Stuart Andrew
MP for Daventry · Conservative · United Kingdom
“We are blessed with charities up and down the country doing amazing work. I was pleased to host a dinner in Parliament to launch a new charity that is based in Northamptonshire in my constituency.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The village of Isham in my constituency is sandwiched between Wellingborough and Kettering, and for 40 years it has been battling to get a bypass. The situation has now got worse because of a huge development of warehousing, yet the bypass has been refused funding.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The villages of Crick and Flore in my constituency are two small rural communities with few amenities, but both have hotels housing asylum seekers.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On maternity, two things will stick with me. First, there was the briefing from Donna Ockenden on her report, which was shocking. The other was listening to bereaved mums saying how they are tired of telling their story over and over again, and I hope we can find a better service for those parents; equally, there was the treatment of dead…”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister will know that Onley Park is still owned by the Ministry of Justice. Although I welcome the funding, these residents have been waiting years, and frankly they are really worried—we have still not got a start date or clarity around backdated bills, and the situation is affecting house sales now.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making an important point about HSSIB. We have heard time and again that frontline staff value the safety that HSSIB provides to them and the confidence they have in reporting.”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
3,193 lines on record for Stuart Andrew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Absolutely. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the hon. Member for Luton South made important points. As a public body, the regulator must act fairly when it makes decisions. As set out in the White Paper, it will make an evidence-based objective judgment to assess whether an owner or a director is a suitable custodian of a club, and it will apply its tests consistently and fairly to every person. The fitness element of the test will assess an individual’s honesty, integrity and financial soundness, as well as, for directors, competence. That draws on the fit and proper person test applied by other regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The regulator will set out in its rules and guidance further detail on how it will conduct its tests.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Similarly, clause 40 ensures that when the regulator finds that someone is unsuitable to be an officer, it must either give the unsuitable officer a direction to take all reasonable steps to cease to be an officer of the club, give the relevant club a direction to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the unsuitable officer is no longer at the club, or both. Once more, to ensure that sufficient protections are in place, the regulator must consult the unsuitable officer, the relevant club and the league, as before.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The process will help to ensure that key community assets have suitable custodians who run the club properly. Clause 39 details the process that the regulator must begin to remove an owner from the club when it finds them to be unsuitable. In most cases, that will mean giving them a direction under the clause to take all reasonable steps to cease being an owner by a specified date. Those steps could include, for instance, selling their stake in the club. As I just mentioned, in order to ensure sufficient protections, the regulator must consult the unsuitable owner, the relevant club and the relevant league before issuing the direction.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The financial distress experienced by some of English football’s most historic clubs was partly down to unsuitable owners and directors. As discussed, the regulator will be able to conduct strengthened owners and directors tests to help to ensure that each club has suitable custodians. Clause 38 ensures that when the regulator finds that someone is unsuitable to be an owner or officer of a particular club, it can disqualify that person from being an owner or an officer at any regulated club in future. In order to ensure sufficient protections, relevant parties will be allowed to express their views before the regulator makes its decision. Then, once the decision taking those views into account has been made, the regulator must publish a notice of the decision, including the rationale behind it.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By conducting strong statutory tests on prospective owners, the regulator will ensure that clubs are run by suitable custodians and that unsuitable owners can be stopped at the point of entry. That will help to reduce the risk of unsuitable owners entering the industry. The wider regulatory system of financial regulation and improved governance will further put clubs on a more sustainable footing, which should ensure that clubs are attractive as investments for prospective buyers. If an owner wishes to sell, or is required to sell by the regulator, the club should therefore be a much more attractive asset.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As I said, if the regulator deems that a current owner is unsuitable, it would first direct them to leave the club in the specified timeframe. During that period, the regulator will have available several powers to safeguard the club from further harm. However, as the hon. Lady rightly said, there is a risk that an unsuitable owner does not comply with the directions. For instance, they may refuse to leave the club or may continue to use their position as owner to damage the club. In those situations, the regulator will have the powers to directly remove the unsuitable owner from the club. The hon. Lady makes a point about cases in which there is a failed incumbent owner but no new prospective buyer for the club.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not saying that this is going to be the panacea for all football clubs; they are businesses, and businesses go under at times. When the regulator is ensuring that the club has to be sold, its powers will minimise the risk of a bad owner further damaging the club, which adds to the pressure of finding a good new owner to take over. By having those powers, we are not drumming that club into the ground, as we have seen in other instances; it remains a positive and attractive prospect for investment. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. Question put and agreed to. Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 39 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Duty not to operate a team in relation to a prohibited competition”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Specifying that in the Bill is unnecessary as it is already implicit that fans would consider the potential impacts as part of reaching a view on a competition’s prohibition. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A decision to prohibit a competition may also impact a wide range of other stakeholders, which is why the clause already requires the regulator to “consult such other persons as” it “considers appropriate.” That allows for consultation with a broad range of potential stakeholders. If the regulator considers players and staff of regulated clubs to be an appropriate group, it must consult them. It is right that the regulator has the discretion to make the judgment. Amendment 22 seeks to draw out that when the regulator is determining the views of fans about a competition being prohibited, it must include their views on the full impact of the competition being prohibited.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendments 21 and 13 would require the regulator to determine and have regard to the views of club staff and players, placing them on equal footing with the club’s fans for the purposes of clause 45. I do not believe that the inclusion of players and club staff is necessary here. The Bill is designed to protect and promote the sustainability of clubs so that they continue to serve the interests of their fans in local communities, who have been around far longer than any owners and will be around long after those owners have moved on. That is why clause 45 requires the regulator to determine and consider the views of fans.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The proposed European Super League in 2021 posed an existential threat to the English football pyramid. It was an attempt by a small number of clubs to set up a closed-shop league to benefit themselves at the expense of all other clubs and against the wishes of fans. Ultimately, the European Super League was stopped by the sheer will of fans around the country and the Government’s promise to consider legislation. However, the risk of a similar breakaway competition rearing its head in the future remains. The clause will prevent a regulated club or a club that has been regulated in the previous 10 years from entering a team into a competition that the regulator has prohibited.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We have had this conversation several times on the replays, and I understand that point. As I have said before, not drawing on the merits of the decisions that have been made, I understand some of the challenges that those organisations have in terms of a very crowded field and in terms of competitions.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the national governing body for football, the FA will be consulted before the regulator prohibits any competition, and the regulator will also consult anyone else it considers appropriate. I commend the clause to the Committee.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That will provide up-front clarity to the industry and means that new competitions will not just be prohibited outright. That is important to ensure that the regulator does not unduly stand in the way of innovation in the market—for example, like when the old First Division became the Premier League in 1992. The clause requires the regulator, when deciding whether to prohibit a competition, to consider several factors, including whether the competition is merit based, operates on the basis of fair and open competition, jeopardises the sustainability of English football’s existing competitions or the clubs in those competitions or harms the heritage of English football. Of course, football belongs to its fans, so the regulator will also determine and consider the views of fans in England and Wales before prohibiting a competition.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Gentleman knows, the purpose of the Bill has been tightly focused to feature those particular issues. We have a fine balance to ensure that we do not upset or get into challenges with UEFA and FIFA, and it is for football to make some of the decisions that it has made, but I would expect that, as the provisions in the mandatory conditions say, clubs will consult their fans on decisions on match days. The extension to clubs regulated in the past 10 years will stop them circumventing the rules by withdrawing from existing competitions in order to join a new breakaway competition. The regulator is expected to prohibit competitions on the basis of the predetermined, proportionate and transparent framework based on the prescribed factors set out in legislation.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. On the ruling that she mentioned, my understanding is that it will be considered, but I want to make sure I have that right, so if she does not mind I will write to her. The regulator will not be able to take action until it is fully operational. It would be inappropriate to give it backdated powers in relation to competitions, as clubs cannot comply with preapproval requirements after an action has been taken, so I hope the hon. Lady understands the position we are in. Question put and agreed to. Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 Duty not to dispose etc of home ground without approval”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 48 sets out that the regulator can grant approval to a relocation only if it does not undermine the financial sustainability of the club and does not cause significant harm to its heritage. Given that clubs will be required to consult with fans on matters relating to home ground, we expect that the regulator would consider that in reaching its decision on whether to approve a relocation.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill requires regulated clubs and clubs that have been regulated in the past five years, which I shall simply refer to as clubs, to notify the regulator where there is a reasonable prospect of either the club selling or otherwise disposing of its home ground or using it as security for a loan or other liability. The proposed transaction can proceed only if the regulator grants approval. Clause 46, which the amendment seeks to change, deals with only the narrow issue of a home ground disposal or the use of the home ground as security. Those matters do not necessarily threaten the heritage of the club in the same way as forcing a relocation. Where currently regulated clubs propose to relocate in parallel, which may impact on the clubs’ heritage, that is subject to a separate approval from the regulator under clause 48.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The regulator will be able to see whether that consultation was done properly, and the mechanisms that we are setting up for fan engagement are much strengthened from what they may be at the moment. That gives confidence that what the clubs consult on will be done through a mechanism that is much stronger than some of the examples mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Barnsley East. By doing that, because it is about the club’s heritage—it is its home ground, and the club is going to move—the club must demonstrate that it has properly consulted with the fans in the way described by the Bill.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The heritage of the club will include its home ground. Of course that is part of the description of heritage, so it will come under that aspect. Just selling the club to get a loan, for example, will not move the stadium, but if it is going to relocate, that is a change to the club’s heritage, so that will come under the heritage aspect of the Bill.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said a moment ago, clause 48 sets out that a relocation can be granted approval only if it does not undermine the financial stability of the club or cause significant harm to its heritage. It will come under that.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The impact of a home ground relocation on both fans and the club is why we are legislating for the regulator to preapprove any proposal in this regard. As set out in subsection (4), the regulator must be satisfied that the proposed relocation would not undermine the financial sustainability of the club, or significantly harm its heritage. Clause 48 makes the important and necessary recognition of the vital role that home grounds can play in communities, and adds an extra layer of protection to them. I commend the clause to the Committee.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although fan views will be an important consideration, the Government believe that the regulator should be able to take an holistic view of any proposal. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby withdraws his amendment. Turning to clause 48, home grounds play an important role in the history of a club, and are often the club’s most valuable asset. Relocating home grounds permanently to areas that have no connection to the heritage and history of a club can have a significant impact on those supporters and the local area, as we saw when Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes. This clause is aimed at stopping that from happening again. However, the Government do not want to stifle development that brings value and aligns with the heritage of a club.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That protects against potential bad actors who might otherwise choose to pull their team from the league and no longer be a regulated club so that they can asset-strip and sell off the ground to make money. Turning to amendment 29, the Government believe that the safeguarding of club heritage and the voices of fans is vital. We expect the regulator to consider whether a club has adequately engaged with its fans in reaching its decision on whether to approve a relocation. However, there will be a number of additional factors for the regulator to consider when assessing whether a proposed home ground relocation will significantly harm club heritage. Those may include the history of the club, distance from the original home ground or the views of others in the local community.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause therefore places a duty on clubs that own their home ground to obtain the approval of the regulator prior to any sale or use as security in a loan or liability. The regulator will consider the risk of the proposed transaction to the club’s financial sustainability and block any potentially financially damaging sale of a club’s home ground. The provision applies not only to regulated clubs, but we are also extending it further to capture clubs that are not currently regulated but have been within the last five years. The regulator must be satisfied that the club has taken reasonable steps to ensure that a team play their home matches at the ground prior to its sale or use in a loan—that is, that football club continues to be playing at the ground.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendment. Turning to clause 46, a home ground is often one of the most vital and valuable assets that a club can own. However, home grounds are sometimes used as collateral for debt or even sold off entirely to raise money. Although there can be sensible financial reasons for clubs to do that, both courses of action may result in a club’s financial position seriously deteriorating, or it having no ground to play at. Selling the home ground also potentially seriously weakens the club’s balance sheet. Likewise, using the home ground as collateral for a loan might make financial sense depending on the use of the cash raised, but it may also saddle the club with too much debt or high interest costs.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In schedule 4, paragraph 4(3)(a) on page 93, it says “the club’s home ground”. It is there. The regulator will examine each transaction in the context of the regulated club’s individual financial circumstances. That should provide sufficient comfort for fans or other proposed stakeholders that the proposal does not adversely affect the financial sustainability of the club. The additional stakeholders to be consulted will not have a financial interest in the transaction. Amendment 3 would impose an additional level of bureaucracy and complexity to the process. It would also introduce a potential delay in completing a transaction, which is often time-sensitive, and it may have adverse implications, such as the buyer pulling out or renegotiating terms. That could undermine the sustainability of clubs.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The requirement to seek approval from the regulator for the appointment of an administrator applies to clubs that have a licence, and those that should have a licence but for whatever reason do not, as well as clubs that were formerly regulated within the previous five years. That is included to ensure that clubs are not deliberately run so that they are no longer in the leagues that the regulator has oversight of, to then take advantage of being an unregulated entity to appoint an administrator without approval of the regulator. I commend the clause to the Committee.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, there are occasions where the administration of a club is not initiated by creditors but by the club itself. A club can appoint administrators directly, and so does not require a court to sanction the appointment in advance. In those circumstances, there have been occasions in which some stakeholders have had cause to question the relationship between the insolvency practitioner appointed as administrator and the football club. That is why, in those specific circumstances, the appointment of an administrator requires the regulator’s approval to ensure that the process is transparent and to avoid conflicts of interest. Such approval should give all stakeholders, particularly fans, more confidence in the system and more confidence that the outcome is the best available, in the circumstances, for the individual club.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The regulatory framework is not a zero-failure regime. Therefore, it is possible that football clubs may enter administration despite the best efforts of the regulator. We would of course, hope that this is rare. There already exists a legal framework for companies—and that includes football clubs—to enter into administration, which is detailed in the Insolvency Act 1986, and in many cases this existing framework has enabled clubs to go into administration and re-emerge as solvent clubs. It should be noted that those clubs often re-emerge in a lower league as a result of the sporting sanctions placed on them by the competition organisers. Given that the existing administration regime seems to work well in relation to appointments initiated by creditors, it is not necessary for the regulator to cut across that process.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The view of supporters is a significant factor in the FA’s final decision, but it may also need to balance wider considerations, such as the effects on other clubs in the pyramid, and the relationship between the club’s current name, the proposed name and the locality with which it is traditionally associated.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A club’s name, home shirt colours and crest are intrinsic parts of its heritage, and therefore the decision to materially change any of them requires considered thought and consultation. The clause requires a club to establish that a majority of domestic supporters approve any material changes to its badge or predominant home shirt colours. In practice, we expect that to take place through a formal survey of fan opinion, as happened last season when Bristol Rovers supporters opposed the final proposal put to them, resulting in the club halting the redesign of its crest. The clause also requires clubs to get Football Association approval prior to changing the name their team plays under.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a very good question, and I feel my officials thinking, “Not another letter!” If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, we will write to him. I apologise to my officials, who have enough on their plate, but I want to make sure I am not saying something that is not correct. The existing FA rule has been used to prevent name changes that have been proposed in the past against the wishes of fans, as happened at Hull City, for example. Codifying that as a legal duty will mean that there are additional powers to ensure that clubs do not make changes without proper approvals and to respond to instances of non-compliance. I commend the clause to the Committee.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely have confidence that the FA rules will apply. 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.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In order to regulate clubs effectively, the regulator will need the complete picture of each club. Complete transparency and timely updates will allow the regulator to stay abreast of any relevant changes. That is why clause 50 imposes a duty on all regulated clubs to notify the regulator of any material changes in circumstances relevant to the regulator’s functions as soon as reasonably practicable. For example, the club’s finances might have materially changed, or the club might no longer comply with the licence condition. The self-reporting will facilitate the regulator’s ongoing real-time monitoring of clubs.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once the statement is approved by the regulator, clubs must publish it online, increasing transparency and accountability in football. Subsequent statements must be submitted to the regulator if an old statement becomes out of date, such as after the departure or hiring of an officer.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The owners and officers who control and run football clubs are vital for clubs’ sustainability. The regulator therefore needs to know who is running a club behind the scenes, so that it can implement the regime. The Bill requires licensed clubs to prepare a personnel statement and submit it to the regulator for approval. A personnel statement must outline each of the club’s owners and the club’s ultimate owner; officers and the job description of each officer; and senior management and their roles at the club. Once the statement has been submitted, the regulator will review it and decide whether to approve or modify it. Any modification must be made in consultation with the club to ensure that the statement is accurate.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, so I hope he will withdraw it.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, requiring the regulator to be guided by a percentage of a club’s annual revenue in its levy calculations could undermine its ability to ensure that the charges are proportionate and affordable. In addition to revenue, the regulator should have the discretion to take into account clubs’ other financial resources when determining levy payments, which may be a more appropriate indicator of what a club’s charges should be. That could include resources such as owners’ funds, but also the offset of club expenditure. Clause 52 already provides assurance that the regulator must take into account clubs’ differing financial circumstances. That includes clubs’ financial resources and the leagues that club teams play in, as that ultimately has a direct link to revenue.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government understand that the intent behind the amendment is to create certainty about how the regulator’s levy charges will be distributed between clubs. The clause gives the regulator the necessary discretion to determine how the levy is calculated and the individual charges to be paid by clubs. The Government do not have the information or datasets required to determine the appropriate way to calculate levy payments, but those will be available to the regulator. Therefore, the regulator, rather than Government, will be best placed to determine how to distribute levy charges across clubs. Importantly, that reinforces the regulator’s operational independence. I strongly support the objective that levy charges should be affordable to clubs, which is why there is already provision that should ensure that.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The levy is an operational matter that should be determined independently by the regulator, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to make the assessment. As I say, running costs will be checked by both the DCMS and the Treasury.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In line with the principles of transparency and accountability, the regulator will be subject to “Managing Public Money” guidance, and its forecast running costs will be subject to review by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury. The clause also gives the regulator discretion regarding the method for calculating the levy and in setting the levy payment level for individual clubs. To ensure that the regulator takes into account clubs’ differing financial circumstances, and to prevent charges from being unaffordable for clubs, clause 52 requires the regulator to take into account a club’s financial resources and the league it plays in. Clause 53 imposes a statutory duty on the regulator to consult regulated clubs and the Government on its levy rules.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 52 will allow the regulator to charge a levy to licensed clubs that covers the regulator’s running costs, following the precedent of other regulators, such as the FCA and Ofcom. The cost of the regime will be paid for by licensed football clubs. By making football clubs more sustainable in the long term, the regulator will be providing a service to the industry. As the industry would benefit from regulation, it is logical that it, rather than taxpayers, should cover the cost. The legislation puts robust checks and balances on the regulator, which will be limited to raising funds to meet its annual regulatory running costs. That includes the costs of ongoing regulatory activity, additional money for new activities, and costs associated with recouping set-up costs.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reality is that, to help it understand the specifics of club finances, the regulator will have at its disposal information that we do not have at the moment. If we set the levy by percentage, we may unintentionally cause a problem for some clubs and cause an unintended consequence. The regulator will be best placed to make sure that the levy is proportionate, which is why we want the regulator to determine it. My hon. Friend is right, in the sense that some clubs will pay more for a player than most clubs earn in a year, but we will make sure that the levy is proportionate. I understand the points the hon. Member for Sheffield South East made, and I have heard what some of the smaller clubs have been saying, but I am confident we will be able to achieve that aim.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 54, page 43, line 29, leave out “23” and insert “24”. This amendment corrects a cross-reference in clause 54(1)(b).”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If a relevant league has certain pertinent information, given its knowledge and understanding of the football industry, it must tell the regulator. Equally, if the relevant league is intending to take certain action that might impact on the regulator’s regime, it must engage with the regulator. That will allow for co-operative regulation whereby information is pooled and action can be co-ordinated. That should help both the regulator and the relevant leagues to deliver their respective regulations more effectively, and ultimately minimise the overall burden on clubs.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 23 will correct a cross-reference in the Bill, to ensure that clause 54(1)(b) correctly refers to section 24. Clause 54 outlines the circumstances in which a relevant league must notify the regulator whether, for example, it believes or suspects that a club has breached one of the league’s own rules that is relevant to the regulator’s regime. The clause also requires that a relevant league consult the regulator when it is considering changing its own competition rules where a rule is relevant to the regulator’s regime. Just as the regulator is required to consult the industry in certain circumstances, these duties on relevant leagues will ensure appropriate notification and consultation in the other direction, too.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can confirm that I am confident. Question put and agreed to. Amendment 23 accordingly agreed to. Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 55 PART 6: OVERVIEW AND INTERPRETATION”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are creating a financial regulator, and it is entirely right that we solve issues like this through financial regulation wherever possible.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Including parachute payments in the backstop means that the regulator could be presented with two entirely incomparable final proposals, which could render decision making almost impossible, but it is important to remember that the backstop may never be triggered, and is only ever intended as a last resort. We expect the leagues to reach a football-led solution themselves and will continue to press them to do so. I recognise there are also concerns about the potentially distortive effects of parachute payments, and that is why the broader regulatory framework is designed to address it. If the regulator finds that parachute payments are causing a structural or systemic issue, it could attach discretionary licence conditions to parachute payment clubs to address that.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗