagues discuss in mediation, as we will see when we debate clause 60, and they limit the scope of any regulator distribution order—something that we will discuss further when we come on to debate Government new clauses 3 and 4—to issues of financial sustainability. Setting the questions for resolution is therefore a very important step that demands a clear statutory process and a rigorous approach by the regulator. That is even more important in the light of the proposed changes that Government new clauses 3 and 4 will make. Those new clauses propose a new model for the backstop—a staged regulator determination. They move away from the binary, winner-takes-all, final-offer model and increase the regulator’s discretion to devise its own solution for distributions. Because of that increase in discretion for the regulator, it is important that the scope of the distributions process is well defined from the outset, so that all parties are clear about what the regulator will and will not rule on if the leagues ultimately cannot agree to an industry solution themselves. These amendments therefore strengthen and clarify the process for— [ Interruption .]

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

  More

  The clause places a duty on all regulated clubs in relevant insolvency proceedings to keep fans informed of the progress of the proceedings. Any fan that has experienced their club going into administration can attest that it is a worrying and often confusing time. Although the regime will look to best protect clubs, it cannot be zero-failure. However, the clause is intended to make the process more transparent for fans when the worst happens. The duty will apply only as far as is reasonable and will not fall on the administrators or any body not regulated by the football regulator. The clause was added to the Bill in order to mitigate unnecessary worry and confusion for fans.

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

  More

  I am happy to write to the shadow Minister. I appreciate that we added this clause; it was not in the previous iteration of the Bill. That is why I was keen to talk about reasonability. We appreciate that insolvency is a complex, fast-paced, changing and challenging situation, but we also appreciate—Members have talked about different clubs that have gone into administration—the worry for fans, so we want to keep them as informed as reasonably possible. The shadow Minister asked me for something further in writing and I am very happy to provide that.

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

  More

  The clause places a duty on all regulated clubs to notify the regulator of any material change in circumstances that is relevant to the regulator’s functions, as soon as reasonably practicable. The regulator will need a complete picture of each club in order to effectively regulate. Full transparency and timely updates will allow the regulator to stay up to date on any relevant changes in real time. The duty to notify in the clause is an ongoing duty on regulated clubs. By contrast, the annual declaration mandatory licence condition applies to licensed clubs only. The annual declaration is about creating an annual touchpoint for clubs as part of the licensing regime, rather than requiring an annual licence renewal. It will allow clubs to declare a summary of any matters that they notified, or should have notified, over the past year.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his points. Clubs will be subject to a number of rules from different football authorities. Failure to comply with them may indicate that the club is in some financial difficulty and may prompt the regulator to assess the risk profile of the club. Changes in a competition’s rules may lead to clubs taking additional risks or may threaten the financial soundness of the system. The regulator therefore needs to be aware of such changes so that it is in a position to reassess the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and whether, as a result of the rule change, additional regulation is needed. The shadow Minister did accept that there is no veto in the clause. I reiterate once again that UEFA are happy with the Bill as drafted. He drew the Committee’s attention to a specific line in the Bill, but I remind him that it has not been changed from the previous iteration of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 56 Part 6: overview and interpretation

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I thank the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Newbury for their new clauses. I acknowledge the intent behind them. We will shortly discuss the levy in more detail when I speak to clauses 53 and 54, but in short, the Bill gives the regulator the power to collect a levy to recover its running costs from football clubs that hold an operating licence. I will outline why the Government intend to resist this amendment and these new clauses before directly answering some of the specific points that hon. Members have put to me. The levy arrangement follows the precedent of other regulators, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom. As the regulator is designed to improve the financial sustainability of English football, it is vital that the associated costs do not burden clubs, especially those further down the pyramid. Amendment 133 and new clause 5 seek to address similar issues relating to ensuring that small or lower-league clubs are not burdened by unaffordable costs as a result of this regulation. I assure the Committee that the Bill is already designed with National League clubs in mind. The regulator will be tasked with improving the financial sustainability of football, and placing an undue burden on small clubs would be completely contradictory to that aim. Clause 53(10) introduces a statutory requirement for the regulator to have regard to each club’s individual financial circumstances, and the league in which it plays, when setting the levy. Given that requirement, we expect that the levy will be proportionate, with the Premier League—specifically the six clubs with the highest revenues—covering the majority of the cost. That solidarity will reduce the burden on clubs lower down the pyramid. No club should be charged more than it can afford. Through its levy rules, the regulator will also have the power to exempt clubs from paying the levy. That power, provided by clause 53(8), ensures that there is a mechanism to avoid burdening clubs. If certain conditions set by the regulator through rules are met, the regulator has the discretion to exempt clubs from paying the levy—that answers the shadow Minister’s question. The power will work in conjunction with the requirement on the regulator to consider each individual club’s financial resources, and the competition in which it plays, when setting the levy, as well as the requirement to consult all regulated clubs on its levy rules. On new clause 24, I agree wholeheartedly that the regulator should not place an undue burden on a club that has already entered administration. I reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that the regulator will set out its levy methodology, including the discretion to set the levy according to a club’s individual circumstances, and to exempt a club completely if specified conditions are met. The regulator has a core objective of improving the financial sustainability of English football, and I am confident that it will be cognisant of the impact that the levy could have on any club, and especially a club in administration or other financial distress. The Bill’s provisions, such as the regulator’s discretion to exempt certain clubs from the levy, if necessary, account for that core objective. In response to the shadow Minister, I note that there is no cap, but the regulator can set costs related only to its functions. As I have just outlined, under the powers granted to the regulator by the Bill, it could exempt small clubs from the levy, if that is deemed necessary. However, we do not think that mandating a complete exemption in legislation is appropriate. Exempting a whole league before an assessment has been made of whether clubs in that league can afford the levy would be disproportionate.

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

  More

  I talked about taking a holistic approach, and I said that the regulator must consider a number of factors—not just the current views of fans but the club’s history and how fans get to the ground. I acknowledge some of the examples that my hon. Friend has given, and I was really pleased to visit the new Everton stadium a few months ago. We obviously recognise that sometimes it is very legitimate, and other times it is not. That is why we have gone for the holistic approach.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for tabling his amendment. The Government completely understand the importance of any charges on clubs being transparent and proportionate and offering value for money. That must be achieved while maintaining the regulator’s operational independence and flexibility to respond to industry developments in the future. I will come on to discuss the levy in detail, but I will set out the key points now for clarity, in relation both to this amendment and to how the Bill ensures the levy is affordable for clubs. The regulator must set out in levy rules how the annual levy payments will be calculated. The Bill explicitly requires the regulator to have regard to the club’s financial resources and position in the pyramid. That would include revenue. It should ensure a proportionate approach where no club, big or small, is asked to pay more than what is fair and affordable. Premier League clubs are expected to shoulder the majority of costs, reducing the financial burden on smaller clubs. It would not be appropriate to prescribe an exact methodology for charging the levy in legislation, as doing so would remove the regulator’s ability to explore other possibly more effective and proportionate methods of charging. That would be counter to the agile and independent regulator we want to create. For example, a club might have a relatively low organic revenue, but its owners might have very deep pockets. The regulator might want to take that into account to ensure that charges are fair, proportionate and relative to circumstances. I also want to highlight that there is a statutory requirement for the regulator to consult industry on the levy. Every regulated club will be consulted. That transparency means that no club will be surprised by the changes asked of them. That will be sufficient to ensure the levy is fair and proportionate. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendment.