Mr Clive Betts
MP for Sheffield South East · Labour · United Kingdom
“I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, both its content and its tone. I would like to ask about his discussions with our colleagues and allies in other countries who are looking to implement similar sanctions.”
“I offer two congratulations: first, to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the First Secretary, on her well-deserved promotion—I am sure she will do an excellent job. Secondly, I congratulate her and the Prime Minister for their real commitment to devolution, which I have wanted to see for an awfully long time.”
“I apologise for the fact that—as I have explained to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will have to leave straight after my question to chair Westminster Hall. I thank my right hon. Friend for doing this very challenging piece of work. I think that the theme of fairness, for the people who need benefits and for taxpayers, is right.”
“On the other hand, so many constituents with really serious conditions get turned down for PIP, and can get it only if they struggle through the appeal system, sometimes without any help at all. So the system is not fair to anyone at present.”
“When the previous Government let the contract, we were in a situation in which procurement could not properly take account of the past record of companies, and I understand that the Government have now changed that.”
“I will dive very deeply into the question, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair of the Committee sends his apologies for his absence; he is presently in a Committee meeting.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,726 lines we hold for Mr Clive Betts, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 95.
“I welcome the Minister for Sport’s letters to me, the commitment to fan engagement and the commitment on the FSA’s role going forward, but the regulator must have the powers to intervene if it feels that external competitions such as the club world cup interfere with our domestic competitions. I thank her very much for her engagement right through this process.”
“I say to the EFL: you are the only hope we have until the regulator comes in, so please work with the fans’ trust and others to find the best way forward. Tell us what you knew and what you know now, and expose what Chansiri has been doing, because it is an absolute disgrace that a club of Sheffield Wednesday’s stature should be reduced to this situation. We have heard today that, because of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, Sheffield city council has issued a directive that unless work is done on the north stand roof, it will close part of the ground come the start of the season, but the club has known about that for three years. This is an appalling situation. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to talk to the EFL about how far they can work with them to save the situation.”
“Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) says, we want the EFL to find out what is happening, and to be transparent and open about what it knew about the whole issue. Why, when Chansiri produced a business plan in March, did the EFL accept it? How far did it question that plan? Having given the EFL a business plan saying that he was financially sustainable, he failed to pay wages hours later. He had two five-hour engagements with the fans and never once mentioned his problems funding the club. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, what we do not want is for the EFL to come in and its only actions be to punish the club with transfer embargoes and points deductions to the point where a sustainable sale to someone else is not possible.”
“Rob Brookes of the Wednesday supporters’ trust has done a brilliant analysis of Chansiri’s companies in Thailand, which are, by and large, now losing money. He is not able to fund the club, so where has the money been coming from to keep it going for the past two or three years? Has he borrowed it? If so, who has he borrowed it from? What are the conditions on that borrowing? Are the people who lent him the money now effectively running the club and telling Chansiri that he cannot sell it? He has turned down many approaches to sell the club and is demanding ridiculous prices for it. Has the money been borrowed from reputable sources? I do not know; I am not making an accusation. The only person who can clarify this awful situation is Mr Chansiri himself, but he will not comment on it. We welcome the EFL investigation. As my right hon.”
“The situation at Sheffield Wednesday is dire. The owner has failed to pay wages for three months over the course of this year. That affects not just the players—some of whom may be well off, while others are not; the administrative staff, clerks and all those people have not been paid for two months in some cases. The owner has not paid His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on two occasions. It is clear that he is simply running out of money. What actions can the EFL take? We welcome the investigation that it is now conducting into what is going on at Hillsborough, but it is clear that although Chansiri was funding the club to the tune of about £10 million a year, he has now run out of money.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will turn in a second to what the EFL can do now. For all that the Minister has been helpful in explaining what the regulator’s powers will be, the problem is that we are left in the meantime without a regulator and doubts about what the EFL can do in that regard. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) will be very much involved with the Reading supporters’ trust and can tell us all the problems that they have experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) has similar problems with her club. There have been similar problems for Derby and its fans, as hon. Friends will know, and the Secretary of State will know about Wigan.”
“As I tried to set out, my intention was simply to draw attention to whether the regulator has the power—it does not necessarily have to use it—to intervene if the domestic competitions that all clubs engage in are being damaged by competitions like the club world cup, from which a handful of clubs make multimillions of pounds. I wanted to make sure that the regulator had the power to deal with that.”
“Let me say to the Secretary of State: well done. This is a really ambitious and excellent programme. On the subject of cancer care, in the past few years we have both had good experiences of the NHS at its best, but it is important to improve services by getting the NHS to work with universities and the voluntary sector in local cancer alliances. Will he look at what I think is an unintended consequence of that? If a local cancer alliance is funded by an NHS trust, its funding continues; if it is funded by an ICB, as the South Yorkshire cancer alliance is, its funding will be cut in line with the rest of the ICB’s budget. That is not fair. Whether an alliance suffers cuts depends on which organisation funds it. Will he see if he can rectify that?”
“The changes to PIP, as far as they go, are very welcome, as is the review to be conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, which will be co-produced with disability groups, as I understand it. However, the Government have committed to make changes in November 2026, when that review may not have been completed. Would it not be far more logical to have the review, bring it to this House for agreement and then make the changes after that?”
“Clause 63 Duration and revocation of distribution orders Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 59, page 49, line 1, after “(c)” insert “has exercised any of the IFR’s other functions under this Act in order to resolve the question or questions for resolution and such question or questions remain unresolved, or”. It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I will pass this over to the Minister. This is just an attempt to slightly clarify and strengthen the role of the regulator and the point of intervention. It would be helpful to see how this fits in with the way that the Minister has reconfigured the clause with her amendments.”
“Amendment 48, in clause 59, page 49, line 21, at end insert— “(5A) Where any of the questions for resolution set out in the notice differ from those to which the application made under section 57 relates, the notice must set out the extent of, and reasons for, those differences.”— (Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment requires the IFR to set out the extent of, and reasons for, any differences between the question or questions for resolution set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b)(ii) and the question or questions for resolution set out in an application under clause 57 . Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill .”
“Amendment 46, in clause 59, page 49, line 18, at end insert— “(iia) how the IFR has taken account of any representations, copies of which accompanied the application under section 57 by virtue of section 58(5)(d), in setting out that question or those questions, and” This amendment requires the IFR to set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b) how it has taken account of any representations when setting out the question or questions in relation to which it is triggering the resolution process. Amendment 47, in clause 59, page 49, line 20, leave out “the question or questions for resolution” and insert “that question or those questions” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 43.”
“Amendment 44, in clause 59, page 49, line 16, leave out “the resolution process relates” and insert “that question relates or those questions relate”. This amendment provides that the notice under clause 59(5) must set out the qualifying football season or seasons to which the question or questions for resolution relate. Amendment 45, in clause 59, page 49, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 43.”
“Amendment 42, in clause 59, page 49, line 10, at end insert— “(4A) Where the IFR is minded that the resolution process should be triggered, the IFR must consult the Football Association on the question or questions for resolution in relation to which it is minded to trigger the process.” This amendment requires the IFR to consult the Football Association on the question or questions for resolution in relation to which it is minded to trigger the process. Amendment 43, in clause 59, page 49, line 15, at end insert— “(zi) the question or questions for resolution in relation to which the IFR is triggering the resolution process,” This amendment provides that the notice under clause 59(5) must set out the question or questions for resolution in relation to which the IFR is triggering the resolution process.”
“We are off to a good start this morning. I am 100% convinced that the Bill already does what I was seeking it to do. I hope we are 100% convinced on the other issues that we debate later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 41, in clause 59, page 49, line 4, after “triggered” insert “in relation to one or more of the questions for resolution”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.”
“Those groups would not determine what the regulator decides to do, but surely the regulator has to take account of their views. I hope that the Minister gives serious consideration to at least making sure that, when reaching that final and absolutely crucial decision on financial distribution, the regulator’s aim should be to deal with the problems of the financial soundness of clubs and the overall financial soundness and wellbeing of English football.”
“Surely, therefore, when we are talking about the detail of how the regulator reaches a final decision on the backstop, we ought to be absolutely clear that it must have foremost in its mind those initial objectives. Otherwise, what is the point of the regulator and its objectives? Why are we in this Committee if not to address the financial soundness of clubs and English football as a whole? My amendment mentions considering the views of others who may not be formal parts of the backstop mediation process. It provides that the regulator would not have to listen to them, but could “give effect to the views” of the Football Supporters’ Association, the Professional Footballers’ Association or others who may have views.”
“This is quite an important issue, because it concerns the principle and basis on which the regulator comes to a decision. My amendment simply sets out certain things that the regulator must have regard to and take into account when making that decision. First, there should be supporting evidence—that seems straightforward. Secondly, and importantly, we ought to keep anchoring what the regulator does back to the essence of this proposed legislation and the regulator’s purpose. Clause 6 very clearly sets out the regulator’s objectives of promoting the financial soundness of regulated clubs and the financial resilience of English football, and I think we can all agree that that is what the regulator should be doing and seeking to achieve.”
“I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 61, page 50, line 40, leave out “require any final proposal to be accompanied by supporting evidence” and insert “require any final proposal to— (i) be accompanied by supporting evidence; (ii) be consistent with the resolution of any relevant issues identified in the Regulator's most recently published State of the Game report; (iii) give effect to the views of any relevant specified competition organiser which has not been invited pursuant to clause 61(4)(c) to submit to the committee a final proposal; and (iv) advance the Regulator's objectives in section 6, consistent with its general duties and Regulatory principles in sections 7 and 8.” This amendment would set additional requirements to accompany any final proposal for the resolution process.”
“I am pleased to see that the Minister actually read my amendment and formulated her new clauses accordingly. What she says is reassuring. As she just said, there is no point in the regulator doing a state of the game report unless it has regard to it when coming to a view about financial distribution. That is absolutely clear from what the Minister has said, and that is what the regulator must do. On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“On the issue of parachute payments, as the Minister will recall we had this debate in the equivalent Committee in the last Parliament. It is absolutely fundamental. Let us go back to the objectives of the regulator, which include: “to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs…and…of English football.” How can it be sound that over 90% of the funds in English football go to the top 25 clubs, and that, of the money that the Premier League gives out, 80% goes to those clubs on parachute payments? There is a problem, is there not?”
“This is the point that we got to before. If the leagues cannot resolve it—and they have not been able to over many years—is the hon. Gentleman just content to let the status quo remain?”
“You won’t even have put anything in place to do so.” At the end of this Parliament, I would like the Minister to be saying, “I am the Sports Minister who has substantially helped resolve the appalling distribution of finances in English football, which cripples our game and means that clubs are exposed to enormous cliff edges that put them unnecessarily into debt, and which leads to bad practice among owners.” There are many things to stop bad practice, but we could help by resolving the issue now and agreeing on something: not how the regulator should do its job, but that once the regulator has done the job it is at least allowed to implement within a timely period. I hope the Minister will seriously consider amendment 141 and listen to other colleagues who may want to discuss these issues as well.”
“There is an awful lot of concern—not just in the English Football League, but among colleagues. Clubs throughout the EFL have been speaking to their local MPs and saying, “We know what the problems are. We are electing you to Parliament to resolve those problems, and you committed to do that in your manifesto. Yet with this timescale, the likelihood is that by the time you get to the end of this Parliament you won’t have solved the problem.”
“We know that the Championship clubs are massively overburdened with debt, as they all try desperately to compete to get into the Premier League. If all that is the problem, and the regulator is bound to address it, does address it, and decides the leagues have not resolved it so comes to implement a backstop, why then do we sit back and wait for two years for the backstop to be implemented? That is the issue. Having failed to stop the regulator and the inclusion of backstops within their remit, it almost seems as if the Premier League has decided, “Well, at least we can stop any of this happening in this Parliament in the hope that after the election another Government will come in and save us.” It is almost as though that is what it is trying to do. I say to the Minister, kindly and carefully: have a think about this.”
“The problem is that because of how “relevant period” is described in new clause 49, there will then be basically two years before the backstop kicks in. On that basis, this Parliament will not see any significant distribution of funding in English football. That will not come in until the 2029-30 season, after the end of this Parliament, because of the two-year gap between the regulator reaching a decision and then the backstop being implemented. Why, if we have gone all through this process? We know what the problems are in the English football game. We know about the massive disparities of income and about the concentration of money not merely in the Premier League but in the parachuted clubs as well. The regulator has a responsibility to address the soundness and stability of English football and of clubs within English football.”
“Perhaps we could do it a bit quicker—we have encouraged the Minister to make it 12 months rather than 18. But assuming that the report takes 18 months, it will appear towards the end of 2026. When is the regulator likely to be in a position to implement a backstop, if that is deemed necessary? The regulator will be having discussions in the meantime, hopefully trying to encourage the leagues to reach an agreement. Best of luck with that! If the regulator does that in a year when previously it has failed over many years, it will have done a fantastic job and I am sure we will congratulate it. But if there is not an agreement, we will get to the backstop probably at the beginning of the 2027 season at the earliest.”
“I want to go through what I think is the time period that we will now move towards. If the Minister thinks that I am wrong, it would be helpful if she would explain that to me. Hopefully, if we get the Bill through before the parliamentary recess, and it comes into effect fairly quickly, the regulator can begin work next season. I hope that is the intention. In the first season, 2026-27, it is probable that the regulator will be bedding in—having discussions, getting arrangements with clubs, and trying to work towards the beginnings of the licensing system. I am speculating because we do not absolutely know, but it seems to me that is the sort of way we will go. The regulator will also be starting to work on the state of the game report; hopefully, therefore, the regulator might have it by the end of 2026.”
“I want to speak to amendment 141, which has been tabled in my name. To some extent, amendments 4 and 5 have been superseded, and I accept what the Minister said earlier about the arrangements in Government new clause 4 being a significant improvement on where we were before with the pendulum arrangements in the backstop. Also, they are a distinct improvement on where the last Government were, because they allow the regulator to look at parachute payments in a particular way. That is really helpful, because we cannot address the massive disparity of funding within football, and the cliff edge that exists between the Premier League and the Championship, without addressing the issue of parachute payments. I want specifically to look at amendment 141, because it is about timing.”
“I do not want to push the Minister here and now on the words in my amendment, but I do want her to give an understanding that she recognises that there is a problem that needs to be addressed to satisfy her colleagues.”
“We were all elected to achieve change, and the change that most fans want to see is the addressing of the fundamental disparity within the English game that produces a cliff edge and all the problems in the Championship. We know how those problems need to be addressed: with the regulator’s powers in this excellent Bill. Why sit for two years after the regulator makes a decision and do nothing, when to give a year is fine? The Minister has heard comments and concerns from hon. Friends today—Committee members who obviously have a great deal of interest in football in general and in their clubs in particular. Will she agree, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham asked, to take the matter away and give it further consideration?”
“I do not know how far the Minister has thought that through, but if we want to encourage the Premier League and the EFL to sit down and reach an agreement—if that is the preferred way forward, and I think it is—surely the idea that the process can be extended by not reaching an agreement until beyond the next election is an incentive for the Premier League to do nothing. It is waiting for the pressure to come off, and the way to relieve it is simply to do nothing and hope that it goes away after the election. Clearly, that pressure will go away if the Conservative party wins the election and implement a Bill with parachute payments not included in the regulator’s remit. That is what will happen.”
“I am still not quite sure how—given that all clubs now know that a regulator will be appointed, that the leagues and clubs know that financial distribution is at the heart of the Bill, and that a club can be promoted during the two-year period—any club can start preparing for that situation. At the beginning of that period, the club would not know whether it was going to get parachute payments, because it could be promoted and relegated in that period. I do not think the idea holds that two years gives certainty to clubs. I am really worried about the idea of signalling, at this stage, that there will potentially be no change in financial distribution until the end of this Parliament.”
“Would the Minister not therefore give the regulator a discretionary power to decide when it should be implemented, after either one year or two years? We will have a regulator who will be on top of the job and will have seen all the issues and evidence, in detail that we cannot see in Committee. Will the Minister consider giving flexibility and discretionary powers to the regulator?”
“I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. She has generally been very helpful in trying to acknowledge concerns when they have been raised, and in agreeing to have a look at them. I will not press my amendments to a vote at this stage, but I will bring them back on Report. The Minister is entirely reasonable and open-minded on these matters, and has engaged in discussion on all sorts of things, but I worry that a handful of clubs in the Premier League are determining what happens with distribution orders, which is disappointing. I will return to this issue in due course, because I do not think the Minister’s approach on this clause has been how she has approached the rest of the Bill. I am disappointed, but I will not press my amendments to a vote. Clause 62 disagreed to.”
“We cannot set something in stone and say, “That’s how it’s going to be forever.” Giving that bit of flexibility is right. I was talking to my friend Richard Caborn, who was a previous sports Minister, and he said to me that, when discussions first began about revenue within football, they were concentrated on the television rights to UK matches in the United Kingdom. It has since become apparent, of course, that it is the international rights that are the real driver of resources. That was not thought about when the first distribution was done.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, hopefully for the last time—in this Committee, I mean. The amendment is simply trying to make the Bill a bit more specific about what “conflict of interest” might mean. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the amendment is not quite right in its drafting and wording. Nevertheless, it is at least worth putting on the record that this is an important issue. Maybe we can obtain some clarification about what “conflict of interest” means in practice.”
“I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 92, page 75, line 17, after “functions” insert “or give rise to the perception that said person’s functions have been prejudicially affected, including (but not limited to) a situation in which a person is— (a) employed by or engaged as a consultant by any specified competition organiser or any group undertaking of a specified competition organiser; (b) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from a specified competition organiser; (c) connected with a group undertaking of an organisation within the scope of part (ii); (d) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from any of the organisations listed in parts (ii) or (iii); or (e) connected (as defined in section 252 of the Companies Act 2006) with an individual within the scope of parts (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of section 92(1).” The amendment gives further detail to the definition of “conflict of interest” within this Bill.”
“This is a difficult issue. None of us wants fan behaviour to get worse, given that it has largely stabilised at most grounds. Such behaviour happens not just before the game but at half-time: fans rush down and get at least two or three pints in during the quarter-of-an-hour break. I ask the Minister reflect on this proposal; I am not asking her to agree with it. She might talk to colleagues in Europe through UEFA. I have been to a Bundesliga game in Berlin. They serve beer there—in quite large quantities—but it is 2%, so it is weaker. That is one way to do it. It seems to be a regulation, and it seems to work.”
“I would have thought that if my hon. Friend was going to watch Portsmouth play Southampton, she would want to be well inebriated before she had to watch Southampton win— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry to upset her. I say to the Minister that we do not have to make the decision now—this is not the Bill to do it—but we should at least reflect on it with the FSA.”
“In the end, the Minister will advise us what the approach is likely to be. I hope she will at least keep a slightly open mind so that if she does not make a decision now, she thinks about the issue.”
“I think that guidance was given about how they should approach ground safety for players and the dangers they could face, such as running headlong into a concrete wall with no protection between the wall and the pitch. The Minister probably will not be able to answer me now, but will she investigate how far that guidance changed behaviour and whether it had any impact on making grounds safer for players? It is an issue. One incident caused severe damage to the wellbeing of one young player. It could happen anywhere. That was at Bath City, which is not a regulated club. It is an issue not just of regulation but of player safety, and we ought to be concerned about that.”
“Briefly, will the Minister look at something else directly related to the new clause, which is the safety of the grounds that players play at? Three years ago, the PFA approached me about a horrible incident at Bath City, where a young player went headlong into a concrete wall and suffered severe brain damage. I was surprised to find that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 does not cover players, but only spectators. That is a shocking omission, although we can probably understand how it got there. At the time, I went to see the then Sports Minister with the PFA. He was supportive, and he agreed that he would write, with the PFA and others, to get the leagues and the other football authorities to look seriously at this issue.”
“I just thought it would help move proceedings along.”
“All my amendment would do is add the revocation of a club’s operating licence to the circumstances in which the regulator can act. In other words, if the club does not have an operating licence, should not that be a factor that allows, but not forces, the regulator to deal with the ownership of the club?”
“I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 43, page 34, line 38, at end insert— “(e) following the revocation by the IFR of the club’s operating licence under clause 19 or under paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 9.” I am pleased to see you in the Chair again, Ms Butler; it is a pleasure to have you presiding over us. The amendment is fairly simple, and I hope the Minister will consider it. Clause 43 is quite an important clause, because it deals with the removal of ownership. Ownership, in the end, is of a private asset. A club is a public good for the fan base, but in the end, it is owned by an individual or a corporate entity. The clause provides the regulator with a power, not a duty, to remove owners in certain circumstances if appropriate.”
“Sometimes the Minister has partially satisfied me with her responses; this time she has wholly satisfied me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Indeed, the fan-led review came about because of the European super league, and the then Prime Minister deciding it was so awful that we needed to do something about it. Given that competition can be looked at by the regulator, does the Minister want to have another think, perhaps before Report, about whether, without putting this in the Bill, the regulator should be able to consider such matters, when clubs’ finances and their fanbases’ enjoyment are particularly affected by a competition for a few that prevents more competition for the many?”
“I want to raise one small point with the Minister. Some time ago, when we debated clause 6, I raised the ability of the regulator to take a view about the impact of new competitions, particularly the world club championship, on the legacy of important domestic competitions like the FA cup. Those competitions will now be constrained for time, with replays being abolished, because a few clubs had to go and do more things in Europe, depriving the majority of clubs of their traditional way of playing in competitions. The Minister’s answer at the time was that a regulator cannot deal with competition matters. The headings for part 5 and clause 45 include the word “competition”.”