Stuart Andrew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The nominee for the chair of the football regulator continues to raise serious questions. During the Select Committee hearing, it was revealed that the candidate had donated to both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister’s leadership campaigns, something I do not recall being declared on Second Reading. The Secretary of State has now, rightly, been forced to recuse herself from the process. Given that it is likely that there will be a prime ministerial interest in the appointee, will the Prime Minister do the same?

• 7 May 2025 · United States Film Tariff · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if he will make a statement on the potential implications for the UK film industry of the United States’s proposed 100% tariff on foreign-produced films.

• 7 May 2025 · United States Film Tariff · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. As he rightly says, we learnt over the weekend that the President’s Administration intend to impose a 100% tariff on all films produced outside the US. It is understood that he has directed the US Government to begin implementing the policy immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the film industry in this country as a jewel in our crown of world-leading creative industries. I also point out that the sector alone is worth £1.96 billion here, and supports 195,000 jobs up and down the country. It shows off our great British culture and values, the talent we have, and some of the most amazing settings for so many films of different genres. I am glad that the Government are working to ensure that all is done to give confidence to our directors, actors, screenwriters and producers that they are thinking about them, because for both independent film makers and major studios this action could result in cancelled projects, lost investment and a significant decline in UK film exports, which is especially hard given that they are still recovering from the covid pandemic. But I have to say that it is disappointing the Government failed to start the negotiations with President Trump’s team for five months after the election and fired Britain’s top trade negotiator. It is difficult not to wonder whether a different approach could have led to a different outcome. None the less, the priority is to protect our film industry, so what assessment has the Minister made of the potential impact on the UK film sector? What immediate steps are the Government taking to engage with the US and ensure that the investment in UK facilities by many US businesses, which would be affected, is highlighted? What contingency plans has he prepared in the event that no exemptions can be secured? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the potential drastic cut in BBC Studios’ profits from sales to the US market, and what impact could that have on the licence fee?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It feels like my right hon. Friend has already read my speech, because those are the points that I want to make. When I had those extensive meetings, that question of independence was absolutely raised time and again by fans who were worried that they did not want party politics or Government interference in the game they love, by clubs and leagues, who time and again wanted reassurances that a regulator would be truly independent, and by UEFA and FIFA in particular, who have strong statutes about political and Government interference in football, as indeed most international sports governing bodies do. I pledged and promised to all of them that independence meant just that. I fully understood the possible consequences if the regulator were seen as anything other than independent. That is why independence matters, and why I always held it dear.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have just been explaining why: it is because this Government have made an independent regulator a party political regulator. I am ashamed that they have done this. I ask the Minister to answer this question in her summing up: does she not appreciate that the appointment of David Kogan drives a coach and horses through the independence of the football regulator? Does she not understand that the appointment of Mr Kogan only exacerbates the risk that the introduction of the regulator could lead to England being excluded from European competitions? Will she publish all correspondence received from UEFA so that Members and fans can be better informed of that risk? Given that there have been so many donations to Members of Parliament, including the £5,000 that was given to the Chancellor, will she publish all correspondence regarding the IFR from No. 10 and No. 11? Will she also explain how smaller clubs will be expected to cope with the increased regulatory burden she has brought in? It truly pains me to see what this Government have done regarding this issue, playing fast and loose with the independence of the regulator. They have turned this into a Labour Government regulator, increasing burdens on clubs when the Treasury is already hammering them with its taxes. It is beyond disappointing and I am genuinely furious— [ Laughter. ] Labour Members may laugh, but when I met those stakeholders, I made it really clear that independence was sacrosanct. The Government have destroyed that in one appointment. They have put their crony before clubs and their friends before fans. They have put their donations ahead of football. That is why we have no confidence in this Government’s ability to bring in a truly independent football regulator that will not raise more questions than it solves.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will absolutely come on to that point. When the regulator is being set up and you look for people, you cast the net wide. Of course you do. You want to know who is interested and you want the best candidates. But I tell you something: if any donor of any political party had been put forward and recommended to me, I would have said no. That is the difference. The right hon. Lady said yes to a Labour crony. I would have said no. I confess that when preparing and drafting our version of the Bill, I went through a whole host of conflicts in my mind—what to include, what not to include—but after months and months of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, from fans and fan groups, the FA, the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, UEFA, FIFA and many, many roundtables with MPs from across the political divide, the Bill that we presented was, I believe, measured and proportionate, tightly scoped to ensure the financial stability of football clubs, the sustainability of the leagues and fans given a say over their clubs’ heritage. Two things stood out most to me throughout all my engagement: first, the consistent call for it not to be overburdensome and costly, particularly for lower clubs; secondly, that it must be independent, like all sports.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. This is not— [ Interruption. ] From a sedentary position, Labour Members are saying, “You shortlisted them.” Let me assure this House: I most certainly did not shortlist this gentleman. Even if he was presented to me, there is no way I would have appointed him, for precisely the reasons my right hon. Friend has set out. Labour’s expanded remit for the IFR significantly increases the regulatory burden on clubs. Make no mistake: it will be the smallest clubs—the beating hearts of their communities—that will be hit the hardest. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the cost of compliance could reach a staggering £47.3 million, and make no mistake: that will push ticket prices up.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  First and foremost, and I will come on to this, is the fact that the regulator is no longer independent.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the fact that Labour Members went mad about that, but now they are doing so because this is one of theirs. Media outlets are now reporting that even some EFL clubs are deeply worried about this political appointment. If they are worried, we should be worried and we should listen. Members will recall that this is not the first time that alarm bells have been sounded about political interference in football governance. Well before this deeply questionable appointment, UEFA raised serious concerns that England risked exclusion from the European championship due to concerns that a Government-backed football regulator could lead to unacceptable political interference. We understand that in a letter from UEFA, which is still being withheld from Members by this Government, the general secretary said: “One particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition.” And that was written before the Government sought to install a Labour crony at the helm of the football regulator. We began this debate by recognising football for what it truly is: not just a sport but a pillar of our national identity; something that unites communities, carries our shared history and inspires future generations. It is because we care so deeply about this game and everything it represents that we cannot, in good conscience, support a Bill that risks compromising its very foundations and its independence.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes really important points. This appointment is really important to the future of the regulator. What have the Labour Government done? They have announced the appointment of David Kogan, a key Labour donor and political insider, to lead the football regulator. It is deeply troubling— [ Interruption. ] No, I am sorry, but I feel really strongly on this. Let me be clear: Mr Kogan is no impartial figure. He is a long-standing member of Labour’s inner circle, having donated thousands of pounds to the party and having spent five years on the board of LabourList, the party’s propaganda outlet, resigning only this month, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. This appointment is not about qualifications or about merit; it is about rewarding a political ally. At the same time, Labour have totally thrown out any credible claims that the regulator is independent and free from political interference. Football fans deserve better, the British public deserve better, and our national game deserves protection from political meddling.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is actually going to be adding cost to those clubs. I have just mentioned the £47.3 million, but with the football regulator’s remit now considerably expanded, operational costs could rise to £150 million, which clubs like his will have to fund through the levy. Baroness Brady, someone with deep knowledge of the football industry as vice-chairman— [ Laughter. ] Labour Members mock, but the Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), had to retract similar comments, which she did graciously, I have to say. Baroness Brady has raised serious and well-founded concerns about these costs and the disproportionate impact they will have on clubs, as all this comes against the backdrop of Labour’s wider economic mismanagement, which is already undermining the financial stability of our football clubs. Labour’s new national insurance job tax will hit clubs’ finances hard, with the Premier League saying it will amount to £50 million a year and £250 million over the life of this Parliament, compounding the pressures of increased regulation. At the same time, football stadiums are facing higher business rates under Labour’s watch. To give a few examples, Wembley stadium is set to pay £829,000 more, while the Etihad stadium will see a rise of £564,000. These are not abstract figures; these are real costs that will trickle down to fans through higher ticket prices, reduced investment on or off the pitch, or even clubs having to close. Against this backdrop, we now have very real concerns about the impact of these changes on smaller clubs. Indeed, Mark Ives, the former general manager of the National League, highlighted the financial strain that increased regulation will place on lower league clubs, calling it, quite rightly, “a huge concern.” However, and most egregiously of all, the Government have fatally undermined the IFR’s independence. The fan-led review into football governance was unequivocal that a credible regulator must be fully independent, free from political influence, and certainly free from Government interference. It stated clearly: “Independence means operations and decision making are independent from the government”. That is a critical element for me personally. That point was made over and over again in almost every discussion I had, and quite right too.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Football Governance Bill [Lords], because, notwithstanding the need for financial sustainability in the English football league pyramid, the Regulator proposed to be established by the Bill will damage the independence of English football, particularly given the Government’s proposed choice for the Chair and because the Bill will increase the regulatory burden and costs on all English football clubs—particularly lower league clubs—leading to increased ticket prices for fans and will in turn reduce the international competitiveness of, and increase the risks to, English football.” Let me begin by offering my congratulations to Liverpool FC on winning the premiership yesterday and to those who have been promoted, and I feel I especially need to mention two of my former homes—namely, Leeds and Wrexham. I think I speak for all Members when I say that football is a defining part of our national identity. With clubs bringing fans and communities together week in and week out, football has been a great unifier since its inception. It was a football match that famously brokered a momentary truce on the western front on Christmas day in 1914. Since the inaugural FIFA world cup in 1930, football has brought nations together around one central purpose—the love of a game—in friendly competition. Football is a multibillion-pound industry with a truly global footprint, and I know that Members across this House want to secure its future growth. The collapse of clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, the devastating impact of the pandemic and the failed attempt by some English clubs to join a breakaway European super league have all highlighted that the future of the clubs we love and of the beautiful game is far from guaranteed. For this reason, we introduced the original Football Governance Bill, aimed at securing the future of football clubs for the benefit of both communities and fans. This proposed legislation, as we have heard, followed the fan-led review that was brilliantly chaired by our former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch, and extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and experts. I, too, want to pay tribute to Dame Tracey, and to all those who participated in the process and contributed to shaping our Bill. However, it is because of the importance of football, both to our national identity and economy, that we have had to take a decision regarding our stance on this particular legislation. When circumstances change, so too will our approach—and things have certainly changed. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, but after careful consideration of our responsibility to the game, the clubs at its core and the millions of fans who cherish it, we have reached the conclusion that we must vote against Labour’s version of the Football Governance Bill. The Bill we are considering today is not the same as the one that we originally envisaged. It has been fundamentally altered to a point where it threatens to do far more harm than good. The Secretary of State says in one breath that it is same Bill, and in the next breath that she has changed it all, which is almost like saying that Manchester United and Manchester City are the same. The Government’s decision to appoint a Labour donor as chair of the independent regulator raises serious concerns about political interference in football governance.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that across all sports, political interference is frowned on, and has consequences for teams across the nation. Surely he agrees that the independence of the regulator is paramount.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  May I congratulate Newcastle United on its amazing win in the Carabao cup final? I share the Secretary of State’s remarks about the 80th anniversary of VE Day, and we all hope that the ceremonies around the country will be enjoyed by everybody. In just three days, national insurance bills will fall on the doormats of charities across the country, and they will have to find another £1.4 billion to pay for Labour’s jobs tax. While it is right that the Government have provided compensation to the police, local authorities and so on, why have charities, which provide support to those who are the most vulnerable, been left out?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We supported charities through the pandemic with millions and millions of pounds and with the £100 million cost of living fund. Month after month, we have urged the Secretary of State to tell the Chancellor that this policy is wrong and will do irreversible harm. We now hear that one charity a day is closing because of Government decisions. How many will have to close before the Government acknowledge that they have made a terrible mistake?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Grassroots Sport Clubs and Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  One year ago today, I announced that the Conservative Government were investing a further £120 million into the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme for that year, building on the £186 million we had already invested over three years. Today, the Minister has claimed that it is this Government who are making that same investment. In reality, this Government are scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities programme, and uncertainty remains around more than half a billion pounds of funding from the primary school PE and sport premium, the holiday activities fund and the school games organiser network. Will the Minister tell us what the Labour Government are actually doing to support grassroots sport?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Gaza: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the coverage of Gaza by the BBC.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Gaza: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” was broadcast by the BBC on 17 February. It purported to show what everyday life was like for people in Gaza—a topic of huge sensitivity. As the UK’s public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, which is particularly important when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. In this case, it is clear that the BBC has fallen far short of those standards. Shortly after it aired, reports emerged that the documentary was narrated by the son of a senior Hamas figure. Initially, the BBC defended the programme as an “invaluable testament” to the conflict and kept it available on iPlayer. Only after a significant public backlash did the BBC decide to withdraw it. Then we learned that on at least five occasions, the words “Yahud” and “Yahudy”—Arabic for “Jew” and “Jews”—were changed to “Israel” and “Israeli forces”, or were removed from the documentary; and then we learned that up to £400,000 in public funds might have indirectly supported a terrorist organisation. However, I regret to say that the Government’s response to these allegations has been just as concerning. On Monday the Secretary of State refused to say whether Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, should be described as such by the BBC, but I was glad to hear her comments today. On Tuesday the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible for addressing threats related to terrorism, said that she did not “know the details” surrounding this case, despite allegations that £400,000 in public funds may have indirectly supported this organisation. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the director general of the BBC requesting a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic bias against Israel. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response to my correspondence on this matter. I understood from her letter that she had raised these concerns about the documentary with the director general—and she has just confirmed that—and it was right that she did so, but I must press her further on the letter’s contents. Did she make it clear that, in this case, the BBC has fallen far short of the standards expected of the UK’s public broadcaster? Did she receive any assurances from the BBC that taxpayers’ money has not been funnelled to Hamas? Did she support our calls for a full independent inquiry into the documentary? What commitment did she receive from the BBC that this will never happen again, and if a criminal investigation has to take place, what will happen?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Artificial intelligence is a significant innovation, but our media and creators are innovators, too. Almost the entirety of those in the creative sector say that Government proposals are not fit for purpose. They would allow AI companies to scrape content without creators getting paid. UKAI has said that Labour’s plans would damage public confidence in the AI industry and hinder the industry. In that light, will the Secretary of State admit that the Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a mess and that Government proposals are not fit for purpose? Is she as disappointed as I am that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology admitted on the radio this morning that he has not even met those in the creative sectors?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  No. For all the reasons I have mentioned, we as Conservatives backed our creative industries in government. Our record on supporting the creative industries speaks for itself: between 2010 and 2022, those industries grew at more than twice the rate of UK gross value added, expanding by more than 50%. More than 1 million new jobs were created in the sector during that period. During the pandemic, we introduced unprecedented support for the creative industries, including the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme, and the £800 million live events reinsurance scheme. That support protected over 5,000 organisations and supported 220,000 jobs, ensuring that our creative industries have been able to bounce back. Our commitment to support the creative industries also extended to significant tax reliefs. We introduced over £1 billion of tax reliefs for the creative industries, including support for filmmakers through the UK independent film tax credit and business rates relief for theatres and cultural venues. This investment complemented our creative industries sector deal, which put £350 million of public and private investment into the sector. A key example is the £37 million and the new devolved powers to the North East mayoral combined authority to create a film and TV powerhouse up in the north-east, which will enable £450 million of private investment to build the new Crown Works studio. This is an important measure as we seek to spread the opportunities for the creative industries right across the United Kingdom. We published a sector vision setting out our ambition to grow the creative industries by £50 billion and to create 1 million extra jobs in the creative sectors. This sector vision set out not warm words or platitudes, but a real plan backed by real investment. Our plan included a £28 million investment in the Create Growth programme to support high-growth creative businesses across the UK; an additional £50 million for the second wave of the creative industries clusters programme, building on the £56 million announced in 2018; and £3.2 million for the music export growth scheme to enable emerging artists to break into new international markets. It was a real plan backed by real investment to grow our creative industries by £50 billion. Personally, I do not doubt any of the Ministers’ personal ambitions for the creative sectors. Where the Government are ambitious, we will always seek to be a constructive Opposition, because the potential to grow is huge and the UK has such a great reputation. Equally, we will do our job by highlighting the impact when choices made by the Government pose a significant risk to the sector, because that is the right thing to do. In opposition, Labour Members promised to “fire up the engines of our creative economy”, and said that they would make the creative industries “central to a decade of national renewal”. That was a great ambition, which makes it even more confusing that Labour failed to support every single tax relief the Conservatives introduced for these industries after 2010. I am afraid to say that the reality so far is that significant harm is being done by the Government. In the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises, Labour drove the tax burden up to its highest level, surpassing the amount after the second world war. Far from firing up the economy, they have extinguished growth by introducing a national insurance jobs tax that will cost employers in DCMS sectors £2.8 billion.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Minister has just been going on about 14 years of the last Conservative Government, I find that a bit hypocritical, but that does not surprise me. The Government have also slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and set out plans to burden businesses with more than 70 radical 1970s-style regulations, imposing £4.5 billion of additional costs on business. I am worried that there seems to have been a failure to protect the creative industries from the Chancellor’s growth-killing Budget, just as the Department failed to protect them from the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill. I welcome the £60 million support package, but will it touch the sides when measured against the impact of the Budget? Do not take it from me—take it from Arts Council England, which warned that the Government’s national insurance jobs tax will have “significant implications for cultural organisations.” Take it from the Music Venue Trust, which has warned that changes to retail, hospitality and leisure relief will put more than 350 grassroots music venues at “imminent risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.”

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  It really is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. Right at the outset, I apologise that I will not be here for the closing of the debate, because I have to travel back to Leeds for a funeral tomorrow. As the Minister said, our creative industries are world leading. With limitless creativity, imagination and entrepreneurial spirit, our creative industries are fundamental to the UK economy, and the contribution they make has often been underappreciated. These industries generate £124 billion a year and employ over 2.4 million people in every corner of the country, and as we have heard, growing the economy means growing our creative industries—even if there was a desperate attempt by the Minister to boost his book sales during his speech. The importance of the creative industries goes beyond the economy. They provide the news that informs our democracy, the events that showcase our talent and the films that we all love. The imagination of our designers, writers, artists and creators is world leading and brings joy, inspiration and opportunity to our lives. It is testament to the UK being a world leader in many things, events included, given the phenomenal success of events such as the Olympics and other sporting events, the coronation and, of course, the Eurovision song contest. A moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned Darren Henley’s book. He actually mentions me in that book as the first and only Minister for the Eurovision song contest. It was probably the only position I have held in government that my partner was actually interested in.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  From the meetings I have had with the sector, I can say that the hon. Gentleman is right that that is one of the main issues that people are concerned about, but equally, they are very worried about the impact that national insurance contributions will have on them. I recognise that these are difficult and challenging issues, and we obviously want to work as constructively as we can on them, but we will hold the Government to account. It is not just me that is saying all this. Take it from the chief executive of the Curve theatre, who warned that the Employment Rights Bill will have a financial knock-on for all theatres. The changes to business property relief will have a significant impact on historic houses—the settings for many iconic dramas and films such as “Downton Abbey”. The impact of those changes is significant. I regret to say that the bad news for our creative industries does not end there, because unfortunately it is clear that Labour does not have a plan. It scrapped the Conservative Government’s review of Arts Council England, then launched a new review starting from square one. It spent more than five months in government before making any announcements on AI and the creative industries, quietly sneaking out a consultation eight days before Christmas, hoping no one would notice. To top it all off, they published a press release boasting about confirming the Conservative Government’s independent film tax credit. As I said, I will work constructively with the Government, but they must take their fingers out of their ears and recognise that the choices they have made are potentially crushing our world-leading creative industries from being even greater successes. We want to build on the great success by people who over the years have done so much to build up the amazing creative industries we have in this country. Our creative industries are world leading, but they need stability and certainty to survive. There are lots of opportunities, but also a host of challenges, including the Budget implications, AI and copyright. We stand to work constructively with the Government where they seek to be ambitious, but equally, when we hear concerns, as we have over and over again in our meetings with the sector, we will push and challenge. In conclusion, the UK can be proud of our amazing creative industries. Whether it is our fashion designers, film, TV, radio, photography, museums, galleries, libraries, music or performing arts, they offer real opportunities to this country’s economy and are something that we can be proud of. Yes, they provide a great deal of soft power, but if we are not careful, we are in danger of damaging them beyond belief. I ask the Department to press the Treasury to think again about the impact of the Budget choices that it made on the sector.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have absolutely shown our commitment, as I have just illustrated, to the creative industries and to wanting to grow them. Equally, we want to make sure that the courses people are doing equip them well for the opportunities of the future, and I do not see that there is anything wrong in always raising such questions.