Mr Louie French
MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup · Conservative · United Kingdom
“As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. We established the National Citizen Service; this Government cancelled it, but more than 750,000 young people participated in it and it had a 93% satisfaction rate—something this Government could only dream of.”
“As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate. We all recognise that this issue is increasingly important to our constituents across the country.”
“The renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, but access to enrichment remains uneven, and Government funding cuts will only make that worse.”
“Youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that every £1 of Government investment in youth work has a social return on investment of between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing antisocial behaviour, knife crime and associated criminal justice costs.”
“Government can often be siloed, so I hope that the Minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to ensure that policies and programmes across Government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area.”
“The Government’s national youth strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035—I believe passionately in the power of role models, and I would…”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Mr Louie French, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“I will reflect on that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker— [Interruption . ] And I withdraw it. [Interruption.] I have said that I withdraw it; I do not know what the problem is. Members can scream and shout all they want, but the reality is that in the Select Committee, the chair in question said very clearly that he had been approached by civil servants, not by the then Minister in question. The Minister in question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has already said on the Floor of the House that he did not approach the said gentleman. Perhaps the Secretary of State would also like to reflect on her comments. There is a revolving door of vested interests ready to leap in. We would not let the chairman of a rival club— [ Interruption. ] You are already under investigation; I am not sure you want to make it worse.”
“Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. You are not under investigation, but the Secretary of State and the Government are. That is a matter of public record. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why would we let people with political or commercial conflicts of interest sit at the very top of this new football referee? My amendments to schedule 2 are basic due diligence: they would mean no party hacks in the chair and full declarations of conflicts of interest, to avoid the mess that this Government have got themselves into. Amendment 18 would put a stop to the cronyism once and for all, and give the public proper transparency. It is not radical; it is responsible. If we do not accept it, the regulator will fail before the first whistle blows.”
“First, Charlton did reach the play-offs and we were promoted to the championship, so I am happy to correct the record for the hon. Member. But on the broadcasting issue, what cost analysis have the Liberal Democrats done on this issue, given that we know that the premier league and the EFL have already signed broadcast deals with the likes of Sky and others? What is the economic impact for those clubs and leagues?”
“I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He suggests that there would not be a cost impact on the broadcasting rights, but the Liberal Democrat amendment states that a number of key matches would be required to shown on free-to-air TV channels every season. And as I highlighted in my previous intervention, those broadcasting deals are already in place. Does he not agree, therefore, that if Members were to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment today, that would impact the broadcast deals already in play for the EFL and the premier league.”
“Anyone who has read the fan-led review will know that it ultimately suggests that football should be given back to the FA and the leagues themselves. Our position is to accelerate that now, rather than appoint a Labour regulator.”
“Let me explain, for the benefit of Members who were not in the room at the start of the debate, that the discussion was about the fact that the gentleman in question said in the Select Committee that he was not approached by the then Minister, but by civil servants. The Secretary of State is trying to say now that her Department is not under investigation. Is that correct? Are you under investigation for this appointment?”
“Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and from the Liberal Democrats. We believe this ban is outdated. Football fans should not be treated with a two-tier approach when it comes to being able to drink in the stands. We will be pressing this new clause to a Division because we on the Opposition Benches are on the side of football fans. We do not want this nanny state approach to continue; we want to make sure that football fans are treated with the respect that they deserve, and we will see tonight whose side this Government are really on. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“With leave of the House, it is my pleasure to sum up this Report stage. We have heard today that there is common ground on many of the issues facing football, but as I highlighted in my opening speech, we disagree on the solutions. This is a Government who are currently under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to chair an independent football regulator. They may not like it, but that is the reality. Our amendment 18 seeks to end the politicisation of such roles and to ensure transparency on future appointments. We believe strongly that no Member would vote this measure down, given that it seeks to end cronyism over clubs and favours over fans. New clause 1 would deal with alcohol at football grounds, as we have heard in the debate, and we have support from the hon.”
“If this Bill passes, and we expect it will tonight, I can confirm to the House and to fans at home that a future Conservative Government will trigger a review of Labour’s regulator as soon as possible, and if it is overreaching and strangling clubs— [ Interruption. ]”
“The test of a good law is whether it solves a problem proportionately and properly, not whether it lets Ministers feel that they have done something. This Bill fails that test, and fails it spectacularly. It treats our national game not as a living tradition rooted in local pride, but as an industry to be micromanaged by the state. This is not how English football was built, and it is not how it will be sustained. On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I say clearly tonight that football is at its best when the players entertain the crowd and the referee goes unnoticed, but this Bill risks creating more referees than players—referees who answer not to clubs or supporters, but to Labour Ministers and mandarins.”
“Yet this Bill opens the door for mission creep on an extraordinary scale, with provisions that would let any future Minister expand the regulator’s powers and the leagues covered at will. As drafted, this Bill risks breaching FIFA and UEFA’s clear rules against Government overreach, putting our clubs and national sides in danger of sanctions that would shame the country on the world stage. It sets up a powerful new regulator with vast discretion, but precious little real democratic control, and it piles on costs that smaller clubs and fans simply cannot bear. If the Minister thinks that big clubs will pay for this quango alone, she needs to read her own impact report. Ultimately, the fans always pay—through higher ticket prices and higher merchandise prices—all to stand on the same terraces on which generations have previously stood.”
“This Bill risks replacing financial mismanagement with political interference, poor governance with endless red tape, and the soul of our game with a new quango that grows year by year, unchallenged by real scrutiny or accountability to Parliament or fans. If we vote this Bill through tonight, we will not remove unaccountable owners; we will only create more unaccountable bureaucrats. This amateur Government will strangle the growth of a great British success story, rather than enable it, while Reform still struggles to manage its five-a-side team after yet another scandal—sorry, four-a-side now. English football does not belong to politicians; it belongs to the fans in the stands, the volunteers in the clubhouse and the kids pulling on the shirt for the first time on a Sunday morning.”
“Here we are: the final opportunity for the Government and this House to trigger a VAR review before English football fans and the beautiful game are left in tears. We cannot support this expanded Bill as drafted, and we believe that passing it tonight risks harming the very game that it claims to protect. We all largely agree on the problems in football: we have a minority of greedy owners, with loyal fans left powerless when a proud club is torn apart for profit or by reckless management. No one in this House wants to see another Bury or Macclesfield, but let us be clear and honest with fans: this Bill will not stop a bad owner damaging a club, market failure will not be removed, and clubs will not be bailed out by this Government. The risk of a breakaway league will now grow, not shrink.”
“We will be ready to revisit this when, as is likely, it fails to deliver the promises being made, and to review it, to rein it in, to scrap it altogether and to give powers back to our sporting bodies. That was the ultimate goal of the fan-led review, as Labour Members would know if they had read it. Football belongs to the fans, and no badly drafted Acts of Parliament should ever make us forget that. [ Interruption. ]”
“Tonight, the Conservatives will be voting against this Bill in good conscience, because our national game deserves better than a Government whose only knowledge of football is free tickets and corporate prawn sandwiches. It is worth noting that Labour Members have tonight voted against fans having a drink on the terraces, while their Ministers drink alcohol in their corporate hospitality boxes for free. We will continue to stand up for the fans, not the bureaucrats creating an even larger nanny state. We will continue to stand up for healthy competition and local pride, not a one-size-fits-all state interference that will relegate English football among global competition.”
“If the regulator is overreaching and strangling clubs with unnecessary red tape, as we believe it will under this Government, we will act decisively on behalf of fans to promote the English game again. The real threat to football’s future is not a lack of regulators; it is the erosion of competition and trust between owners, communities and supporters. We would fix that with stronger transparency rules—such as the rules that Labour Members have just voted against—as well as the better enforcement of existing laws and real fan power, not a vast new quango led by a Labour crony working three days a week on a salary of £130,000. This shameful Labour Government are already under investigation having once again put their party first, with cronies over clubs, favours over fans and greed over the beautiful game.”
“The Government are on the ropes after a grand slam of unforced errors. Since we last met, we have seen the Secretary of State placed under investigation after appointing a Labour crony to head the football regulator, the Chancellor slash the DCMS budget and the DCMS Government Whip resign in protest. Own goal, knock on, double fault—whatever our choice of sporting analogy, it is clear that they have royally ballsed it up. With Labour’s latest U-turn creating a fiscal black hole set to be £20 billion, what assurances can the Secretary of State give today that her Government will not go ahead with their planned tax raid on bingo halls, racecourses and sports betting, which will immensely damage sponsorship of major sporting events, fuel the black market and cost thousands of jobs across the country?”
“First, it would increase fines to better match the severity of the crime, reflecting the cost of replacing tools and repairing damage to vans and of lost work.”
“Over 1,650 stolen tools were found, worth around half a million pounds, on just one day. Officers were even able to return some marked tools to their owners. The raid shows why tradespeople must mark their tools properly. If they are marked with the likes of DNA tagging, the police can easily prove they are stolen and lock up the thieves responsible. They can also return the stolen tools to the hard-working tradespeople across the country. But marking tools alone will not stop tool theft. Vans are being broken into in broad daylight and tools sold openly across the country. It is a disgrace. The law must change to punish the thieves responsible and crack down on the boot sales driving the crime wave. That is why I encourage all Members to support new clause 130, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).”
“I rise to speak in favour of new clause 130 to strengthen the law on tool theft. In early May this year, I joined police officers from Sidcup and Havering in a raid to uncover stolen tools at a boot sale in east London. Unlicensed boot sales are notorious for selling stolen goods. However, I was still astounded by what officers found. As they arrived in police vans and unmarked cars, there was a flurry of action among some traders: stolen goods were hidden, a van tried to flee and the keys to vehicles crowded with tools were suddenly lost. But the police had struck quickly and in numbers. Stolen tools were uncovered across traders’ stalls, six arrests were made and, eventually, officers struck the mother lode—a van overflowing with stolen tools. The raid took officers to a second site, where even more stolen tools were uncovered.”
“As campaigners, tradespeople, policing experts and industry have told us, action is needed now. Every 12 minutes, a van is broken into and tools are stolen, costing tradespeople thousands of pounds, hurting their mental health and stopping them from earning a living.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her vital contribution. We must back the makers, not the law breakers, whether they are “white van men” or rural farmers who are having their tools stolen. The impact on their ability to go to work is significant, but it also has an impact on their families because of their ability to buy food and other goods. We must back the makers and not the law breakers. Secondly, the Bill would impose tougher sentences on thieves by recognising the seriousness of the crime. Finally, it would require councils to create an enforcement plan to stop the sale of stolen tools at boot sales. These are all necessary changes to help stop tool theft across the country. Tradespeople and industry cannot afford parliamentary dither and delay.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend’s vital contribution. I will come on to a couple of the larger impacts. We often think about small businesses, but we have found from our roundtable that very large companies also suffer a lot of damage. For example, on average Openreach vans are hit three times a day, which delays the fibre rollout in rural communities. Over £2 million of surveying equipment was stolen from Balfour Beatty’s vans in just three months, impacting HS2, which we have discussed today. If any MPs are unsure about the need to act now, they need to speak to Shoaib Awan, Frankie Williams, Sergeant Dave Catlow, PC Dan Austin and the teams at SelectaDNA, Checkatrade and On The Tools, among many others who have worked tirelessly on this issue. I thank them all, especially the Sidcup police team who are leading a lot of that hard work.”
“As I have highlighted, this is not a party-political issue and I appreciate the work of the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in shining a spotlight on it. Today we can work cross-party and get the law changed now, and I hope, in all sincerity, that all MPs get behind this amendment and that the Government can help us change the law today, get on the side of the makers and tackle the lawbreakers.”
“I applaud all the efforts by podcasters and tradespeople who are going online and sharing their experiences. Any hon. Member can look up the likes of Stolen Tools UK or the Gas Expert on Instagram and they will see cases, every single day, of people having their tools stolen and the damage that is doing to their financial and mental health. The impact of this on the wider economy is now so severe that we must act: Parliament must act across party to change the law—today, I hope. I also thank the police and crime commissioners across the country who are getting stuck into the problem. I have highlighted examples from the Met of Sidcup and Havering police forces in particular, but I know that the PCCs in Kent and Sussex are also doing great work tackling this issue.”
“I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 57, page 47, line 35, leave out subsection (6) and insert— “(6) Condition 4 is met in relation to a qualifying football season if— (a) a distribution agreement is in force between the two specified competition organisers in relation to the season, (b) the distribution agreement has been in force for at least the applicable period (see subsections (7) and (8)), and (c) no distribution order has effect in respect of the specified competition organisers in relation to the season. (7) Where— (a) the specified competition organisers have agreed (whether in the distribution agreement or otherwise) a period for the purposes of condition 4, and (b) both of the organisers have notified the IFR of the period so agreed, the applicable period is that period.”
“It ensures that the trigger point for resolution reflects the needs of the game, not an arbitrary statutory timescale set many seasons before it may actually be needed. The amendment is limited, reasonable, and entirely in keeping with the Government’s desire for a targeted, proportionate, and respectful form of regulation. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment based on the position she has taken on earlier amendments to the Bill.”
“That is not interference but empowered self-governance, which is what we should be striving for when—as the fan-led review ultimately sought to do—we return the governance of English football back to the FA. The amendment gives clubs and competition organisers more ownership of the process, not less. Does the Minister recognise that the amendment would incentivise early engagement and constructive negotiation, rather than prolonging the stalemates that have now become common place? Clause 57 is an important procedural gateway, but the current wording of condition 4 imposes a rigid five-year rule that may prevent the regulator from acting, even in cases where both sides want its help. The amendment would introduce flexibility and consent into the process.”
“That is especially important given the recurring tensions between the certain specified competition organisers on financial redistribution, among other things. If both sides were willing to allow the Government’s regulator to assist earlier, we should facilitate that, not block it. Regulation, especially in this context, should be a last resort, and football must be given the space to sort out its own affairs where possible. The amendment reflects that principle. It does not force the regulator into a situation early; it simply allows football competitions to agree that if things go wrong, the regulator can be invited in sooner rather than later.”
“If we do not pass the amendment, we risk locking football into a situation where, no matter how bad a deal becomes or how outdated a distribution agreement appears, the regulator’s hands are tied for another half a decade. They say that a week is a long time in politics, and the same is true for football. In half a decade’s time there could be—and I hope there is—a new Government, and Charlton could have returned to the Premier League and may even be in the Champion’s League final—I will try to keep it realistic; the sun must be getting to me. As drafted, the Bill allows prolonged stalemates, growing financial resentment between divisions, and a continued lack of reform, even when both sides might privately want the regulator’s help to resolve matters.”
“It makes the clause more responsive, less rigid and more capable of reflecting the fast-moving dynamics of football finance and league relationships. Will the Minister confirm why the Government chose to fix the five-year period in primary legislation, rather than allowing the competitions to define the appropriate timeline for regulatory intervention themselves? Does she agree that, if both parties are asking for an earlier resolution window, it is counterproductive for the legislation to prevent it? It would cause delays to the redistribution of money from one specified competition to another, which would entirely undermine the point of the regulator.”
“The Government argued that our earlier amendment to cap the pay of their new regulator was inflexible and too firmly rooted in the present day, so it would be unfortunate if the Minister were to oppose the amendment for exactly the opposite reasons. None of us would want that. The amendment allows football’s governing bodies—the Premier League, the EFL, and others—to determine their own timelines for when they believe the regulator should be able to step in, if negotiations breakdown. It does not force earlier intervention; it simply allows the option where both parties agree. That is a consensual, common-sense reform that respects the autonomy of football’s existing institutions, while giving them the tools to resolve disputes more efficiently when necessary.”
“I therefore tabled amendments 128 to 130, which would allow the “applicable period” under condition 4 to be shorter than five years when two conditions are met: first, when the specified competition organisers have agreed a different period, either in the distribution agreement itself or separately; and, secondly, when both organisers have notified the regulator of that agreed period. In that case, the “applicable period” for the purpose of condition 4 becomes whatever period the organisers have agreed—rather than being fixed at five years by statute. These are flexibility amendments, which an industry with businesses will benefit from, rather than having the inflexibility of fixing a date in statute.”
“Five years, however, is a long time in football. Broadcasting cycles, financial realities and competitive conditions can change quickly. In that time, for example, a team such as Luton Town went from playing in League Two in the 2017-18 season, to competing in the Premier League in the 2022-23 season. Granted, the team have now fallen down the pyramid to League One again, but that helps prove that, even with parachute payments being handed out from the Premier League and potentially now being included in the resolution process, that does not stop a club from failing on the pitch or in the boardroom.”
“In particular, it creates a cooling-off period, a requirement that certain preconditions be met before the regulator can become involved in live disputes between football’s governing bodies and competitions. Of the conditions listed in the clause, condition 4 is especially significant. As the Bill stands, condition 4 is met only if the relevant distribution agreement between competitions—for example, between the Premier League and the English Football League—has been in force for at least five years. We understand why the five-year test was included: the intention is to prevent the Government’s regulator from being dragged into every routine renegotiation, and to ensure that the resolution process is only triggered in relation to long-standing agreements that may have become outdated or contentious.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Sir Jeremy, and I welcome back everyone else in Committee. The clause sets out further details on the circumstances in which the specified competition organisers can apply to trigger the resolution process. The Government have moved on the mechanism within the backstop, which is welcomed by the leagues, but the amendments tabled in my name seek to correct some gaps in the clause. Amendment 130 would allow the relevant leagues to set a different period other than five years for the resolution process to be triggered. Amendments 128 and 129 would also allow the relevant parties to set the appropriate period for triggering the backstop. The clause matters, not just because of what it allows, but because of what it delays.”
“Amendment 51, in clause 60, page 50, line 15, after “resolution” insert “set out in a notice under section 59(5)(b)(zi)”.— (Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment clarifies that the question or questions for resolution subject to the mediation process are those set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b)(zi). Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
“I will be brief. I echo some of the Minister’s comments. His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome any efforts to ensure that the backstop process is triggered only as a last resort and we will carefully monitor how that works in future. Question put and agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60 The mediation stage Amendments made: 49, in clause 60, page 50, line 4, after “resolution” insert “set out in a notice under section 59(5)(b)(zi)”. This amendment clarifies that the question or questions for resolution subject to the mediation process are those set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b)(zi). Amendment 50, in clause 60, page 50, line 6, leave out “the question or questions for resolution” and insert “that question or those questions”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.”
“I will not repeat the comments the Minister has made, but we also believe that this new mechanism is an improvement on the previous one, in line with feedback from the other place and from the leagues. The new clause would allow modified proposals to be submitted to the football regulator and for more of a negotiated settlement rather than a binary one. The only question we have at this stage, because we will have to see how this works in practice, is about the criteria the regulator would be looking to apply when selecting one party’s proposals over another. What does the Minister envisage that will look like?”
“In the current drafting, if the expert panel finds that neither of the final proposals submitted by the parties is consistent with the statutory principles, it is required to terminate the process and notify the parties that it has done so. That is not an option; it is a legal requirement. We must ask what kind of resolution process it is, if both sides present imperfect proposals and the committee’s only course of action is to walk away. That is not resolution; that is resignation.”
“Clause 62 is, in many ways, the most far-reaching and contentious provision in the Bill. It establishes the legal framework by which the Government’s regulator, having assessed final proposals under the new resolution process we have already discussed, may issue a legally binding “distribution order”, thereby compelling parties to adopt a financial redistribution model imposed by the regulator. This is not a minor regulatory power. It is a direct intervention into the financial core of English football. While the desire to resolve long-standing disputes, particularly between the Premier League and the EFL, is understandable, the clause as drafted gives rise to very real risks of overreach, unintended consequences and potential conflict with international football rules. Let me start with subsection (1 )(c).”
“That would not abolish the regulator’s ability to consider fair distribution; it would simply make clear that internally agreed mechanisms, such as parachute payments, fall outside the regulator’s remit.”
“I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I note that the Football Association sent a letter to Bill Committee members over the weekend, highlighting its concern about scope creep and how that may also interfere with what the regulator is meant to be tightly governed to do. I would like to think that we would rather solutions were made within football. It is important that backstop powers are a clearly defined last resort and that the process encourages the principle of bodies working together to find a joint solution. Let me be very clear: by defining “relegation revenue” in statute and bringing parachute payments into scope, the Government risk triggering exactly the kind of interference that UEFA explicitly prevents in its statutes. Amendment 126 would remove subsection (3) in full.”
“I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point; I will move on slightly while he seeks his tie and then come back to his question. We believe that such mechanisms should fall outside the regulator’s remit unless or until the parties themselves choose to make it part of a proposed solution. We believe that is a reasonable balance: it respects the autonomy of leagues, avoids placing English football at odds with UEFA compliance and helps ensure that the regulator remains focused on its core mission of financial sustainability and integrity, not financial redistribution imposed by decree.”
“I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we do not believe that it necessarily applies to what the amendment seeks to do: to allow the leagues to resolve such issues themselves, rather than the regulator. That is what we are talking about here.”
“They ensure that the Bill delivers what it promises: a sustainable and respected football regulator without overreach, scope creep or crossing the line into political interference. We believe that the Government must take the warnings seriously about the impact on international competition. As a Committee, let us ensure that this Government’s regulator supports the game, rather than risks its place on the international stage.”
“Are this Government and this Minister truly prepared to jeopardise English clubs’ participation in Europe? Is the Minister so confident in her regulatory model that she is prepared to put English football on a different legal footing from that of every other UEFA member, and have English football cast out from international football? I hope not—the clubs will also hope not and the fans will not forgive it, if that were to happen. Clause 62 is the most interventionist part of the Bill. If we are to retain it, we must amend it by removing subsection (1)(c) to allow the expert panel to act with realism and discretion. We must remove subsection (3) to ensure that parachute payments and, by extension, football’s autonomy remain protected. These are not wrecking amendments but safeguards.”
“The inclusion of parachute payments in this clause, and the inflexible process in subsection (1)(c), are classic examples of the very scope creep that other regulators fear. The clause, as it stands, is not just a domestic issue; it is a risk to England’s standing within European football, as we have said before. The Government must remember what the Bill is supposed to do. It is about ensuring that clubs are run sustainably, that fans are respected and that football’s heritage is protected. It is not about the Government’s imposing financial structures or about overriding the autonomy of leagues. It is certainly not about placing us on a collision course with UEFA and FIFA. UEFA has made clear the potential compliance risks from the Bill, and it has warned of the ultimate sanction: exclusion from UEFA competition.”
“As I was explaining, our preference would be for the leagues to use their autonomy to reach a conclusion. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I will move on. Building on this, there remains a broader point that we have sought to create through a number of amendments to the Bill, and one that we fear the Government consistently leave the door open to—the likely empire-building of the Government’s regulator. We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep, as is the FA in the letter referenced earlier. If this Government’s regulator expands into broader aspects of football governance, it could undermine established structures and processes of the sport.”
“The legislation will leave it entirely up to the football regulator how best to determine the questions of resolution, with the only guardrail seemingly being that the distribution order should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of any specified competition organiser, and the distribution order should not result in a lower amount of relegation revenue being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to the club during that period had the order not been made. It would also be helpful if the Minister could outline whether either of the parties would be offered the right of appeal, following a distribution order from the regulator.”