House of Lords
Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress Great British Nuclear has made with its plans to deploy small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors, and what assessment they have made of the process for evaluating their design and manufacturing.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, Great British Nuclear is pushing forward the SMR competition for UK deployment and is now in negotiation with bidders, with final decisions to be taken in the spring. The Government are also actively exploring how we can enable alternative routes to market for advanced technologies, including AMRs, and we will set out our policy position in due course.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he explain exactly what has caused the damaging schedule slippage within GBN? Is it the shortage of staff, underfunding, underestimating the workload required or the many layers of approval—11 separate Whitehall approval committees at the last count—in order to allow GBN to announce the latest download of SMR technologies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will know the answer, because 16 months of the lifetime of GBN occurred under her party’s Administration. The fact is that we are working very closely with GBN. It has to go through considered processes. It has done two rounds of assessment and, as I have said, four technologies have been shortlisted, all of which are viable options for development. Crucial talks are now taking place. Companies will be invited to make final bids, and decisions will be made in the spring. I am confident that GBN will ensure that we get to that final decision as soon as possible.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister please consider how we might give good news to those sites in north-west Wales, principally the Wylfa plant in Ynys Môn—Anglesey—now dormant, and Trawsfynydd in Meirionnydd, now dormant? The communities around those great plants that generated nuclear power for Britain deserve consideration in so far as, throughout north-west Wales, skilled jobs with good wages and status are very rare and both communities have deserved investment from our Government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think I get the point my noble friend raises. He is absolutely right: new nuclear can bring many high-quality jobs, enhance our skills chain and help us grow the economy. He mentioned Wylfa in particular, and I well understand. He will know that Great British Nuclear has bought Wylfa, which is one of the sites identified in the planning statement in relation to nuclear. We are looking to make our siting policy more flexible to give us more opportunities in the future. We see new nuclear as having a hugely important role to play in our future energy structure.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As the Minister will be aware, we currently have an issue with dependence on Russian fuel for our nuclear fleet. What progress are the Government making in bringing forward legislation for a near-term ban on Russian fuel imports, with all the attendant benefits for national security, for convincing others to move internationally and for our domestic industries?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have already agreed internationally to go for a 2030 cut-off. I have had correspondence from the noble Lord and I know that others would argue that we should bring it forward, as the US has wanted to do. We are in very serious discussions about that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will know about the global shortage of radioisotope supply for treating cancer. Is he aware that the Welsh Government, in co-operation with the Egino company, have financed a feasibility study into establishing a radioisotope production plant on the existing Trawsfynydd nuclear site, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred a moment ago, and for which an SMR would be highly relevant? Does he accept that such a project would help meet the UK healthcare needs, facilitate valuable exports, help the existing nuclear site to be managed and provide much-needed high-grade jobs? Please will he link up with colleagues in Cardiff to see what can be done on this through GB Nuclear?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the point the noble Lord is raising. My department is exercised by the advantage that could be brought. We are in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I cannot say at this stage whether we can bring this to a successful outcome, but I certainly see the merits in what he is arguing.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the importance of the agreement reached on the sidelines of the COP summit with the United States, which seeks to speed up the deployment of cutting-edge nuclear technology, helping to decarbonise our industry? The agreement aims to support information sharing on advanced nuclear technologies to help make them available to industry by 2030. How important is this agreement, and how will it help us to make sure that this technology is actually deployed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a very important agreement. We have a very good relationship with the US on all things civil nuclear, and this will enable us to enhance that. I should also say that at COP, six new countries joined existing countries in declaration of an aim to triple nuclear power globally by 2050. There are now 31 signatures, which is very important. It is an indication that globally we are seeing a renaissance in nuclear, in which this Government wish our own nuclear industry to be a part.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Last week, in answer to a question on COP 29 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referencing GB Energy, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, suggested that the Government would look at nuclear energy, specifically small nuclear reactors. Can the Minister clarify whether that is indeed the case?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am not sure I understand the question, but if it is whether we recognise the importance of SMRs in this country and generally, the answer is yes. On the benefits of the use of small modular reactors, having a modular approach in which much can be assembled off-site brings huge advantages. Going forward, we see that SMRs have great potential, and of course UK companies themselves have great potential.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister clearly shares my frustration at the time taken in moving this issue forward under the previous Administration. At the same time, is it not a fact that we have a major nuclear reactor constructor in the UK that has been producing reactors for our submarines for over 60 years? Is it not enormously important for that constructor, and equally important for its supply chain, to be able to tool up and organise in order to produce? Is it not the unfortunate reality that the United States is moving ahead on this and has a full-spectrum approach to selling its modular reactors while we slip behind? What is the Minister going to do to speed this up?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I hope we are not slipping behind. Clearly, the process that GBN is going through will take a few more months, but I hope the outcome will be a satisfactory conclusion. I cannot comment on the companies involved in the appraisal and the discussions taking place with GBN at the moment, but I take the noble Lord’s point about our defence capability and the supply chain. We are increasingly seeing the civil nuclear and defence nuclear industries working more closely together, and I see that as a very important foundation for the future. I take the noble Lord’s point about the US; it is important that where we have a technological advantage, we make the best of it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness first, then the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister may have seen in New Civil Engineer in the past week the interview with King’s College London research fellow Ross Peel, who could be broadly characterised as a supporter of new nuclear and small modular reactors. He expressed concern that with the focus on safety, which is going to be a huge community concern, there has not been the focus that there needs to be on the security of the new modular nuclear reactors. A huge amount of spending has kept the current ones secure—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Are the Government going to consider security in the same kind of way?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, security is one of the key considerations not just on SMRs but on AMRs.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, there is a puzzle here. If the world acknowledges that SMRs and like designs can be built far more quickly than the larger-gigawatt traditional nuclear power stations, and if investors can be attracted to finance those SMRs—whereas the giants such as Sizewell, the so-called replica, will cost billions that will eventually fall on consumers and taxpayers—why are we not giving far more priority to ordering and developing SMRs and smaller reactors, as many other countries are doing? Many producers are finding that their order books are becoming full.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord paints too bleak a position. The UK is very well placed in relation to SMRs, and the programme that GBN is taking forward is being watched with great interest by a number of countries. In relation to investment, as the chair of GBN, Simon Bowen, told the energy Select Committee last week, of course there are issues to do with risk, timing and potential delays with first-in-class designs. But as we gain momentum and produce more modular reactors, the efficiency of the programme will get better and better. That is why we have to give support at this stage, and why we see huge potential.
NHS Plan: Consultation
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of London
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the consultation for the NHS 10 Year Plan reaches all communities, including those who have least interaction with the health service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we want to ensure that the voices and experiences of patients are at the heart of our plans to make the NHS fit for the future, especially those voices that often go unheard. We are working with charities, faith groups, health and care providers, local government and others to ensure that we hear from those that national government often fails to reach. We will monitor this closely and target underrepresented groups before the engagement exercise concludes in spring 2025.
The Lord Bishop of London
I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am encouraged by the Government’s consultation on the NHS 10-year plan. However, does she agree with me that, if we are to move from sickness to prevention, any engagement ICBs have with their communities has to be long term and systematic? If so, what are the Government doing to resource ICBs to make sure that their engagement with communities is long term and systematic?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. Integrated care systems, which are responsible for reflecting the needs of the community and its spending, must follow guidance, and it is important that we identify the seldom-heard groups. We have built into the consultation plans a “workshop in a box”—a toolkit to support discussion in local communities, which ICBs are rolling out. It is a good way of encouraging ICBs to talk directly to local communities.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the consultation be published in languages other than English, with proactive efforts to encourage responses from people whose first language is not English? Secondly, will the department make sure that it consults with public service interpreters working in NHS settings?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can confirm that both the online portal and the “workshop in a box” to which I just referred will be available in easy read and British Sign Language versions, and in other languages. Attention has been given to those for whom English is not their first language; in-person events can be tailored to their needs—for example, by having smaller groups. The staff to whom the noble Baroness refers are a major group being asked to provide input; indeed, they are taking part in online workshops and can respond online.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the groups that sometimes finds it difficult to interact with health service professionals is unpaid carers? Despite the huge contribution that they make, they often have their needs ignored by those providing services. Does she therefore agree that it is very important that the voice of the unpaid carer is heard in the consultation process?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend: we have to hear from unpaid carers, because that will strengthen the exercise. We are constantly monitoring which groups are responding and which are not, and that allows us to tailor our approach to the underrepresented groups who are not coming forward. If that includes unpaid carers, the consultation absolutely will make special, tailored efforts to reach them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the life expectancy of people with learning disabilities is, on average, 20 years less than the general population’s. Research has shown that a major contributor to this is a lack of access to appropriate healthcare. What will the Minister do to ensure that this group of people will be not only consulted but listened to, and that the 10-year plan will provide appropriate services tailored to them?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is indeed one of the groups for whom we need to ensure absolute inclusion. As I mentioned, the work with integrated care systems will be particularly helpful in running the workshop. We train organisations to work with it, and it is designed so that it is easy to use. It can be used in events to reach the seldom-heard voices in communities, including those with learning disabilities. It is vital that we hear from them as we design an NHS fit for everybody for the future.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, one of the biggest causes of inequality is where you live in the country. If you live in the north-east or north-west, you live two, three or four years less than if you live in the south-west or south-east. Far fewer resources are available for people in those deprived areas: there are fewer doctors, nurses, physios, dentists and so on. What can the Government do to redress this gross imbalance?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend allows me to say—and I hope your Lordships’ House will agree with this—that our approach will of course focus on addressing the social determinants of health. The goal will be to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and the poorest regions. We are not just going to be moving from sickness to prevention as one of our three pillars, important though that is; we are also seeking, across government, to address the root causes of health inequalities. Again, that is being highlighted as part of the consultation.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
What special efforts will be made to speak to young people, who are often very far away from the health system—those leaving care, those who have just left prison and those from very poor communities? What effort will be made to hear their voices? They are often far away from the NHS because they do not need it yet, but they will in the future.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Yesterday, I was at an in-person event in Folkestone, and as with all such events up and down the country, it had used systems to find a wide range of people, including young people, who, as he rightly says, are often unlinked with the health service. I emphasise our continued monitoring and our efforts to reach the groups he speaks of. So far, we know that men, those aged under 35, and black Asian and black British people have engaged least with Change NHS. We are now stepping up our efforts.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister look at the role that pharmacists might play in any consultation? While they may not be an obvious source of reaching out, they are embedded in communities and talk to patients and users frequently. If they could be harnessed, it would much improve the consultation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very grateful to all those, including pharmacists, who have used all their networks and contacts to spread the word. That is why we have had over 60,000 responses and more than 1 million visits in what is the largest ever consultation in the history of the NHS. I call on all groups to continue their efforts to ensure that voices across all communities are heard loud and clear.
Lord Kamall (Con)
During the vaccine programmes for Covid, the NHS and the last Government put a lot of effort into looking at ways to reach people who are vaccine hesitant—often from some black and Asian communities and other excluded communities. What lessons have been learned by the Government and the NHS to ensure that the consultation on the 10-year plan reaches as many people as possible from these communities, so that their voices are heard?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The lessons that have been learned are that there has to be a whole range of ways of consulting: in person around the country; online, where people can access the website; and through toolkits such as the “workshop in a box”. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, the consultation also needs to be tailored to the needs of those who need to speak up. We are asking the public, staff and organisations what is important, and we want, as the Prime Minister said, their fingerprints all over the 10-year plan.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, people living with homelessness often have chronic and multiple health needs which go untreated, and they are also more vulnerable to substance misuse. Appreciating the difficulty, what are the Government doing to ensure that the needs of people living with homelessness are addressed and heard through this consultation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We have identified those who are homeless as one of the specific seldom-heard groups, and that is why we are working so closely with integrated care systems: to ensure that we reach them on their territory. The other groups include, for example, sex workers, young people, those with learning disabilities and some ethnic minorities.
Humanist Marriages
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they conducted an equality impact assessment following the judgment in R (Harrison & Ors) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] concerning humanist marriages.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
On behalf of my noble friend, and with her agreement, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, under the previous Government, the High Court found in Harrison a difference of treatment in weddings law towards humanists. However, it also found that the then Government had demonstrated that the difference in treatment was justified given the legitimate aim to address differences in treatment as part of wholesale reform. As a new Government, we need properly to consider these important issues and will set out our position in due course.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, when the High Court ruled that the lack of legal recognition for humanist marriages was discriminatory, this was surely an argument for the last Government to do something, which they failed to do. Is it not now time for this Government to go through the process of having an impact assessment?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we will assess marriage in the round, including humanist weddings, and we will announce when we do that in due course. I agree with the general point which my noble friend has made.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, just under 20 years ago, Scotland legalised humanist marriage. Remarkably, data from the National Records of Scotland show that more Scots now choose a humanist wedding than those who marry in all other religions combined—that is, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and all other religions and faiths. On present trends, humanist weddings in Scotland will soon overtake civil ceremonies as Scotland’s first choice. How can we any longer deny the humanist option to those who want to wed in England?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. Scotland was able to accommodate humanist weddings within its existing legislative framework for weddings because it operates an officiant-based model, whereby regulation of weddings takes place via the officiant. In contrast, in England and Wales, we have a buildings-based scheme. It is in that difference that Scotland was able to make this accommodation, and that factor will be taken into account in the review to which I have already referred.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, can I help the Minister? I am afraid I did not understand much of his original reply, but it seems to me that there is a problem that he has that they do not have in Scotland, Northern Ireland or in Jersey, where humanist marriages have been allowed. Indeed, Scientologists were allowed to marry almost 20 years ago. What specifically is the problem? If there is a problem, will he look to other parts of the United Kingdom for the resolution? They got it right; we need to do something about it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there are a lot of anomalies within weddings arrangements in England and Wales, and it is for that reason that we want to look at all of them. If we were to go down the route of secondary legislation for humanists, for example, that would create a further anomaly. We do not want to go down that track; we want to look at the whole system in the round.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, “in good time” and “in the round” are just not good enough. There is a gross unfairness in that couples wishing to have a humanist ceremony in England and Wales must also have a civil ceremony, which means additional cost and outlay. Will the Government, instead of giving excuses, move forward and commit to taking action?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I can say to the noble Lord only what I said to other questioners, which is we want to look at this question in the round. There are many other groups—faith and non-faith—who also feel they are not fairly treated by the current arrangements, and we want to take their views into account when we look at this.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, it may be an anomaly, but there are now 350 religious organisations in this country which are registered to conduct weddings. In 2013, an order was laid in Parliament that we could approve weddings for humanists. Why are we allowing this anomaly to continue? Is it not straight discrimination?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my answer is the same as that given to the previous questions, which is that there are indeed anomalies in weddings law within England and Wales; they cut across many religious and non-religious groups, and we want to look at the question in the round.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, just to change the angle for a little bit, humanists have a long tradition of conducting same-sex wedding ceremonies, with LGBT people much more likely to be non-religious than the population as a whole. Does the Minister agree that such a change in the law would be significant for same-sex couples?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The statistic that the noble Baroness cited is accurate from my experience. Yes, such a change would have a disproportionate benefit for same-sex couples, and that factor should be taken into account in the review.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, rather than an equality impact assessment, what are required are certainty, clarity and essential fairness in the law governing all marriages, religious and non-religious, in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission back in 2022? People now use a variety of ceremonies—religious and non-religious—and should, frankly, be confident of their status at the end of each ceremony. Surely, the Government can direct reforms to meet those requirements.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. The objective of the Government is to have clarity and fairness in relation to weddings within England and Wales. There were 57 recommendations in a 500-page report from the Law Commission, and the Government need to take their time to consider them all carefully.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, England and Wales are outliers on the issue of humanist marriages, with Scotland having applied legal recognition in 2005, Northern Ireland in 2018 and the Channel Islands at the same time. The Republic of Ireland has had it since 2012. To avoid my noble friend having to repeat the same answer, can I put it to him that this is an equalities issue, and it offers the Government the chance to extend laws that exist for some UK citizens to all of us?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Indeed, it could be seen to be an equalities issue, but the Government’s approach is to look at this matter in the round.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am afraid that my noble friend has been unsuccessful in getting a different answer, but I take the point he makes.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said “in due course”, but it has been more than two years since the Law Commission report. There are people still getting married in either domestic premises or religious premises that are not registered. They find out—it is usually the women—that they are not lawfully married only when it comes to their wanting a divorce that they then, of course, cannot get. Can the Minister put this somewhere into citizenship, so that people are aware that, if it is going to be only in due course, this injustice will be dealt with?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. In my time as a family magistrate, I often had people in front of me who were married in religious ceremonies but not married in the eyes of the law, and we had to unpick the arrangements for those separating couples. The noble Baroness has made a very good point.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand the concern on these Benches that the last Government used to use “in due course” to do nothing for long periods, sometimes years? Can the Minister start a different process, and give some indication of when this matter will come back to the Chamber and where the Government will take action?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Well, I have been advised by my Leader that I need to say “in the fullness of time”.
Food Security
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve food security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years, which is the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our history. The uplift to £1.8 billion, in 2025-26, for environmental land management schemes will boost food security and accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. We are also investing £60 million to support farmers who were affected by the unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
I thank the Minister for her Answer. As an agricultural adviser in a previous life, I observed at first hand the vital contribution of both research and investment to agricultural productivity, which is fundamental to domestic food production and food security. Yet both the NFU and CLA estimate that the recent changes to APR and BPR will lead to a substantial reduction in investment. Were the impacts of these tax changes on investment and productivity modelled with Defra before their introduction? If not, can His Majesty’s Government undertake such an impact assessment and make it available to Members of the House?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we are reforming APR and looking to do it in a way that protects small family farms and protects food security and resilience. The right reverend Prelate made some good points around this and the potential impacts of it. I will take his comments back to my honourable friend the Farming Minister, who is currently in discussions on those matters.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I asked a question some weeks ago about whether Defra had been consulted only the day before the Budget and that no impact assessment was given. The Minister promised to write to me—I still await a reply—but I read in the newspapers that that is the case. How can the Minister say that she is improving food security when the impact of APR will be to force small farms to sell their farms? They will be bought by corporates, as part of their ESG and greenwashing, which will further reduce the supply of land for food production, along with the madness of creating solar farms on good agricultural land. This Government are destroying food security, not enhancing it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I will answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions. We had a Question on solar farms last week; we are not building solar farms on grade 1 and 2—good-quality—agricultural land. On APR, Defra was in discussions with the Treasury to consider all the different changes for the spending review and is now in discussions on the next SR. The money that we are investing in farming is designed to support long-term food security in this country.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, under the last Government, just 4% of the ODA budget was devoted to agricultural assistance. Given the global growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change and the increasing propensity for food security to be weaponised in conflict, can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government plan to increase the percentage of ODA being spent on agro-ecological measures?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there has been a growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change. I confirm that the FCDO’s ODA budget, which will be published in due course, will be £9.24 billion in 2025-26, and Ministers will consider the ODA allocations for 2025-26 over the coming months. We are committed to this; the Prime Minister committed to deliver practical support to communities facing hunger. This is backed by a £70 million package, including a new resilience and adaptation fund that channels climate finance to ensure that food-insecure households, in places such as Ethiopia, Chad and Bangladesh, can withstand extreme weather and other shocks.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, 40% of all food is now imported, which raises a serious security issue. However, can I specifically ask the Minister about BBC World reports this morning that some pureed tomatoes being imported into this country are made by Uighur slave labour? The report included examples of punishment beatings and electric shock punishments for those who fail to reach their quotas. What more can we do to at least prevent goods coming into the UK that are wrongly labelled—in this case “Produced in Italy”—and give consumers the right to choose what they buy and do not buy?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have seen the same reports as the noble Lord and they are extremely concerning. My understanding is that the supermarkets have said that they have not been purchasing tomatoes from these particular places, but clearly that needs to be robustly checked. We are looking at labelling as a way to better inform consumers and ensure that our food is from the kinds of sources we would all want to see and can trust.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. The NFU estimates that as much as 75% of British farming output comes from family farms that will now have to pay the family farm inheritance tax. Farmers already have to deal with increasing weather volatility and increasing input and output price volatility, leading to lower and less predictable farming incomes. Does the family farming tax undermine the Government’s own manifesto commitments to increase food security and champion British farmers and expose hard-pressed family budgets to the risk of higher food prices?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned previously, the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, families whose food security relies heavily on food banks may suffer nutritional deficiencies because so much of the produce is ultra-processed rather than fresh. Some 800,000 children are reported to use food banks on a regular basis. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on child health and development of sustained dependency on food banks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, clearly it is important that we have good nutrition for our children, which is why we have worked with schools around breakfast clubs, for example, because it is very important that children receive nutrition, especially at a young age. This is something we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care on. One of the important things this Government are doing is working much more across departmental policy areas in order to ensure that we get the kinds of results that support the policy areas the noble Baroness referred to.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about food security and we have heard a number of issues raised about different challenges to it—there are in fact a huge number. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the weaponisation of food supplies. We know about disruptions to transport and about climate interruptions. Is not strange, therefore, that the national risk register put forward by the previous Government barely mentions food security, except in the context of contamination. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether this will be looked at, so the potential threats to food security in this country are looked at in the round, to coin a phrase?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely; my noble friend makes an important point. We look at overall household food security. In the financial year ending 2022, some 7% of households in the UK were considered to be food insecure. The Family Resources Survey 2022-23 found that the proportion of food-secure households decreased from 92% in 2019-20 to 90% in 2022-23. So this is something we do look at in the round.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, tenant farmers do not own their land but they do produce food. Can the Minister tell me what conversations she has had with her colleague the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on solar planning applications that have been called in that relate specifically to solar applications on tenanted land where the landlord is looking to evict the tenant farmer?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Regarding the solar panels, we have discussed this with Defra, DESNZ and the Ministry for Housing, which the noble Baroness asked about, because it is important, again, that we get this policy right as we develop our policy on housing and on energy. Clearly, this will be part of the land use framework. Regarding tenants, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that we have committed to appoint England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector to promote the standards outlined in the agricultural landlord and tenant code of practice. We hope that the commissioner will play an important role in this area.
Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 October be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Cryer
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (28 Nov 2024)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start today’s Committee, I point out to the House that this is day two of five days on the Football Governance Bill. We need to make significant progress on the groups today.
Clause 1: Purpose and Overview
Amendment 7
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, English football is sustainable if it—(a) continues to meet the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club, including through the club continuing to operate a team in club competitions, in a way that represents the unique heritage of the club as recognised by its fans, and respects the interests of these fans;(b) continues to contribute to the economic and social welfare of the communities with which regulated clubs are associated, including, but not limited to, direct or indirect positive effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment, or the reputation of the local area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to create a more precise definition of the sustainability of English football.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 7 begins this group of amendments on this important Bill. It would expand the definition of,
“the sustainability of English football”.
On day one, we had a useful debate—although it was longer than the Committee Whip might have wished—about the purpose of the Bill and the limits of sustainability. As the Bill is drafted, the only definition of
“the sustainability of English football”
is, as the Minister pointed out to us in our debates on the previous groups, Clause 1(3)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) states that English football is sustainable if it,
“continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs”,
and paragraph (b) specifies that it must continue,
“to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
That is all we have to go on in the Bill. The criteria for the success of this important and novel Bill therefore rest upon these two simple lines.
Our contention is that these brief and rather vague statements of intent are not sufficient to act as the foundations on which the success, or otherwise, of this Bill and this new regulator are to be judged. The actions of this regulator will have significant consequences for the whole football pyramid. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure that it has the necessary legislative tools and the clarity of message from Parliament to set it up for success. To do that, it must have in statute a strong set of conditions against which its actions and its regulatory work can be assessed. This echoes the fruitful discussion we had on our first day in Committee about the underlying purpose of the Bill.
However, my Amendment 7 is about much more than this. It is about setting a precedent. If we do not establish from the outset the frames of reference and the standards to which the regulator will have to be held, that does not set it up for a successful future. It is surely the duty of this Committee and of Parliament more broadly to hold public bodies to higher standards than these two rather short and insubstantial lines we have in the Bill at the moment. That is why I look forward to my noble friends Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham setting out the case for their Amendments 12 and 13, and I will say a bit more once they have done so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have to inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 7 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7A to 15 because of pre-emption.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 12 in this group. Before I do so, I think it important to express mild regret at what the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said before we started our proceedings today. This is an incredibly important Bill, which, for the first time, imports into our much-loved national game a costly system of regulation. It is a very long Bill. There are numerous amendments being tabled, mostly by Members on the government side. We know that the House of Commons these days gives scant scrutiny to important Bills. It is therefore incredibly important that this House in Committee gives the Bill the detailed scrutiny that is required. If the five days that the Government have rather meagrely assigned to this Committee stage are not enough, I hope they will be quick to extend the proceedings so that we can give proper scrutiny. Much hangs on this. The more we have debated the detail of the Bill, the more issues have arisen, giving rise to greater concerns—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was here last Wednesday, waiting quite a long time for my amendments to come up in group 3, and I sat through an awful lot of what I felt was hypocritical stuff from this side of the Chamber, given that this was a government Bill under the last Government. Not that much in it has changed, yet there was a lot of discussion on this side. Listening to that was agony, so I am quite keen to get through the Bill. Of course we should debate it, but not at the sort of length that is, I would say, rather self-indulgent.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I empathise with the noble Baroness’s pain, but this is what legislative scrutiny is about. It is about looking in detail at what is proposed and ensuring that we do not pass into law measures that will inflict damage on something that is both an incredibly important economic activity but also a source of great pleasure to millions in this country and more than a billion worldwide. So I hope the noble Baroness will suffer less and we will move as quickly as is appropriate in these circumstances.
We debated last time whether the ambition for football to be sustainable was sufficiently ambitious for the state of English football, and I think many of us in different parts of the House concluded that it was not so. However, if the Government insist that sustainability is all that is going to be sought then it is important that we define what is meant by sustainability in a way that does not circumscribe the mindset and the approach of the regulator that is going to be established.
Football is a very successful industry and activity. As we have heard, it remains the case that the Premier League is the most successful league in the world and the Championship is the sixth most successful in Europe, and we need to make sure that we do first do no harm but, secondly, because we know that there is no such thing as steady state any more, if it does not continue to grow and improve then it will be going backwards. So it seems right that, in addition to the addition suggested in my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, we should look at the four elements that I propose should be added to the definition of “sustainability”.
First, it should continue
“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”.
That is important because you cannot take anything for granted. The success of English football has been earned, but it has been harder over a period so we need to be extremely careful; this is a precious asset and we need to be concerned all the time with competitiveness. The costs that are proposed to be imposed on English football through the creation of this regulator—both the costs to be recovered through the levy and the compliance costs for clubs of accommodating themselves to this regime—will in themselves be a blow to competitiveness, so there needs to be at least an equal and opposite concern to offset that. Competitiveness is going to be incredibly important in relation to audience and quality.
Secondly, it should continue
“to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”.
My own club, Tottenham, has invested hugely in a world-class new stadium; other clubs need to do the same. A huge amount of investment will be required in upgrading stadia around the country. They are extremely expensive commercial assets that are of great importance to their local communities as well. They are community assets that tend to attract in their wake, in their slipstream, other regeneration investment into the communities, often some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. It will be extraordinarily important that the regulator has in mind at all times that the return on those big investments that will be needed should not be imperilled by the way that the regulator itself operates.
Lastly, it should continue
“to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues”.
All these are fragile. None of these revenue streams—from broadcasting or from the asset and enterprise values—can be taken for granted. The success of English football has to be earned, every day of every week of every season there is, so this will be very important.
Given these approaches, I cannot feel that anyone will quarrel with these being elements that the regulator should think about and seek at all times to prioritise. What is the objection to them appearing in the Bill, since that shows the importance that Parliament attaches to these considerations? That can in some way help to make a difference to the way in which the regulator is set up, because much of that is left unclear. Much of it will be at the discretion of the board and its chair, yet to be appointed, of the regulator. This Committee should have no difficulty in supporting having these factors placed squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this away and think carefully about whether it would a be way of improving a Bill that currently leaves much to be desired.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.
A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.
English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the simple reason that it is very helpful to the Government. We had the good fortune to meet the shadow regulator last week; it was a very informative and interesting meeting and, clearly, it is starting from scratch.
Given that the Bill has many wide-ranging and permissive powers that are given via statutory instrument to Ministers, it is important that on its face—in primary legislation—there are proper framework guidelines for the regulatory and legislative regimes for the regulator to go forward with. Given that last week the Government were quite firm in setting their face against growth parameters, which are pretty important, given that the Premier League is one of the most successful business outfits in the whole world—in fact, the most successful sports league in the world—I cannot really understand why the Government believe that this is mutually exclusive to supporting fans and putting into the Bill a commitment to fans, even though they are, as we learned previously, not defined.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared on the register. I support Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, especially proposed new Clause 1(3)(f). This would set a clear success metric for the IFR that it should incentivise
“industry-led agreements on the distribution of”
the Premier League’s broadcast revenue. This is absolutely critical for the future collective success of the football industry.
We already know that UEFA has written an alarming letter to the Government which said, among other things:
“Mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us”
and
“would … prevent amicable solutions being found”.
This is why UEFA says that the backstop should be “carefully reconsidered”. I understand and respect that this is what Ministers genuinely believe they have done in relation to the backstop powers, which we will discuss in much greater detail later. However, I profoundly disagree that the backstop provides any such incentives.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that earlier this year Dame Tracey Crouch, the chair of the fan-led review, called the backstop powers “nuclear … coding” never to be reached for. However, the Football League chair disagreed, and said he fully intends to use the mechanism and that it is entirely logical. To extend the analogy, in the Bill the Government are doling out nuclear weapons to football authorities. They are doing so in the belief that these weapons will somehow create space for diplomacy. However, the evidence is already very clear. In the real world, one side is ready to press the button and launch its missiles. The powers clearly do not place the incentives in the right place. If they did, we would already have a new agreement and the football bodies would not have been driven so far apart.
This is why I have tabled amendments to rebalance the backstop, so it can create proper incentives and space for good-faith negotiations and diplomacy. The fact that the Bill has led one party to believe it can launch a successful first strike is proof that these powers have manifestly failed in their purpose already. That is why I am so supportive of my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I have a couple of questions for the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but first, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said that the amendments provide clear metrics. I do not think they do; they are very subjective, particularly Amendment 12. What is
“globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”?
Regarding the phrase
“continues to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”,
what is “significant”? I do not think it is helpful to include words like that.
For what it is worth—my noble friend the Minister probably will not like this—I think paragraphs (e) and (f) of Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, make sense, because we can clearly see what they mean. I would say the same of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 7 is rather rambling and unclear and is not suitable for inclusion the Bill. We need something clear that can be measured, rather than words like “substantial”, which could mean anything or nothing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just used two words which are of significance: “subjective” and “clear”. The problem with the Bill as drafted, judging from the lengthy debate we had last Wednesday and today’s proposed amendments, is that we are trying to provide clarity in relation to very subjective words, not least of which is “sustainability”, which is used several times. All these amendments are about looking at ways of making things clear, so that the football regulator can operate in some form or another.
The noble Lord was present throughout the debate last week, and during that debate I spoke about the threat to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has referred: that other sports and organisations will overtake our system—the Premier League and the other leagues—unless it is able to modernise and change as time goes on. What worries me genuinely about the Bill as drafted is that it almost implies ossification. It is an immovable process, because “sustainability” is just not clear.
Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league whereby a set of clubs would be in a league of their own, never challenged. Quite rightly, the nation’s fans—not just this nation but a whole series of other nations—rose up and said that that is utterly unacceptable. Despite that, some clubs still believe that that is the right way to go. The Champions League has extended and we have the UEFA Conference League, et cetera. They are involving more and more British football clubs, and I welcome the success.
In referring to the football results of the past few days, I apologise profusely to my noble friend Lady Brady. But the success of the Premiership was identified in the fact that, albeit only briefly, Brighton & Hove Albion were second in the Premier League. That does not imply an unchanging, rigid position; it implies that the Premiership and the league system can develop. I was listening to the commentary on Liverpool v Manchester City—I apologise to any Manchester City fans for referring to yesterday’s game—and it was striking that, before the game, Radio 5 Live observed that there were more foreign correspondents covering that match than were covering the Liverpool v Real Madrid game only four days earlier. That indicates the very success and potential our system has—as long as it is reasonably developed and allowed to progress.
I have doubts, to be honest, about my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, because I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome that of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans, because it gives the Bill a better perspective and tries to provide clarity beyond the merely abstract word “sustainability”, and to develop some other aspects to which the football regulator should refer.
When I spoke last week, I was highly critical of the impact assessment, and I continue to be so. I know that it is largely based on the impact assessment prepared for the previous Bill, so I do not criticise the Minister; I criticise my colleagues in the previous Government just as much. However, I said that the impact assessment was intended to justify the current Bill, and that is made clear in paragraph 17:
“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.
In other words, it is providing support specifically for this Bill. It does not look at a range of other issues, which my noble friend Lord Goodman identified when he quoted from Tracey Crouch’s original report, relating to the overall success of the football industry in this country.
I believe that we need to provide greater clarity and greater indications of what we are trying to protect, develop and allow to go forward. Although last week I criticised the total lack of reference to “success” in the impact assessment, and I stick by that, I was very pleased, in part, to receive the letter from the Minister, page two of which has a section entitled “Proportionality and promoting success”. That is the attitude I want to see reflected in the Bill, in whatever phraseology we choose.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it might be an appropriate time for me to make a few comments on the Bill. Amendment 12 suggests that the regulator will be able to have a very positive input into the marketplace. I do not know how it will achieve the aim of attracting significant domestic and foreign investment. Let us face it, our Premiership and our football structure have no divine right to be the most popular show in town, end of story. We all agree on that, but this Bill is about the fans and what they want from their domestic game. They want it to be there, and they do not want it disappearing off to Europe, or the top names disappearing off to Europe and the structure going.
If the Minister can point us to where we will have limits, and to the encouragement of involvement, we will all be able to move on a bit, but the “sustainability” factor is actually making sure that our domestic structure is there. I do not know how much else we can do without massive intervention by the state. Are we going to say, “You are not going to pay any tax on your revenue”, which means the state has no involvement anyway?
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
The noble Lord asked, perfectly sensibly, in relation to my Amendment 12, whether I am expecting the regulator to positively intervene to promote growth. No—my concern is that the mindset of the regulator has to be not to damage the sector, and not to impose regulation and intervention in such a heavy-handed way that it actually reduces competitiveness and the attractiveness of the sector to investment. It is really a warning shot to the regulator, to make sure it does not harm what is already there. There will be some harm, because additional costs will be imposed on English football simply as a result of creating the regulator, but that has to be as limited as possible.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it depends on whether by harm you mean spending any money on regulation. Yes, making sure that there is any structure of regulation is a harm, but it is a necessary harm, because the Bill is not just about the top guys in the Premier League. It is about the entire structure, five leagues down, and should possibly go even further. It is about making sure that there is something below that, so that if things go wrong in your competitive league—and they will; the big boys will eventually lose, or at least they should—you have the capacity. That is something that we have all embraced, and I hope the regulator allows that to happen.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 13. I echo the points made by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Jackson: if the Chief Whip had stayed and heard the debates last week and this week, he would have found real experts and real, passionate supporters—dare I say fans—scrutinising the Bill and making sure there is real health and success there. I believe we would all be doing this whatever colour of Government had introduced it.
Last week, if noble Lords recall, we were left scratching our heads somewhat about how there was some sort of aversion to the use of the words “growth” and “success” in all this. That is what we are trying to address in Amendments 12 and 13, both with a similar purpose. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is vital because the pyramid structure and the health of all clubs depend on the health at the top of the Premier League, because the redistribution of that money funds so many of the other clubs and is allowing the Championship to be the sixth-richest league in the world as a result.
I really do not understand the Government’s reluctance to engage in these types of measures. There are precedents in other regulators. Everyone knows about the Bank of England’s inflation target, but also within its targets is a target to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Other regulators such as Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat have a growth duty to look at innovation, infrastructure and investment, competition, skills, efficiency and productivity, trade and environmental sustainability. It is very clear that other regulators are being asked to consider these other measures of overall success in their objectives.
Why does it matter? Like other noble Lords, I think the meeting we had with the shadow regulator last week was very helpful. It is undoubtedly true that the intentions of all the people there are very good. Like all of us, they are trying to make sure that the game we love is protected, but the shadow regulator’s thinking on sustainability is very much in the mould of a bank regulator’s. The main method it sees achieving sustainability is to insist—as the FCA does with banks—that a certain amount of money is put on deposit to give a buffer, a certain comfort, to clubs. Numbers have been bandied around—it may be £20 million or so per club in the Premier League. Those are large numbers; £400 million will go out of the game because it will be held in aspect. That amount of money has a real impact. If the regulator has only a one-dimensional objective on sustainability, it will always be weighted towards putting more and more money aside as a buffer. However, if it has other objectives in its definition of sustainability, it will take other factors into account.
I think noble Lords know that all the successful companies we see today, such as the magnificent seven that people talk about—the Googles, Microsofts, Facebooks and Teslas of the world—had an early start-up stage when there was heavy investment and their costs far exceeded their income. We absolutely see that in football clubs. The story of Brighton was mentioned earlier, and I happen to know a thing or two about it. I think we would all agree that it is a fantastic success story. For years and years, that success was reliant on Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton, putting his hand in his pocket to invest more in players than the club’s income. He believed that, just like in any start-up company, you have to make that investment. That will build success, and from that you will manage to get promoted and get to a more and more sustainable position. He was able to achieve that.
Not every club can achieve that because, as we all know, not every club can get promoted. But the danger is that if the regulator’s only dimension is sustainability, it would look at business plans such as Brighton’s and say, “Hang on, they’re going to run a deficit if they stay in that league. That doesn’t sound very secure. How are we going to guard against that? We’ll make them put a certain amount of money into escrow as a buffer”. That will undoubtably dampen innovation, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. We all know that the beauty and the strength of English football are in the fact that clubs can get promoted and go on to do wonderful things, and we all know of plenty of examples.
Unless a regulator has more than one dimension—more than one club in its locker—it will only ever look at the sustainability angle and put more and more money aside. That is where I am coming from with Amendment 13, which is similar in intent to Amendment 12. It is from my knowledge of selling TV rights and of what people are really looking for. It is all about TV viewership, sporting competitiveness, the income that is generated and match attendance. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, those things are all clear and measurable; they are all things that a regulator should want for the health of the game.
I hope that when the Minister answers, she will let us know why we would not want to follow the lead of the regulators of the Bank of England, Ofwat, Ofgem or all the others, and give this regulator more than one dimension. I know the Minister really wants to see the health of the game and that everyone has good intentions. That is why this debate is so good—we all want what is best for the game. Widening the basket of measures that the regulator seeks to achieve can be only good for the health of the game.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude of Horsham for speaking to their amendments and for setting out the case for them. Before the Minister responds to them and to my Amendment 7, which I moved at the outset, I should say that I am not precious about my amendment vis-à-vis those of my noble friends in this group, Amendments 12 and 13.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said that he did not like my wording and found it rambling and insubstantial. I take no offence; I simply took the wording that the Government used in the Explanatory Notes and sought to put that in the Bill. If he finds that rambling, it may be that the Explanatory Notes are as well.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The point I was making was that the wording was appropriate for the Explanatory Notes but not for the Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Hayward said that he did not much like it either, but it is helpful that my amendment has been grouped with the other amendments, which are seeking to give a bit more precision than the two short lines that are in the Bill. As I said in moving my amendment, my contention is that they do not go far enough to define what “sustainability” means in practice, which will be important for the regulator looking at it.
I am grateful to my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Markham, whose Amendment 13 proposes a few tangible benchmarks through which sustainability can be measured. It suggests inserting criteria, including increasing TV viewership, increasing match attendance, improving international sporting competitiveness and increasing the overall income generated. They are all very tangible and specific. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will prefer them and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them when she responds.
Criteria such as those would provide a far more accurate and reliable understanding of the sustainability of English football. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, we all want to make sure that we are helping to deliver that with this Bill and to give the regulator the clarity that it needs to uphold it. The Premier League’s television exports alone were worth £1.4 billion in 2019-20. If the Government are serious about growth and supporting the success of Great British success stories, the regulator must ensure that that growth trajectory goes only upwards. By basing the standards of sustainability on objective metrics, such as those that my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude have tried to set out, football would surely benefit, and the regulator would have the clearer frames of reference that I think we are looking for.
As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, there is competition from a growing number of countries that are snapping at our heels. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us, there is no divine right for football to continue to exist in the way that it does in this country. My noble friend Lord Hayward pointed out some of the sporting fixtures that have happened this weekend. I enjoyed the Qatar Grand Prix, although I thought that the 10-second penalty for Lando Norris was rather disproportionate, especially since no safety car and no virtual safety car were deployed. I mention that not to take us on to another sport but to point out the difficulties that happen when a regulator—in this case, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile—makes curious or contentious decisions.
Through the amendments in this group, we are seeking to give a clarity of purpose to the regulator, so that it can focus its important work on delivering the sustainability of English football in a way that matches what the Government have set out in their Explanatory Notes. For all the differences that have been expressed, I think that we are all united on that. But it is important that we give this extra precision and clarity, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham, for tabling their amendments and for the thorough discussion we have had. I look forward to the ongoing discussion on many of the points raised as we debate the Bill.
We do not think that the Bill, which is largely the same as the previous Government’s version, is flawed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, suggested; nor do we think it leaves a lot to be desired, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, suggested. We also do not think that it is an overreaction of the nature that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, suggested. Indeed, we think it is what fans are looking for and what will bring sustainability to the game. I will get on to the definition of “sustainability” shortly.
Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, adds further detail to the definition of the sustainability of English football. I am pleased that he noted the definition on page 2, which does indeed define sustainability in the Bill. All the aims of the amendments are laudable. However, I assure the noble Lords concerned that the detail that has been added, in particular by Amendment 7, is largely implicit in the current definition of the sustainability of English football. So, while the noble Lord might suggest that the definition is, in his words, short and unsubstantial, I would argue that it is sufficient. The wording is that which was adopted in the noble Lord’s Government’s iteration of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I hear what the Minister says and I am grateful. However, she will have read the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report dated 22 November. We know that sustainability is not explicitly defined. We know that fans are not explicitly defined. As was said on our first day in Committee,
“the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill … The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of ‘specified competition’. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; cols. 720-21.]
Does she not agree that this is why it is important to tighten up that situation—that lacuna—in the Bill, so that the regulator has a firm sense of direction in how it proceeds?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a matter that I am sure we will discuss at greater length when we come to a longer discussion on secondary legislation, but I am happy to talk to the noble Lord outside this Chamber at further length.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. There were two things that I scribbled down as she said them. The first was that the definition—the extra detail of sustainability—is implicit in the Bill. That really gets to the nub of the debate we have just had. We think leaving it implicit for the regulator causes some problems. If the wording—albeit not to the preference of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—is something that the Government are happy to set out in the Explanatory Notes, why can we not make it a bit more explicit in the Bill to give the regulator more clarity? That is what the amendments in this group have sought to do, and the Bill would benefit from being made more explicit rather than left in the implicit way that the Minister set out.
The Minister also said that the regulator is being set up to deal with football’s sustainability problem, and that football has no growth problem, at least at present. Our concern is that seeking to address the former problem in the way the regulator goes about its work, particularly if it is left to do it implicitly, risks football’s continuing success in the growth category and in other ways. That is why we have given this such detailed scrutiny. However, I am grateful to her for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 7.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to my Amendment 9. Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also touches on many of the issues that concern me and motivated me in bringing my amendments; I look forward to hearing him set out the case for it later in the debate.
My amendments in this group probe the Government’s definition of a football fan. In any other context, the exact definition would perhaps be academic, but fans have had an important role in the process that has led to this Bill. As the Minister and many others have said, the Bill seeks to put fans’ interests at the heart of this legislation. It was, after all, the fan-led review chaired—refereed, if you like—by my former honourable friend Dame Tracey Crouch which led to the Bill in its former iteration under the previous Government and which continues to inform the work that the new Government have taken forward in the Bill that they have brought before your Lordships. It was the fans’ voices in that process that were so important, and which began the path to where we now find ourselves.
We on these Benches agree with the Government that fans must be consulted and that they will have an important and ongoing role to play not just in the future of English football but in the operation of this new regulatory regime, but we cannot empower fans, or listen to their views, if we cannot say who they are. Through Amendment 8, I put it to the Government that both clubs and the new independent football regulator should seek to serve the interests of both “current and prospective” football fans. This expands the point that we have made about growth and making sure that the Bill is not simply seeking to preserve football in aspic.
In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in November 1790, Edmund Burke wrote:
“Society is indeed a contract … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.
That may be a high-falutin’ way of putting it, but it is the principle that underlies my Amendment 8. Football must not be governed as a game merely for the fans of today, nor should it simply seek to preserve the game in a form that fans of the past have enjoyed; it must also continue to be a game for the future. That is surely what the Government mean by the sustainability of football which, as the noble Baroness said in the debate on the previous group, is the key concern of this Bill.
We on these Benches feel that prospective fans—whether they be literally unborn, as Burke would point out, or those who are not yet alive to the joys of the game—should always have their interests served by clubs and the new regulator as well. Only if we are seeking to serve the interests of prospective fans as well as existing ones will we truly secure a sustainable future for English football.
My Amendment 9 similarly seeks to expand the definition of the communities whose interests are served by the Bill. The purpose clause in the Bill seeks to serve only “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated. I was keen that the Committee should probe the inclusion of that word, “local”. We had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester with us for earlier deliberations in this Committee. I am taken to understand that not everybody who is a fan of Manchester United or Manchester City lives in the city of Manchester. If a large group of people from London or another part of the country were to follow Manchester United or Manchester City during a period of success for one of those clubs, would it be right for those clubs or the new regulator merely to serve the interests of local communities in Manchester, or should they consider the interests of fans who follow those teams and who have a stake in them no matter where in the country they are based?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
One reason why I have been interested in this Bill is the European Super League proposals that previously happened—the possibility of clubs’ owners deciding that they are going to play two or three games in the United States or two or three games in the Middle East. By defining “local”, are we not ensuring that there is some protection against the aspiration that some owners may have to meet the needs of fans who might be numerous in the Middle East or the United States, but we want regulated clubs to be looked after here in Britain?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That is the question I am trying to probe with this amendment. Are the interests of fans of, say, Manchester United or Manchester City really served only if, as the Bill currently defines it, English football is contributing to the economic or social well-being of the “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated? Surely Manchester United is associated also with Weymouth, for instance, or other parts of the country where people might choose to be a fan of that club, even if they have never lived in Manchester.
As I set out at Second Reading, I am not the world’s biggest football afficionado, but I know that people do not have to be born in a specific town or city to feel an affinity to, pride in or excitement from certain regulated clubs. I am interested in whether the sustainability of those clubs should also serve people in Weymouth and people across the country. The noble Lord makes an important point about the growing tension with growing the international following of football, but, as we have heard in previous debates, that, too, is a good thing. It is an important part of the soft power of the United Kingdom. It brings inward investment and greater glory to the UK. That is a separate point from the amendments, which look at the work of the sustainability—
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I interrupt to comment on the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. It is quite extraordinary. Are we little Englanders who think that our only role is in this country? There is a vast amount of soft power created by what is probably the UK’s most successful industry, so it is really odd that the noble Lord claimed that there are major problems with it. If there are major problems with our most successful industry, we are in trouble.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I do not think anyone is talking about banning; it is about preserving our Premier League and some of our domestic competitions, and it is for fans of clubs in those leagues who want to follow their team, home and away, and their ability to do so throughout the fixture list of that league. Clubs such as Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal—and West Ham, I am sure—go on tour overseas pre-season to meet the needs of fans who are overseas, and maybe mid-season for all I know. Our teams are playing too many games. It is not sustainable for them to play the number that they are at the moment, but there are opportunities pre-season for fans from around the world to visit.
I love them coming to this country. When I am at the Emirates Stadium and I see all the banners from fans from all over the world who have come to see Arsenal it is a great joy, but we need to be constrained in the regulatory purposes of this to preserve our Premier League and domestic league competitions.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
Noble Lords need to understand exactly what the previous speaker was talking about. It is about preserving our leagues. The fan base of a club is not 200,000 people in South Korea or 20,000 people in New York. The fan bases of these clubs are in this country. The unintended consequence of what is being proposed could occur very quickly, easily and suddenly.
I am quite appalled by the number of noble Lords in this House who have two or three football clubs. You should have one football club; it is the club you support. I do not have a second or third club. I have one club; I am indeed suffering for that pleasure at the moment, but I have one club, through thick and thin.
What is to stop someone setting up a supporters’ group for my club somewhere else, without honourable intentions but with the intention of doing my club some difficulty or harm? That is what muddies the waters and it is where you get all this involvement. The supporters are local supporters. The other supporters can be supporters but, if local groups are going to be set up, they should be there for 12 months or two years. We need to know their history and regulatory rights. They are not being set up by football clubs, because that is another way that this could be done—to set up your own shadow group that plays lip service to this.
Noble Lords know that football supporters have robust views, and chairmen who really understand that tend to meet them regularly. Lots of Premier League clubs do that; they go and meet their supporters—working-class people in areas and towns, who will give them their honest views, which the clubs usually do not like. United is now increasing the prices for all tickets, which is not going down well with all the United fans, but there is still a 10 or 15-year waiting list for a season ticket. That is why the club can do that, but it is not really supporting the fans.
Let us just bring it back from this existential conversation about Burke and the father of the son. Does that go into politics—“I was a Conservative so my son’s going to be a Conservative”? That is changing—we all know it is—and it is a reasonable evolution. If you are the son of a miner, you might end up a Conservative Minister. That is great, that is the opportunity that this country offers, and it should be the same with football supporters.
But football supporters support their own club and are very wary about suddenly involving any number of supporters, because the numbers then become detrimental to doing what we are supposed to be doing here, which is protecting the pyramid. It seems that these debates are all leading in one direction: “Leave the Premier League alone, let it run football, and the rest of you can have the crumbs off the table”. That is the feeling I am getting from these conversations, and that is wrong.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I have a slight fear that I may be intervening in the intervention on an intervention on the answer to an intervention, but still. Among my interests is that I am a director of Chelsea Football Club and director of its foundation. I also had the honour to be a member of the fan-led review committee.
I urge that the Bill and the debate should define “fans” as widely as possible. I am afraid that I think the noble Lord is completely wrong, certainly as far as my club is concerned. We have hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of fans all around the world. We care deeply for them and I am very much engaged in our fan mechanism, in involving them. I am committed to the principle of fan engagement that the Crouch committee laid out. We want to talk to our fans all over the globe and we have an interest in prospective fans, not only current fans.
Of course, the fans who attend Stamford Bridge, which is where Chelsea play at home—I feel that I have to explain that—are very dear to us and play a core part in the definition of who a “fan” is, but they are certainly not the only fans. It would be a mistake for the regulator to start its work thinking that that is how the Bill considers it.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
Regulators do not define who fans are. Regulators define fans for the purpose of consultation in pursuit of their duties. I am a Liverpool fan. Wherever I go in the world—whatever I am doing—I always find the local bar, and there are lots of Liverpool people there to support the team when a game is on, and I make lots of new friends. Liverpool as a club should of course take those fans seriously in its commercial thinking, its tours and other long-term strategy, but the idea that the regulator should consult with the San Diego Liverpool chapter when it is considering issues to do with implementing the Bill is ridiculous. I do not think San Diego-based fans will want that either. The club should take those interests into consideration. We are talking about the connection between a regulator and the pursuit of its duties, and the issue of protecting communities.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Is the noble Lord saying that he thinks the club should not ask those people as well as other fans? If he thinks that, why should that not be part of the definition of the “fan” under the Bill?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I did not say anything about what the club should do. We should not tell clubs what to do about their conception of their own fans. I am talking about the relevant categorisation of what “fans” means for the purpose of the regulator pursuing its duties.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, it would be useful to determine who has the Floor.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it might be convenient if we get to the stage of the amendment being moved, and then we can have such a general debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the Deputy Chairman of Committees and to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for trying to bring us back to the point.
This underlines the importance of the debate we need to have in this group. I was tempted to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, but seeing as it was an intervention on me, I do not think that I could have done.
We do not need to focus so much on consulting fans of Liverpool in San Diego. I am interested in the opening clause of the Bill and whether the interests of fans of Liverpool who are based in Weymouth, Whitley Bay or Walthamstow should be taken into account at the moment when we are defining “sustainability”. The Bill currently says:
“For the purposes of this section”—
referring to Clause 1(3)—
“English football is sustainable if it … continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
Liverpool do great work not just on Merseyside but for fans across the country and we need to have a useful debate about the inclusion and the limiting factor of the word “local” there because there is a domestic point to be made. But, as the intervention from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea pointed out, I think we should also avoid looking like little Englanders and being too restricted simply to the domestic benefits here. There is a large group of fans in Thailand, Japan or South Korea, where I was over the summer and where people came up to me and asked which team I supported and wanted to talk about football. I am sure noble Lords across the House have had the same experience when travelling overseas—whether we have places such as Anfield in our titles or otherwise, it is one of the first questions we are asked.
It is a source of pride for this country that a sport we invented and export is something that 1.5 billion people across the globe enjoy watching and can take some of the social and economic benefits of. Through my Amendment 8, I am simply testing whether “local” really ought to be the limiting factor here. I think there are two stages that would be helpful to consider: across England—and, indeed, perhaps the United Kingdom—and across the globe more broadly. I think it would be helpful at this point if I let the debate continue to move by now moving Amendment 8.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but I hope it is appropriate for yet another Liverpool fan to intervene in this debate. I think we have to segment the fan base and that is essentially what is happening, so I wonder how much we are really disagreeing with one another. As I said at Second Reading, my grandad was brought up 200 yards from Anfield; my father had to walk to the match; and when I was young, I had to take a train and a bus. We all know about those intense fans that live locally. They are chiefly the fans who go by train to away games and love the game and it is a critical part of their whole life. Any organisation which segments its fan base is going to pay a great deal of attention to that cohort.
But we live in different times from my grandfather and my father. Television changed all of that and created a fan base for a high proportion of clubs, not just those in the Premier League, right across the country. In more recent times, in the satellite age, the fan base is truly global. Any organisation benefits from a dialogue with its customers, and the fan base broadly defined is the customer and it is that fan base that provides the investment into the game. It provides the investment at local, national and global level, chiefly through the agency of television rights. Any sensible organisation—whether it is the regulator, the leagues or the clubs—should engage with the full complexity of that fan base. Like any good business, you talk to your fans, you listen, you learn, you adapt and you grow and that is surely what, in one way or another, I hope most of us could agree with.
When the league made the bad mistake that we all know about of saying there would be a closed shop in Europe, the fan base, broadly speaking, rose up in 24 hours and it was knocked out of the equation. I happen to think it would be a mistake for the Premier League to play “home games” in another country, because it antagonises the fans who have the most intense feeling. But we do have to talk to and be informed about the totality of the fan base, whether local, national or global.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I totally agree with what has just been said about segmenting the fan base. I do not support a team that has the wide support that Liverpool has, but I was once at a football match in Buenos Aires where I was asked by local people which team I supported. When I mentioned Bolton Wanderers, just about everybody around me said instantly “Nat Lofthouse”, so these things travel. I accept that, but when we are talking about this Bill and about consulting fans on ticket pricing, the club’s heritage or moving grounds, then it is the locality that is in question, and we should not lose sight of that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall first pick up the comment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Cheslea. Whether it was an intervention on an intervention, I intervened from a sedentary position, and he heard my comments in relation to friendlies. I was not denying what he was saying; I was expressing support to the extent that pre-season friendlies take place to a substantial amount already and they achieve, to use the word currently in the Bill, an element of sustainability because they provide income from matches all around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, commented earlier on. If ever there was an indication of the strength of support for a football club in another part of the world, all anybody has to do is type in “Liverpool” and “Melbourne cricket ground” to watch a full 100,000-plus Liverpool supporters singing their anthem at the start of a match. That is the extent of the support that our clubs have around the world, and it provides substantial income to the club. There are not many as large as Liverpool, but there is support right around the world.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, the complexity of this debate—it is structurally complex as well as dealing with complex issues—illustrates how important it is that we explore these issues, because in every debate that we have another layer of the multifaceted success that is current English football becomes exposed and illuminated.
My noble friends’ amendments suggest that the regulator should be required to consider future fans as well as current fans and to take into account all fans not just fans in the locality. The truth is that, 20 years ago, there would not have been support across the world, particularly for the major clubs. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just said, this is not limited to the top level of clubs. This is a moving scene. Globalisation, for all its critics, has not come to an end; this is more of a global village than it was. Top-level football in England is much more international than it was in terms of the background of footballers who play here, and that is unlikely to become less so. As more and more of the world’s population have access to a variety of television channels, there will be more. We can only expect the degree of global interest and support for English football clubs to grow. This is a moving scene, and we should be clear that if we are going to have this regulator, the regulator should think in those terms and to be aware of it.
Of course, there will continue to be an incredibly important local fan base for every club. I was a Tottenham supporter when I lived in Oxfordshire, when I lived in Warwickshire, when I lived in London and now when I live in Sussex. My son, who is also a Tottenham supporter, feels it so strongly that he bought a house five minutes away from the marvellous Tottenham stadium, so he has now become a local supporter having been a distant supporter. This will continue to be the way in which support for football clubs develops, and it is important. My noble friend does us all a service by raising the point and developing the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with here and that we might, if we do not get this right, be putting in jeopardy.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to Amendment 17A in my name. Before I do so, I want to reflect on some of the contributions that we have heard, largely on the last group of amendments but spilling over into this one. I am a bit concerned that, while the Bill is about the regulator of English football, several noble Lords have said that it would be appropriate to extend it beyond the confines of England.
I understand the economic arguments for that. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who asked: are we really saying that we do not want English football equivalents of American football teams coming here? I saw American baseball at the London Stadium this year and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I do not care about their leagues. I do not care what effect it has on their leagues or their fans; it is up to them.
I do care about the effect of sending games abroad, as other noble Lords have said, and playing competitive matches: not touring matches, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, but competitive matches in other countries. That would be, to put it mildly, a very slippery slope and it would impact on something that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said in the last debate about comparing other sports. There is a very worrying trend of other sports—such as the grand prix that took place at the weekend—being funded to outrageous extents by foreign, often repressive and undemocratic Governments, to ensure that sports go to their countries. I do not want to see that sort of magnet placed in the way of football clubs in this country.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Can I clarify what the noble Lord has just said? He described the sporting events in the Middle East over the weekend—which were cricket, rugby and motor-racing—as “worrying”. Receiving literally millions of pounds of income for a football club or other sport in this country—is that really worrying?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
It is absolutely worrying. These countries have the right to do what they like with their money, but we have a right to say, “I don’t really wish to engage with that”, because we become tainted if we do that to an unlimited extent. That is a slightly different argument from that of playing competitive matches in other countries. That surely is something that we all agree would be bad for the future of English football. There are plenty of ways of bringing money in from all sources—if clubs want to do that, it is up to them—but playing matches outwith this country is surely not where we want to go.
That impacts on the whole question of fans and my amendment, which is: what is a fan? I do not know whether my amendment is the way we should define it, but I think it is the narrowest definition of a fan that I have heard so far in relation to this Bill. How do you define the Liverpool fan in San Diego? What does she or she have to say about what is happening in the Premier League? They may watch it on television and that is fine. They may express a very definite preference for one club, and they are entitled to do so. But they do not have a vested interest in the club in the way that someone who pays their money to go and see a match does.
I will repeat the point that I made last week. Some people are unable to afford the price of tickets, particularly in the Premier League—although I have to say in all honesty that I bought a theatre ticket last week, which cannot really be equated with the cost of a Premier League football ticket. But the other question is whether some people are physically unable to go. It may be somebody who has been going since they were 10 years old; they reach the age of 70 and find they are no longer able to go. I would sympathise with that.
However, we have been talking in the Bill about the regulator ensuring consultation with fans. You cannot consult somebody if you do not know where he or she lives. There has to be a list somewhere of the people you are going to consult. You cannot just open it up online and say, “Anybody with an interest, let us have your view by email”. That is not consulting—or at least consulting properly. So people who have bought into the club by having a season ticket: that is a reasonable way of saying, “These are the only fans we can genuinely define”. You can put them in a box and say, when it comes to consultation, “That’s the group of people because they have put their names in”.
They do not go to every match, of course. I often laugh when I read the football results and they show the attendance. I do not mean any disrespect to Arsenal, but I will use them as an example. They are going rather well at the moment, but they were not going well five years ago in the latter days of the Arsène Wenger period. You would see a match the Emirates Stadium and it was perfectly clear that there were almost as many empty seats as filled seats, yet the next day the papers would say the attendance was 100 short of capacity. That means the club is saying, “Ah, now, but we’ve sold those seats. Season ticket holders have bought them but they’re not very happy at the moment so they haven’t come”. My argument is, “Okay, that’s fine, but the key to the attendance is the word ‘attend’. If people don’t go, there’s not an attendance”. Still, the point is that these people have made a financial commitment to the club, and that is a basis on which to go forward.
That is why I disagree with the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 17 from the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, which refers to those
“who have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.
That is so vague; we have to have some way of pinning it down. If there is a better way of doing that than through season ticket holders, I am open to that suggestion and I will consider it. But, until then, I believe that is the only basis on which we can do it. I also want to see it in the Bill.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Suppose we base it on season ticket holders. If you take a club such as Bournemouth, whose capacity is 11,000-ish, it will probably have 4,000 season ticket holders—but they would not represent all the views of every Bournemouth supporter in the whole world.
In relation to supporters around the world, if a supporter gets on a plane from Sweden to watch Bournemouth play, are they a supporter or not? Some 5% of inbound flights to the UK involve taking in a Premier League game—I mean, the Premier League could run a successful airline. Putting that point to one side, though, it would be impossible for a regulator to try to rank supporters of the club in order of priority. We all know, respect and love our season ticket holders, but not everyone is lucky enough to get a season ticket—particularly if you are a Bournemouth supporter, because the capacity is only 11,000-odd.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s last point, I do not want the regulator to be doing this. That is why I want it in the Bill. This is not an issue where there can be any subjectivity. There has to be something tight.
Bournemouth may have season ticket holders in Sweden, I do not know, and if they come, they come. If they do not come, though, they are still a season ticket holder, so they are entitled to be consulted. But, if there is no financial commitment, I just do not understand how you can possibly meaningfully take the opinion of someone who just says, “Yeah, I’ve been at a couple of Liverpool games, I always watch them on TV and I’ve bought a scarf”. I am open to suggestions as to how we might pin this down better, but pin it down in the Bill we must.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, when it comes to taking opinion, I would rather not complicate things, but the divides that appear to be there are rather false ones, talking about issues that are not contained in the Bill but are contained on other issues.
I currently chair a supporters’ group that has branches all over the world. It has members—some season ticket holders, some not—who attend football. I am quite satisfied that the Bill says that supporters’ groups of different kinds should be consulted on issues that are of relevance to them.
I have a slight liking for “current and prospective” in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but possibly for different reasons from him, and I am not sure it can be encapsulated in statute, so I do not warm to the wording, even if I do to part of the meaning.
There is a danger at the moment that football, especially the Premier League and the higher echelons of the Championship, is full of people who are more like me, rather than young children. Season ticket waiting lists in the Premier League are prodigiously difficult to get up. There are long queues and many children are in them, which is a dilemma. Unless stadiums get bigger and bigger, which I would encourage, how do we get in the next generation of fans? If you do something as absurd as a team in Manchester has done and make it £66 for a child, in the long term you will probably lose competitive advantage. But the family and the children are losing something which is quintessentially British and English: being able to support their local team and occasionally go.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I hope I might be allowed to say a few words about my amendment in this group, if everybody is okay with that.
I asked for a definition of “fans” because I had a nightmare, and this discussion featured largely in it. A fan is a self-selecting person who has made a commitment. If there is another definition out there, save it, please.
Lord Addington (LD)
They have made a financial commitment or signed a pledge—I do not know, but they have made a commitment. They have said that they are a part of this and there is no compulsion; they have made a decision. That is why I felt we should have this in the Bill.
Apart from anything else, this is British law we are talking about, and the English leagues. I do not know why we are bothering discussing what people in South Korea or San Francisco are doing, because we can only deal with what is in our own legal framework. If they join a group over here and make a financial or long-term commitment, maybe then they are consulted. But it is here in the UK that you have to make a commitment; it is about the local base. These people are committing to something which is located in a place. That is why I tabled this amendment. My noble friend got to the guts of it when he said that it is an emotional commitment.
We need some guidance on what the Government are going to say. You are not going to keep everybody happy, clearly, but let us at least know why we are unhappy, and we will see what we can do about it at another stage if that is appropriate. That is what my amendment is for, and I hope we can reach that point with all rapidity.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest of a kind as a season ticket holder at Wycombe Wanderers, who are still top of League One, as they were when I spoke at Second Reading. Therefore, I would count as a fan under the definition in Amendment 17A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. However, I want to describe a group of people who would not count, as I think it casts some light on our proceedings as to what the regulator might say and the Government’s view.
Last year, a Spanish-language YouTube channel, La Media Inglesa—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly; it is apparently the largest football YouTube channel—wrote to every single EFL club asking why Spaniards should support their club. Wycombe Wanderers were the only club to reply in Spanish. As a consequence, 100 Spanish supporters turned up to see Wycombe play Derby County at Adams Park, then again for a game against Sheffield Wednesday, and then again to Fratton Park for a game against Portsmouth—and so on, and so forth. They greatly enlivened the proceedings by waving their scarves, chanting loudly and showing commitment—to pick up the word just used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—to their team.
The point we are trying to get to the heart of is not exactly who we think is a fan, but what the regulator’s view will be and what the Government believe the regulator’s view might be, given that “fan” is not defined in the Bill. There is obviously common sense in the approach just taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, among others. He suggested that, logically and intuitively, there must be some sort of difference, in respect of interest in the ownership of the ground and the prices of tickets, between fans who live in the broad locality and fans—however committed—who travel to the ground from a great distance away.
That is precisely what we need to hear a view about from the Government Front Bench. What I suspect the Minister will say—knocking the issue back across the Benches—is that these are matters for clubs to decide for themselves. If that is the Government’s view, then the Minister in due course should tell us.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 17. What we have seen today, and I am glad that the Chief Whip has been here to witness it, is a passionate and informed debate. Perhaps it will give him an understanding of why the debate may be lengthier than one might have hoped. Not surprisingly, 15 or 20 noble Lords have spoken and we have probably had 21 or 22 different definitions of what a fan is—so none of us underestimates what a complicated area this is, but what we are all united in is that it is vitally important and, as such, it should be in the Bill. That is what we are asking the Minister to reply on.
I am probably biased, but I happen to think my Amendment 17 tries to take those different aspects into account, saying that fans are
“individuals who … identify with the club, engage with the service the club provides, and have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.
Bringing in the service that the club provides is trying to take into account that wider commitment and interest in it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the most dedicated version of that is the season ticket, but we also know that there are massively long waiting lists for season tickets. Does that mean that people who are on a waiting list or people who cannot afford a season ticket somehow count less? That is why my wider definition talks about people who engage with the services of that club to try to take that into account.
I think we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in his amendment that giving the independent regulator a definition to work to is vital, because this is at the core of what a club is. In any consultation that a club has to undertake, it needs to be clear who it is consulting with.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and in favour of Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has clearly thought very carefully about this and I agree with a great many of his nuances and analyses of what a fan is. I also agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, although not about the localism.
Why are we talking about San Francisco or South Korea fans? It is because, surely, the purpose of this Bill is to sustain and continually improve the commercial and financial success of football, not to introduce some more nebulous—indeed, I would say suspicious—metric that we could conjure up on social grounds or whatever. If we are here explicitly to damage the commercial and financial success of football, let us admit it—but, if we are not, let us then look at the consequences and implications of that.
What is a fan? Can it only be a season ticket holder? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said about fans, “These are working-class people”. As an unregenerate member of the middle classes since childhood, I sort of resented that, but let us go with it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is a champion of the working classes, but how many of the working classes can afford a season ticket? When I was 10 years old, I would jump on a number 11 bus and go down the King’s Road to Stamford Bridge. I only got there once a month maybe, by not having a gobstopper or a Barratt sherbet every day and saving up the five bob it cost me to get into the ground. I could not afford a season ticket. Fine, you could say that I should not be consulted, either, any more than children of 10 should be allowed to go on social media.
When I was an undergraduate of 21, I could not afford a season ticket but I was a fervent Chelsea fan. Later, I became a season ticket holder. Did I suddenly become worthy of consultation because I had managed to get a job that helped me afford a season ticket? Then when I moved abroad for a couple of decades, to study and work, did that disqualify me from being a fan? Then when I came back and got a season ticket, was I suddenly qualified to be a fan again? It is nonsense. If we are thinking about the commercial and financial success of this industry, we should follow the commercial and financial logic: my noble friend Lord Finkelstein was quite eloquent about that just now.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, as I sat through the whole of this fascinating debate, I thought I might as well throw my penny’s worth in on the issue of what a fan is. I am a football fan. I do not have a season ticket. I was on a list for a season ticket for many years until Arsenal moved stadium, when they scrapped the waiting list and you had to start again. The only way I show my fandom, really, is to listen or watch matches whenever I can and get into arguments in pubs with people from other teams. Just saying.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s excellent amendment. I think it is unarguable that in the last hour we have demonstrated why we need that amendment, because no one agrees what “local” means. I think that is a very important point. This whole debate reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, when Humpty says:
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.
We do not really know what “local” means. My noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea talks about the importance of international fans. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that I fundamentally disagree with Amendment 17A because I think it is socially regressive and would lock out many people. It would actually go against my noble friend’s Amendment 8 in terms of getting new generations of fans involved: not everyone can afford a season ticket.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I accept that, and I hope I made that clear earlier—but how do you consult the other people? You do not know who they are.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord asks a very reasonable question. I actually pray in aid the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because, for all his frustration with this debate, his Amendment 26 has at least tried to answer the question of what a fan is and what “local” means, and therefore I am quite predisposed toward that amendment. My only problem is that it absolves this House and Ministers from solving the problem, by kicking it into the long grass, so to speak, of the independent football regulator. So I agree with that amendment, but the noble Lord’s amendment is too restrictive.
When I was a child, I used to go to Charlton Athletic, the Valley, which in the good old days had a 66,000 capacity. Because I was a Charlton fan, vicariously, through my father, does that mean I could not be a fan of Millwall, which is in almost the next borough, the London Borough of Southwark? Could I not have been a fan of Crystal Palace, in the London Borough of Croydon? Could I not have been a fan of Leyton Orient, in the London Borough of Waltham Forest? You get into a rabbit hole of really difficult decisions if you do not properly talk about what is “local”.
I will finally finish by reminding your Lordships that, at Second Reading, I mentioned the importance of supply chains, because although fans are important, so is the wider football community. That includes businesses, commerce, supply chains, the people who sell the hot dogs and the prawn sandwiches, the people who provide the footballs, and the people who do the advertising, etcetera. We are dancing on the head of a pin, because—with all due respect to the people in the Box—the Bill is not well drafted. We have a responsibility to point that out. For that reason, I implore the Minister specifically to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 9.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will make a point on Amendment 17A of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about the complexity of what we mean by “fan” and indeed “season ticket holder”, because there are so many options to be a season ticket holder. You can be a season ticket holder for Premier League clubs, just for those Premier League games. You also have cup games, like the FA Cup and the Carabao Cup. There are also Champions League tickets. If you cannot get a season ticket, as an individual you can apply for those individual cup games. If you wish to become a forwarding member for £20, you are in the position to receive a ticket from a season ticket holder. It spreads up; the number of season tickets available is very complicated indeed for cup games.
Not only that, but you also have corporate tickets. Corporations can buy a whole suite of tickets for their employees and also for their clients. To establish somebody who would go as a guest of a corporate individual or who had been forwarded a ticket further complicates it. The point I am making is that it is not straightforward. It is very complicated—there is not just one season ticket holder at any club.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a lively debate. Even before I moved the lead amendment in it, a lively debate had been engendered. It is an important one, because fans are sown throughout the Bill. There are various points at which the regulator, the Government and others have to consult fans, so it is important that, as we proceed through Committee and look at the Bill line by line, we are clear about and understand who the fans are that the regulator, the clubs and the Government need to consult, where they reside and where they do not, and how their views will be ascertained.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, for the clarity with which he put this in speaking to his Amendment 17A in this group. There has to be something in the Bill, and it has to be something tight; otherwise we will continue having this sort of nightmarish debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, foresaw, and which has been borne out a bit this afternoon. Each time fans are mentioned, we have to decide—as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, put it—what is relevant to them in this instance, and whether this is something that affects them. The fan-led review that led to the Bill would mean that fans take a view on all of the matters that the Bill sets out in each of its clauses.
I am not along—and your Lordships in this Committee are not alone—in confronting the inherent difficulties involved in trying to attempt to define a fan. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough previously mentioned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which has pointed out the importance of trying to put this definition in the Bill. It is so central to what the Bill tries to achieve that its omission is really very striking.
The European Club Association, in its Fan of the Future report, has also pointed out that
“The anatomy of a football fan has evolved significantly”.
Its research highlights the role of social media, the decline in linear television viewing and the diversification of football content distribution, to give just a few examples. Those factors have fundamentally altered the way that people access information about football and watch their favourite team play. Indeed, 70% of respondents to the association’s survey said they consumed some form of football content online. All of that points to a trend of an increasingly international fan base for English football—a point that noble Lords have borne out repeatedly in the debate on this group. We, the clubs and the regulator will have to grapple with that trend, which I am sure is only growing, if we are all to meet the fan engagement requirements set out in the Bill.
There was a lively debate on consultation and the limits thereof, geographical and otherwise. I should probably state for the record that I do not necessarily believe that fan consultation should include fans from South Korea and all over the world or, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, put it, Liverpool fans in San Diego. There are obviously practical and burdensome difficulties here. I also acknowledge the point made by various noble Lords that fans who are more directly affected by their club, either from living in its vicinity or through its work, have an especially special bond.
I was struck by the comments the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made about the gradation that clubs already make between types of fans. However, as we refer to fans again and again throughout this Bill, it is important that we try and specify what constitutes a fan, and not leave it so vague. This issue requires clarity for our future deliberations in this Committee, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide it when she responds. Before she does, I want to say a few words about Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham. This amendment attempts to provide that clarity and specificity by seeking to define what constitutes a fan. If the Minister does not like Amendment 17’s definition, then it is important she provides an alternative.
I am also interested in the solution the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has proposed with his Amendment 26. In essence, his amendment requires the regulator to tell us what it counts as a fan when it conducts its duties under the Bill. It is important for fans, for clubs and for everyone that this is clarified. The noble Lord’s nightmares were well spent if during those night-time hours he formulated the ideas that led to Amendment 26, which has been helpful.
I also want to touch on Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. This amendment, again in the spirit of helpfulness, tries to define a fan as somebody who holds a season ticket for a regulated club. I do not doubt the noble Lord’s intent here; season ticket holders are some of a club’s most stalwart supporters. However, as the debate on this group has shown, that definition is restrictive, limited and problematic. Thousands of club fans may not be fortunate enough to hold a season ticket: it may be too expensive; they may live at the other end of the country; they may find themselves on a waiting list—as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, noted; and they may find themselves behind corporate interests, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow has set out. All of those things could prevent fans from becoming season ticket holders. It would not be right to say that those people are not fans, or that they are not the sort of fan who needs to be consulted on the future of their club or who would have an interest in it. Therefore, although Amendment 17A’s definition is a helpful attempt, it is not quite the answer.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his tentative and cautious interest in my amendment on current and prospective fans. I hope that he agrees that it is important that we have a definition of a fan in the Bill to avoid this sort of confusion as we go through the debates on later clauses. I know that he chairs a fan group for Leeds United. Would every Leeds fan feel that they were represented by the group that he chairs? Would they all agree with what he says? I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. Fans come in different shapes and sizes, and they have many views, but we need some clarity as we go through our debates to understand in each instance where and whom the regulator, the Government and the clubs themselves must consult.
Lord Mann (Lab)
I hope that not all fans agree with my supporters’ group, because we have a very distinct approach from other fan groups. My point is that there is a range of groups and that different fan groups have different perspectives, interests and ideals. Therefore, to attempt to define them in the Bill is so complex as to be impossible. That is why it is sensible to take the approach that the Government are taking: one that has some flexibility built in.
I will not go into great detail on the different kinds of fan groups. I believe that West Ham has nine, and you could argue about how many we have because there is the question of whether some are really fan groups or not. That is the complexity—and they have different perspectives.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will not prolong the discussion any further; it is important that we hear from the Minister instead. As we do so, I hope that we hear from her on the tension between the need for flexibility, which I understand, and the need for clarity so that the duties on the clubs, which are successful businesses, and on the regulator, which is a powerful new body, are also specified. We need that so that everybody, when they follow the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, is clear on what they have to do, whether they are speaking to the fan group of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, or another about each of those duties.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie for tabling these amendments and for the thorough discussion on this group. There is an amendment in a group specifically on clubs playing overseas, which I will come back to during a later stage in the Bill’s progress. I have been told by my noble friend the Chief Whip that I should not comment on gobstoppers, as tempting as it is to do so.
I am glad that we all agree on the importance of fans to the game. The Bill also recognises that importance. As noble Lords are aware, it is based on the fan-led review, so it should have fans at its heart. I suspect that we will never get full agreement on how we should define a fan or group of fans—we have seen that in the debate on this group. However, I welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that—to paraphrase—there is quite a lot of agreement on this element, so noble Lords are at risk of debating something that, when it comes down to it, many of them will agree on.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, tabled an amendment that would look to add further detail to the definition of the sustainability of English football. I reassure him that both prospective and current fans would be considered in the existing requirement. As he will be aware, this is in line with the Bill introduced by the previous Government in which he served. Football would not serve the interests of fans if the game were unattractive or unwelcoming to new fans. As the Explanatory Notes to this clause clarify, continuing to serve the interests of fans
“means meeting the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club”.
Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looks to remove the specific reference to “local” communities from the definition of the sustainability of English football. One of the best things about football in this country is that it fosters community. I welcome the passionate defence of local fans made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. This is something that noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House recognised and spoke passionately about at Second Reading, and we wish to protect it.
The local area surrounding clubs can often develop communities and economies dependent on the football club. It is important to recognise that not all communities are grounded in the local area. As noble Lords have mentioned, they can be online, far-reaching and even international. These communities are also important, as was highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Hayward and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, mentioned international flights. I understand that such is the Norwegian enthusiasm for football that weekend flights are scheduled to allow fans to travel to watch UK games. However, as communities become less rooted in the local area or directly related to the club itself, it would be harder for the regulator to control or even predict how its actions may influence their economic or social well-being. We do not want the regulator to be set up to fail because it cannot feasibly meet its statutory purpose. If the regulator were required to consider more detached and far-reaching communities, it might never be able to completely deliver a sustainable English football.
We should also remember that it is often the local communities that are most vulnerable and can suffer most directly from any crisis at a club. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton made clear, the locality matters. We have seen in places such as Bury and Macclesfield the hole that is left in the local community, including the economic impacts, social impacts and job losses. None the less, the regulator must of course consider the impact of its actions on the wider community of fans. That is why the Bill’s purpose, as drafted, includes English football serving the interests of fans, with no requirement that those fans are “local” to their club.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, appeared to conflate how fans and communities are defined. I want to be very clear that, while Clause 1(3)(b) specifies “local communities”, Clause 1(3)(a) does not specify that it applies only to local fans. So, the noble Lord’s points on Manchester United fans in Weymouth would still be considered in this definition of “sustainability” as it pertains to fans.
On Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I understand that its intention is to set in the Bill a definition of what makes someone a football fan. His amendment draws on the Explanatory Notes. I welcome the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, as a member of the committee on the fan-led review. For a definition of a fan to be in primary legislation, there is a significant risk of unintended consequences that it will end up being either so loosely defined that it lacks precision or too narrow that important and passionate fans are excluded from engagement. I know that noble Lords from across the Committee would not wish to exclude any passionate fan from the engagement that the regulator intends clubs to carry out. This is because the make-up of a fan base will differ from club to club. It is this diversity that makes English football so special.
In our view, there is also likely to be the need for clubs to be able to consult different groups of fans on different issues. For example, on ticket prices, we would reasonably expect that clubs may wish to focus on consulting regular, match-going fans. However, on stadium relocations, we might expect them to consult a broader group of fans from across the community. From my engagement with Members from across your Lordships’ House, I know that there are many different views on the definition of a fan. Indeed, there are probably as many definitions as there are Members in this debate, if not many more. Therefore, although I understand the desire for more clarity, I am extremely reluctant for the Government to provide a specific definition that would be limiting.
The Government do not see themselves as the arbitrator of who counts as a football fan; instead, it is something that fans and clubs themselves will be in the best position to understand and discern. The regulator, once established, will be able to provide guidance for clubs on how to best consult fans, rather than be bound by an inflexible and potentially unhelpful definition. This will ensure that clubs have an appropriate framework in place that allows them to meet and consult fans regularly on key strategic matters and supporter interests, utilising pre-existing fan structures and other engagement mechanisms.
As Amendment 17A in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie demonstrates, there are multiple ways in which others may define a “fan”, all of which would capture vastly different groups. At some clubs and on some issues, the definition as set out in the amendment may be sufficient, but for others there could be large numbers of dedicated fans, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who would not be captured if the club considered only season-ticket holders. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that this would be too narrow. For example, it would mean that those unable to attend matches as a season-ticket holder due to reasons of finance or health, or due just to their lack of luck in a ballot, would be excluded from the consultation. My noble friend Lord Mann noted the waiting list for season tickets. As a Labour Government who think that financial criteria should not exclude people of limited financial means, we feel strongly that the emotional commitment highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should take precedence over any financial ones. This demonstrates the need for nuance and discretion in the definition, which clubs and the regulator are in the best position to arrive at.
On Amendment 26, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that the regulator would have an important role in ensuring that clubs understand and meet the fan engagement requirements placed on them. The Government agree, and they expect that the regulator will need to produce guidance to provide more detail and information on who to engage with, and how, to meet these conditions. However, it is important to understand that, for the most part, individual clubs will be in the best position to understand the demographics of their fans, with significant variation between clubs. There is a risk that the amendment could inadvertently place a limit on fan engagement and limit clubs to meeting only those who are members of an official fan body. Many fans will not be part of a formally constituted body; that does not mean that they should not be represented. For example, if a club is seeking to move ground or make changes to home shirt colours, a wide range of fans should be consulted and not just a formally constituted body. The Government have designed the legislation to allow for a bespoke approach to fan engagement shaped by the regulator’s guidance, an approach that the previous Government also supported.
However, although many clubs will be best placed to discern who they should engage with, if it is felt that a club is misusing this to select only agreeable fans or to exclude another group, the regulator can and should intervene. As is made explicit in paragraph 272 of the Explanatory Notes, the regulator can take action in such instances and will be able to specify how any representative group of fans should be engaged or informed. As I said at the start of my response, I am delighted that there is so much support across your Lordships’ House for fans being at the heart of the Bill and the debate. It is a theme that we will no doubt return to on many occasions, and I look forward to future discussions. However, for the reasons outlined, I am unable to accept the amendments from my noble friend and the noble Lord and ask that they do not press them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. In relation to my Amendment 8, I have been in her position of having to explain why, while agreeing with the spirit of an amendment, the Government are not minded to put it in a Bill. However, if she says that the Bill is about current and prospective fans, as my amendment seeks, why not say it in the Bill? I hope that between now and Report she might reflect a bit further on that.
Regarding my Amendment 9, the Minister said that I had conflated the issue with fans. After the slightly confusing debate that we had, it is not unreasonable that she thinks I might have done. Perhaps it was unhelpful to have grouped these amendments together and to have had one debate on them. However, I am clear that Clause 1(3)(b) relates to communities and not to fans. The question that I am asking is whether, as we work towards the sustainability of English football, we should limit our ambitions to the economic and social well-being of local communities that stand to benefit rather than our community more broadly? For the sake of clarity, I wanted to de-conflate those. I am not sure that we have quite cracked this matter but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(c) meets environmental sustainability requirements set out in subsection (3A).”
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 11 and 15 relate to sustainability—not the notion of sustainability that we have been addressing to date when considering this Bill but environmental sustainability.
We seek here to get something on the record about how we feel the regulator should approach this issue. Every sector, every industry, should consider environmental sustainability and football should not be an exception. The Government, quite rightly, have commitments to achieve net zero on carbon emissions. It is impossible to divorce environmental issues from issues of financial sustainability and there are numerous ways in which one could substantiate that. It would be negligent to exclude environmental sustainability from the regulator’s remit. It is a moot question whether this needs to be in the Bill, but it should certainly be part of the regulator’s thinking. Existing regulation in the world of football has failed to change sufficiently the culture of professional and semi-professional clubs.
With limited financial and staffing resources, nearly every club outside the Premier League has failed to make any notable progress on environmental considerations. There are some clubs, the first among them being Forest Green Rovers, which, notoriously, have a very good reputation in promoting sustainability. Others include Swansea City and Norwich City—which has recently been in the Premier League. It is the Premier League clubs—16 of them—that have, to their great credit, led the way in the football pyramid. We feel that it is necessary to encourage other clubs to do the same.
Obviously, Premier League clubs have more resources than clubs lower down the pyramid, but they should not continue to be an outlier in promoting more sustainable environmental practices. To noble Lords who might question whether football should have a role in this, I simply say that the Financial Conduct Authority has regulatory principles which include minimising environmental impacts. There is an environmental policy statement and an environmental management statement, which complies with ISO 14001. It covers issues such as energy, emissions, water usage, minimising waste, recycling, paper use, methods of business travel, digital services and ICT. Football clubs and how they manage the resources that they have at their disposal have an impact on our nation’s desire to head towards net zero by 2050, and that is what the amendment speaks to.
I hope that clubs adopt environmental good practices as Arsenal and Brighton & Hove Albion do, such as including free travel in their ticket pricing to encourage more people to get on to public transport. Clubs such as Tottenham, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Chelsea have similar strategies. This should be common practice across the football industry. Whether it is in the Bill or part of the regulator’s remit, the environment is simply too important for us to leave to chance. There is a role for football to play in leading the way, as it does in many other fields of social interaction, such as promoting good race relations, tackling misogyny and dealing with other social issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my 10 amendments in this group on environmental sustainability. I want to support almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just said. If you are talking about sustainability, which is what we have been talking about for two days on this Bill, you cannot avoid environmental sustainability, because it will have an impact on the financial well-being of football, and every other business. At the moment, most clubs do not think very hard about this. Forest Green Rovers are fantastic; Liverpool are doing their bit; but, by and large, there are little tweaks that clubs are doing, which makes them feel good—or perhaps they cannot imagine doing anything more, I am not sure.
We know the climate is changing; we know that the weather is changing; we know there are more floods and more droughts; so it is very short-sighted not to include environmental sustainability when you are worried about the future of clubs and their financial sustainability. Football is at risk from climate change, as are many other sports. Flooded pitches lead to cancelled games, lost revenues and disappointed fans, and droughts demand expensive irrigation. As Carlisle United discovered, a flood can lead to the kind of jump in insurance premiums that could put you out of business. So fans need the confidence that these growing risks are being prepared for and that they are not going to have a detrimental impact on clubs’ finances. The Minister kindly gave me a meeting on this, although we did not quite agree, so does she agree that climate change will have direct impacts on the financial sustainability of football and, if so, how is that recognised in the Bill? At the moment, of course, it is not.
My Amendment 103 requires the football regulator to include an assessment of football’s resilience against climate change in its “state of the game report” because, if the report does not consider environmental sustainability, it can give only an incomplete picture of the state of the game. Amendments 127, 131, 154 and 166 introduce climate and environment management plans as a mandatory licence condition for clubs. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it should be mandatory across all businesses, and these environment management plans would set out the clubs’ environmental impact and what is being done to mitigate it. Above all, they would also require clubs to identify the impacts that climate change is having and will have on the club and make plans to manage those risks.
Football, of course, also contributes to climate change and environmental damage; hundreds of thousands of single-use plastic cups and utensils are used every single matchday; fertilisers, herbicides and millions of litres of water are used to keep the pitch green; and cities and towns are choked up with traffic on match days. The definition of sustainability in the Bill, as it stands, allows all this to continue unabated. It would even allow clubs to damage the environment even more, as long as they keep on serving fans and making a contribution to the community.
It really is an own goal for the planet, but football clubs actually caring about the planet do not have to cost the earth. Forest Green Rovers, who have been described as the greenest football club in the world, are focused on sustainability across their business. Solar panels provide about 20% of the club’s electricity needs; the club organises coaches to away games, not planes; they have cut out single-use plastics in favour of reusable or refillable options; the pitch is organic and harvests rainwater for irrigation. This is a club that is at the top of their table, fit for the future and a role model that other clubs could aspire to. Liverpool, who are, regrettably, also at the top of their table, have their Red Way initiative, which is about environmental sustainability.
My amendments will lay the groundwork for greener pitches and truly sustainable sport, embedding environmentalism throughout the football regulator’s remit. Amendment 55 adds climate and environment to the football regulator’s objectives. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the football regulator must be focused on the financial sustainability of clubs. The Bill already lists safeguarding the heritage of English football as an objective, so why not safeguard the environment as well? Amendments 60 and 66 require the football regulator to act in accordance with the net-zero targets in the Climate Change Act and secure the long-term environmental sustainability of football.
If the football regulator cannot set sport on an environmentally sustainable footing, football’s long-term viability is at risk. Amendment 144 would have clubs consult their fans about climate and environmental issues facing the club. Sustainable football should not just be a luxury enjoyed only by vegans and eco-entrepreneurs. While Forest Green Rovers are showing what is possible, this Bill is an opportunity to embed best practice throughout the sport. I really hope that the Government can move on this issue.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to oppose this whole group of amendments.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is good to get a laugh before you start. I genuinely worry about the overreach summed up in this particular group that, for example, requires football clubs to operate
“in a way that will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”,
or
“materially reduce their negative impact on the natural world and all species that inhabit it”.
That is just from Amendment 15.
We already know the potentially costly and devastating impacts such green policies can have for organisations and individuals, let alone the barriers on development and growth that they can pose. Imposing such regulatory requirements on football clubs seems ill-advised and could be financially draining. I appreciate that, as we may have heard from the response to my initial remark, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and many others, will not agree with me politically, but my main reason for speaking is that this group exemplifies what happens once the Government open the floodgates to political interference in football by adding, for example, equality, diversity and inclusion as a mandatory part of what the regulator must inspect in football. If EDI is in the Bill, others will argue “Why not ESG or net zero?” and mission creep will start in a dangerous way. Such politicised interventions threaten to make the game of football secondary to political priorities and jeopardise clubs’ autonomy.
We have already heard from a number of contributors about a kind of league table of worthy green clubs. Do not get me wrong: if football owners, or chairs, or the fans decide they want that to be the priority, that is up to them. But it should be nowhere near the role of a regulator to decide. We have already heard about the case of green multimillionaire Dale Vince, who is the major shareholder and chair of Forest Green Rovers; we have heard him lauded. Certainly, Forest Green Rovers are the world’s first all-vegan football team; they are also the world’s first carbon-neutral football club; but I note that, at the end of the 2023-24 season, they were relegated back into non-league football, coming 24th out of 24. It is not a scientific correlation, I am just noting it.
Also, does having green credentials benefit fans, who we keep being told this Bill is designed for? Note the controversy over Forest Green Rovers’ home strip. The traditional black and white stripes were swapped for a lime green shirt and black shorts, in line with sponsorship from an eco-friendly, EV-supporting, green YouTube channel, despite what the fans wanted. So the Green Army was not necessarily kept happy by the green politics of the chair of the club. I simply raise this because, if a club wants to go green and fans want their club to be more environmentally friendly, that is fine. But the regulator should have absolutely zilch to say on it and certainly no power to impose it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate until I heard that last speech. I will, first of all, remind the Committee of my interest, because the company which I chair helps quite a number of people in football to meet the sustainability needs that we have.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I am not aware of any reputable scientific body that makes the claims the noble Lord has just made.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I absolutely say that the central prediction of all the major bodies is that there will be no major problem faced from climate change by 2050. If, indeed, the noble Lord or any other Peer wishes to controvert me, could they please quote such scientific evidence? By the way, they should also take into account, for example, the recent statement from the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics, that climate change theories are a scam. I am not saying that, and I would not go so far as to say that, but could they address that? If they could please point to a central prediction that contains the sort of apocalyptic predictions just made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I would be very interested. I will say no more at this point.
Lord Deben (Con)
There is no scientific society of any major country that does not say that climate change is the biggest material threat to mankind. All of them say and support the view that by 2050, we need to get to net zero if we are to have any possibility of keeping within a 1.5 degree increase in temperature compared with pre-industrial periods. All of them say that, if we do not do that, the effects upon people will be enormously damaging. You only have to look at what has happened with just a 1 degree increase: the recent floods in Spain, for example, the wildfires and the rest. What my noble friend says is not true and it is very dangerous, because that kind of attitude is what allows people to get off the hook.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I do not want to get into a fight among Tories, but I want to clarify my position. I disagree with both noble Lords, in some ways. My point is that I want football clubs to focus on football and not to have rows like this. This is precisely the thing I am objecting to: the introduction of at least in some ways contentious political or scientific matters. I simply say that this should not have anything to do with the regulation of football. That is all, and that is the reason I oppose it—not because I am taking a particular view on climate change or net zero.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have the last amendment in the group, which seems to be where my amendments are occurring today. I think we should have somebody at each club who addresses this issue. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this; it is an undeniable thing. You could probably quote one person who has said, “No, it isn’t”, but you cannot list everyone else who says that climate change is real without being here all week. They will then disagree about its extent, but they will not disagree on the fact that it is real.
There should be somebody at each club doing exactly these things to make sure that the business is sustainable, and to address the various problems. If it is just one person, as was suggested, it is simply a question of saying, “Please pay attention: can we raise the issue and see what is going on?” This could be someone who is managing the flood risk; the fact that grounds are being flooded is unarguable. Someone should be saying things such as, “What is the least damaging type of cup?” All of these issues will be important at different levels to different groups, but they are important. If other regulations are coming up to deal with this, you would be an absolute fool not to bring them into your plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is probably right on this, and it is nice to see him on the Bill.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I rise to strongly oppose the idea of adding environmental sustainability to the regulator’s remit, as this group of amendments seeks to do. I do so not because this issue is unimportant: of course, it could not be more significant for us all. My objection is both practical and principled, because barely has the ink dried on this revised Bill, and already we are seeing a litany of attempts to extend the regulator’s scope. This, I am afraid, is what many of us who work in football are so worried about. We are the first major country to introduce a government regulator for football, and immediately there is pressure to have it solve every challenge on the spectrum.
Let me remind noble Lords: this Bill already gives enormous power to the regulator. It can decide who can own a football club; how the club can spend its money; how it should organise itself as a business; how it must engage with its supporters; in what circumstances it can move location; the approach it should take to equality, diversity and inclusion; the overall flow of money; and even the continued existence of key competition tools throughout the ecosystem. However, even that does not seem to be enough. Today it is environmental sustainability; tomorrow it will be something else. We already have amendments tabled to mandate specific kinds of corporate social responsibility; to add the women’s game to the IFR’s scope; to meddle with free-to-air listed events; to require regulator consultation on political statements made by clubs; and even to govern football clubs’ relationships with sports betting.
It is a well-known phenomenon that all regulators significantly expand their scope and size over time but, if we start before it has even begun, imagine what this regulator would look like in a decade. Where will it end? I do not expect it to be anywhere positive for our currently world-leading football pyramid.
The Premier League and its clubs, as well as many EFL clubs, are already taking substantial action on environmental issues, as all responsible businesses should do. We already have comprehensive environmental regulations that apply to all businesses, as well as the aggressive targets of a country reaching net zero. In addition to serious and often innovative action to reduce their own carbon footprints, many clubs also campaign and donate substantial resources to environmental campaigns.
Premier League clubs also do a huge amount to help other clubs in this regard. Let me give one example: the Premier League has put in place a brilliant programme to provide grants of up to 70% of the costs associated with installing modern LED floodlights at stadiums across the National League system and women’s football pyramid. This has already helped dozens of community clubs both to lower their running costs and to minimise the impact they have on the environment, but it is fair to point out that Premier League clubs make these sorts of voluntary contributions while facing already unprecedented financial demands. Again, I will give one example.
The Budget increases to employers’ national insurance contributions will cost Premier League clubs an additional £56 million annually. That is an extraordinary new burden—more than £0.25 billion over the rest of this Parliament. This new bill also comes on top of the £1.6 billion in pyramid support that we already provide, as well as our significant investment in youth development and community programmes, and the constant need to maintain expensive infrastructure and build new facilities. The Government want us to spend even more on grass-roots pitches and, through the Bill, they may force us to give even more to the well-funded Football League.
All of this is before Premier League clubs can focus on their most basic and fundamental requirement—of which the Bill takes so little account—to keep their own teams strong and competitive on the pitch. Let us remember that that is what the fans really care about. It is our ability to do that which underpins the overall health and sustainability of English football.
We must not compel this regulator to interfere in areas far beyond its core purpose, adding yet more cost and complexity to what is already a set of implementation challenges. Every additional requirement we add dilutes its focus and risks its effectiveness, so this group of amendments surely cannot adhere to the basic principles of good regulatory design. Effective regulators need clear, focused remits. They need to do specific things very well, not everything poorly. Let us not undermine this regulator’s clarity of purpose before its work even begins.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend Lady Brady makes some very powerful points. Any business sector would not argue against or disagree with best practice in terms of the sustainable aspects of their business. In football, you need only look at the quality of the hospitality element and the work that goes on there or the maintenance of the grounds and pitches.
Carlisle United has been mentioned several times. The river is in the centre of town and it floods regularly, but that is a matter to do with the location of the club and the river in that city. This comes to my other point about the historic nature of football clubs and their grounds. Many of them were built in the Victorian period in the centre of cities. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talks about sustainability and transport, but it is very difficult for many clubs—Premier League and other league clubs that are located in the centre of towns—to do the things that the noble Baroness is proposing to insert into the Bill.
I will just give a quick example of sustainability, and that is Old Trafford. It is situated between Manchester docks and a railway line, in Trafford Park. The carbon footprint of Trafford Park has significantly reduced over recent decades, and Manchester United and other clubs throughout the league have reduced their carbon footprint, because that is the right thing to do. It is good business practice and therefore we do not need these amendments, because the football clubs themselves know the benefits of offering good-quality hospitality and good performances on pitches.
Some of your Lordships will remember the summer of 1976. It was a sign of global warming, perhaps, but the quality of football pitches in 1976 was terrible. The grass did not grow and the technology of the day did not enable pitches to survive that drought. The technology is there now and it is sustainable. Football clubs have the power, technology and wherewithal to cope with climate change but, if they are located close to a river in the centre of town, there is really only one solution, which is to move that football club.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, in the slightly unexpected but spirited exchange between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have to say that I incline more to the view of my noble friend Lord Deben on the merits of the case about around climate change. I am not remotely sceptical about climate change, the threat that it poses or the need to take urgent action to combat it. I am, however, sceptical about its place in this Bill and for it to be a strong consideration in the role of the to-be-established regulator of English football.
The reality, exactly as my noble friend Lord Evans just outlined, is that some football clubs are already more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others. All football clubs will have to invest in adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change, because there will be malign effects whatever is done. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, they are already being experienced.
I also take the view, and have done for a long time, that businesses which value their brand and reputation have a commercial interest in ensuring that they get ahead of the curve on issues of this kind, because their customers—who, for these purposes, are the fans and supporters—care about these matters. People identify very strongly with their football clubs and with the values that they embody and represent. They want to see these institutions being successful, as obviously all football clubs intend, but they are very aware of the need for them to be responsible and to move towards their own zero-carbon position. I do not want this regulator to spend time and money—not their money but the football clubs’ and therefore the fans’ money—doing things that are not necessary, because all football clubs want to be successful, so they will be addressing this already.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords this series of amendments raises an issue that will come back again and again during Committee, which is a clash of priorities. I will introduce it by again reading out a section from Tracey Crouch’s original report, in which she refers to
“the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.
In other words, we are being told, on the one hand, that football is so financially troubled that we need a state regulator to guide it and, on the other hand—in this series of amendments and others to come—that we must load the regulator with additional responsibilities.
As my noble friend Lady Brady said, these amendments relate to climate change, but we will have more on fan safety, the regulation of women’s football, the expansion of the regulator to other leagues and others on environmental sustainability. On and on they will come. There is a fundamental tension between loading the regulator with these responsibilities and the state of football as the Crouch report described it and as the Bill attempts to address.
There may be other ways of meeting these environmental objectives. I will avoid being drawn into the adverse exchanges between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. There may be other ways in which clubs that lead on environmental action can help clubs that do not. As matters stand, the regulator, were these amendments to come into force, would be imposing on clubs that have, for better or worse, not thought about these matters at all, requirements that would affect how fans come to the games, how they treat their pitches and how they deal with litter—all matters for which they are completely unprepared.
If the Government are correct in stressing—as they have done throughout in talking to Peers; the Minister has been generous in doing this before and during the Bill—that they do not want the regulator to have a heavy touch, I look forward to the Minister explaining the other ways there might be to encourage clubs to take responsible environmental action besides accepting these amendments to the Bill, which might have effects we do not expect or want on clubs that are in financial difficulties—the very basis, after all, on which the Bill has been brought forward.
Lord Markham (Con)
I join in with the sentiments expressed by many other noble Lords. I made the point at Second Reading that, however well intentioned, noble Lords came up with seven new commitments they wanted the regulator to be involved in. This all starts from the premise that we believe it should be a light-touch regulator and the unintended consequence is that each one, however well intentioned, can add another burden, as so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Brady. I, like others, am fearful of adding something new to the Bill.
I would like to explain a slight difference. In her response to the first group, the Minister talked about mission creep regarding how we were trying to expand the sustainability argument to other objectives of the regulator; for example, to some of the income-generating TV advertising. The key difference here is that we were trying to talk about the action the regulator takes—the measures the regulator might take to force clubs to put down a deposit to cover their sustainability requirements, and whether the regulator should have wider criteria beyond financial sustainability regarding the wider benefits of the game. Those sorts of things are appropriate because they look at what the regulator is responsible for and its objectives. Thing that put new burdens on the clubs come into a different category. They come into the mission-creep category, so to speak, which I, like other noble Lords, are reluctant to add in.
So, although I support the points made by other noble Lords, I would make that distinction. When talking about things the regulator might do that might impact clubs we should make sure that the regulator looks at the wider benefits of the game but we should not look to add extra burdens on clubs, however well intentioned.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to all noble Lords who have contributed to the useful discussion on this group of amendments, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her Amendment 15, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke to on her behalf.
We recognise the importance of environmental sustainability and the target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It was, in fact, as noble Lords know, the previous Government who introduced and passed the law to ensure that the United Kingdom reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% from 1990 levels by 2050. In recent scrutiny of and debate on other legislation before your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches have discharged the duty not just of the Official Opposition but, importantly, of sparking several debates on environmental sustainability and protection.
My noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough tabled an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill to make provisions for nature recovery and nature-based solutions. We also supported and helped to pass an amendment to the Crown Estate Bill to require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental and animal welfare impacts of salmon farms on the Crown Estate.
I am very proud of those demonstrations of our commitment on these Benches to the protection of the environment and I am sorry that the Government did not support the sensible provisions brought by my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough on the water Bill. But I am not persuaded by the amendments in this group because I am not convinced that they are the proper responsibility of the new independent football regulator. I worry that additional requirements—in this case on environmental sustainability—will place a further burden on football clubs.
Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, requires clubs to operate
“in a way that will achieve net zero … by 2050 … materially reducing negative impact on the natural world”.
Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, adds an environmental sustainability objective to the list of objectives for the independent football regulator under the Bill.
These are important and noble causes, but they will be, as this debate has highlighted, very costly duties that some of the clubs, particularly in the lower leagues of the football pyramid, might not be able to discharge. This speaks to the tension that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned in our debate on the previous group about making sure that we are thinking about clubs of all sizes and at both ends of the leagues with which the Bill is interested. There is a great difference between their financial and administrative ability to discharge some of the duties the Bill will place upon them. The clubs in the lower leagues of the pyramid are significantly smaller than those at the top and have far fewer available resources.
Even with the Bill’s efforts to help with the financial flows throughout the football pyramid, we should be mindful of the concern about whether these clubs will be able to cope with these further regulations, particularly, as my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, in light of the additional burden placed on them by the Government’s new taxes on employment through expanding the scope and rate of national insurance contributions. Given the additional costs to football clubs from measures such as that and the other measures we will look at in the Bill, such as the industry levy, the costs of compliance with the financial regulations and so on, I fear that these amendments mean further regulatory burden on clubs at both ends of the spectrum.
It is important to note, as noble Lords have reminded us, that clubs and leagues have already voluntarily adopted and embraced elements of environmental and sustainability governance rules. In February this year the Premier League clubs met and agreed a Premier League environmental sustainability commitment. That means that each club in that league has agreed to:
“Develop a robust environmental sustainability policy”
by the end of the current season,
“designate a senior employee to lead the club’s environmental sustainability activities”,
and
“develop a greenhouse gas … emissions dataset … by the end of the 2025/26 season”.
My noble friend Lady Brady set out some of the other excellent work that has been done on a voluntary basis, but with enthusiasm, by clubs in the Premier League.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for raising the very serious issue of environmental sustainability and how it relates to the regulator. These are issues of considerable concern, not least with the shocking storms we have seen recently and the change to weather patterns over the past few years. The impact of the climate emergency on all aspects of our lives is very real.
In response to these amendments, I would like to make clear that the Government are absolutely committed to environmental sustainability. One of the Prime Minister’s five national missions is to accelerate the transition towards clean energy and ensure the UK fulfils its legal obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. As a huge part of our national life, all sports, including football, have an important role to play in this transition. The Government expect authorities across this sport and across all sports to be working together to advance environmental sustainability.
A point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that we have to be able to justify the view we take now to future generations. This is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made an interesting point on placing this requirement within the Bill. However, while I entirely support her views, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the purpose of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, highlighted, this Bill is acting only where industry has shown it is not capable of resolving matters itself and statutory regulation is the most effective way of tackling any market failures.
I would, however, be happy to discuss further with the noble Baroness how we can use good examples of football clubs already acting on the climate change emergency and spread best practice. What I would stress, when noble Lords are discussing something so important both nationally and internationally, is that noble Lords are still debating the very purpose of the Bill. The areas specified in the purpose of the Bill are based only on issues that English football has clearly shown itself to be unable to self-regulate and to risk clubs being lost to their fans and local communities.
By contrast, football has already demonstrated the ability to take action on the environment: for example, the Premier League’s new minimum standard of action on environmental issues across both the clubs and the league. I welcomed the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Bassam described some interesting measures when describing the work of Forest Green Rovers, but this is clearly only a starting point on which future initiatives must build. Football authorities must take more proactive steps to accelerate their own environmental initiatives. However, it is within the gift of leagues, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention.
We must also be wary of scope creep and unintended consequences. The addition proposed in Amendments 11 and 15, in the names of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, would potentially add burden and cost to the regulator, as well as potentially limiting its ability to carry out its main objectives. Therefore, while I acknowledge the importance of this issue, as I have set out, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the purpose of this Bill.
I look forward to further discussions on how we can best promote environmental sustainability within the game. However, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I think it has been of great value to have this discussion and debate on the notion of environmental sustainability in the football industry, which is a very responsible industry actually. I take heart from the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, gave of the Premier League’s initiatives and those from the noble Lord Parkinson.
It seems to me that this is an important issue for football. All the other regulators seem to have an environmental purpose as well. I have looked at the Financial Conduct Authority, Ofcom and even the Pensions Regulator, which you might think is a million miles away from being a regulator interested in sustainability. They all have environmental statements and purposes as part of their work.
I think the football business is making progress in this space. I want to see it making more progress, perhaps with a more level playing field. It seems unfair that some clubs leap ahead and leave others behind. Forest Green Rovers, although a small club and in the fifth tier of football, has led the way for some years and I think it only right that we encourage other clubs to do the same, whether that is through the regulator or by applying environmental legislation more generally.
I look forward to the invitation to have some more discussion on this point but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“(c) meets the social responsibility duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment includes the social responsibility duty as part of the definition of English football sustainability.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my name is to amendments in this group which will undoubtedly be accused of a bit of creep from the mission on the Bill. Having said that, what inspired this creep was Clause 1(3)(b), which says that football is sustainable if it
“continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
There are two issues. The most substantive amendment is Amendment 245 and I apologise for the paving amendment, but it is the way I could get the matter discussed.
Nothing has the reach of football in our society. It is seen as a local totem in which we seem universally to be interested—I speak as a follower of an oval-shaped ball, not a round one, so with a bit of envy—so there is the ability to go forward and make changes. We might hear about the good contributions made by certain clubs. They do things within their own environments that are of benefit to their communities. I thought, “Why don’t we use football as a basis for helping the rest of the voluntary sector?” The voluntary sector tends to be dependent on itself: amateur sport, music and drama and the likes of environmental schemes where people put their hands in their pockets to go out to do things that have a social benefit.
Let us face it: we are taking on a Bill here because football, at least tiers of football, are in a mess, but we think they are important so we want to keep them. I do not think it unreasonable that they should help voluntary groups. In Amendment 245 I suggest that these clubs, which are great institutions with local kudos and power and structure, should undertake the very small duty to train people to run those local groups. Okay, it may not be about football, but it is about the local community. I suggest not that the clubs do it for those groups, but that they train them in how to do it themselves and be the treasurer, secretary or chairman. Noble Lords might disagree with that list, but these things contribute to the whole of society. It will also enhance the position of the football club. Unless it is done in a mean-spirited way, it will be something that reaches out.
Also, it is a fact that all groups like to sit in darkened rooms and talk about themselves to themselves. My amendment would force clubs to look out of that room to somebody else and appreciate that other people will help them. When I said that to the Minister in one of our meetings, she said that football manages to sit in a darkened room and does not talk to most other groups, but we will let that one fall. We can get something that helps groups that help society to run. The difficult bit for an amateur as the treasurer is to be constructive with a balance sheet, or as the secretary to figure out how to run a DBS check: “What am I legally supposed to do with it?” People will say that other groups do this, but nothing has the centralised pull of football. My amendment is a probe. Its wording is very general. This expertise might be pulled together. Sports have governing bodies that will run this, but most other organisations do not have that structure. I just cannot resist the image of the local am-dram group finding itself sitting beside the local rugby union team for the same class. It appeals to me somehow, but they all have the same problems, and they all have the same virtue that they are local, running it for themselves, and they benefit the community. I hope that we have at least some support for this idea and this structure.
The other amendment is about encouraging professional football clubs to get people to play football. It is an odd thing, but it struck me earlier: that is not really what the Bill is about. Perhaps the Government do not want it to be about that, but I would have thought that getting people to play football—getting the benefits of exercising as opposed to just watching—might sit reasonably well with the Bill. Certain clubs might have schemes that do good things, but why do we not bring them together and find out which ones work best? Football does some of this, because it has competitions and gives awards for who runs the best community scheme. I know because I have attended them, and I thank the EFL for doing that. I do not think that making sure that clubs take on some role in the community is unreasonable, as a reward for the amount of time we are putting into make sure this structure is sustainable. There are certain limitations here, and I have accepted that those should be put forward if these ideas are accepted, but we may just be pointing to good practice. I hope we will do this.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, makes a good point about football clubs needing to be outgoing and outward looking, able to offer advice to other charities or organisations locally and to encourage football. The vast majority of clubs do that. Perhaps there is insufficient evidence about best practice or not enough sharing of it, but the vast majority of clubs have a good outreach programme, and that is much valued by local communities.
I rise to say a few words about Amendments 151 and 165, which are about the corporate responsibility of clubs in general. The noble Lord touched on some ways in which they can have an impact. We have just talked about the environmental sustainability that is necessary, and the Minister has given reassurances on that point.
I want to mention, in particular, the need for football clubs to increase diversity, include underrepresented groups and eliminate discrimination, which I am afraid exists in many areas of business, from boardrooms to employment records. Local football clubs have a big impact on their community and can lead the way in showing what can and should be done. We need to know what is happening in our clubs, and therefore a reporting mechanism on these areas would be important and of assistance.
We have seen some changes, for example, in the gender diversity of people employed by football clubs. We see many more women taking up roles, but there is a long way to go. It would be good if we could encourage better governance at football club level on all these issues. I agree with what has been said about not having mission creep, and some of these areas are covered by parts of employment law, for example, but we have to look to the long term to improve the good governance of football clubs. Yes, we can encourage best practice, as the Minister said earlier, but there is more to do.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 165 to which my name is attached. I declare my interests; I am chair of Sport Wales, I sit on UK Sport and I am a trustee of the Foundation of Light.
I start by thanking the Minister for answering my question from Second Reading on what would happen between the Privy Council and Senedd regulations with this Bill. I am not a season ticket holder, although I do spend a lot of time watching the Welsh women’s football team—good luck to them tomorrow night—and Thornaby FC women’s team.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I believe in the power of football to change lives. I realise that most of the amendments that I have my name to in this Bill will be considered out of scope, but I do share the noble Lord’s concern over academies. My 2017 duty of care report, commissioned by the then Sports Minister Tracey Crouch, has some answers on that which have not yet been taken up.
This is important in relation to understanding the communities of which football clubs are part. We have talked a lot about the big clubs tonight. Thornaby Football Club, which is very low down in the leagues, decided earlier this year to cancel the women’s and girls’ team. The community came together, people stepped in—partly due to the Women’s Sport Collective—and the team was saved.
This, to me, is the power of football at its best. There is a lovely interview online with a young girl called Lily, aged seven, who was asked what she thought about women’s football being cancelled. She indignantly said, “If girls want to play football, you can’t just not let them”. For me, the impact that these amendments would have all through the game is important; it sets an important tone.
In the original review, Dame Tracey Crouch said that equality standards were a non-negotiable part of the regulator. We have seen this in other sports. The code for sports governance, launched in 2016 by the sports councils, which covers over 4,000 organisations, has made a materially positive impact on the world of sport.
I believe that club governance should include these equality standards, because they link back to accountability and integrity. I can speak only for the Foundation of Light. I am biased, but it runs incredible programmes in communities as lots of foundations do. We are lucky that we have a good link to, and support from, the club. The aim of the foundation is to involve, educate and bring people together through football in Sunderland, south Tyneside and County Durham, and to improve education, health and well-being
This has a significant impact on the community. It is important that we can measure this impact in relation to the community it represents, to help develop and refine these programmes and get to those who they can have the most impact on. This is an important part of what we should be looking for in relation to football, to be able to make a real difference at the grass-roots level.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against this set of amendments, which would add corporate responsibility requirements to the Bill. Before I do so, I want to say how much I respect and understand where the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is coming from. As a shareholder in the Premier League, I commit to him that we will meet with him to think about ways in which we can work together to deliver some of the aims that he spoke so passionately about, because we are all in agreement that they are important.
I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding in this House of the extraordinary social impact that football clubs already have in their communities and what drives this activity. Let me share some perspective on what football clubs already deliver. The Premier League provides over £500 million annually to support lower league clubs, fund youth development and invest in community facilities. We support every single football league club to provide its own community programmes, too. This is not a peripheral activity; it represents the most comprehensive community investment of any business sector in Britain. I cannot think of any other sector that voluntarily shares such a huge proportion—over 16%—of its central revenues in such a way.
The Premier League Charitable Fund’s £110 million three-year budget supports half a million people annually through targeted community programmes. Significantly, 45% of this activity takes place in our country’s most deprived communities. This April, the Premier League announced additional funding of £33 million per season from 2025-26 to further enhance this work.
The scale of impact that this work has is remarkable. Through the Football Foundation, Premier League funding has enabled over 70,000 grants to improve grass-roots facilities, supporting nearly 70,000 community teams last season alone. The Premier League Primary Stars programme reaches 84% of primary schools across England and Wales; that is 19,000 schools and over 18 million student interactions since 2017.
These are not isolated initiatives. More than 100 club-connected charities work daily in their communities. Programmes such as Premier League Kicks create opportunities for young people at risk of anti-social behaviour. Premier League Inspires develops personal skills and positive attitudes in young people aged 11 to 25. This work touches every aspect of community development.
Football has naturally evolved its social contribution without regulatory compulsion or diktats. What other business sector can demonstrate this level of sustained community investment? What other industry has built social responsibility so fundamentally into its operating model? Premier League clubs—indeed, all football clubs—understand their role as community institutions and deliver accordingly.
The Bill’s purpose is to address specific issues around what I think the Government mean by financial sustainability and governance. Adding layers of corporate responsibility requirements would not only duplicate existing good work but risk distracting the regulator from its core purpose. We have seen in other sectors how regulatory mission creep can undermine effectiveness. We must not let that happen here again.
Football clubs are not just businesses that happen to do some good work in their communities. They are the beating heart of those communities, woven into their very fabric across generations. When a child steps on to a Premier League-funded pitch in a deprived area, when a struggling student finds inspiration through Premier League Inspires, and when a disabled young person discovers the joy of playing football through a club foundation, these moments represent something profound about football’s role in our society.
Premier League clubs understand their power and their responsibility deeply. They live it every day through their actions, their investment and their commitment to their communities. I do not believe any regulation could ever mandate or compel this level of social impact; it comes from an authentic and deeply felt understanding of football’s unique place in our national life.
Let us keep the regulator focused on its vital purpose and trust instead in football’s consistent commitment to social good: not because rules demand it but because it is already so fundamental to what makes English football so special.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, that eloquent and passionate explanation of football at the heart of community sums up for me the tension when we are talking about this Bill. Football exists as a positive force in society and in communities. We do not want to kick the life out of it by turning it into a box-ticking exercise that imagines the only way football clubs will help a community is if they have a regulator breathing down their neck, saying, “You must be corporately socially responsible”. Noble Lords must not make me repeat that.
I had concerns in general when I read the details of all these amendments. For example, Amendment 165 calls for environmental sustainability requirements and increasing diversity and inclusion requirements. I will not repeat the points that I made earlier and will make more fully when I speak to my Amendment 155, opposing the imposed duties of EDI and so on. I want to look at one aspect of discrimination that I think is hidden. It is focused on in Amendment 247, which says that regulated clubs
“must facilitate football training for young women and girls”,
and Amendment 90, which says that the independent football regulator
“must include facilitation for both sexes and separate development pathways”.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall return to the spirit of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other amendments in this group. As my noble friend Lady Brady has said, the Premiership funds, in one form or another, enormous amounts of good work, but, as I have discussed with both my noble friend and representatives of the Premiership, it totally fails to identify the work that it does.
Until the Premiership sets about aggregating, in one form or another, all the contributions that different foundations make—whether in relation to football training, the disabled, the young or whatever it may happen to be—it will continue, quite rightly, to face the pressures that the amendments I have referred to attempt to address. Until the message is got across about the sums of money that my noble friend Lady Brady identified, certain attitudes will not change within the football world more broadly. The social work that is undertaken is so substantial, as my noble friend has said, that it will help to change other attitudes and enable progress to be made in all sorts of different ways that the amendments attempt to tackle.
So I do not necessarily support the amendments being accepted into the Bill, but I strongly support the message that is included in them. I ask the Premiership to get its act together in some form or another and convey the good work that my noble friend has just identified so that people understand that it is attempting to change attitudes, and in that way it will actually change attitudes.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in what she and the previous speaker have said and in all the work that she does. It is all there in the Deloitte report on the Premier League. The Premier League has missed a trick; the pages of the report show where the money goes and how it is spent, and it is all very laudable. Premier League football clubs, independent of the Premier League, do great schemes as well. Manchester City’s City in the Community started in 2003 with no funding from the football club, apart from one officer and that was Alex Williams, an England goalkeeper, who has just retired after doing 20 years at City in the Community. That is an example of the social responsibility of football clubs.
The reasoning behind these amendments, even though they may be just probing amendments, is that those things that can be given can be taken away. If football clubs in the Premier League fall on hard times and things have to stop being done, they may stop doing the things they do not have to do, and that effect will invariably come down to the poorest parts of the pyramid.
All we are trying to say with these amendments is: let us acknowledge the social responsibility that the Premier League has and the Premier League football clubs deliver but let us give the regulator the ability to ensure that that carries on. My noble friend is not being prescriptive and saying, “You should all pay that much”, but he wants to ensure that, to avoid unintended consequences, football clubs do not suffer in the event that some Premier League clubs or the Premier League itself cannot deliver those benefits in future years. I have no reason to think that will happen, because the Premier League is getting bigger and going global and more money is coming in, but that is the point of the fan-led review. How many football clubs did the review show were one match away from disaster? That why we are looking for a regulator. Sometimes the unintended consequences are too dire, especially for smaller clubs.
Lord Markham (Con)
Like others, I have a dilemma, in that I am mindful that the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are well intentioned and, on the whole, I agree with what they are trying to do. However, like others, I feel that there is the danger of mission creep. This is another area—we will be speaking about others later tonight, and over the next few days there are other areas that we will be adding—where each one on its own might not feel like a lot, but if we add layer upon layer, we move far away from the original intention of being a light-touch regulator and towards one that becomes overbearing.
It has been an education, probably for all of us, to hear, as my noble friend Lady Brady was saying, about the good acts that the Premier League is doing with local communities through local football clubs. There is probably more that can be done to make sure that the awareness of those, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was saying, is enhanced and greatened.
Generally, the idea, as my noble friend Lady Brady was saying, of having a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the Premier League to see how that can be more fostered, encouraged, known about and channelled is probably the right way. Where things are working, I much prefer the use of the carrot than the stick.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been a good and very valuable debate. The issues which amendments in this group address are in a slightly different category to some of the additional duties and areas into which amendments in other groups have sought to take the work of the regulator and the scope of the Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in opening, nothing has the reach of football.
These amendments speak to sustaining the future of the game and making sure that clubs can continue to do the work in their communities which noble Lords have spoken about passionately from Second Reading onwards. Particularly, the noble Lord’s Amendment 247 is about making sure that they are facilitating
“training for young women and girls”
and that the valuable work done in recent years is extended there. Like others, I was struck by the powerful contribution from my noble friend Lady Brady, who said that these are responsibilities which are authentic and deeply felt by clubs. She gave examples, drawing particularly on her experience in the Premier League. I agree with the points that my noble friend Lord Hayward and others have made: perhaps that work ought to be better known and the clubs should blow their trumpets more loudly, not just those in the Premier League but clubs at every level that are doing important work.
It might be helpful to flag to the Committee that the Premier League and the EFL already have rules in place regarding corporate responsibility. Section K of the Premier League’s handbook has a whole host of rules including, to name a few, a safety certificate and medical facilities, ground rules and regulations. Those are but some of the requirements already placed upon clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly highlighted the work done by the EFL through the awards that it presents to clubs that are doing valuable work in this area.
Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to impose additional reporting obligations on the executives of football clubs. While transparency in this important area is an admirable goal, it is important to bear in mind proportionality and, again, to echo the concerns that have been raised about adding to the duties of clubs and their executives in other areas, clubs, especially those lower in the league structures, already face significant financial and administrative pressures. Requiring more and more reports on a growing list of matters could strain their limited resources and have an opposite effect to that by which noble Lords are motivated when they bring their amendments. We have to bear in mind that a one-size-fits-all approach to corporate governance would fail to recognise the diversity which we should be mindful of in the financial ecosystem of football.
Amendment 165 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, aims to compel clubs to adhere to certain corporate codes beyond those which the Bill would currently mandate. As we keep reminding ourselves, football clubs are not merely businesses; they are community institutions with unique identities and relationships with their supporters. While it is a useful idea, we also have to be careful of imposing rigid corporate structures designed for companies in other sectors, which could risk alienating clubs from their communities. We have to find ways to ensure the sort of good governance that the noble Baroness seeks without overburdening clubs with corporate obligations that could conflict with the broader role that they play—and always have played, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Brady and others have reminded us this evening. Like others, I favour encouraging that work to continue voluntarily, but it would be valuable for a spotlight to be shone more brightly on the work being done, not just at the top end of football but all the way through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, thanked the Minister for answering the very good question that she raised at Second Reading about what would happen in the event of conflicts between the Privy Council and Senedd Cymru. I had a quick look again at the Minister’s helpful letter of 27 November and I do not think it was covered in that. My apologies if I have missed the answer that the Minister gave the noble Baroness but, if it was not in that letter, could it be shared with other noble Lords? It was a very technical question but an interesting one, at least to me, so it would be useful if the Minister is able to share that with the rest of us. But with that, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising these important issues around corporate and social responsibility and duties to facilitate training. It has been an interesting debate and I had particular sympathy for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. I will, however, take their amendments in turn.
First, on Amendments 14 and 245 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Government acknowledge football clubs’ central importance as community assets and their role in communities. However, this amendment would expand the scope of the regulator beyond sustainability and the Government do not believe that social responsibility is an issue where statutory intervention is necessarily justified. We believe that the regulator should be tightly focused on areas of critical need, addressing genuine market failures as exposed by the fan-led review. What is more, mandating how clubs should approach community funding could discourage their pre-existing work, crowding out some of the great initiatives already taking place.
On Amendments 90 and 247 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, opportunities for training at amateur and community level and for women are vital. They support the next generation of English football and are crucial in getting more women into football. I speak as someone who was not allowed to play football as a girl in school, so I strongly believe in those opportunities being available. The Government are committed to supporting these opportunities. This is why we are continuing to fund the work of organisations such as Sport England and the Football Foundation and welcome work already being done by the game itself, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. However, such training opportunities, and the women’s game more broadly, are not within the intended scope of the regulator.
On the regulator’s role in relation to whether it should require clubs to facilitate training for young women and girls, the regulator has a tightly defined scope: to promote financial sustainability and resilience in English football. The regulator will also be focused on the men’s game at the outset; women’s youth training is therefore beyond its core remit. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of football training to the future of football and are committed to funding organisations such as Sport England and the Football Foundation. The football industry also understands its importance, as was noted during the debate, funding numerous initiatives through the Football Foundation and the Premier League Charitable Fund. It is therefore the Government’s belief that the regulator would be an inefficient way to support women’s youth training. Further collaboration with the industry is, in our view, the most effective way to invest in England’s football future.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point about whether we should require the regulator to facilitate amateur and community training and development. That is an appealing proposal, but the regulator has a tightly defined scope in its objective—to promote financial sustainability and resilience in English football—therefore training and development in this regard is beyond its core remit. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of football training, as I have highlighted, to the future of football. In our view, collaboration with the industry and funding through the spending review is the most effective way to invest in English football’s future. I am happy to discuss both those points with noble Lords outside the Chamber before our next Committee date. As with the noble Lord’s other amendments, the amendment under discussion would expand the scope of the regulator beyond sustainability and into areas in which the Government do not believe that statutory intervention is justified.
On Amendments 151 and 165 in the name of my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor, corporate responsibility is an important part of any business, and it is no different for football clubs. However, this addition to the mandatory licence conditions would impose more prescriptive burdens and regulations on clubs. On the content of the proposed condition, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability and the societal impact around clubs to the purpose of this Bill. As I set out, the regulatory scope will focus on issues that football has clearly shown it is unable to address through self-regulation and which would pose a threat to the continued operation of football clubs.
On equality, diversity and inclusion, it is right that football clubs should be more transparent about what action they are taking on this issue. That is why we have included equality, diversity and inclusion in the corporate governance condition, which will mandate clubs to report on what action they are taking on this issue. We expect the regulator to produce guidance on the specifics of what this will entail, in consultation with the industry. We do not think it is right to put such detail on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted player welfare and the duty of care. The Government will discuss player welfare with the leagues, the FA and the PFA to drive action on this issue. We will continue to urge competition organisers to work together to develop a consistent programme of support which allows academy players to access an offering of independent support and advice when required. This is very important.
Many, if not most, clubs already have a positive impact on their local community, a number of examples of which have been provided. We do not believe that the regulator should be attempting to micromanage clubs in this area. However, relevant safeguards are in place in the Bill to stop a club harming the heritage and community of the club.
While I understand and strongly endorse the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, for the reasons I have set out I am unable to accept it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, made that the most positive rejection of an amendment I think I have ever received; I thank her for that commitment. Although I would have preferred it, as my noble friend Lord Goddard put it, to be something that “must” happen, the Premier League saying that they will do this is a pretty good second.
It would be good to arrange a discussion and to say that the outreach work beyond football could go to groups who do not normally think that football has anything to do with them. Some groups already do this, and that is the essence of running voluntary groups. It would be a very big step forward and, if the Premier League are prepared to do it, more power to their elbow.
I understand the idea of focus. I did not mention the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, because I knew she would do a better job herself. I do not think we have quite captured in this Bill the social responsibility inherent in football’s role. We should have another look at this issue, because we may just be encouraging others to do the heavy lifting.
There is something about football. It has a nationwide pattern of facilities which can reach all these local communities. There are very few who would not be reached by football. It does not reach everywhere—some places in the countryside may not be affected by a local club’s activity—but it reaches most people, including virtually all the major population centres.
I hope that we can go away and have a little think about how to give a few more nudges to these positive responses. Having said that, and in thanking all those who took part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
UK Leadership on Sudan
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, Sudan is a terrible humanitarian catastrophe that gets far too little media attention, given all the other wars going on in the world at the moment. It has resulted in the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis, with 25 million people in urgent need of assistance. There are ongoing reports of sexual violence, torture and mass civilian casualties.
Against that background, I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, following the excellent work done by my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in this role. The noble Lord is certainly going to have his work cut out in Sudan.
As Wendy Morton, the MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, said in the other place:
“The situation in Sudan is unconscionable. Red lines are being crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that countries such as the UK—the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—cannot allow to stand. It is also firmly in the region’s interest for the conflict to come to an end and the humanitarian crisis to be addressed. Further destabilisation in the region caused by this conflict must be avoided”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/24; col. 943.]
The previous Government invested heavily in aid to Sudan. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps he is taking to continue that work.
We understand that further aid measures have been announced, but could the noble Lord provide more information on how he envisages that aid reaching Sudan? The Minister will no doubt be fully seized of the massive problem of actually getting aid into Sudan in the first place, never mind the challenges of distribution across that vast nation.
I am sure the Minister would agree that the UK has a key leadership role to play in Sudan. We wish him all the best, and I am sure that he will wish to use that role to its fullest possible extent.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have done on previous occasions: I have made previous visits to Sudan, and I continue to support civilians in making the case that a future Sudan should be a civilian-led, rather than a military-led country. I know the Minister is supportive of that aim, and I thank him for the Statement and for the update to Parliament. He and colleagues have honoured a commitment to do that, and that is welcome.
I also welcome, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the additional humanitarian support package. In particular, I welcome the more than £10 million of additional support for children, especially for education provision. This has been one of the most pernicious elements of the conflict in Sudan: according to UNICEF, up to 17 million children are not being schooled.
It is estimated that UK aid will provide vital education facilities for 200,000 children, many of whom are displaced. Can the Minister say how we can ramp up support among other donors, so that they too focus on this issue and the conflict does not have the terrible consequence of millions of children being permanently uneducated and unschooled? The UK’s leadership on this would be extremely welcome.
I also thank His Majesty’s Government and the Minister himself with regard to working with others, especially African nations, on putting forward a draft Security Council resolution. I noted that it was with Sierra Leone; unfortunately, the A3 Plus members of the African community on the Security Council were unable to reach consensus among themselves, but I thank the UK for taking the initiative. I hope the Minister might say a little as to why the A3 Plus group was not able to have consensus, which caused me great sadness.
However, as the Statement from Minister Dodds said, ultimately the work was met by a Russian veto. I read the entire remarks of the Russian representative in the Security Council, made with utter brazen hypocrisy laced with cynicism, as he sought to say that that was an argument. While the warped views of the Russian Government might suit their own venal foreign policy, the real victims of the veto are the Sudanese civilians in desperate need of protective measures now and the reassurance that there is no impunity for the illegal and horrific crimes being inflicted on them by SAF and the RSF.
The veto is a reality, though, and therefore what is the view of His Majesty’s Government on the measures that we can take alone and with a coalition of the willing for the protection of civilians in Sudan? How will we now take forward support for the ICC in ensuring that there is no impunity for those inflicting both war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the growing evidence of clear ethnic cleansing and the genocide now apparent again within Darfur, as the new head of OCHA Tom Fletcher will be seeing personally? I welcome his position as the head of OCHA. The UK leadership continues in that immensely important role, and I wish him well. I was very glad that he was in Darfur and the BBC was with him. This draws the attention of the United Nations and hopefully also of the British public with Lyse Doucet’s reporting.
Russia has refused any calls to enforce an arms embargo. It rejected the need to have humanitarian aid access. What can His Majesty’s Government do with regard to a potentially wider suite of sanctions and the option of secondary sanctions—I suspect the Minister will say that he keeps this continuously under review—on those who are failing to cease the supply of arms, now including drones, to the belligerents that are being used so venally on civilians? In these areas and others, the UK has acted—for example, on the prescription of the Wagner Group—on a cross-party consensus. There is more that can be done on the gold trade and other areas with regard to the supply of funds to the belligerents.
Finally, it is depressing news that I received this week that, possibly within days, the RSF may also declare that they are the Government of Sudan and effectively we could have a “Libyafication” of the country. Both sides, I am certain, will be seeking to have as much advantage as possible before President-elect Trump takes office in January next year. If there is to be a division of the country, one thing will be guaranteed, and that is that civilians will still be set aside and the humanitarian priorities will become secondary to the continuing military advantage of territory. Therefore, I hope the Minister can agree that only a civilian Government can guarantee one Sudan and the integrity of the country.
I hope that there will be others in the humanitarian community now taking UNICEF and the IRC’s lead in calling for public appeals of humanitarian support. The Minister has heard me, in this Chamber and separately, call for the Disasters Emergency Committee to open up a public appeal, and I hope that if there is a public appeal then the Government will match that funding. Having more publicity will address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this is an ignored war, and I hope the Government stand ready for continued support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the comments of both Front Benches on the Statement. What we face, as they have quite rightly said, is a huge humanitarian crisis which, sadly, does not attract the attention of the world that it deserves. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was incredibly moved to hear the report on Radio 4 this morning from Tom Fletcher, who had got into Port Sudan and was able, with a BBC team, to report on the circumstances—not only to report on what he saw but to amplify the voices of the victims and the survivors of this terrible situation—so I certainly congratulate him.
As the noble Lords have quite rightly pointed out, we have used all diplomatic efforts as penholder, particularly at the United Nations, to bring about a ceasefire to ensure humanitarian access and the protection of civilians. That priority was reflected, as both noble Lords said, in terms of our UN Security Council resolution where we have used the presidency of the Security Council. The Foreign Secretary not only announced a doubling of aid in response to the conflict but led that resolution to ensure the protection of civilians, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, was so cynically vetoed by the Russians.
Despite that veto, we are not giving up on these efforts. Both warring parties made commitments at Jeddah to limit the conflict’s impact on civilians, yet we know from reports that widespread violence continues. We will continue to push for the United Nations Secretary-General’s recommendations on the protection of civilians, including compliance mechanisms, to ensure that the warring parties stick to the commitments they made at Jeddah and there are tangible results on the ground.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we are absolutely committed to a civilian Government. We want to ensure a future for Sudan under proper civilian rule. That is why I have met regularly with the former Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, whom I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows well, and we have given absolute support to the pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition and we will continue to do that. We have to see a future without the military activity that we see the consequences of.
The uplift that the Foreign Secretary announced is a further £113 million aid package, doubling our aid in response to the conflict to £226 million. This will support over a million people affected by violence. We are ensuring that we have a big impact on the ground, and we are also providing just under £70 million for neighbouring countries impacted by that violence, including Chad, as the noble Lord knows, South Sudan and Uganda. The Foreign Secretary chaired a Sudan session during the G7 with the Arab Quintet Foreign Ministers on 25 November to ensure that we can have collective action to improve humanitarian access but ensure greater financial support, and we are going to continue to do that.
The noble Lord mentioned the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. We will do all we can to support the people of Sudan to ensure that there is far greater volume on the situation. Of course, DEC appeals are subject to broadcasters, but we do need to raise this up the agenda. I have tried to raise it since being appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative on PSVI. I was in Colombia to talk to the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict last week and I focused on ensuring that the voices people heard were not mine but those of the survivors, the people who have experienced this terrible crime. I am absolutely determined. What we did at the General Assembly of the United Nations, but also at the special Security Council meeting that I chaired, was to ensure that the voices of survivors are heard. We must not simply sit back and quote statistics: we need to ensure that the population hears that first-hand evidence.
I think I have answered all the questions and I want to ensure that there is time for other noble Lords to ask questions, so I will leave it there for now.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s Statement and the Minister’s active engagement on this issue are to be warmly welcomed. The increase in humanitarian aid is helpful and necessary, but state institutions in Sudan are weak, there is active mischief-making by external parties, including Russia, and the best hope for Sudan surely lies in civil society organisations. Those are assisted by the Addis process and the African Union’s expanded mechanism, which is being helped by the United States, but what proportion of this additional funding from the UK is going to go to supporting civil society institutions within Sudan and their contribution to conflict resolution and peacekeeping?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are financially supporting Taqaddum, which is operating outside but also operating within civilian groups inside. Picking up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised, on education and children, Education Cannot Wait will also receive £14 million to provide safe learning spaces and psychosocial support to over 200,000 vulnerable children in refugee and host communities in Sudan, as well as in Chad and other countries.
On civil society, it is absolutely right that we have to mobilise and give voice to that. We should not restrict it just to those organisations that we know exist; one of the things I will be doing on Wednesday is attending a round table hosted by Zeinab Badawi, president of SOAS, who is establishing a Sudanese diaspora group initiative called Humanitarian Action for Sudan. We are going to take every opportunity to ensure that we can build support, both inside Sudan and outside.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the work that the noble Lord has been doing on this issue, but, in the context of all too many unprecedented crises in the world, the conflict in Sudan has, at times, appeared invisible to too many world leaders, who appear to be missing in action. We had Jan Egeland here recently, speaking to the All-Party Group on Sudan. He has said that Sudan is in danger of becoming another failed state because civil society is disintegrating amid a proliferation of armed groups. Will the Minister comment on that? He also talked about how, as well as the two warring parties in Sudan, the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, there are many other smaller ethnic armies looting and, as he put it, “going berserk on civilians”. The parties are tearing down their own houses and massacring their own people. What can the noble Lord say to us about that?
In echoing what has been said about the plight of children, all of us were deeply moved last week to hear the report from Lyse Doucet, who said:
“Nowhere else on earth are so many children on the run, so many people living with such acute hunger”.
She went on to describe the situation in Darfur. It is 20 years since I went to Darfur, when nearly 300,000 people were killed and 2 million people displaced. This is in danger of happening all over again. Will the noble Lord, in responding to the points the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, put to him about genocide and about justice, tell us what accountability mechanisms are being put in place?
Finally, there is the issue of refugees and displaced people. There are 120 million people displaced in the world, 12 million in Sudan and an extra 7.5 million since this war began 18 months ago. What are we able to do, using the leverage of His Majesty’s Government, to bring together statesmen, stateswomen and world leaders on the kind of regular basis on which the COP meets, to do something, until we start to dramatically reduce the number of people who will otherwise end up in small boats, drowning on dangerous and treacherous journeys of escape?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is absolutely right: we cannot afford for Sudan to fail. It is absolutely important that we focus on ensuring that we can have a return to proper civilian rule. It is because of that that I do not suggest that the conflict is simply about two generals. That is the consequence of it, but the conflict has other roots within it, and that is why it is important to focus on that civilian resolve to bring people together.
When I spoke to the Taqaddum leader, what he stressed to me and I stressed to him was to have an inclusive process to ensure that all groups are brought together to find a solution. He is absolutely committed to that, even though it is difficult because he is sitting down with people who are not easily friends. It is very difficult to build that situation together. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we have to build consensus and see the solution in much broader peace-building ways. He is also right that we cannot allow people to act with impunity. He knows that, since 2003, we have supported the ICC investigation and we are committed to continue that. We are certainly committed to ensuring that violations of international humanitarian law are properly monitored, and evidence gathered, so that we can eventually hold people properly to account for their crimes. At the end of the day, what we have done is consistently condemn such violence.
As the noble Lord knows, our long-standing policy is for competent courts to determine whether genocide is taking place, but that does not stop us acting to ensure that we prevent such crimes and actually hold people to account, so that they know that if they continue to commit such crimes, we will hold them to account. So, he is absolutely right. One thing that we have to keep stressing is the importance of our peace-building and development efforts, which are all about creating a much more secure world. If we are really to address migration, we have to focus on that, and certainly that is what this Government are determined to do.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, this Statement from the Government is obviously extremely welcome, as my noble friend Lord Boateng has said. The Minister’s own leadership on this is exemplary. Clearly, bringing an end to this conflict is where we ultimately want to be. Alongside the humanitarian efforts—which we are obviously putting in and which are laudable—what avenues are there for diplomacy? This might go along with the kinds of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked, about the fora in which we might be able to discuss these matters.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: we cannot simply focus just on the humanitarian situation, as desperate as that is. Our efforts should go into not only trying to establish an immediate ceasefire but longer-term diplomatic work to ensure that that ceasefire is sustainable and that we can return to civilian rule.
Of course, we have seen the talks in Geneva where RSF turned up but SAF did not, and there was engagement. Our first step was at the Security Council, where sadly there was the cynical application of that veto by the Russians, but that does not stop us in our determination to seek other diplomatic means. Our beginning is to ensure that those parties follow the commitments that they made at Jeddah, and that they have confidence in a mechanism where they can stick to their commitments.
It also means that we have to work with all our allies to ensure that people understand how important that ceasefire is, and how important it is for it to be sustainable. We are working with all our allies to ensure that we can put maximum leverage on those parties to stick to the commitments they have made and achieve a ceasefire. I assure my noble friend that we are using all diplomatic levers to ensure that.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, when Minister Dodds visited Sudan, she welcomed the then opening of the border between Chad and Darfur for three months. She then commented that it was important that the Sudanese Armed Forces should not impose any unnecessary restrictions and should make the flow of aid possible. In the Statement, she quite rightly welcomed a further opening for three months but again referred to restrictions by the Sudanese Armed Forces. Can the Minister say more about how much progress we have made in allowing aid to arrive?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we welcome the three-month extension, but the barriers to delivering aid are not simply that border, and it is not simply what we are able to get through. The simple fact is that both parties are imposing all kinds of constraints on it, which is why we are using our calls for the protection of civilians and the call of the Secretary-General to focus on that access issue. We are working with all NGOs, including the United Nations, to ensure that we can get that aid right through the country. We will certainly be monitoring the situation and holding those people to account. In effect, some of those parties are using starvation as a weapon of war, and we have to hold them to account for that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the additional money going to Sudan is very welcome, likewise the money going to neighbouring countries which are dealing with refugees. It is such a dreadful problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, acknowledged. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all his work, including by giving voice to the voiceless, as he has been doing in Colombia. I know he will do that throughout the world. I also pay tribute to Tom Fletcher, who is extraordinary. The fact that he went there in his first two weeks of having been appointed to OCHA is quite amazing.
Many noble Lords have rightly spoken about civil society, but what exactly are we doing, together with the international community, to support the cultivation of an inclusive, representative, apolitical civilian bloc to provide a viable political alternative to the warring parties and to build the longer-term routes that are needed to a healthy, active Sudanese civil society that can underpin the governance systems that are so necessary?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has been working on this too, in terms of Abdalla Hamdok’s activity and the Taqaddum coalition. That coalition is seeking to broaden its base and engage all parties. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned proliferation. There are groups proliferating from this, using all kinds of conflicts that have previously occurred and reigniting them between communities. That is why, when we sat down with Abdalla Hamdok, we focused on how he needs to have the most inclusive process possible—and our allies are also focusing on this. That is not easy in all the circumstances, but it is what we are doing.
My noble friend is right that we need to ensure that we have all those voices heard. That is the most important thing, as we heard on the radio this morning with Tom’s report—like my noble friend, I think that it is great that he was able to get into Sudan so early; it shows that he will be absolutely focused on making sure that the world hears from those survivors and from those women and children who gave their first-hand accounts. We need to focus on that, which is why I am also concerned to ensure that we build that coalition not just among Sudanese within Sudan but among the diaspora here so that we get an inclusive approach to a final solution which will help to return civilian rule.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, in the late 1970s, I was administering law in northern Uganda, and there were many refugees from south Sudan. Archbishop Luwum did a fantastic job in persuading the Uganda Government to provide places where refugees could go, allowing them to go to schools and universities. He did a fantastic job. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was here, he would have told the story of how he put his life in danger by visiting Sudan regularly, because they are linked together. I think that one of his messages would have been to ask the Minister to ensure that he and many others—who have a lot of first-hand experience and know where the NGOs are—are part of a conversation, because he has been doing amazing work in terms of civil society.
Finally, I thank the Minister. His voice has been heard, and he should keep that voice. I have every confidence that with what he is doing in terms of partnership, particularly with the African Union, he will get a breakthrough, because he has been very consistent. He has also honoured people. He does not do things like a colonist does; he does things all on the same level.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his remarks. The approach of the Foreign Secretary and of the whole Government is to ensure that we raise this issue and put it higher up the global agenda. I have also spoken to the right reverend Prelate about this situation. The Church, particularly the Church of England, has close connections in Sudan. I am working with it to ensure that we can support its activity, building cross-community support for peace.
It is also important to recognise that we are supporting 700,000 people who have been affected in neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan. We are working with UN and NGO partners to provide food and cash. We have organised cash-transfer systems to ensure that the local economies in those countries are not severely impacted, and we are also providing shelter and medical assistance. Those are important actions to ensure that this terrible conflict does not spread and undermine security in that part of Africa.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (28 Nov 2024)
“(3A) Notwithstanding the purpose of this Act, the IFR must have due regard to the potential economic harms of overregulating English football.(3B) As part of fulfilling its duty under subsection (3A) the IFR must assess the effects of its activities on the financial position of regulated clubs and submit a report to the Secretary of State within six months in the first instance and annually thereafter which must be laid before Parliament within 28 days of their receipt of the report.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, on the potential harms of overregulation, goes to the heart of this whole Bill. What we are discussing in this Committee is not just the role of a new regulatory body but the future of English football in its totality. The Bill introduces a complete overhaul of the entire system of English football. It creates an entirely new organ of state apparatus, which will no doubt introduce copious amounts of onerous rules and regulations that clubs and leagues will be forced to comply with—in addition to the already stringent rules that the leagues impose on clubs themselves.
The Premier League has a handbook on its rules and governance procedures that is 768 pages long. Contained within this vast document are reams of rules, regulations and duties relating to matters such as club finances, tests for the prospective owners and directors of clubs, the disclosure of relevant interests by club officers, requirements for directors’ reports, and so on. Under rule E.22, the league has the power to impose financial penalties, and under E.37 it can deduct points from clubs which violate those rules. All the things that the Bill seeks to address are already covered by the Premier League.
It is not just the Premier League that does this. The EFL already has an established financial regulation department, aptly called the club financial reporting unit, which monitors and ensures financial regulations that EFL clubs must abide by. The EFL can and does hand out penalties to clubs that fail to meet its standards. For example, in May 2023 Wigan Athletic FC was deducted four points, beginning the 2023-24 season on minus eight. That was because the club failed to comply with the EFL’s requirements that the club deposit 125% of its forecast monthly wage bill into a designated club account. In fact, in that season there were 15 disciplinary and enforcement proceedings against clubs by the EFL for breaching its rules. That existing self-regulation has clearly been effective. Despite some high-profile cases of failure, the vast majority of the time the current regulations do serve their purpose.
Since 2012, when the financial rules were strengthened, only six Football League clubs have gone into administration and only seven football clubs have been completely liquidated since 1945—these are remarkable numbers. Compare that to the finance industry, whose insolvency figures dwarf that of football. In the 12 months to September 2024, there were approximately 500 insolvencies in the financial services sector alone, according to the Insolvency Service’s official statistics. We talk about breakaway leagues, and yet we must not forget that the European super league was stopped in its tracks by the fury of the fans and the power of the current league regulators of football. Is that not a clear example of the self-regulation of the sport working very effectively?
It is not clear at all that self-regulation has failed. I put it to your Lordships’ House that English football is one of the great success stories of private regulation. The leagues already impose their own rules, which hold clubs to account for their actions. They have robust mechanisms for punishing those clubs that do not act appropriately, and the evidence of the success rate of football clubs proves that that has indeed worked. So I ask the Minister: why strangle the flourishing industry that is professional football?
I also point out that that seems to be the view of the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park noted at Second Reading, the Prime Minister himself said at the recent investment summit that
“the key test for me on regulation is … growth. Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to inhibit or unlock investment?”
He went on to say that
“where it is needlessly holding back the investment we need … we will get rid of it … we will make sure that every regulator in this country, especially our economic and competition regulators, takes growth as seriously as this room does”.
There we have it. The Prime Minister himself understands that regulation and overregulation are fraught with economic danger. If he realises the risks of regulation inhibiting investment in that arena, does he also recognise the risks of regulation and overregulation within football?
It seems we are suffering from, as Harold Demsetz termed it, the Nirvana fallacy. This is where people look at private solutions and seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real. If discrepancies are found, they deduce that the real is inefficient. Their usual yet unfortunate response is that the only possible solution must surely be more regulation, more rules and more state diktats. But when we are considering whether this new regulator will actually improve outcomes for football, we cannot merely have reference to the supposed limitations of self-regulation. We must look at what this independent football regulator will become.
For that, it is particularly instructive to examine the recent report on the Financial Conduct Authority by the All-Party Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. That report has found that the body that regulates the entire financial sector in this country is
“an opaque and unaccountable organisation”
that is
“incompetent at best and dishonest at worst.”
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place, stated that the FCA was “complacent, conflicted and captured”.
Among the litany of failures that the report identified is one that is typical of regulators of all stripes: the culture of the organisation. The APPG found that the entire professional culture of the regulator was defective, and that
“errors and inaction are too common”.
The APPG has lined up a vast array of whistleblowers, who have shed light on the problems that the FCA faces. That report is backed up by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which points out that the FCA has been able to decide its own burden of proof and then levy fines running into billions of pounds, and all without proper accountability.
I will not reiterate the entire report for the Committee, but I was not surprised at all when I read it. The behaviours and the failures as described by the APPG are all too common when it comes to state-run bodies that seek to enforce their rules on to other private entities. They are too often encouraged to go further than necessary—mission creep—and then do not act when they are supposed to.
Why would this regulator be any different? Why would the independent football regulator break the mould and challenge these hitherto proven truths? I see no reason why the IFR would improve football in this country in any way. Previous state-run regulators have clearly failed, and I have no doubt that this regulator would potentially do the same. I therefore feel it is an absolute bare minimum to require the independent football regulator to have due regard to these risks of overregulation, as enunciated in my amendment. That should not be a contentious point.
I hope that the Minister can give me cast-iron assurances that the regulator will be ever watchful of the damage that it could very well inflict on football clubs and leagues. I ask her to guarantee absolutely that the IFR would be a light-touch regulator and not delve into the minutiae of each club’s finances and everyday operations. I want her to reassure the House that not one penny of a club’s income will be wantonly redistributed to another club, which would be tantamount to asking one private business to give its own earned assets to another private business. As I described last week in Committee, that would be a moral hazard. This is a matter of profound principle that I simply cannot disregard.
For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that this is a poorly drafted Bill. It was poorly drafted under the previous Administration, and it is worse now—but at least we have the opportunity to address its worst deficiencies and improve it in Committee. I hope that the Government and this Committee understand the dangers of the path that we are heading down, and that all possible efforts should be taken to shift us away from the constant move towards more regulation and to protect our nation’s proudest cultural export from the ever-encroaching arms and dead hand of the state.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak for the first time today to support my noble friend’s amendment, because it is important to set this Bill in context.
I, for one, am not in favour of the financial regulation in the Bill. I have a degree of support for many of the amendments that came out of the Tracey Crouch review, and the propositions on fan-led change are reasonable for the Premier League to consider. What worries me is that we are introducing—the only country in the western world to do so—the imposition of regulatory control over one of our major sports. Even countries such as Russia and China, which have sports laws, recognise the overall authority of the International Olympic Committee, FIFA and UEFA. They do so in recognition that they would not be able to host or to participate in their sporting events if they did not accept that overall authority.
On the first day in Committee, it was clear that the Government were not prepared to countenance putting the important rider in the legislation that we would do nothing that would threaten the role and playing of our clubs in European competitions and the World Cup—and, if we include women’s football, in the Olympic Games too, but that is a matter for a latter amendment. I am concerned about the imposition of regulatory control, being the only country that does this, because, as was rightly pointed out by my noble friend, this does not in any way generate growth. On the contrary, it proposes a whole series of measures that will restrict the competitiveness of the clubs in the Premier League, which, in turn, will mean that the waterfall of financial support that comes through to all professional football in this country is lessened, not increased.
I speak from the position of somebody who has had the privilege of being involved in sport for 30 or 40 years. When I was interested in becoming a Member of Parliament, I wanted to go to Moscow as an athlete for the Olympic Games. Had we legislated that the athletes could not go, I would not have been permitted to go. As it was, I led a campaign for the athletes to go against the boycott that my then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, strongly supported. I felt that, under the autonomy and independence of sport and the vital principle that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be political pawns, it was right for the competitors, who wanted to go, to compete in Moscow, however much they may have opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as indeed I did. I recognised that to use sportsmen and sportswomen as the only way to demonstrate opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was wrong, when people could buy tickets for Aeroflot in Piccadilly and go to watch the Bolshoi in Leningrad, and while trade and diplomatic relations continued.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the eloquent case that he made for it. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
As we go further into this Bill and debate it further, it becomes clearer that this was a Bill conceived in a fit of absence of mind; it has come about almost by accident. There were some concerns about Bury Football Club going into administration. There were concerns about the European Super League being proposed—an idea that was almost literally dead on arrival not because of a regulator or primarily because of political intervention but because of a fan revolt. The system as it was worked. It was the deep commitment of fans to the current arrangement, the current competitive leagues and all of that. Their anger and dismay at this were reflected in the British clubs which had committed to it, including my own. They abandoned it as if it was suddenly realised that this thing that they were holding was red hot and that the sooner they got rid of it the better. This was working. Yet there was a casual threat made by the then Prime Minister, reacting—as a populist will often do—to popular anger with a threat to introduce legislation. It is more and more evident as we go further that the Bill we are now considering at length, with its deficiencies and its threats, is the result of that.
I want to consider, for a moment, the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson made about overregulation. I have been involved, at various stages of my long and chequered career, in trying to counter overregulation. The first time was nearly 40 years ago when I was Margaret Thatcher’s Minister for Deregulation. Later, I chaired a deregulation task force at the request of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, the then Deputy Prime Minister. I then chaired periodically the coalition Government’s better regulation Cabinet Committee, or whatever we called it. I have been involved in this a lot and spent a lot of time looking at the effects of overregulation, who the beneficiaries are and which organisations suffer because of it.
One of the conclusions that I reached very early on was that it is not the big businesses that suffer most but the smaller ones. A bit of a theme in how we have been debating this Bill is the sense that “All of the resentment and all of the difficulty with this is coming from the Premier League”, and that somehow we are trying to defend it. I have to tell your Lordships that the clubs that will feel the least of the burden of overregulation, the compliance costs, are the big clubs, because they are big machines. They are serious businesses. They have the personnel and infrastructure and can draw on resources to deal with the unexpected effects of regulation. They will have a machine that will accommodate it. It will be uncomfortable and unnecessary and it will have costs, but they will not be threatened by it. The clubs that will really feel the burden are the small clubs. They do not have these big machines and are not equipped with armies of lawyers and accountants and the rest of the panoply of resource that is required to deal with this totally new form of regulation that is suddenly being thrust upon them.
This is something we need to think about very carefully indeed. One might not want there to be bad effects, but so many of the debates we have had on this Bill have been about the threat of unintended consequences.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. He has made an important point in relation to small companies, and is it not confirmed by an article in this morning’s Times, which says that the Financial Conduct Authority’s “over-regulation … harms small companies”? That is exactly the point he is making: it is small companies that are affected, rather than large ones.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing your Lordships’ attention to that. It is absolutely the case. When Governments consult with a sector, the people they consult with tend to be the big ones. I spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to work out how to deal with it in previous contexts. If you run a small company, business or operation—a small football club—you are far more concerned with getting on with whatever the next thing is on your agenda. You have got relatively few people around to do the work. Big companies have a machine that is set up to deal with all this, so the point that my noble friend makes is entirely right.
The point behind this amendment is incredibly important, and my noble friend has done a great service in raising it in the vivid way that he has. We have to consider this, because once you create an independent regulator, you have created something that is supposedly independent, and it is much harder to come back. Later in these debates, we will come to my noble friend Lord Goodman’s proposed sunset clause. That would be some kind of constraint because the threat or certainty of there being a proper, serious review after a given length of time will focus the minds of the regulator. But without that, without the kind of amendment that my noble friend has tabled, I think we stand in great danger.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, absolutely nobody is going to support the idea of overregulation. I spent my whole career, however, in a highly regulated industry: broadcasting. The BBC was the result of a regulatory regime imposed over 100 years ago, and ITV was heavily regulated, with enormous benefits as a result. We have the best broadcasting system in the whole world, so good regulation makes things better. I agree that we do not want to see overregulation.
The strongest part of this Bill is that it tries to ensure that every club is well managed, and that is to be welcomed. Let us recognise that that has not been the general picture, and there is no club that I know of that has not been badly managed, including my own, at some point in its history. Somebody else gave the example that, for a few hours this weekend, Brighton were number two in the Premier League. That is absolutely 100% down to the fact that they have been exceptionally well-managed in recent years.
In my career, I encountered many boards of clubs at every level and, frankly, it was an extremely mixed picture. We name no names. Some of them I encountered were very well-managed, some were managed by rogues and many by people who had a bit of money—not enough money—and were attracted to football for the wrong reasons but completely and utterly lacked any ability to manage a club properly. The great strength of this Bill, in demanding proper boards and financial probity, will bring, I hope, a great improvement to the generality of English football down the leagues and have strong, competent boards wherever you look.
I cannot resist one short story. I know of a Prime Minister—I will not name who the Prime Minister was, but it is not the person you think that I am thinking of; it is somebody else—who was invited to a match and to have lunch beforehand. The Special Branch at Number 10 looked at all the other guests, and every single one of them had a criminal record. That is a true story. That is what we want to put an end to. We want good, strong boards and prudent financial management.
What is the justification for that intervention? It is all the things we have already mentioned. These clubs are not just normal commercial assets; they are deeply embedded in their communities; they have their own heritage; they have their own history; they are culturally important. That justifies appropriate and proportionate regulation and intervention.
Having said lots of nice things, I do have profound reservations about the mechanism for establishing fund flow down the pyramid, but that is a matter for later in our deliberations.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 16, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. The amendment would require the regulator to take into account the economic risks of overregulation and report against this risk. I am sure this is an approach that will interest all parts of the Committee, especially, as my noble friend Lord Jackson reminded us, as the Prime Minister himself recently made such a high priority of reducing the impact of regulatory burden on British investment and growth.
We should consider the Prime Minister’s words carefully. He spoke of breaking free from the trap of excessive regulation, of removing needless barriers to investment, and of ensuring that regulators take growth far more seriously. Yet, here we are again, at risk of creating a new regulator without proper safeguards against exactly these risks. Indeed, the Department for Business and Trade this year published a report on smarter regulation, which described the problem in stark terms:
“Good regulation allows our markets and societies to function. However, there is strong evidence that points to our regulatory culture acting as a drag on our ability to generate economic activity, innovation and to attract investment. The regulatory environment is often confusing and sometimes features of it appear to exist for the benefit of the regulators, rather than the industries who they regulate, consumers or Britain as a whole”.
We must take care to guard against our regulatory culture having a similarly damaging impact on British football.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Premier League represents one of Britain’s most successful exports, contributing £8.2 billion annually to our economy and more than £4 billion to the Exchequer, while supporting more than 90,000 jobs. Already, we are seeing concerning signs in the Bill: undefined ownership tests: parallel regulatory requirements; unproven intervention powers; and sweeping powers to redistribute Premier League revenue. Each adds complexity and risks that could deter the very investment that we need.
The Premier League competes globally for capital, for talent and for attention. Excessive regulation could quickly diminish its appeal to serious investors, with knock-on impacts for the pyramid which relies on the Premier League. As the chief executive of the Premier League has said in relation to this Bill, we must not wound the goose that lays English football’s golden egg. It is that egg that supports so much of the good work that we discussed earlier and the football pyramid as a whole.
The Prime Minister pledged to “march through the institutions”, ensuring regulators take growth seriously. Yet this Bill creates a regulator with no equal duty to consider success, economic impact or growth alongside the very vague notions of soundness and resilience, which, as I said earlier in this Committee, have no clear end state. We can have both effective regulation and economic dynamism, but only if we build in appropriate safeguards from the start. Without them, we risk creating exactly the kind of bureaucratic barriers to investment that the Prime Minister has correctly identified as holding Britain back.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. I will concentrate particularly on both the impact assessment and what my noble friend Lord Maude was referring to: the impact on small businesses. Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, when I made my comments at Second Reading, I emphasised that my concerns are not that there are no problems; the question is how we actually tackle the problems that exist in the industry while not damaging the success.
I have made a number of references to the impact assessment, and I quoted from it earlier today. On page 8, paragraph 17, it states:
“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.
I am concerned after reading the impact assessment that, as my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Maude identified, the impact is not on the big companies. Anybody who has sat on the side of an industry, as I did when changes were made to licensing law, for example, knows that it is not the big companies that are affected by such changes. They have the resources. It is the small companies that are confused, concerned and lost. They do not have a specialist to deal with the minutiae of a clause. I was the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association at the time, and it was an enormous task to guide smaller companies through the issues they faced. For me, the impact assessment dramatically underestimates the impact that small companies face in these circumstances.
I will come back to other elements later, but I am particularly concerned—and am referring to page 53 onwards—about the identified benefits that are supposed to accrue to the industry. The costs are dealt with, but I must admit that I am not convinced. On the indirect benefits, paragraph 225 comes up with a wonderful sentence:
“These indirect benefits are extremely difficult to quantify, given the range of variables that will affect the profitability of individual football clubs. Therefore, these are not quantified in the appraisal”.
Paragraph 227 says:
“These benefits are extremely difficult and speculative to quantify and therefore are not quantified in the appraisal”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will no doubt be relieved that I have not entered into any word counts on this occasion.
On accruing benefits for the community, paragraph 233, on page 54, states:
“The model states that the results of this contingent valuation survey of football users and non-users shows that people positively value the club they support/their local club and would be willing to pay an annual subscription to support it”.
I find myself at a loss to believe that my noble friend went round the streets of Wycombe or any other community and asked, “Would you be willing to pay X sum to support the club?” The suggestion that large parts of any population are
“willing to pay … to support”
their local club is really stretching credibility far.
This comment was made as a result of some work undertaken by Ipsos, an organisation for which I have high regard and with which I deal on polling. But the next paragraph, 235, refers to the following:
“DCMS guidance states that a lower bound”—
I am not sure whether the authors intend “bound” or “band”—
“95% confidence interval of willingness to pay (WTP)”.
That is rather like talking about turnout at a general election by asking people whether they are going to vote. I checked with a pollster this morning, and the mean answer given is 80%. The turnout at the last election was 60%, so there was an error of a quarter or a third, depending on whether you go upwards or downwards. To suggest that you can quantify the willingness of a community and people in the street to pay to support their local club stretches the bounds of credibility.
But on page 56 we have a breakdown, in detail, of the willingness of each region of the country to pay a sum to support its local club. There has been infinite reference to the fact that the support for clubs crosses from one place to another. Therefore, if you are contributing in the north-east or in London you may not be willing to pay to support a specific club. It is not surprising that London is identified as the place where people are most willing to supply most money, but it does not say whether the sums involved include a season ticket. Many of the people who answered the question will have thought, “Well, I actually pay in the form of a season ticket already and therefore I am contributing”.
What is depressing about the impact assessment is that it goes into such detail in relation to the benefits that will be gained from this legislation, but there is no attempt to identify what the clubs will have to pay. I am not talking here about the Premier League clubs; I am talking about the small clubs. In her response to the points that I and others raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the costs would be proportionate. But no figures are given. I find it barely credible that such detail can be provided to identify how much people from each different area of the country are willing to pay, but there is no calculation of the cost for a small club.
That is where the important issue—the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson—arises. People can concentrate on Premier League clubs, but we are talking here about regulating over 100 clubs. People do not realise that the impact will be on the small clubs. The Government need to be honest before this legislation passes, and to identify the probable burden for each of the small clubs, because without that information it is not appropriate to pass into law a football regulation Bill.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jackson and to speak further to the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward about large clubs, small clubs and financial burdens.
We are presumably all agreed that large clubs are better able to bear the cost of regulation than smaller ones. My noble friend Lord Hayward referred a moment ago to 100 clubs, but if some noble Lords have their way, it will be more than 100 clubs. We have already heard today, as we will hear as the Bill develops, proposals to tack on to the Bill corporate social responsibility, net-zero obligations and so on. There are amendments tabled to tack on to the Bill specifically the National League North and National League South. I am sure that the Minister would resist any such amendments, in the same way that the Government will resist most of the amendments that come forward. But as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out at Second Reading—if he did not, I am sure other noble Lords did—the Bill is shy about saying which leagues will be covered by the regulator.
The Government have made it very clear that it will be the pyramid—the top five leagues—but the point is that at any future date the Government might change or, heaven help us, the Minister might move on and be replaced by someone else. At that point, the Government could bring forward by regulation changes to the scope covered by the regulator in order to bring in the National Leagues North and South, or other leagues. Even more small clubs would then be covered by the regulator and have to bear the costs. My noble friend’s amendment is a wise, precautionary one, not only in dealing with the measures the Government are proposing to bring within the scope of the Bill, but as a hedge against other leagues being brought within the scope of the regulator in the future.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Can I just suggest to Members opposite who are making their point that they might look at Amendment 72, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? It is called “Support to clubs”, which very specifically gives advice on how smaller clubs might be helped.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords and I think the point about Amendment 72 was well made. Why I believe this is so critical is that when we have been talking about big clubs the feeling almost is that they are going to look after themselves and somehow we do not need to worry about the Premier League. But, as we have all said, the clue is in the word “pyramid”. The fact that the Championship is the sixth-richest league in the world—richer than Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands—is because of the money passed down from the Premier League. Fundamental to the health of the whole game, all the network and all the clubs is the health of the Premier League.
As my noble friend Lord Maude was saying, I am afraid that the more that I look into this Bill and the more I understand it, the more worried I become. As we have said before, if the only objective of the regulator is the survival of clubs, as the shadow regulator mentioned, the only tool it has in its locker is to get them to deposit cash as a cushion. I do not think there is any other mechanism. Again, I would be delighted if anyone else can come up with another mechanism and I will sit down and hear it. I really would be delighted.
But the only measure is to say “Okay, we want to be sure that there is no chance at all of you getting into financial difficulties, so put this money aside”. There have been figures of £20 million a club—£400 million—but, as noble Lords have said, maybe the bigger clubs are better able to cope. I bet the top eight or so—the Liverpools, the Manchesters, the Tottenhams et cetera—will be better able to cope. It will be the smaller clubs, especially the ones that are just trying to break in—such as Brentford and Brighton, which have now broken in, but as they were trying to get there—are the ones which will be disproportionately affected.
It is not just the Premier League clubs because, of course, we would be talking about clubs right the way down the pyramid having to make deposits to make sure that there is less risk of them getting into financial difficulties. Of course, the further down the pyramid you go, the more of a hardship that becomes. Let us understand it more. The shadow regulator was talking about his concern about dependence on rich owners and what you can do about that.
We can give two examples recently from my club, Chelsea. I think everyone would say that Matthew Harding was a very reputable business guy, had very good intentions and was an absolutely stand-up person. He was tragically killed in a helicopter crash. No one could have expected that. The club was in financial difficulties and had to be sold. What would the regulator’s answer to that have been? Probably, “Oh, you were dependent on a rich owner. You have to deposit more money in case, God forbid, they die in a helicopter crash”. Our next owner, Roman Abramovich, was very well regarded for about 18 years and was absolutely fine. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and, all of a sudden, he was no longer a reputable owner. What could the financial regulator have done about that? Well, clearly, it has to look at all the owners and think “Ooh, what could happen in your circumstance? Could your country end up doing something bad on the world stage? Deposit more money”.
It goes beyond that. Lots of noble Lords have said, “What do we want? We want better management of our clubs”. Are we asking the financial regulator to assess managers and say “Oh, I don’t think you’re very good”, or “I don’t think your business plan is very good”. What can a financial regulator do if they do not like the management of the club? They cannot sack them. What can they do if they do not like the business plan very much? They can say, “Well, please try better, please make it a bit better”. The only thing they can absolutely do at the end of the day is say “I don’t like your management very much, I’m not very confident in them, and I don’t like your business plan very much, so I’m going to ask you to put more money on deposit”.
Then you get into a situation where I guess you follow that through to its logical conclusion and some clubs are going to have to put a lot more on deposit than others, because the regulator has decided, you know, “I don’t like the cut of your jib”, for want of a better word. What sort of situation are we going to get into there? We can see as we peel back the onion that this is fraught with more and more difficulties. You are asking the regulator to opine on each club, each business plan, each set of owners and each set of management and say, depending on all that, how much money a club should set aside—with only one criterion for success for that regulator: that that club financially stays in its place and never gets threatened with going bust. There is only one criterion, so every time we are going to have an ever-increasing ratchet to de-risk every club, and the only mechanism to do that is to get them to put more and more money on deposit.
Again, please, I would be delighted. I know the Minister cares about football and the welfare of the game, so I would be delighted if someone could come up with another tool on how the regulator can try to manage sustainability. He could not come up with one the other day, so maybe we should ask him.
Lord Birt (CB)
Is it not far more likely that the regulator will simply insist on having a good-quality, conventional board—I know from the noble Lord’s experience that he will know what that looks like—with a mix of skills, a proper CFO and a real sense of financial accountability and risk management? That is the direction of travel a regulator is likely to take. I am sure the noble Lord would agree from his experience that that tends to lead to strong institutions—and that is not a description of many football clubs at any level.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Before my noble friend responds to that, he is on a very important point here about the remedies that are available to a regulator where they have concerns. The noble Lord suggests that you put in some great and good, experienced, splendid people, and they will make it all better. We have rightly heard a lot from the noble Lord opposite about Brighton & Hove Albion. If a visionary owner had a view of how you could, by investing in the right way, in the right kind of players and the right methodologies, have a different approach to managing and developing a football club, what would a great and good, wise and sage board have said? It would have said “Ooh, very difficult”. Board members would have pursed their lips and sucked their teeth and possibly stopped there being this great success story.
What would a regulator have done? They would have said, “This all looks very risky. How can you justify this great vision you’ve got?” Would they, as my noble friend suggested, say “Well, you’ve got to put more and more money on deposit as a hedge against possible failure”? What are you then going to say to fans when they say, “Well, why aren’t you investing in the players that we need to create the success?” This is why so much of this is of concern. It goes back to the point we made earlier about sustainability. It is all about downward pressure. It is putting a cap on aspiration, vision, excitement, ambition and the possibility of having these great romantic stories of huge success. Is that really what we want the future of English football to be?
Lord Markham (Con)
I genuinely thank noble Lords for their interventions. We are trying to unpack and fix a tricky problem. I completely agree with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about better boards; of course that is a good idea, but how does the regulator make that happen? Will it be given the powers to force people off boards? I have not heard that; I have not seen that anywhere in the Bill. I fully support recommending a stronger board, but how do you make it happen? The only remedy I see for this in the Bill, and which I keep coming back to, is that clubs have to deposit more money as a sort of punishment.
On the visionary business plan at Brighton, which really was visionary, a regulator at the time could have thought, “That looks a bit risky”—and it probably was a bit risky—“so how do I guard against that?” They could have wondered, “How much does this chairman know about football? He is a poker champion; that is brilliant. He believes in the stats. But he is probably not your conventional person, who you would be going to and asking for more money as a deposit”.
This is what we all keep coming back to. If the only remedy is that the clubs put more money aside—
Baroness Brady (Con)
I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. My understanding of the Bill is that the ultimate sanction the regulator can have is to withdraw the licence from the football club. If a football club loses its licence, it ceases to be able to play. It is put in a very difficult situation whatever the remedy: it either complies wholeheartedly with whatever remedy it is told by the regulator to put in place, or it loses its licence and cannot play in the league. Surely that cannot be right.
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, I hope the Minister will answer this point. This is what the shadow regulator was explaining to us last week. What is the one thing you can do short of that? You can look to de-risk the situation, particularly if your only criterion is sustainability at that club; in other words, it survives by you saying, “You have to put money on deposit”. That is exactly the model they were taking from the financial regulator and the banks; that is what I see as the whole problem.
It is fundamental. As my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment suggests, we could make sure that it is aware of the burdens of regulation, or, as some of the earlier amendments proposed, it could be about broadening the definition and objectives of the regulator so that it has other criteria at stake. I truly believe that, unless we widen it out—it is only one-dimensional—we really are going to harm the great game.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that it is a little unconventional to speak to the amendment, but I would like to make a few comments to the mover of the amendment and the Minister. The case was made that this is all about small clubs. I have met very many clubs outside of the Premier League and discussed this issue with them. They have raised many issues and changes that they would like to see, some of which might be controversial in the football world or in government but not in relation to this regulation Bill. I have not yet come across any club outside of the Premier League that has said that it is worried or opposes this Bill—not one. Perhaps the Minister might like to reflect on that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for moving his Amendment 16. It has been well worth having a debate on this on its own because his short and simple amendment, if inserted into the Bill, would represent a vital step towards ensuring that the regulation of English football was both fair and economically responsible. It would require the independent football regulator to consider the potential economic harms of overregulation.
As my noble friend so eloquently established, overregulation is an issue that can choke off investment and disrupt growth in many industries. It can also, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham powerfully reminded us by invoking the example of Brighton and Hove Albion, prohibit the visionaries and the innovators who help to drive industries and sectors forward. None of us wants to see that harmful effect happening in the case of this new regulator and the example of football.
Lord Mann (Lab)
I was a member of that group and heavily involved in that work. Will the noble Lord reflect on the fact that all of its recommendations request that the regulator, the FCA, regulate more toughly and more appropriately, not less and more weakly, including the cases involving football that I am personally very involved in? That was a case for more and stronger regulation, not less.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and for mentioning that. The point remains that it would be beneficial for us to look at that report on the way in which the FCA is doing its work to see whether it is doing what Parliament asked it to do when it was set up and to see whether we agree with the points that the all-party group, of which he is a member, made in its recent report.
As a number of noble Lords from across the House have said in our debate on this group, the amendment simply requires the regulator to have regard to the risks inherent when regulating a large industry such as football. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham for the benefit of their considerable expertise and to my noble friend Lord Hayward for going so forensically through the impact assessment published by the Minister’s department.
My noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 16 represents another guardrail for the regulator to use to focus its attention when exercising its functions. It would complement some of the other amendments that I have tabled and which we have been looking at. Such simple insertions of text into the Bill may be criticised as unnecessary, but they are important. The language that we use when establishing in law new public bodies and new regulators is of supreme importance. It creates a starting point from which that body will grow or change and be investigated by all-party groups and Select Committees. What that starting point looks like and how it is clearly defined has the potential to shape its future trajectory. We are looking at a regulator we hope will do its work very successfully for generations to come. Surely, we want that trajectory to enable future growth and innovation—future visionaries—and to remain free from mission creep and expansion into areas which we do not want to see it moving in.
The proposed model of regulation in the Bill will require the frequent submission of reports and financial plans. These will, as per the licensing conditions and as per our debate on this group, all have to be approved before a regulated club is granted a licence and are a condition for it maintaining that licence. The monitoring and collection of that information will naturally require a large number of staff to help comply with the new regulation. Added to the costs of the levy, this could have damaging effects on regulated clubs—damaging effects, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham and others powerfully set out, that would be felt most keenly by those at the lower end of the pyramid.
That is also particularly evident in the provisions in the Bill that require clubs which are no longer regulated, by virtue of their relegation, to continue to comply with the duties set out. Part 5, for instance, states that some of these duties will be applicable for up to 10 years after the club has been regulated. This ratchet effect means that clubs could still be required to submit a whole host of information to the regulator, even when they have diminished resources because they have dropped below the lower limit of the regulatory ambit envisaged by the Bill. I hope that we can all see the potential for harms here and the risks of those harms growing.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for drawing the Committee’s attention to her Amendment 72. We should all take a careful look at it in light of the debate that we have had. We will touch on it when we come to that group later on, but I appreciate that it is an attempt to make that sort of regulatory burden easier on clubs. When we come to it, I will ask her more on how her amendment envisages the regulator potentially paying some money to clubs. I will be interested to hear her set that out, but that is for another group.
Football is not only an extremely popular pastime but a vital part of our economy, and the financial health of clubs has to be protected, as my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 16 seeks to do. By mandating a thorough assessment of the financial implications of the new regulator’s regulatory actions, his amendment would guarantee that clubs’ sustainability would never be overlooked in the pursuit of regulation or reform.
The requirement for regular reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament would add to the Bill’s parliamentary oversight, which it currently lacks. It would enhance the transparency of the new regime that we will be bringing in through this law and allow for prompt corrective action, if needed. That is an approach which aligns perfectly with Conservative values, but one which I hope would garner support from every corner of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend Lady Brady has reminded us, the Prime Minister has recently spoken, to my mind encouragingly, about the risks of overregulation and the need for growth. I hope that these points will resonate with the Benches opposite and with the Minister too.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to safeguard the future of football while maintaining accountability to Parliament. I know that he would have tabled an amendment such as this if we were still in the last Parliament. If I had found myself at the Dispatch Box opposite, I would have been responding to it. I must say that I would have looked very favourably on it. I think it seeks to strike the right balance between regulation and the economic vitality and viability of football clubs. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for tabling this amendment. I also particularly welcomed the personal account of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I thank all those who contributed, including the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, who has considerable expertise in regulation. The description from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, of the benefits of regulation, including a strong board and what advantage that might bring, was particularly helpful.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, we will cover the scope of specified competition in the next group, so your Lordships’ Committee will come to that shortly.
The amendment seeks to add an explicit requirement for the regulator to have “due regard” to the potential economic harms of overregulation and to report on this. It is an important point to be aired, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns the noble Lord has. I absolutely agree that overregulation is something to be avoided. It is why the regulator’s general duties and regulatory principles provide sufficient safeguards to prevent this.
The regulation ensures that the regime is proportionate. In particular, Clauses 7 and 8 emphasise the need for the regulator to act in a way that avoids, as far as reasonably possible, adverse effects on investment and competitiveness, and that it should act proportionately.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked about overregulation and was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. The regulator’s general duties require it to have regard to how regulation might affect, among other things, financial investment in English football. Its regulatory principles clearly state the importance of advocacy and the need for the regulator to engage with stakeholders. It must act, as I said, in a proportionate manner. All these measures provide a safeguard against overregulation.
The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Maude, asked about burdens or potential costs on small clubs and the risk of disproportionate burdens. In addition to the explicit regulatory principle guiding the regulator to be proportionate, the entire system has been designed with this proportionality in mind. For example, the licence conditions placed on clubs will vary depending on their unique circumstances. Where clubs are smaller or lower-risk, the regulator’s requirements will reflect this. This means that the regulator will not impose unnecessary burdens on smaller or already well-run clubs.
Baroness Brady (Con)
A comment was made about there being no concern for costs outside the Premier League. However, Mark Ives, the general manager of National League, said:
“We are concerned about the costs … The expectation of how much it is going to cost clubs at a National League level is a huge concern—it may be a small amount of money, but it is a lot to the clubs. We are worried about mission creep within the Bill and the additional bureaucracy. There is a lot of duplication of work, such as the licensing system—there’s an expectation for clubs to do two lots of licensing”.
Dagenham & Redbridge chief executive officer, Steve Thompson, said:
“We are worried that the Bill will be so onerous. Some National League clubs work on two or three people and some volunteers … It does really worry me that some of our small clubs will not survive with the regulation and the reporting that is required”.
There may be a proportionate cost, with clubs in the Premier League from the top down paying proportionately but, whatever the cost, there is concern throughout the leagues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a particular concern. I am not suggesting by any means that people will not need time to get used to and understand the burdens or costs on smaller clubs but, as I felt I had outlined, I hope that, with enough clarity, the licence conditions—that includes the costs placed on clubs— will vary depending on their unique circumstances. I am sure we will have further opportunities to discuss that as we go forward. Hopefully we can give your Lordships’ Committee and the clubs some reassurance on that point.
Lord Hayward (Con)
To follow up on the Minister’s comments and the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, given the detail that is included in the impact assessment on every other category of cost and benefit, and even though I find some of the calculations dubious, to say the least, at the next sitting of this Committee can we have a clearer indication of the likely proportionate costs which will fall on clubs at different levels in the pyramid, rather than some broad, general observation that it will be proportionate?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that a lot of this detail is being worked out by the shadow regulator. I can ask for that detail. I cannot give the noble Lord explicit clarity on that tonight but I will endeavour to get a clearer answer for him before the next sitting. That may, however, not include the level of detail that he requests.
To return to the amendment in question, the duties in Clause 7 are fairly novel for a statutory regulator. These bespoke duties acknowledge the specific market features that are key to the continued success of English football, such as investment and competitiveness.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
The Minister just referred to competitiveness. Some 14 clubs in the Premier League are multi-club ownership structures. Will the regulator be able to take into account the financial strength or otherwise of other clubs in the ownership structure of those 14 clubs? For example, with Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS at Manchester United, in providing a licence to Manchester United, will the regulator take into account the financial strength or otherwise of Nice and Lausanne—two other clubs which INEOS has an interest in—or is the regulator specifically and only to look at the English clubs? If it is the latter, is there not a risk of capital flight away from Manchester United in those circumstances if, for example, a significant bond was to be required by the regulator to be put up for Manchester United?
Baroness Twycross
If I correctly understood the noble Lord’s point, I do not believe that clubs should be concerned about that particular instance. We will be discussing licences and licensing conditions in a later group so, with your Lordships’ indulgence, if we could wait until then, that would be appreciated.
The amendment would also require the regulator to submit a report on its effects on the financial position of regulated clubs. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already includes comprehensive reporting requirements on the regulator—for example, the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report to the Secretary of State, which must be laid before Parliament. These reports would of course be expected to include an assessment of the regulator’s own impact on the market. In our view, the intent of this amendment is therefore already achieved in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether we are risking jeopardising English clubs’ involvement in international competitions. As I reiterated during the last debate, the Government are confident that the Bill and the regulator will not breach the statutes of UEFA and FIFA. This Bill will constitute the business regulation of football clubs in this country; it will not constitute interference in how the FA, or any international body, governs the game. For the reasons I have laid out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Markham (Con)
The Minister will be aware that I made quite a few points on how the only thing a regulator can really do—the only shot in its locker—is to put in more deposits, and on the impact that would have on clubs in terms of that safety net. I perfectly understand that she may not be able to answer that question now but I would welcome a follow-up in writing, and perhaps we can arrange a meeting on it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for her answer and I thank my noble friends and others for an excellent debate on my amendment. I hesitate to single anyone out, but the contributions of my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady showed their great expertise in different aspects of football, sport and regulation over the years. I make particular reference to the granular and forensic demolition of the impact assessment by my noble friend Lord Hayward, and the issue of the impact on small clubs that was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.
To come back to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I see this amendment as complementary to good governance, because it is a pretty light-touch amendment. It is really a permissive oversight power—we will come back to it, of course, on Report—with timely regulatory audit and a sense check. The Minister may need to think about whether accepting this amendment, perhaps on Report, would detract from the substance of the Bill.
Football is full of amazing stories. I want to finish with a story about my own local team, which goes to the heart of the debate on this amendment, which is the nature of entrepreneurial endeavour in football—risk and reward. Darragh MacAnthony, a property entrepreneur, bought Posh, Peterborough United, at the age of 30, the youngest owner in the league, in 2006. In August 2007, he put a note in the programme at a football match which said, “I will deliver back-to-back promotions from League Two to the Championship by 2009”. He did it, with the help of my friend Barry Fry, who, of course, noble Lords know. The point is that I have to ask, looking at the Bill and at all its onerous implications in terms of regulatory impact, would Darragh MacAnthony have put his business on the line to buy Posh, to keep Peterborough United afloat and make it flourish as it has done for the last 18 years, had the Bill been in place? I very much doubt that he would.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Thank you; I appreciate being kept on my toes by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. With that in mind, and notwithstanding anything I have said, we will ventilate these issues on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 18 covers the issue of the scope of the Bill, and particularly women’s football. The Clause 2 stand part debate will focus specifically on the concerns that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised for the consideration of your Lordships.
As regards the women’s game, I seek clarification from the Minister. There is, as noble Lords know, a delegated power in the Bill that allows, at any time in the future, the Secretary of State to amend the scope of the Bill and include women’s football. At present, women’s football is not covered, mainly because of the future of women’s football review, which recommended that women’s football be given a chance to self-regulate. However, it noted that the market shares some similar problems with the men’s game, and, given that the policy intent was that the regulator should not regulate women’s clubs—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am mindful of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not here. She and I, and others, have an amendment specifically addressing the issue of the place of women’s football. Would the noble Lord withdraw his amendment this evening so that the noble Baroness could at least be here to take part in that debate? I know it is very close to her heart and I am trying to save us from having two debates.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I appreciate that. I will considerably curtail, so I do not need to come back to repeat what I have just said, and simply put a number of very brief questions. Unfortunately, that was not of my doing, as the noble Lord knows, and the powers that be will no doubt look rather more closely at future amendments to make sure that there is no overlap.
I simply ask the Minister one question: what specifically would need to happen for the women’s game to be added into the proposed regulatory framework? I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others, to explore in more detail questions surrounding the ownership of clubs, which regard both women’s and men’s participation as equally important, and therefore the fitness of directors tests, et cetera. To assist the process of speeding up matters in your Lordships’ Committee this evening, I will not ask any further questions on that but will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to consider that in greater detail.
I turn to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is absolutely relevant to Clause 2—unless the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has identified a further group of amendments that we can tie this in to. Clause 2 is really important, because it gives the Secretary of State significant powers through secondary legislation. As the Minister knows, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is a highly respected Committee in this House, and we have a senior member of that committee present this evening. I declare an interest, having served on that committee.
There was real concern that the meaning of English football as defined in Clause 2 was left unclear in the Bill. We covered that briefly at an earlier stage but, to cut to the point, their comment was:
“The policy intent has always been that”
the clubs in scope of the regulator’s remit
“should currently be the top five leagues of the men’s English football pyramid only”.
Given that, it is somewhat concerning that there is so much scope given to change that in secondary legislation, without the opportunity we would have of considering the benefits, or otherwise, of any significant changes to the Bill, which would be really significant. Therefore, it was not surprising that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated:
“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.
That is a fairly powerful point for that committee to make in the context of this Bill—indeed, of any Bill brought before your Lordships’ House.
The committee continued:
“The current system of leagues works well. If it were enshrined in primary legislation, it could still work well and, if it ceased to do so, the primary legislation could be amended. Primary legislation is constantly being amended”
to be
“fit for purpose”.
So I very much hope that the Minister will take careful note of the advice offered by that committee. It is very rare that we would ignore that committee or reject the most important recommendation that it has made. It makes a very strong point there. This is an enabling Bill. Clause 2 gives wide-ranging remits to consider the inclusion of women’s football to the Secretary of State—not, by the way, to the regulator. Equally, it is clearly a Bill about the men’s game, which brings forward clear primary legislation on the role of the regulator in the context of the men’s game.
That being the case, I see no reason why this legislation should not be very clear about its purpose and not leave it open to secondary legislation, which gets far less attention in your Lordships’ House. We know that from both sides of the House, whoever has been in Government: it is easy to slip through secondary legislation. We cannot deal with it clause by clause; we either accept it or reject it and we do not have a Committee stage on it.
The two powers vested in the Secretary of State under Clause 2 are of such importance that I very much hope that the Minister will take away the points I have just raised and give further consideration to putting the Bill’s intent clearly within it, rather than leaving it to future secondary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I appreciate that with legislation it is always better to have what you want on the face of the Bill. The women’s game needs more attention here, as this is something that deals totally with the top five leagues of the men’s game. It is also true that with a little bit of will, we could amend it. However, we are sitting here thinking about what would be best for the development of women’s football. When the Minister comes to respond, I hope she will give us a better steer on what they regard as that future. It is a growing sport that has outstripped everybody’s idea 20 years ago of where it would be, and we need to discuss what is happening there. My gut instinct is to resist this for the women’s game, but my legislative experience says we should have a definition here.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am scratching my head a bit on this. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that I would like to see the women’s game included. However, I accept that there is a debate to be had around that, so there could be an argument for having that as part of secondary legislation. What I do not understand that there could be a debate about is whether the Premier League or the EFL should be included. I do not understand for one moment why you would not have that on the face of the Bill. I do not think any of us would debate for one second the thought of somehow having all these discussions and not including the Premier League or the EFL.
I will freely admit that I am not very well versed in this, but my understanding is that, if it was mentioned on the face of the Bill, that does something about the hybrid nature of the Bill and would mean there are greater consultations and involvements that we would have to have—maybe some other noble Lords can help me out here—with those bodies that are impacted by the Bill. If that is the case, and if it is absolutely obvious to everyone here that of course the Premier League and the EFL are going to be involved in this, and probably some others as well—maybe the noble Lord can help me with this in a minute—I think there are consequences from not having it on the face of the Bill. That means it is not getting the proper involvement that you would expect, having the Premier League and other impacted bodies such as the EFL as part of this.
Again, all of this is an education for me and I think my noble friend Lord Goodman might be about to stand up to help me on this. But, if not, maybe the Minister could answer that, because it seems so obvious to everyone here that of course it is going to include the Premier League and the EFL. Why would you not have that on the face of the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment about the inclusion of the National Leagues North and South. I accept that my amendment is defective; I think the Committee on Statutory Instruments has declared it as such. However, I will use this opportunity to raise the question of where down the pyramid the regulatory process should stop.
Some of the teams in the National League North and National League South are quite substantial. Scunthorpe United is quite a big club and has a turnover somewhere in the region of £5 million to £6 million a year. Torquay United has a turnover of probably £2 million or £3 million a year. Even Maidstone, another former league club, has a turnover of between £2 million and £3 million a year. These are small but substantial businesses. They probably employ no more than 10 or a dozen staff—Scunthorpe probably employs more than that, looking at its accounts—but we expect other parts of the business world to be regulated by health and safety or environmental legislation, by financial conduct rules and regulations, and so on.
It is not smart to leave those two leagues out of consideration, because one of the things we should worry about is predatory ownership. We have seen some of that in the past, to the detriment of clubs in the lower leagues. The Bill is about making sure that the clubs in the lower leagues are properly protected. We have heard a lot from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches about the Premier League and how they believe that the regulatory regime may be damaging to the Premier League, but it is the plight of clubs lower down the pyramid that has sparked the most concern over the years and has been the motor for both major political parties to seek a football regulator.
I make that point because at some stage, we will need to have the National League North and National League South clubs in the regulatory framework. It seems odd to regulate one of the National League’s divisions, but not the other two. I wonder about the cliff-edge effect of having clubs coming up from both those leagues into a system of regulation. That does not necessarily seem to be the right way to do things; it would be better if they were all captured by the same framework.
The Minister made the point at Second Reading that regulation would be appropriate at each level of the pyramid—that has to be right—and that teams in the National League do not require the same degree of regulation as teams in the upper leagues. That is a sensible and proportionate way of looking at things. These clubs are already used to regulation; they are regulated by other regulators.
There is a case that we need at an early stage in the life of the regulator—I accept it may not be now—to have a report, or perhaps a section in the “state of the game” report, that looks at this issue. There may well be some unintended consequences and some cliff-edge issues, and if we do not get regulation right for these clubs, which could be vulnerable to predatory takeovers, some of them may well suffer as a consequence. None of us in the Committee wants to see that happen—I certainly do not, based on my experience as a Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club fan in the 1990s, when we were nearly destroyed by a predatory takeover. We very nearly went out of the league and out of business, and it took us a decade to recover our position.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I will follow my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham in their references to the Delegated Legislation Committee.
I hesitate to disagree with anything my noble friend Lord Moynihan says in any way, but he described me as a senior member of the committee, and I am afraid that this is not accurate. I am, in fact, the most junior member of the committee, having arrived only very recently, but certainly in time to consider this Bill. When I joined the committee, I found that it was very worked up about the rise in secondary legislation, as it set out in its key document, Democracy Denied?, published in 2021—I will come to the significance of that date in a moment. It criticised the use of Henry VIII powers, disguised legislation and skeleton legislation, saying:
“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy, and this report will, we hope, be a prompt to strengthen Parliament in the coming years”.
I find myself in an awkward position here with my own Front Bench, because in 2021 a Conservative Government were in office. The committee clearly feels that this tendency for skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers and so on has carried on from 2021 to the present.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan will remember that at Second Reading, he drew attention, as I did, to Clause 92(3), which states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend …the definition of ‘football season’”
and
“the definition of ‘serious criminal conduct’”.
Such is the exquisite moderation of the committee that we did not follow that matter up in the report, but we did concentrate on the issue, raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, of the leagues not named in the Bill. He has read out the relevant sections of the report, and I have no intention of reading them out again.
However, I reinforce the closing point made by my noble friend Lord Markham and put it to the Minister in the form of a question. Can she confirm or deny that if the leagues in the pyramid were to be named in the Bill, the Bill would therefore become hybrid? She is nodding, and she will doubtless amplify on that nod when she responds to the debate, but that is a very important point. If that is the case, did the Government refer to that in their discussions with the committee clerks when they were drawing up the report?
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, nobody faint, but on this issue I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I bear the scars of Democracy Denied? It was an excellent report that it took us quite a long time to bring through. The Government cannot have it both ways. We say that the purpose of the Bill
“is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”,
yet it does not explain what English football is.
That is the nub of this. We spent hours on the first part of that, but the second part we seem to want to leave to the Government, because it is seemingly easier to amend delegated powers than primary legislation powers. That is not the point. What is in the tin should be on the front of the tin. It should name what it is doing, which is the Premier League and the Championship. It could go down the tiers and include leagues north and south. You would then have a full list of what this legislation is covering. It is probably just bad drafting, and no more than that. This could be done very simply. Everybody would then understand what the Bill is about.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will speak to my amendments in this group, and I want to extend the point that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, has just made, as it is a very important one.
I appreciate this may have been a painful experience for the Minister, the Bill team and others. We have spent our first two days in Committee looking at Clause 1 and the definitions of “the sustainability of English football”. However, as the noble Lord said, the lack of precision in the Bill in that regard is what has elongated our debates over the last two days in Committee and so concerned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. It bears repetition to draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 3 of the committee’s report, published on 22 November:
“The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ‘protect and promote the sustainability of English football’. One must go through a series of definitions only to find that the Bill does not, after all, provide the definition of English football. Ultimately, the meaning of ‘English football’ depends on regulations to be made in due course by the Secretary of State”.
That is why we have had some rather tortuous debates on the opening clauses of the Bill, and why we are concerned to ensure that this Committee brings the focus we need to the deliberations on this important Bill.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I want to pick up exactly the point that my noble friend on the Front Bench has eloquently started to unpack. It is my fault, but I had not thought about this aspect of hybridity until it was developed this evening. It seems that we have two mischiefs compounding on each other here. The Government are relying on secondary legislation to do something that could just as well be in the Bill, and the committee of which my noble friend is a very distinguished member—although whether junior or senior is not for me to judge—dealt with the Government’s purported reasons for not putting any of these things in the Bill in lapidary and devastating style. They knocked each of them down with casual ease.
The one reason, of course, that the Government did not put forward to the Committee, which the Minister—all praise and honour to her—has accepted as the principal reason, was that to identify the five top tiers in the pyramid in the Bill would have risked making it hybrid. However, the reason why we have a hybrid Bill procedure is quite specific. It is because, if you have a Bill that as well as having general effect has an effect on specific private interests, those private interests are entitled to a way of making their specific concerns directly clear to Parliament.
I remember 40 years ago, as a Whip in the other place, taking through the then Channel Tunnel Bill, which was a hybrid Bill, and a very Herculean effort it was, although it was well worthwhile. It was incredibly important that the private interests—many were affected by it—had the right to make their concerns known. Here we have one technique of putting something into secondary legislation which could easily be put in the Bill, and that is something which generally, in your Lordships’ House and in the other place as well, is generally deprecated.
Even worse is when the reason for putting it in secondary legislation is to suppress the ability of private interests—in this case, really important private interests, right the way down to the National League. There are way more than 100 clubs which, according to the Government, make up English football, which is an incredibly successful and important economic interest. We know, because the Government have said it, that those multiple private interests are the intended target for this legislation. So you have a parliamentary or legislative technique, which is to be deprecated in the first place, being used to frustrate a legitimate right of private interests, which have been identified by the Government as the proposed target for this Bill. Each of those two things on its own should be deprecated, but added together they should give the Government serious pause.
I sympathise with the Minister. She probably did not ask to be put in charge of this Bill and it must have looked like it was going to be quite straightforward, because my party’s Government mistakenly came up with the idea in the first place. It must have seemed like it would be a bit of a doddle to take it through; I am sorry for her that it has not turned out like that but, in every debate we have, something else comes up.
We are not playing games. We are talking about something really serious and important, which affects a lot of people’s lives and economic livelihoods. We are seeing more issues arise; as every layer is peeled away, something else emerges that gives us serious pause. So I urge the Minister to take this back to her department and colleagues and say that it is time to look at it again.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond on this group, I would like to say that I am absolutely delighted to be taking this Bill through Parliament. If somebody had asked me even six months ago if I thought I was going to have an opportunity like this, I would have doubted them, so please do not feel sorry for me in any form. I am delighted to be taking forward this Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their amendments to Clause 2.
I will start with Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is the Government’s view that the current definition of “team” is sufficient and that the definitions in Clause 2 already work as intended. Which clubs are regulated will be determined by which competitions are specified in secondary legislation, as noble Lords have noted. If those are initially men’s competitions only, as the Government currently intend, only clubs that operate men’s teams will be regulated. Restricting the definition of “team” in statute to men’s teams would not only limit the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the women’s game into scope in the future if it were deemed necessary but send the wrong message to all those girls and young women who play football about the value we place on their contribution to the sport.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what would need to happen for us to see women’s football brought into scope in the future. As he referenced, the Government do not believe that the case for statutory intervention has yet been met in women’s football. It should be given the time, space and opportunity to grow and self-regulate. If in the future it becomes clear that women’s football is suffering from a sustainability problem that the industry authorities have been unable to address, the Secretary of State will be able to conduct a formal review. This will of course include consultation with all appropriate parties. Based on that review, women’s football could be brought into scope.
Amendment 19 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill about which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, the amendment would significantly undermine the regulator’s ability to react to changes in the structure of the football pyramid in a timely manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Markham, questioned why we do not, for example, name the Premier League when it is obvious that it would be included. Names change, and we have seen the restructuring or naming of leagues, such as in 1992, when the First Division became the Premier League, and in 2015, when the Football Conference was renamed the National League. In such a scenario, failing to amend the scope in a timely fashion could result in the legislation becoming ineffectual and the regulator being undermined.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Before the Minister comes on to that important point, could she say a bit more about what circumstances would need to change for the National League North and the National League South to be brought into scope in the Government’s view? The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made a powerful case about the size of many of the clubs there and the very valid point, which I meant to echo in my contribution, that those are precisely the sort of teams the Government and their predecessors were both very concerned about in the thinking that led to the Bill—the sort of teams that play such an important role in their communities, that are sometimes more precarious than those at the top of the pyramid, and that, if they went under, would leave such a hole in their communities.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am slightly confused because the noble Lord is going from being proportionate to now appearing to want us to bring in further—
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My noble friend just needs to know why. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying so, but that is not a satisfactory response. The problem here is that there seems to be no rationale other than saying it is reasonable and proportionate. On what basis? What is the basis for saying that? Why is the line drawn there? It feels completely random; you could just as easily draw it one up or one down. But if there has been a decision, and clubs up and down the country now have to prepare themselves for the likelihood that the Bill will go through and they will become regulated licensed entities, it is important to know why the line has been drawn in this place.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Was it not said at some stage during the consideration of the predecessor Bill before the election that it would be a good idea if the regulator was up and running and got some experience of the regime being introduced before considering extending it?
A few minutes ago, we heard that Members opposite thought that this would be too great a burden on smaller clubs. So perhaps it is a good idea to consider when the time is right and what experience the new regulator will have.
Baroness Brady (Con)
It was the smaller clubs, as well as us, that said it would be a burden to them. I read out what the National League’s general manager said about his clubs and their concerns.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will address the issue of why the regulatory regime is currently intended to be limited to the top five tiers of football and not to include the National League North and the National League South. The issues we are concerned with arise most typically and markedly in the professional game where the financialisation of clubs is greatest. We recognise that the top five tiers is not necessarily a perfect proxy for the professional game, since some semi-professional and professional clubs can move between these leagues. However, we consider it the most appropriate and proportionate place to draw the line and the place where it would not result in some clubs in the league being subject to regulation and others not. We do not currently believe that extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be proportionate to the burden on smaller clubs below the National League.
On Amendment 19—and apologies if I am repeating parts of my speech, because it is some time ago that I was actually on my script—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity on the face of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 21, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for putting forward this amendment. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the Secretary of State would have the ability to specify competitions that are in scope of the regulator and we believe that the top five tiers is a sensible and proportionate place to draw the line.
In relation to the points on hybridity, questions of hybridity are for the examiners, not for the Government. If the amendment is made, there will be a process to be followed that will decide whether the Bill is hybrid and needs to go through the hybrid procedures. Initial advice is that the Bill would be thought to be hybrid and I understand that, following the tabling of Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and Amendment 21 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor, issues have been raised about their hybridity.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, asked whether we had discussed with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee ahead of the process. We would not discuss committee reports with clerks before they draw them up.
I know that noble Lords want to continue to work constructively on the Bill—
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I think my question was, in advance of the committee considering the Bill and the Government giving their reasons to the clerks for objecting to the Bill, why did they not then raise the matter of hybridity? Is it the Government’s position that raising the matter of hybridity just is not their business? If it is their business, why did they not raise it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is for the examiners, not the Government, to decide whether or not there is hybridity.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
But it is for the Government to decide whether to incorporate something in a Bill that might make it hybrid. She has clearly taken advice which concluded that putting the explicit leagues on to the face of the Bill would make it hybrid. So there was clearly a decision based on that advice to exclude the specificity from the Bill and put it into secondary legislation. I repeat my noble friend’s question: why was that reason not given to the committee?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The primary reason, as I understand it—and it was clearly the previous Government who drafted the iteration of the Bill and the stage of the Bill that we are now at in our discussions is identical to the previous Government’s Bill—was that naming the leagues would mean that, if there was any change in the names of the leagues, there would be an issue in terms of the legislation, as I have outlined previously. I am happy to write to noble Lords on this point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry; I know this is frustrating. But this is a really important issue for the Bill and I think there is some confusion. During the debate on this, the noble Baroness very helpfully nodded to give a sense to the question—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Let me just ask the question and then the Minister can clarify. Did she nod to agree to the suggestion that, if we had put the names of the leagues—which I seek to do in my amendment or which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seek to do in their Amendment 21—on the face of the Bill, this would make it a hybrid Bill, and the reason they are not in the Bill is to stop it being a hybrid Bill? That is what I think we think she was nodding to agree to earlier.
In the speech she has just given, she dismissed my amendment on the grounds that sometimes the names of the Premier League and the EFL and the National League change and that is the reason for doing it. That is a rather different answer from refusing to put it on the face of the Bill because it would make it a hybrid Bill. If allowing those leagues, those clubs, to have access to Parliament to make the arguments about the effects on their private interests and their business is the reason that it is not on the face of the Bill, I think they and this Committee need to know that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I apologise hugely if my nodding at one point during the noble Lord’s comments meant that other things were inferred. It has reminded me of the dangers of nodding, whether you are nodding to indicate that you understand a point, or that you agree with a point. I was nodding was because in the explanation of this group of amendments that I received from officials earlier today, they made it clear that following the tabling of Amendments 19 and 21, issues have been raised about hybridity. That was the point at which hybridity was raised with me. I hope noble Lords will accept my writing to them to clear up any other issues that might have been raised. I know they want to work constructively on the Bill to make sure that we put in place as soon as possible an effective and proportionate regulator that safeguards the future of our national game, which was a manifesto commitment by the three main parties. I look forward to discussing these amendments further, ahead of Report.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Will my noble friend just clarify that this section of the Bill is identical to the one that was introduced pre-election?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that point is by the by. I had not appreciated the hybridity question until my Amendment 19 was tabled and the clerks advised me about it, as I am sure she had not in relation to her Amendment 21. It raises some fundamental questions. It is unfortunate that we have come to debate them at this late hour, and I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to write to the Committee about this; I hope she will be able to do that before our next meeting.
We need to understand this point, because it is a further instance of democracy being denied—the limiting effect it has not just on the ability of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise legislation, but on private citizens making representations to Parliament about the direct effect on their companies, businesses, clubs and organisations. I asked the Minister about Clause 91, which seeks to deny the right to use the hybrid powers so that they can make their views known directly. If we are going to go down the route that seeks to close this off not just in the Bill—in primary legislation—but in secondary legislation too, we need clarity on this before we go much further.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, I will write to noble Lords on this point, noting that I know they want to work constructively on the Bill. I have a few more points to cover, so if I could continue without interruption, I will reply to anybody in writing if we need to.
On Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I understand that delegated decisions of such importance as the scope of regulation should be made only after proper consideration and in consultation with all key stakeholders. This is exactly what has been done over several years of development of the Bill. It was carried out by the previous Government, in which, as has been noted, the noble Lord served, although I accept that we are bringing forward this legislation, so it is the Labour Government’s Bill now.
The initial intended scope of the Bill is built on a strong evidence base and extensive consultation with the industry, including a White Paper. Therefore, the Government do not feel it is necessary to require additional consultation before the first regulations are specified in scope in secondary regulation. This would impose unnecessary burdens on the industry and the Government and risk significantly delaying the regulator being able to implement its regime.
On the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose this. As is standard procedure, the Bill sets out the key definitions used in this legislation. These are required to ensure that there is legal clarity throughout the Bill and to prevent confusion when looking to practically implement this legislation.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for her response to these points, I am more convinced than ever that having a probing amendment that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill has been borne out by the exchanges that we have had this evening.
First, there are clearly too many powers that have gone into secondary legislation and those powers delegated to the Secretary of State now have a completely different light on them. The question of hybridity is absolutely relevant. If we do not know what we are talking about within the Bill because it is potentially hybrid, and we cannot put on the face of the Bill the government plan—which, incidentally, was the same as the previous government plan—to enshrine the top five leagues of the men’s game in legislation, then we have a serious problem.
My concern is amplified by the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clearly unaware of the exchanges that have taken place this evening or, indeed, of any briefing that could have been given to the committee by the Government; it clearly did not happen. So it is not surprising that in its report it stated:
“It is not clear why a monopoly granted by secondary legislation would be less significant than one granted by primary legislation”.
The answer to that is quite clearly one of hybridity.
Therefore, in not pushing my amendment this evening, I nevertheless request that the Government write not only to members of this Committee but to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, setting out in some detail their response to the exchanges that have taken place this evening, so that these issues can be addressed with clarity. Frankly, it is not surprising that, without that clarity, the committee commented:
“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.
The committee does not make comments such as that flippantly but it would make them in the absence of a full understanding of the reasons behind the Government’s position as to why they have not put the top five leagues from the men’s game in legislation. That applies to Amendment 19 as well as Amendment 21.
I very much hope that in my not pressing Amendment 18, the Government will take it away and give due consideration to what has been said this evening and write to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with an updated view. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I call Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am not willing to not move Amendment 19 yet. Given that the House is about to resume and be adjourned, it might be more helpful to degroup it and leave it as the first amendment that we return to when the Committee resumes. I appreciate that this is unusual, but I do it to try to be helpful. If the Minister can write on the points about hybridity, which she has kindly undertaken to do, then this is the point at which the Committee will resume when next it meets, so that we can return to this fundamental point. So I am not willing to not move Amendment 19 and I suggest we resume the House now.