Football Governance Bill [HL]

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

15:23

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as we begin day 4 of Committee on the Football Governance Bill, we have an ambitious target today and I urge all noble Lords to work together to achieve it. I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to the front page of today’s lists from the Government Whips’ Office and all the reminders about speaking times, which were agreed by the House last year. I remind the Committee of that and we expect noble Lords to work together to make progress to that ambitious target; we need to get to it today.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, the rubric states quite clearly the expectations that there are on Members of the House. Those are of course maximum time limits, not targets to be aimed for, but the document also says that Members

“should not summarise or repeat at length points made by others, and if speaking more than once a Member should not repeat points they have already made”.

I have already sat through a couple of hours of this Committee and heard that done repeatedly. Will the usual channels intervene if people deviate from the subject or are repetitious, and therefore ask them to sit down?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I hope that we will not need to intervene, but the Whips on the government Bench will certainly intervene if necessary. I ask all noble Lords to read the points on Committee stage, which were agreed by the House. We do not want repetition; we want proper scrutiny, with progress made today on the Bill. We have a number of groups to get through, but it is perfectly achievable in the time.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, I suggest that we now begin.

Clause 6: The IFR’s objectives

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Lord Hayward]

51: Clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave out “protect and promote” and insert “monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 51 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. He has asked me to move it because he is, unfortunately, unavailable on this occasion. Perhaps I might observe that, out of the 300-plus amendments, some 120-plus of them come from the Government’s own Back Benches.

This amendment deals with an area which I have touched on on a number of occasions during debate on the Bill’s clauses and subsections: the financial impact that it will have on the different leagues. They are not named in the Bill, but we all know which ones we are talking about.

I am particularly interested to be talking to Amendment 51 on the basis of the Prime Minister’s own Damascene conversion—if I can refer to Syria as being the place in the public eye at the moment—to avoiding, where possible, impositions on the private sector by regulation. He commented on that in his speech last Thursday. It would appear that he is now of the view that regulation should be kept to a minimum, or that the Civil Service—I specifically exclude the civil servants advising the Minister, who have been very helpful throughout—is providing a “tepid bath” of steady decline. I think those were the Prime Minister’s words. Other Ministers have then been sent out to clarify on the matter, one of whom today described it as an attempt to take the approach of a start-up. Well, my noble friend Lord Markham has identified how to aim to start up and the funding needed when one actually takes that approach, which may not be conducive to the overall approach outlined in the Bill for football regulation.

15:30

The other matter on which I have touched at different points is the importance of ensuring that the Premier League in particular and English football overall should be able to adjust in what is a highly competitive world. Last week we saw something of which, I will be honest, I was unaware—that football’s Club World Cup is to take place next year. It involves 32 clubs from right around the world, only two of which are English: Chelsea and Manchester City. It will take place in June and July next year and will inevitably impinge on the football structure in England. Therefore, we have to ensure that any football regulator acts in a manner that takes cognisance of developments that I have identified, not only in sport in general but in football, because in those six weeks, in the period when the football season is not normally taking place in this country, it will be taking place throughout the United States. It is relevant that players who are participating on behalf of English clubs will naturally want some form of respite in one form or another when they come back from the tournament, at whatever point their participation ends.

My noble friend has proposed the changes to Clause 6, on line 9 of page 5, which would follow the elements of scrutiny that I have raised on a number of occasions—to

“leave out ‘protect and promote’ and insert ‘monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard’”.

He then has Amendment 52 as well. Under those circumstances, it is relevant, as I have said persistently, to ensure that there is clear identification of the impact on the clubs, more specifically than saying that this will be proportionate. We need to adopt a frame of mind that ensures that the regulator is acting beneficially to football in general and not imposing undue burdens on our clubs that are not faced by other clubs around the world, with whom we will have to compete not only in tournaments, to which I have just referred, but for television rights and international funds. Without that frame of mind, we will not have a Premier League of which we can be rightly proud. With those opening comments, I beg to move my noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 57 in this first group. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in his place and I appreciate his cameo role in this Committee. I had not noticed him here for most of the deliberations of the Committee, but we welcome him anyway.

This is a probing amendment to press the Government on how much intervention they envisage the regulator pursuing in the internal financial affairs of clubs. It is a probing amendment because we on this side seek to solicit from the Minister more precise details, which are not in the Bill, about how much she and the Government envisage the independent football regulator having a part to play in the technical minutiae of the finances of each club.

Because of the nature of the Bill and the wide-ranging powers under its Henry VIII clauses, we simply do not know the degree of interference in those 116 clubs. For instance, will a club be required periodically to enunciate its liquidity requirements on a quarterly, half-yearly or annual basis? What debt cap rules will they have? What player acquisition and sales issues will the regulator become involved in?

Importantly, there are also the decisions taken by the boards of the 116 football clubs around land and property, which are covered elsewhere in the Bill but relate to this amendment—where they play and what contractual arrangements they may have with landowners on a rental, leasehold or freehold basis. Will the regulator be prescriptive about which banking arrangements, and with which organisations, each club is free to enter into?

These are important issues. This Committee’s effective scrutiny requires more insight from the Government into the regulator’s intentions regarding financial regulation, not least because other non-departmental public bodies already have significant powers and the capacity to intervene directly in what are, in effect, small and medium-sized enterprises and significant, big businesses turning over large amounts of money. There are the Financial Conduct Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, and local authorities have widespread powers to intervene in the everyday activities of the clubs contained within their local government areas. There are also various companies Acts, such as the Companies Act 2006 and that of 2016, that are within the bailiwick of the interface between government and football clubs.

As we asked on the sweeping powers over raising finance, and since the Bill does not expand on this, is Parliament not being asked to write a blank cheque to allow the Government to regulate as they wish? Not just the Premier League but clubs in other leagues are most concerned about this because of the nature of this legislation. Will the Minister address the concerns of each of those clubs about the powers of the regulator potentially to interfere in each club’s everyday financial affairs?

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests declared in the register. I support Amendment 71 tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which raises a crucial point regarding the backstop mechanism. We must be clear at the outset about what this mechanism governs and, critically, what it does not.

First, it is vital to understand that the backstop is categorically not about the fair apportionment of collective football revenues. Each party—the Premier League and the EFL—has its own central broadcast revenues. Indeed, the EFL has just secured a landmark five-year domestic broadcasting deal worth nearly £1 billion, increasing its central revenues by 50% from next season. This is testament to the Championship’s growing competitiveness and appeal.

I will not dwell on the fact that many of its recipients are incredibly wealthy—I believe there are nine billionaire owners in the Championship, along with many other extremely well-funded ownership groups—but I will dwell on the fact that, despite its very healthy income, the EFL does not give any money to the National League. It gives no funding to the leagues directly below it. It is the Premier League that supports the National League. Far from some sort of neutral arbitration to allow all parties to share with each other, the backstop is in fact a mechanism for the forcible redirection of billions of pounds of Premier League revenue only. In other words, this is one set of private businesses handing over money to another competing set, even if they do not want to give more than the £1.6 billion they already do and it damages their ability to compete.

The critical point, therefore, is that this backstop mechanism represents a completely unprecedented and untested intervention in what are the private commercial rights of Premier League clubs only. It impacts uniquely on Premier League clubs. The gravity and novelty of such an intervention demands the most careful consideration. Crucially, the backstop introduces a major and radical change in the Bill: the inclusion of parachute payments. This decision was taken without adequate consultation with Premier League clubs.

I mentioned earlier in Committee that just seven out of 20 clubs were invited to a 30-minute meeting on the Bill with the Secretary of State between the Government taking office in July and the decision, which was taken in October. It is no surprise that this lack of consultation has produced such a reckless decision. There simply cannot have been an appropriate understanding by the Government of its potential consequences.

Parachute payments are not a financial convenience; they are a cornerstone of the Premier League’s competitive balance. Without them, clubs cannot plan for long-term investment, or the stability required to maintain the intense competitiveness that is the hallmark of the Premier League and a significant driver of its global appeal. Parachutes are also—this is an often-overlooked point—a key part of the financial incentives for Championship clubs to invest in that league, knowing that if they reach the promised land, it will not all be undone with one bad year.

To fundamentally alter this system risks undermining the very factors that have made the Premier League such a global success and one of the UK’s greatest soft power assets. Potentially harming the magic ingredient of the Premier League’s competitive balance threatens to destabilise long-term commitments, jeopardising investment in lower-league stadiums, academies and community programmes. I believe it would fundamentally undermine the Championship, too.

We should also consider the concerns raised by UEFA. It has warned that the backstop mechanism could disrupt the balance of power in football governance and negatively affect the competitive equilibrium in both domestic and European competitions. UEFA has urged the Government to carefully reconsider their approach, emphasising that mandating redistribution in this way risks deterring amicable solutions and the very investments that underpin the success of English football.

This unprecedented intervention into private commercial rights must be carefully scrutinised. It very obviously has a differential and disproportionate impact on the clubs within the Premier League. It is also clear that the consequences of this seismic and deeply flawed intervention have not been fully understood. We do, as UEFA has said, need to reconsider this critical issue.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I rise to speak to my amendment to Clause 71 on financial redistribution, and to add to the very valuable points made by my noble friend Lady Brady.

What the Bill seeks to do—which I have not seen in relation to any other regulator in the UK—is to give the regulator unprecedented powers to take money from one part of the sector or certain companies and give it to another. In any other field, this would be unheard of. Can you imagine the FCA saying, “I think HSBC should give some money to Barclays”? Can you imagine Ofwat saying to Severn Trent, “Thames Water is having a bit of a hard time, can you help it out”? Can you imagine Ofcom saying that Sky should help ITV out where advertising revenues are going down? That is unheard of among regulators.

I value the days in Committee as there is such knowledge around the House, so I would love it if any noble Lord could come up with an example of where a regulator has got the power to take away money from a part of the sector or company and give it to another. I would love to hear it.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

On the noble Lord’s point, can he explain to me what happened to the banks when the financial crash came and they ran out of money, or the money was disappearing? Who stepped up then and financed all the banks? The Government did. That was an example of rebalancing and ensuring that the money supply could keep going throughout—that is why they did it.

This Bill will ensure that the rest of the pyramid can survive and carry on. One document I read today says that in 2022-23,

“20 members of the Premier League and five … in the EFL … received 92% of the distributable”

wealth—£3 billion—while

“the other 67 professional clubs”

got £245 million. Is that fair?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That goes right to the heart of this conversation. I can point out loads of industries where there are only one or two top companies. Think of the share of the search revenue that Google has. Is that fair? Is it the role of a regulator to get involved and say, “Oh, Google, you should give some money to Bing, because it’s not doing that well”? That is exactly my point.

The noble Lord made a point about the banking sector. The Government stepped in there because they felt that there were wider consequences for the whole economy. They stepped in; they did not say, “Barclays, you should give some money to HSBC”. What we are talking about here is fundamentally different. It is a different set of regulatory powers that I do not think anyone has seen—

15:45

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

We are talking here about a fundamentally different thing: the football pyramid and its sustainability. That is what this Bill is about. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was entirely fair. Is it fair that the top 20 Premier League members and the top five clubs in the Championship get 92% of the television revenues generated, when it is the whole of the football world, in a sense, that helps generate those revenues? I do not think it is fair, and I want to hear the noble Lord, Lord Markham, comment on its fairness or otherwise.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Is it fair that Federer, Djokovic and Murray earned so much in their time? Did Wimbledon not need all the players to take part for it to be so valuable? Is it fair that Verstappen has won the championship four or five times in a row and is earning far more than everyone else? That is about sporting competitiveness—or competitiveness in anything. It is not the role of a regulator to start to redistribute income; I believe fervently that we will then get the law of unintended consequences.

My noble friend Lady Brady talked about parachute payments. This weekend was a perfect example of why the Premier League is the most popular league in the world. Crystal Palace held Man City to a draw. Can you believe that Crystal Palace—fourth from the bottom, right on the edge of being relegated—would have invested that much in players if they knew that, if they got relegated, they would lose all that money and face almost financial ruin in the Championship without it? I do not think so. I think a regulator would have said, “Oh, Palace, it’s not very sustainable having all that money when you could go down”. That would fundamentally alter the competitiveness of those games. That is the value of the Premier League. People will tune in, because they know that it will not be a walkover between Palace and City in this example; they know that it will be a competitive game.

Countries all over the world are prepared to pay more money than anyone else to see these games because they are competitive. Take the Bundesliga or the Italian or Spanish leagues: there are two or three top clubs and then a lot of also-rans, so it is not competitive in the same way. That is the danger we face here. By allowing regulators to redistribute income, on the basis that it is not fair that the top clubs are getting more, you will alter the whole competitiveness of the structure. Again, we say that it is not fair, but is it fair that the Championship is the sixth wealthiest in the world, while the Premier League is the wealthiest? Why is that? First, it gets a lot of payments down from the Premier League as part of voluntary arrangements. Secondly, it is because of how the whole of football has been set up for clubs to be promoted: money is being invested to give them a chance.

We have all said many times that this is our number one industry worldwide—there is no doubt whatever about that. We then have the second tier, which is number six worldwide. There is nothing else like that, and I believe we are at risk of putting that whole system under threat if we meddle in these ways.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I declare an interest, having acted recently for Manchester City in relation to the charges by the Premier League. I put it to the noble Lord that the system he and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, portray of Premier League clubs having the normal activity of a commercial company that can to do what it likes is simply incorrect. The Premier League itself imposes considerable restraints via financial fair play on what companies can spend and how they use their money. It does that because this is a sport, and the effectiveness of the sport depends on competitive constraints. What the regulator may or may not do is simply an aspect of that. The world that the noble Lord portrays simply does not exist.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He makes a very strong point, which is that the current system of regulation for Premier League clubs, and the EFL doing it for its clubs, seeks absolutely to set up that competitive environment and those financial fair play rules. My point supports what the noble Lord said: there already is a system of checks and balances, which is working well and making sure that our English Premier League is the first in the world and the Championship is the sixth. Why do we need a regulator coming in between that?

I perfectly accept that there are certain things that the regulator is important for, such as the breakaway league, but is it really the best place to start to have financial distribution from one club to another? That is why I brought this amendment forward. We are fundamentally asking a regulator to do something that we have not asked any other regulator to do in the whole of the economic environment. I thank noble Lords for their interventions; they have added to the debate. I look forward to discussing this further.

Briefly, my other amendments, Amendments 126 and 130, again try to ensure that we do not get mission creep, that we are quite clear about the information the regulator should be asking for from the clubs, and that we cannot set up a regulator that is allowed to go on a complete fishing trip in a lot of these areas. The amendments would set out what information the regulator can ask for from clubs and what they should provide in their strategic business plans, so that we are all clear about that without an endless list that goes on and on. Again, I speak in the context not just of the large clubs; a lot of these are very small clubs, without a large amount of resource to reply to lots of information requests. We need to be quite clear about what we are asking the regulator to do.

I hope this has contributed to the debate. I hope noble Lords will reflect on the fact that we are asking the regulator to do more than we do in any other sector—in our most successful sector too—and whether that is wise.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of these amendments, which would enhance the regulator’s approach. I particularly support Amendments 51 and 52, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude. The language change may appear subtle—to replace “protect and promote” with

“monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”—

in the IFR’s objectives, but the implications for the regulator’s behaviour would be important.

The Minister has said several times in our previous debates that she believes the regulator’s approach should be proportionate. That is welcome, but I am concerned that the current wording of the objectives does not fully support that intention. We have discussed overregulation at length, and the potential for it is clear, particularly as we do not have a counterbalancing growth or success duty to guard against such an approach.

It is important to remember that most clubs, at all levels of the game, are well run. There is no justification for an overly risk-averse set of financial rules that can dampen investment and threaten our hard-won global leadership position, or for infrastructure investments that drive long-term value to be second-guessed. We can guard against such unnecessary interference and regulatory creep. My noble friend Lord Maude’s suggested wording could provide an underpinning for a more proportionate approach. It would recognise that most clubs manage their affairs responsibly and that football’s existing structures in the main work effectively, but would allow for targeted regulatory intervention for genuine issues that have been identified and where it becomes very clear that IFR action is necessary.

The systemic resilience objective requires particularly careful consideration, as we must set an appropriately high bar for macro-level interventions that may fundamentally change how football works. Changing this objective to one to intervene where resilience is “substantially threatened” would properly frame the backstop power as a true emergency brake. As the Minister herself said, it should not be a routine tool.

This matters hugely. As we have heard already in discussions in Committee, the football pyramid depends hugely on the Premier League’s commercial success. Constant intervention risk in a readily available backstop would create exactly the kind of uncertainty we do not want to see that could damage long-term investment. We must make sure that the backstop power genuinely is an “in case of emergency only” tool.

The commercial confidentiality provisions tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench are equally important. As we know, football clubs compete internationally for players, commercial partnerships and broadcast value. Forcing the detailed disclosure of business strategies or commercially sensitive information could damage clubs’ ability to operate effectively in these markets.

This group of amendments is about ensuring that the regulator enhances rather than inhibits what makes English football successful: genuine competition, where well-run clubs can thrive through strong management, innovation and calculated ambition. Once again, we are talking about a set of changes that could provide the regulator with a lighter-touch, proportionate model of regulation. I hope the Minister will give them some serious consideration.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I say a few words now. I remind the Committee that many of the people taking part today do not like regulation. I have heard that—a lot. I have a bad short-term memory because I am dyslexic, and I have got the message very clearly, so can we just leave it there?

The aim of the Bill is to create a sound framework for football. Even if you do not think those at the top are in trouble, everybody is agreed that, periodically, the other bits look as though they are going to collapse and fall away, or will have to be replaced, as well as all the little local dramas going on. That has been going on for decades, and we have all heard it.

We are going to have a regulator. The worst type of regulator is one that stands back and does not intervene until it is too late, and has to go in with a heavy hand. We want a regulator that we know will intervene and, as I put it at Second Reading, bite hard enough to leave a scar; a body that will actually do something and let people know that there will be consequences for not complying with the regulation. That is what the Bill is about—and what it has been about since the first version. I hope that we can progress on the line that we are trying to make the regulator work properly, and that we do not have too much repetition of points that have already been made.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 71. It was criticised from all the other Benches on grounds of fairness. I just want to interrogate slightly what the critics mean when they say that this regulator will make things fairer.

We are famously a fair-minded people—you can always appeal to a Brit’s sense of fair play—but the word can be ambiguous. Does it mean equity, merit or need? Suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and I were to buy a cake together, and he spent £3 on it and I spent £2. What would be the fair distribution? Would it be a 60:40 distribution—in other words, dependent on what we had put in? Would it be 50:50? Would it depend on which of us looked hungrier—in other words, based on need? Sometimes these things are all merged together.

I find that, in politics, the word is a kind of boast; it is used to mean, “Look at me: I am a nice, caring person”. It is a way of signalling your decency: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” When applied to this particular case, we are in danger of entering into a kind of Atlas Shrugged world, where we politicians and state regulators decide what is fair, rather than leaving it to those most involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, says that we want a regulator that can bite and leave scars. I would rather not have the scars. I would rather have our extremely successful football system unscarred. He added that it existed for decades without regulation, which I think tells us something. I accept that we have lost that argument and will get some kind of regulator, but I appeal to the Government, at least on the other amendments in this group.

The Minister, at Second Reading and again at the start of Committee, repeatedly said that she wanted the scope of the regulator to be restricted, and I do not for a second doubt her sincerity. We also have heard lots of people on all sides already trying to extend its scope—not to limit and circumscribe it but quite the opposite. Indeed, if we look down the list of some of these amendments, we see that, even before it has come into law, people are saying that it needs to apply to women’s games, we need regulations on diversity of ticket holders, and so on.

16:00

Which of those is likely to happen? Will we have a limited and circumscribed Bill, where the regulator will have only the powers given to it in a strict way, or will it extend its power over time? We all know how regulators in this country operate. I do not think there has ever been a regulator that reduces its power voluntarily over time. For that reason, it is worth setting out now in Committee, in terms, what some of these restrictions are. We need to say some of the things that the regulator will expressly not be allowed to do. It is no good just saying “That wasn’t in the Bill”, because we know that is not how regulators operate. It is a little bit like the Bill of Rights to the US constitution; you need to say, “Just for the avoidance of doubt, these things are not in the power of the regulator”. If it is too much to insert that into the legislation, it would be very nice at least to hear it from the Front Bench officially, so that that can be referred back to when the time comes.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving Amendment 51 on his behalf—and to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and then Amendments 71, 126 and 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham. To those final three, I have also added my name.

The amendments in this group seek to restrict some of the wider powers granted to the new independent football regulator in the Bill as presently drafted. Amendments 51 and 52 would alter the fundamental objectives of the regulator. As drafted, the Bill states that the objectives of the regulator include

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”,

and

“to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”.

In essence, that is both a specific objective, directed at clubs themselves, and a general objective, which applies to English football as a whole. Leaving aside the important question of what constitutes English football—which we have already debated but not yet had much success in ascertaining—and indeed the question of what the Government mean by “financial soundness” and “financial resilience”, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham has sought through his amendments to probe the Government’s intention to set the regulator’s objective as being to protect and to promote. In place of those words, my noble friend proposes the alternative description,

“monitor and where necessary intervene”.

His amendment thus addresses the core question of how activist a regulator we want. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for underlining that point in his contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response both to the amendments and to that that core argument. That is, I think, what Members of the Committee have been probing in this group.

Clearly, as drafted, the Bill sets the independent football regulator an active objective to protect and promote English football. That objective is necessarily continuous and seemingly proactive. It could be taken by the regulator to require constant involvement, giving rise once again to the concerns that the Committee has raised about excessive activity and mission creep. By contrast, a lighter-touch duty to monitor the financial soundness of clubs and the financial resilience of English football could allow clubs to get on with their ultimate objective of winning competitions without the overbearing and excessive involvement of this new regulator. I was struck that my noble friend’s amendment is explicit that the regulator’s objective would involve active intervention only “where necessary”. That is a helpful formulation and discipline when drafting legislation.

The question these amendments pose to the Committee, therefore, is whether we want an active, interventionist and potentially overbearing regulator, which might run the risk of getting in the way of our world-class football clubs; or a vigilant, diligent but ultimately careful regulator, which has a duty to stay its hand and intervene only when necessary. I have stretched from teeth to hands in extending the metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; I agree that the regulator must have teeth and must be seen to have them. We would like to see those teeth bared from time to time, and to hear them gnashing but, like my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, I would rather not see the scars from those teeth on world-class and highly successful businesses and clubs too often.

We have to strike the right balance to make sure that we have a regulator that commands the respect that it needs to, without biting too often and too damagingly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on where to draw the line, both in the legislation and the words that we have, and on what the Government hope the Bill will bring about for the regulator.

Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, places a prohibition on the regulator from intervening in the internal financial affairs of regulated clubs. His amendment allows us to consider an important issue, on which a number of noble Lords touched. I know that my noble friend feels very strongly about the possibility of this regulator hampering the ability of clubs to operate as the successful businesses that they are at present, so I welcome his attempt to see whether there is a sensible way of placing some restrictions or limitations on the role that the regulator might play.

As I made clear from Second Reading onwards, we support the establishment of this regulator. We recognise that specific market failures have been raised and recognised, both by fans during the fan-led review and by the previous Government’s work, which helped to inform this Bill’s precursor. The ability of the regulator to have at least some role in regulating the finances of clubs will, I hope, allow it to attempt to address the problems that have been identified. However, we again want to make sure that it does not do so in a way that damages the successful businesses that they are.

Amendment 71 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and I put my name to it as well. It seeks to prevent the regulator from transferring funds from one private club to another. Mindful of the Government Chief Whip’s entreaties, I do not wish to repeat my noble friend’s argument, so I merely pose a question to the Minister: are there any circumstances in which she and the Government feel that a transfer would be appropriate? If there are no circumstances that she can envisage and set out, what are the problems with embracing my noble friend’s amendment?

I will also say something about my noble friend’s Amendment 126, which seeks to strike out Clause 16(3)(c). That provision of the Bill allows the regulator to require clubs to provide any “such other information”, as the regulator decides in its rules, when those clubs are applying for their provisional licences. Once again, those rules are not set out in the Bill, but are to be determined at a later date so, as clubs are planning their financial affairs for the near future and beginning their preparations for the licensing regime that will be ushered in once the Bill gains Royal Assent, they will not know what information they will be required to provide to the regulator. All we have in the Bill is a vague requirement that they must produce a “personnel statement” and a “strategic business plan”, but there is no further information here and paragraph (c) seems to allow the regulator to request anything that it may choose. That is a distinct lack of clarity for clubs, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on whether we can add to that clarity by being more precise.

Finally, Amendment 130, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would prevent the regulator from requiring information that is not specified in the Bill to be included in a club’s strategic business plan. The current drafting of the Bill grants the regulator a concerningly wide power to require clubs to include

“such other information as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.

This is yet another example of a lack of clarity in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting it. Where there is a lack of clarity regarding the regulator’s duties, there is uncertainty for the party that is to be regulated. It seems regrettable that the clubs should not get the clarity that they need about their duties under this part of the Bill but must wait until the regulator has published its rules in due course. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the kind of information requirements that the Government think that the regulator might be likely to include in its rules? Is that something that the Government have discussed with those who are preparing the regulator’s work in this area? Can she elaborate on this for the Committee’s understanding? I am grateful to her and to noble Lords who have spoken on this group.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is important to remember that Premier League clubs are already extensively regulated by the rules of the Premier League. The problem is that those rules are made by the 20 Premier League clubs themselves. They are also regulated, as all football is regulated, by UEFA. I gave the example a few moments ago of financial fair play. The virtue of the Government’s proposals surely is that the regulation will be by an independent person. That is what is required. The defects of all the proposed amendments in this group would be simply to confine the discretion of the independent regulator to respond to circumstances as they arise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Markham, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for introducing this group. I particularly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which reminds us of why we are here.

Starting with Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, I understand that their aim is to clarify that the regulator should only intervene where necessary and in response to substantial risks. I assure the noble Lord that this aim is already appropriately achieved by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said—and apologies if I paraphrase this incorrectly—this is about ensuring a sound financial basis for football. It will be for the regulator to identify risks to a club’s financial soundness or the financial resilience of the system and to act accordingly. It would be disproportionate and unreasonable for the regulator to intervene where it did not think that the benefits of doing so would outweigh any costs imposed. The Explanatory Notes to this clause make clear that, in the advancement of its systemic financial resilience objective, the regulator

“will identify, monitor and if necessary take action to mitigate systemic risks in order to protect the aggregate financial sustainability and resilience of English football”.

However, we reject the notion that the regulator should be able to act only once risks have become so severe that they substantially threaten the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned the banking crisis; the amendment under discussion could be argued to be equivalent to a financial services regulator noticing sub-prime lending and credit default swap trading in 2007 but not being able to intervene until Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. Instead, the regulator should be able proactively to mitigate risks when they are identified. We believe that “protect and promote” appropriately conveys this, to ensure a future forward-looking regulator. However, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this does not mean that the regulator will be placing undue restrictions on clubs, pre-empting risks that have not yet materialised.

Turning to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s amendment is at odds with the aims and objective of the regulator. It undermines the very intention of a Bill that had the support of all three main political parties at the election less than three months ago. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State in the other place has stated:

“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/24; col. 244.]


We are looking to set up a predominantly financial regulator. Stopping the regulator from taking any action relating to a club’s internal finances would defeat that purpose. The regulator’s statutory mandate is to deliver its objective; it will achieve these aims using only the powers given to it in statute, such as the licensing regime and the owners’ and directors’ test. The regulator would, therefore, not become involved in the club’s finances, unless it thought that the action would lead to it delivering its objectives. Its powers place clear limits on the extent to which it can require things of clubs.

16:15

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, expressed concerns about well-run clubs. I reassure her that well-run clubs should have little intervention from the regulator. If the regulator has overstretched and is acting outside its statutory remit, there is a comprehensive appeals regime to address this.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, asked about powers to act on a club’s finances. The regulator’s financial regulation powers are aimed at ensuring financial stability. If a club lacks sufficient financial resilience, the IFR may require a club to improve its financial resources. This might include building liquid assets and providing greater assurances on owners’ funding or outgoings. These should be applied proportionately and only where necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, also asked about player transactions. The regulator cannot interfere with individual player transactions. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and others, regarding Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, let me be clear that the backstop process will apply only to revenue received by the leagues. This is already explicit in the Clause 56 definition of relevant revenue. It does not allow the regulator to include individual club revenue that is not relevant for distribution agreements, for example, from shirt sales. This amendment is therefore not necessary to ensure that; rather, this amendment would call into question the regulator’s powers under the backstop process. Although the process is about resolving distribution disputes between the leagues, not individual clubs, the money received by the leagues is ultimately distributed to their members clubs. This amendment would cast doubt on the regulator’s ability to effectively deploy the backstop, even when requested to do so as a last resort by the leagues and where it considers it cannot deliver its objectives.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, asked about fairness; and there was also a discussion from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, about businesses being required to give away their cash. The Premier League itself recognises that financial redistribution is needed to ensure the solidarity of the football pyramid, which is why it already voluntarily distributes its revenue to lower leagues. The Government’s strong preference is for an industry-led solution that works for all of football. However, given the importance of financial distributions to financial sustainability and that ensuring a timely satisfactory agreement is in the public interest, the regulator will need to have a targeted backstop power to intervene if necessary. The regulator will have targeted powers to intervene as a last resort. This means that, if football cannot deliver a solution, the regulator will. These backstop powers have been carefully designed to incentivise an industry-led solution that delivers the right outcomes with minimum regulatory involvement. As such, the regulator will only ever intervene as a last resort.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I want to make sure I properly understood the answer to the question on the circumstances in which the Minister would say it was appropriate to take money from one club and give it to another. The Minister answered that the Bill was not seeking to do that because it was looking at the movement of money between competitions. But if you take more money from the Premier League to give to the Championship and other clubs, by definition the clubs receive less money, so that is what happens there. I am not sure that saying money is coming from the competition, not the clubs, is an answer; the money is coming from the clubs. I was not sure about the Minister’s answer. When you change the payments between the Premier League, that directly impacts the clubs and the money they receive.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that the amendment would prevent money going from club to club. The model is around distribution between leagues or competitions, as the noble Lord suggests. There is already a situation in which the Premier League recognises that some financial redistribution is needed. I refer the noble Lord to previous discussions about why the regulator and financial redistribution of some type are required within the football pyramid.

Amendments 126 and 130 relate to the regulator being able to state in its rules any further information that is required to accompany the application for a provisional licence or the strategic business plan. The regulator will be independent, and it will be the expert. We need to give it the flexibility to implement its regime as it considers appropriate. This includes being able to request additional information in a club’s application if necessary to satisfy itself that the club will meet the test for a provisional operating licence. This will be set out up front in the rules, so clubs will always know in advance what is required of them when submitting an application or a strategic business plan. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope they will not press them.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I find the Minister’s answer interesting, but I will start by making a comment in relation to my noble friend—I do address him as my noble friend—Lord Addington’s remarks regarding regulation. The concerns we have on these Benches are in relation not to regulation per se but to regulatory creep and regulatory definition. The first few clauses in the Bill in one form or another either cover inadequately or do not cover the question of regulation.

My first amendments related to sustainability and the breadth of that comment. The Minister has just made her observations in relation to “targeted”, “prioritised” and “proportionate”. We are trying to establish precisely what the regulator can operate to, more clearly than we have in the Bill as it stands. It is not clear, and the net result is, as we know and as has been observed by any number of Members across this House, that we watch regulators use regulatory creep one after another after another.

The Minister used the words “proportionate” and “targeted”. Is the regulator going to have exactly the same interpretation of “proportionate” or “targeted” as the Minister? No. By definition there are no minds alike, and therefore they will be different. In this set of amendments we are trying to find out precisely how the regulator should operate. Without that clarity, the Bill gives the regulator what I regard, and I think many people on this side of the Committee particularly regard, as undue breadth of self-interpretation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the Premier League and the payments that are made. I agree with parts of the comments that he made, but we have here a unique operation whereby the Premier League makes payments to other clubs in other divisions and to those facing threats of relegation so that the whole system does not fail.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, identified the banking crisis. Under those circumstances, Governments worldwide intervened in all sorts of ways in all sorts of businesses. That is not comparable with trying to regulate a sport, and a highly successful sport as it is. What is significant and interesting is that although the Premier League passes money downwards, the Championship does not. It receives money and could easily pass money down, but fails to do so. Therefore, one is looking at a complicated position in terms of regulation and the impact it will have, in a way that has been eloquently identified in a number of contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, from her understanding, unique in this Chamber, of the operation of both the Championship and the Premier League.

I will continue to seek clarity, as I am sure others will, on what is intended behind the work of the regulator. That is what we are here to do, and we should do it step by step as we look at each clause and subsection. Having made those comments and noted what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Amendments 52 and 53 not moved.

Amendment 54

Moved by

[Lord Blunkett]

54: Clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) to ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively.”

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I rise to move Amendment 54 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to speak to the associated Amendment 159, which relates to Schedule 5 and the role of the regulator in relation to the code of practice.

I hope we will not spend an hour on this group. Having sat through parts of the first two days in Committee, I have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as I heard on the previous groups, including on the definition of football, what we mean by competition and even what fairness is. Well, I know that fairness is not the argument about whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pays his due share towards a piglet pie at Brighton’s football ground.

What is this all about? It is quite right that we in this House should scrutinise, raise legitimate argument and challenge a Bill of this sort, but I say to the Premier League, and to those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three Committee days, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point millions of fans out there might learn what is going on with the filibuster taking place in this Committee and, when they do, they will be very angry.

The Premier League, with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying support, needs to just reflect on whether this filibuster and what is being done in this Committee is benefiting it. I think not—sometimes overdoing it can be really detrimental.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have no idea whether there is filibustering going on, nor whether everybody on this side of the Committee who I have not spoken to is in the pockets of the Premier League, but I feel there is a kind of gaslighting going on. I take the Bill seriously. I have read as much as I can. Nobody in the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should the noble Lord want to know, nor written my speeches or talked to me.

It is just not fair. There is a lot in the Bill to get one’s head around and to try to speak to. If there is repetition going on in this debate, it is people on the other side constantly saying that anyone scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is certainly not true of a wide range of us.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that if you do not have the hat on, you are not wearing it. It is not an individual I am talking about.

I would like artificial intelligence or GPT to do a word count of exactly what the Benches opposite have said over and over again over the last three days in Committee. I started to do that again this afternoon. There were the same phrases, the same arguments and the same resentment all over again about the idea that we should regulate.

Bear in mind, this whole issue came out of the report of a former Conservative Sport Minister. It was subject to a White Paper by the previous Conservative Government in February 2023, and legislation was then drawn up by the Conservative Government. After all that further scrutiny and debate outside, we are now debating it under a Labour Government—ho, ho, ho.

Let us be clear: get this wrong and it will not be the Premier League that loses out; it will be a pyramid, which by its very nature is built from the bottom. Without the rest of the EFL and beyond, we would not have a Premier League. You could ring-fence the 20 clubs, which is what some of them would like; I am sure it would be fantastic for the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, to know that West Ham would never be relegated. I would love Sheffield Wednesday to never be relegated ever again. In fact, I ought to declare a reverse interest: my family and I sponsor a member of the Sheffield Wednesday squad, Callum Paterson. My only resentment is that the manager does not put him on the field often enough. There we are, Saturday after Saturday—and, these days, Sunday after Sunday—seeing competition working and seeing the struggle that is going on.

16:30

My amendments are about this: in company law, we expect a degree of governance—this is called the Football Governance Bill—and we do so as a safeguard for everyone. In the case of competition generally, it is about customers and shareholders; in this case, it is also about the fans, who are also the customers. We need a sensible governance structure—these are exploratory, probing amendments, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench will undoubtedly respond—so that we can get the balance right.

I believe that good governance is a protection not just for the fans but for the owners. It protects the owners from unwarranted attack, bearing in mind that in the Championship, League One and League Two, £450 million is being pumped in, this season alone, to ensure that clubs do not go bust, because they do not have the mass revenue that the Premier League has because of its sheer brilliance on the field and in negotiating television rights and the like.

We need the proper governance that you would expect in any well-run business so that the owners are protected from undue attack and the fans know that the club is being properly run, and you cannot have a representative of the fans without a proper governance structure. It is as simple as that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that, because I am determined that we do not go on until 3 am or into Christmas, I will leave it at that. It is as simple as the amendments outline: we need a code of practice that everybody understands and that they can adhere to, so that on a weekend or an evening we can get the kind of game out there that the fans deserve.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 157 in my name; I am grateful to those who have added their names. It seeks to add to the governance requirements for licensed football clubs that there should be at least two independent non-executive directors appointed to their main board. The remit for these directors should follow the definition set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code developed by the Financial Reporting Council. I thank the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust for its support for me in putting this amendment together.

As your Lordships know, independent non-executive directors bring independent expertise, scrutiny and accountability to a board, and would have a key role to play in upholding the principles of the Bill around financial sustainability and supporter engagement. I had a quick look and noted that Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club have several independent non-executives; West Ham are reported to have a couple; Liverpool have solely Kenny Dalglish; and Arsenal have simply the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham.

I think we should have more than just the one. The appointment of independent non-executive directors, and their role in advising and scrutinising a club’s financial position, can be an effective check and balance. It is likely to mitigate the need for an independent regulator to intervene regularly, as more issues will be successfully addressed through the accountability that independent non-execs provide.

They can also safeguard the interests of the association’s stakeholders and membership, as the code sets out. In this case, that means supporters. The UK Corporate Code sets out how independent non-execs have a role in overseeing effective engagement with stakeholders. In the case of football, this would of course be adopted to cover supporters and would really help to develop progress on the requirement for effective fan engagement by providing independent senior voices who would play a key part in ensuring effective dialogue with fans.

In that vein, the DCMS requires all national governing bodies for sport to appoint independent non-executive directors to their boards, as set out in the sports governance code. So I ask the Minister to set out provision for independent non-execs on the face of the Bill, or give us reassurance that the regulator itself will bring forward requirements around this issue in the governance code that it will produce.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I would like to support absolutely these amendments. I say for the record—and I am sure that I speak for all contributors to these debates—that I am making these points because I care deeply about football and about what is best for football. I think these amendments absolutely do that.

I have many examples of sitting on boards as an independent non-exec director; they are absolutely the sort of people we want, making sure that a club is putting forward appropriate business plans that are sensible, and sometimes taking a risk—risk appetite is in these amendments—but with the right approach to doing so. Having that balance on the board, of owners, supporters and independent, wise heads, has got to be a sensible thing. With that in mind, I offer my support for the amendments.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 54, 156 and 157. I apologise to your Lordships for not being here on the previous day of Committee but, as chair of Sport Wales—I declare my interest—I was chairing a meeting of Welsh governing bodies of sport.

In my time involved in sport, I have sat on a number of different sports bodies, including British Athletics, where intimate knowledge of the sport is really helpful, and the Olympic Park London Legacy Development Corporation, where wider knowledge of a range of sports makes a difference. I put my name on these amendments because I sat for two years on the board of Yorkshire County Cricket Club and was interim chair for nine months. As part of that, I was challenged occasionally on whether I knew the laws of cricket and how dare I put my name forward for this. But I was not there as an independent non-executive to umpire a game; I was there to bring good governance to the county.

Bringing that jigsaw of skills is really important. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, there is a sports governance code. Olympic and Paralympic sport have benefited greatly from having this. It is about bringing that expertise, accountability and scrutiny. For me, it is about setting the tone for the whole pyramid of the game, and how that feeds up to the Premier League. If we do not get this right for the pyramid, we do not get it right for the sport. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.

[Lord Reay (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 249, laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Regrettably, I was not able to participate at Second Reading, for which I apologise. I declare an interest as an enthusiastic football fan and supporter of West Ham United since the days of Bobby Moore and Geoff Hurst—which dates me a bit.

Clause 20 of this Bill introduces corporate governance duties with regard to equality, diversity and inclusion. Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, would create an additional duty on football clubs to produce an annual report detailing the club’s diversity and inclusion strategy. This sounds in theory like a good thing. The problem here is that the Football Association’s idea of diversity and inclusion seems to be to promote some forms of diversity while silencing—even excluding—others.

The current approach at the FA punishes and excludes one particular group: women who object to male inclusion in the women’s game. Noble Lords have previously spoken in this House about the 17 year-old girl who was disciplined and suspended for asking a male player on the pitch in a women’s game, “Are you a bloke—a male player in a women’s game?” She was suspended. That is not inclusion.

Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, proposes that the corporate government statement must include a club’s plan to improve the diversity of season ticket holders, staff and senior managers. The FA’s investigations unit helped Newcastle United Football Club collect personal information about a lesbian fan which resulted in her suspension by the club from attending matches because someone at her club did not like her social media posts. This behaviour by the FA and the club is not inclusion.

Both examples show intolerance of what are called gender-critical views—that is, the ordinary scientific and common-sense understanding that there are two sexes, that human beings cannot change sex and that sex matters. Those are mainstream views and they are critical to ensuring fairness and safety in sport. People who hold and express them are protected against discrimination and harassment on the basis of belief by the Equality Act 2010, but the FA is punishing female players and fans for expressing these views.

Through its partnership with Stonewall, the FA has made its campaign one of intolerance, disallowing the expression of any views other than the mantra of “trans women are women”. When diversity and inclusion is defined by more tolerance, I shall welcome it. If we compel English football to pursue more of this so-called diversity and inclusion, it will be at the further expense of women and girls.

What is the solution? The solution is to stop talking in vague terms about diversity and inclusion and have the courage to talk about the groups who need to be included: women and girls, gay men and those who are disabled. Let us have less of the thought-policing and more genuine inclusion. Until we can do that, we must oppose the further imposition of vague diversity and inclusion requirements, because they are anything but inclusive.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 156 in particular, I want to address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. There have been 51 clubs in the Premier League since its inception, and there are no permanent members of the Premier League. The Premier League is responsible. It works in a way that looks after the entire pyramid, with its £1.6 billion voluntary redistribution, and it is that money that powers the entire Premier League.

I have spent 32 years—almost all my career—working in professional football across the Football League and the Premier League. My suggestions for amendments are, in a way, to assist the Government to make the Bill work better and avoid the unintended consequences that we all fear and keep warning about.

Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, concerns inclusion and diversity among season ticket holders in the corporate governance statement. I want to say at the outset that diversity is undoubtedly a critical issue in any industry, and football is no exception. Clubs across the pyramid should and do strive to be welcoming and inclusive spaces for all. However, with respect to the noble Lord, the amendment makes a profound and dangerous error. It proposes to involve the regulator in micromanaging some of the most fiercely prized and deeply personal relationships that football clubs hold: their connection with their season ticket holders.

Season ticket holders are the beating heart of football clubs. They are not just customers; they are custodians of the club’s heritage and identity. They represent generations of loyalty, support and community spirit. To suggest that the club should be required to actively manage and engineer the diversity of this group fundamentally misunderstands the organic and deeply embedded nature of these relationships. It risks turning something sacred and delicate into a crude tick-box exercise. For what purpose? To satisfy an external regulator’s misguided notion of progress. I cannot stress enough how risky that would be. It is yet another sign of the scope creep and dangers that lurk in the Bill.

I am not saying that football does not have a role to play in promoting diversity and inclusion—it absolutely does, and clubs up and down the country are already leading by example in the brilliant work that they do every day in this regard. But these initiatives arise from the clubs themselves, born out of genuine commitment and not fear of regulatory overreach. That is how to foster real, lasting change—not by imposing quotas or forcing clubs to meet arbitrary targets but by working with them to build on the good will and trust that they already share with their communities.

16:45

If the regulator were ever to presume to dictate the composition of season ticket holders, even indirectly, that would be a terrible precedent. Where does it end? Will clubs be told whom they can and cannot allow into their grounds, based on diversity metrics? That would not promote inclusion; it would undermine trust, alienate fans and drive a wedge between clubs and their most loyal supporters.

The regulator’s role as envisaged by the Bill is supposed to safeguard financial sustainability; it is not a social engineering body. It has neither the expertise nor the mandate to wade into matters as sensitive as the make-up of a club’s fan base. Football is inherently competitive; clubs live and die by their ability to attract and retain fans. A regulator forcing their hand on this front is just not necessary and is completely counterproductive. Clubs are not perfect, but they understand their communities better than any regulator ever could. Let us not risk eroding that bond.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says about diversity. This weekend, a West Ham player, Antonio, had a terrible car accident and is in hospital now. If you had seen some of the vile and disgusting comments on social media about the player and the club, you would begin to understand why we need diversity.

I have just looked it up, and the dictionary says that diversity is

“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations”,

and that

“equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake”.

I do not have that rosy picture of football supporters. I lived through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and heard the chants at various football grounds, which we cannot now repeat in this Chamber. Things are getting better and more acceptable, but it has not gone away. We need diversity to be brought to the fore.

As for the idea that we can just let the clubs do nothing and let this evolve, that just will not happen. We need to make statements. We need, via the regulator and via some of these amendments, to enshrine things in a regulator’s role. What is wrong with having a diversity report that a football club would produce once a year? It is not a tick-box exercise; it stops comments being made about certain footballers about gender, colour, creed or whatever. The more we can introduce that and embed it into football, the less vitriolic nonsense we will get. You still hear it, even on Sky, when they then say, “If you heard anything you shouldn’t have heard, we apologise for that”. That is what you get as an answer—but it needs stopping. These kinds of amendments are needed to enshrine in the regulator the ability to say to clubs, “You will give that report and commit to doing all those things around what diversity means”.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the West Ham player, Michail Antonio. It was a real shock to me on Saturday when I received a call from the police about his car accident, but I am pleased to report that he has had an operation and is recovering well. I take the opportunity to thank all the NHS staff and all the emergency services, including the air ambulance and the firefighters who cut him free from his car.

I agree with the noble Lord that the comments footballers are subject to is a terrible shame. It is absolutely horrific and that is a problem with social media. Clubs themselves do everything they can. At West Ham, we have the highest standard of equality and diversity; you cannot be awarded any higher standard than we have. We take it very seriously and that feeds down through our entire club. I thank him for making those comments. Football is trying to deal with those things, but there could be help from other places. We know about the Online Safety Act and that could really help.

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 157. I declare an interest as a Premier League season ticket holder. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present during previous debates on the Bill, but I have endeavoured to keep up with its progress.

This part of our discussion seems to overlay lots of different and very complex issues, piling them all into one or two amendments. As I speak to Amendment 157, I will try to focus on governance and having independent, non-executive directors on boards, which is absolutely essential when looking at this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has pointed out, there is this idea of football clubs being not just a business or a commercial entity, as other commercial entities are. They are also considered to be community assets, so there is a wide range of stakeholders involved in the promotion, adoration, despair and all the other emotions that go with being a football fan. As has been rightly pointed out, it almost defines something about England.

It is therefore important to try to ensure, as far as possible without being too prescriptive, that we have independent non-executive directors on boards because of the accountability. At the moment, I think many fans feel that there is no accountability. I take on board a lot of the points made about how progressive and determined clubs are to counter the horrible things that happen online and elsewhere, but clubs have also not been terribly successful in changing the faces that sit around those boardroom tables. If we look at reviews such as Sir John Parker’s review of ethnic diversity on boards, there has been some improvement in some sectors. I would gladly be persuaded by those who know better if it is the case that diversity has been increased around those tables.

That is just one part of it. To me, this feels like a move for basic good practice. We have the Nolan principles and we have guidance from the Institute of Directors. All those kinds of guidelines need transparency and people to speak up for them who do not have an interest in a particular way on those boards.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not had the chance yet to speak to my amendments but I am grateful to other noble Lords for participating in the debate and making their comments and views well known. I am slightly disturbed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has rather overinterpreted my Amendment 156. I was not aware that I was in favour of imposing quotas, but it is an interesting point.

Amendment 156 is there simply to raise the issue of ensuring that in corporate governance, football clubs are obliged to improve the diversity within the club, not just among season ticket holders but among staff and senior managers. We have made great progress through football and its barrier-breaking approach to the world of sport over the last 30 or 40 years. I can remember some pretty unpleasant scenes at football grounds when I first started watching football seriously. Gladly, those have become much less frequent but there is a real and genuine issue about representation, particularly of black players then not getting opportunities in off-field representation at all levels of management.

I have received a useful briefing today from the Black Footballers Partnership, which points out exactly that. Only two of the current 92 league managers are black, despite black footballers making up 43% of the players. The Black Footballers Partnership data shows that despite achieving 14% of all FIFA pro licences and one in four of UEFA licences, black players secure only 4% of the coaching and other managerial roles. There is clearly something not right there.

It is important that clubs are obliged to think through some of these issues. Quotas may or may not be the way to do it but we have opportunity here for football to think about improving the levels of diversity, not just in football management but in all management positions and other roles within the clubs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, clubs have led the way and have played a really startling and dynamic role over time.

With this amendment—and I am grateful to those who have signed it and spoken to it—I am trying to get football to begin thinking more widely about diversity in its broadest sense so that in the future it is just part and parcel of how it should be. I guess the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, would think that this is regulation creep, but I do not see it that way; I see it as setting standards for the future. Football has a proud reputation, and it is one it should build on.

In this amendment, we are seeking to encourage football to build on its reputation, because that is what needs to be done to make the world of football more inclusive and better reflect the society in which it is located. If we can do that, I think the values of football—competition and solidarity—will be much better represented. It would add to the fairness and equity that is there within a very competitive game.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, posits diversity as something you cannot possibly be against. Of course, we are all against prejudice—I hope—and that seems very commonsensical. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point that he tabled this amendment so we could have a proper discussion about diversity.

The problem for me is that diversity, in the context of governance of organisations, is already established across a wide range of organisations. I am afraid it has not been for the good of those organisations. I will address the problems of diversity as a bureaucratic intervention, especially in the hands of a regulator, and why I think it will not be good for football. That does not mean I am implicitly on the side of people who are racists or not interested in equal rights or fairness.

It is important that we have some perspective here. We might note that there are 64 different nationalities represented in the Premier League, as well as a myriad of religious denominations. For players in all the different football teams across the league, that is surely proof of meritocracy—rather than box-ticking diversity schemes—that provides the riches of talents, that is colour-blind and that is not interested in people based on their characteristics.

I also think we have huge diversity in fanbase, and it has not needed a regulator to organise schemes to ensure that English football is loved by hundreds of millions of people of all shapes and sizes, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds across the globe. Meanwhile, female fans, players and popular momentum are propelling women’s football into the limelight. Therefore, I do not think that football is an example of a pale, male, stale institution that is waiting for a regulator to sort it out.

Both the amendments I am concerned about, Amendments 156 and 249, mention the clubs’ employees and monitoring and reporting on staff diversity. But I think we need to take heed of some of the negative lessons from other workplaces, particularly the public sector. Whatever the intention, too often an over-preoccupation with diversity is less likely to create more fairness for staff but does create an explosion of jobs for human resources—HR—apparatchiks, who manage the diversity and inclusion schemes that we set up.

It is worth noting that Britain has one of the largest HR sectors in the world. It is one area of growth that somebody somewhere might be proud of, although I am rather in despair at it. According to the British Labour Force Survey, there was an 83% increase in HR jobs between 2011 and 2023. As journalist Lucy Barton pointed out, that means that HR workers currently outnumber NHS doctors three to one. Let that sink in. A lot of this growth is due to job creation in relation to EDI demands. I do not think we should go ahead with these amendments on diversity and inclusion but, if we do, I propose some sort of cost-benefit analysis. The salaries needed for the hours and hours of paperwork that the regulator will be checking that the clubs do could be incredibly financially burdensome—even crippling—on many clubs.

17:00

The problem is not just money and resources. The growth of HR in today’s cultural climate tends not to be a neutral act. It comes with the baggage of political ideology, if we are honest about it. Civic Future has explained that HR has moved from responding to an organisation’s needs to shaping them. We need to be careful what we wish for here. The aim might be to reduce discrimination, but often it is just a green light for increasing discrimination complaints, claims and even lawsuits. Data from employment tribunals show that there has been a significant rise in cases brought using the Equality Act during the 2020s compared to the 2010s. That is proof not that discrimination is being tackled but that overzealous organisations, acting either because they have these HR people in or because some regulator is breathing down their neck, get it wrong.

Just this weekend, we found out that the security services have said they will not recruit white British students to their internship schemes. Already people are talking about going to court because that is racist, discriminatory and unlawful. By the way, their justification is diversity. It is exactly the same as what happened with the RAF last year, which was forced to apologise when it emerged that it was unlawfully discriminating against white, male recruits. I also remind the Committee of the landmark case of Maya Forstater, who lost her job for expressing gender-critical views, all in an attempt to be inclusive of a trans employee. Her employers ended up breaking anti-discrimination laws in firing her.

For all this talk of tackling discrimination and creating more diverse workplaces, in this case in football clubs, we never tackle the lack of diversity of opinions. That question is never raised. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that if you are a female football fan who expresses a gender-critical view then you might end up getting disciplined by your football club. You have to query all the time what these words mean and what exactly is happening here. Too often when football has entered into the political arena—which is why I do not want it to—it adopts a homogenous worldview such as that which took hold at the height of the embrace of Black Lives Matter in the middle of 2020, when fans who were less than keen on the “taking the knee” gesture that some players endorsed or were sceptical of BLM’s anti-white “defund the police” policies were then denounced as racist.

Just ask Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi, who was reprimanded for wearing a rainbow armband declaring “I love Jesus”, apparently transgressing the FA’s rule not to use equipment to promote political, religious or personal slogans. But what are those armbands promoted by the Premier League if not a blatant partisan campaign slogan for inclusion ideologies? Over the weekend, it was announced that the FA is facing legal action over its Rainbow Laces campaign and claims that the annual show of cheerleading for LGBTQ+ interests breaches the governing body’s ban on political messaging. This has nothing to do with people, by the way.

It is very important that we do not naively say, “Oh, we just want diversity and fairness. What’s wrong with that?” There is a political campaign behind some of this, and we have to be wary of introducing it into football with the full force of a regulator.

I also want to query how equal opportunities will be monitored. Definitions of protected characteristics are increasingly unhelpful. I mentioned the Civil Service. In an excellent article in the New Statesman, former senior civil servant Pamela Dow used the example of graduates ticking the disability box on their application to the Civil Service Fast Stream. That meant that they rose from 11% in 2014 to 23% in 2020, perhaps because it allowed candidates to skip an assessment stage, therefore possibly incentivising them to disclose. When we say we want to report on and monitor diversity and to know who is who, can we at least have a question mark about what is being measured? Therefore, regardless of what it means, the Civil Service now has no idea how many people are blind, bipolar, using a wheelchair or with a self-diagnosed ADHD or anxiety question. I do not think those sorts of statistics are helpful. I am worried about just taking on board mandating it and box-ticking, and therefore actually not doing anything for people with disabilities.

I am especially disturbed by the explicit mention of monitoring the diversity make-up of season ticket holders. We have constantly stressed that teams are very important to local areas, but what if a locality has a majority of white citizens? Will it fail some diversity test if the majority of season ticket holders have the wrong skin colour? If there is a large percentage of local residents from south-east Asia who do not choose to attend football matches, but who might be passionately engaged in another sport, will they be dragooned into the ground? It is a wrongful assumption that these local residents are not interested in football because of some implicit bias on behalf of the club. Will Spurs be in trouble if too many of their season ticket holders are Jewish—disproportionate to the ethnic or religious demographic breakdowns of the ground’s vicinity?

I will pause here—and I am glad the Chief Whip is not in, because I know I will get in trouble—to say a shout-out to the fan activists. My final point is about the Spurs fans who are valiantly publicising the plight of Spurs-mad Emily Damari, the one remaining British citizen held hostage in the terror tunnels. There is heroic solidarity from them. She is one of us—bring her home.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a little bewildered by the direction of the debate. Some of these amendments have been put to tease out the issues. My general commentary would be rather different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who seemed very unkeen on the tremendous work being done across football by the clubs, which I commend. Indeed, I do not just commend it; I can quantify it. I reference my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as the Government’s adviser on anti-Semitism, then and now. I am particularly impressed by the first ever programme of anti-Semitism training in football, which was launched two years ago. There were a few eyebrows at first, with people asking, “What is this?” In two years, two-thirds of English football has volunteered to be trained. Significant numbers are having their academies trained and some are having players, the board and staff trained. It is particularly interesting and valuable that the biggest single piece of training in the city of Leeds—ever—was the training of Leeds United stewards under this programme.

I am delighted that Liverpool Football Club will be one of many clubs starting in the new year. The list of engagements on this in the first quarter of next year is quite formidable—but there is space for more. This is a success in football, because of what it said to the small number of Jewish players, Jewish staff and Jewish fans: you are valued here.

Just last week, I was at Leyton Orient, where the Jewish supporters’ group sponsored the match against Bristol Rovers. Leyton Orient outperformed anything they had done this season as a response. There will be the first-ever Hanukkah events at Fulham Football Club and at Leeds United Football Club. Other new groups are being formed. Other groups have existing events around Hanukkah and Holocaust Memorial Day. This is a positive, and it is not to the exclusion of any other group. Indeed, we find that other small groups of people who perhaps do not see many people like themselves in the stadium, on the pitch or in the club also welcome it. I have seen clubs embrace that as well. If I was running a club, which I have no desire to do—sometimes I would like to influence one or two of the footballing decisions, but would not we all?—then I would want my club to do that and welcome it. I would call it a good business plan.

On the whole question of diversity, one of its weaknesses and the reason why I tabled an amendment, just to tease out what the Government think—not because I think this is a good regulation necessarily but it should be good club business—is that there is a deficit in the number of black players getting into the better coaching and managerial jobs. That is clearly to the detriment of our national game. Their talent is not being used. How that is captured and by whom is, of course, important, but from a business point of view it is a competitive disadvantage if a large group of participants in the game are then not getting into the coaching and managerial side even vaguely relative to the numbers who participate as players. It is clearly a weakness, and whichever clubs are best at addressing that will have a competitive advantage. I am interested in teasing out and listening to the Minister on how we can help football to grab that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the overall picture is that football is full of EDI officers. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them over the last two years —indeed a majority in English football. They are excellent people doing brilliant work. They are out doing work in the community as well, supporting young players from a range of backgrounds. They are a key strength in the clubs and in the clubs’ business plans, as well as in the communities. They should be commended. The more we can encourage that by whatever means, the better we will be doing our job.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He is a man of great good sense and pragmatism. In fact, I could have agreed with most of what he said but, unfortunately, on this occasion I will not agree with his amendment.

First of all, I will go back to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I agree with. It is very sensible, and the Minister would be wise to accept it. But his preamble was simply wrong. It presupposes that external forces are exerting inappropriate pressure on this side to make cases in their favour, which is completely untrue. I say that because we on this side are merely going through the proper process of scrutiny and oversight, which is our job, to test the efficacy or otherwise of the Bill. Remember: we had a general election, and we have a new Administration, a new Bill and a new Opposition. Therefore, we are quite within our rights to challenge the Bill on its face.

I pray in aid figures from the past few years about the number of Committee days given over to various Bills in this House. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had 17 sitting days. We have six. The Children and Families Act 2014 had 12 sitting days, and the Localism Act 2011 had 10. There are a number of examples. Much as I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I respectfully disagree with him.

I move on to the specific issues of, particularly, Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann. These are two quite insidious amendments; I find them quite Orwellian, actually. It is not that we do not trust local football clubs to do the right thing in terms of community outreach, working with their community and improving equality and diversity, but noble Lords are being asked to put those powers into a regulator that will develop a national template. Whether, therefore, you are Bristol Rovers, Brentford, Brighton and Hove Albion or Bradford City—to use some alliteration—you will be told what you have to put in place in terms of your EDI policies, which I do not think is right. It nationalises corporate philanthropy and community outreach. It is also a displacement activity, because it presupposes that that work is not already being done.

17:15

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on the Government’s issues around what the Premier League is doing at the moment, and he had a point. In fact, I think he proved the point we made on our side on the previous group of amendments. There is, however, a huge amount of work being done. Today, 90 clubs across the Premier League, English Football League and National League work with 36 police forces to provide young people with access to free weekly football sessions and education workshops in safe and supportive community environments.

There have been over 1 million hours of free Premier League Kicks sessions since its inception, engaging more than 522,000 participants. This season, 90 professional football clubs across the Premier League, EFL and National League are supported to run weekly sessions to help young people to achieve their potential; 38% of attendees are from ethnically diverse communities and 25% are female. There are 4,900 delivery venues across England and Wales, and more than half are located in the most deprived neighbourhoods. There are 21,000 volunteers, and 20% of the workforce are former participants. There has been £81.6 million invested into the programme through the Premier League Charitable Fund.

The issue, therefore, to paraphrase my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, is: what question are these amendments answering? Given that there are already quite significant legal powers through the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation to discourage direct discrimination, this circumscribes and undermines the capacity of local clubs to make local decisions to help, for instance, white British boys who are disadvantaged, disabled youngsters who are disadvantaged or lesbian women who are disadvantaged, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lord Reay.

Imposing that top-down approach is well meant—the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam, Lord Blunkett and Lord Mann, were wise, sensible and well meant—but we must remember that these are powers that we are giving in a very permissive Bill to an independent football regulator. They are powers that, I believe, have the potential to be misused. More importantly, there are powers already in place for local clubs to use at the grass-roots level to improve lives in the local community. For that reason, I oppose those particular amendments.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 54 with regard to the governance of clubs. I am sorry that I could not take part at Second Reading, but I have been present for a significant part of Committee. I have been a season ticket holder at either Sunderland or QPR for most of my life, and I now have three season tickets at QPR for myself, my son and grandson—I fear what I have done to both of them, but that is another problem.

In 2005, I undertook a report for the Football Association on its governance. Quite a number of important proposals that I made were carried out, but I am afraid that some were not. I sometimes think that, if they had been, there would have been for the Bill that we are having to spend so much time on now.

As far as experience goes, I was a member of the board of QPR for a few years and I have been the chairman of a bank. For me, there are some interesting similarities between football and banking: both are rather risky activities. The risks in football are about the performance of the team, the loss of value of players, either because of form or injury, and the risks involved in promotion and relegation. From my observation, and experience at the time, the biggest risk to clubs is overreaching; it is about taking too much risk. They are very often funded by owners or directors. Things go downhill and the directors then want their money back, if it was in the form of loans, which forces clubs into selling players at a loss.

The banks have a prudential regulator and I accept that there is a clear need for some body that has oversight for football as well from the point of view of prudential regulation. The point was made earlier that it is no good coming along once problems have emerged. You need systems and processes in place that monitor areas of activities where risks lie.

I am a great supporter of requirements of good governance in all kinds of organisations. I have sat on many boards, and I have seen good boards and not so good boards. There is a great deal of difference. It is significant to me that, when I was involved in banking and dealing with financial regulators, they placed great emphasis on the quality of the board in overseeing what was going on and particularly the risks it was undertaking. It seems to me to follow naturally that there should be the same requirement for the football regulator with respect to clubs.

I add—it is not for today—that I looked at the requirements and some of the governance issues that have been suggested for the regulator, but I am not sure all would pass the standards of good governance. For example, the exclusive role of the chairman in choosing the chief executive seems slightly odd for a body that has non-executive directors as well as a chairman. But I very much support this amendment.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to question Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lady Grey-Thompson. It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because it is a reminder to us of how much experience we have here, from a board director of a Premier League football club to regular supporters and, in the noble Lord’s case, the holder of three season tickets. I pay tribute to him and his long-suffering son and grandson.

The point that I want to make about Amendment 156 is about season tickets. I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would argue against diversity in staff and senior managers. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made the good point that about 40% of Premier League players are from a BME background, but that that does not continue into senior management. That has been the case for a long time and there is clearly more work to do on that.

However, the first part of Amendment 156 talks about

“the diversity of season ticket holders”.

When I saw that, I was worried about the law of unintended consequences. How on earth do you sort out that issue? For season tickets for my team there is something called supply and demand. There are several options for having a season ticket at Manchester United, as there are at other Premier League clubs, but how do you work it out? There is a waiting list, because of supply and demand. Several thousand people are waiting to become season ticket holders, so can the Minister advise the Committee how this amendment would be looked at?

There are a limited number of seats at a ground: in the case of Old Trafford, there are 75,000 seats and a waiting list of 10,000. I have had a season ticket for many years. Recently, they changed where you could sit at Old Trafford. I was unsure for a while whether I would have a ticket for where I moved to. I was told that there was no guarantee that I would have a ticket, which, as you can imagine, was quite distressing for somebody who had been a season ticket holder for many years. As it turned out, I was lucky enough to have a ticket, in the way that several thousand were not.

There is also the option of a league match ticket book. That enables me to go to Premier League games only. There is the cup option—the FA Cup, the Carabao Cup and the European Cup options. There is also a ticket forwarding membership of £20. I mention that because, if you are looking at diversity, you may not be able to get a season ticket holder, but if you want to go and see a Premier League club, becoming a member gives you access to get a ticket. It might not be your favourite Premier League game against your local opposition or any other club in the Premier League, but anybody could apply, become a member of their local club and should be able to get a ticket for a cup game. It may not be a Saturday or a Sunday; it may be a midweek game. Diversity is in evidence at Premier League clubs. For example, accessibility for disability has been there in many clubs for many years. When I sit there before kick-off at Manchester United, I see significant diversity around me. What surprises me is the people who fly around the world to see their team play, as they do for so many other Premier League clubs.

The Premier League is the best premier league in the world for a good reason. It attracts diversity by that very principle. I would be interested in how the regulator would ensure diversity of ticket holders. I say yes when it comes to staff and senior management—I do not think anybody could disagree with that. However, it is complicated, and so much to do with this Bill is the law of unintended consequences. You cannot tell people who have been on waiting lists for many years that they cannot become a season ticket holder because of some diversity report from a regulator.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I shall speak also to Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which has a lot to commend it.

Before I comment briefly on those three, I want on the record to thank the Minister. We met this morning. We are fortunate in this Committee to have a Minister who is patient, engaging, professional and, unquestionably, inclusive in her approach to many different amendments and many different views that are expressed throughout this Chamber. When she consistently says how much she is enjoying this, some of us might question that, but there is no doubt that if she is, she deserves to, because she has the respect of the Committee and certainly my respect for the way in which she has engaged with us.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have many decades of respect. I was completely in agreement with 50% of what he said today, but I caution him in labelling a large number of Members of this Committee as purely spouting the views of the Premier League, trying to talk this Bill out or, more importantly perhaps, breaching the admonition from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that because both Front Benches supported the Bill, we should not scrutinise it. He will know that for many decades I have been a passionate and independent voice for sport. My own deeply held view is that the autonomy and self-regulation of sport worldwide, be it in the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, UEFA or any number of international sporting bodies, are essential to the success of sport and ultimately those who participate in it.

17:30

So I hope the noble Lord will understand that, from that perspective at least—going far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the benefits of light-touch regulation—I have deep reservations about state regulation, or even state-influenced regulation. I do not think I have ever seen a Bill that applies to sport with some 125 pages and 98 highly prescriptive clauses detailing the way in which a regulator would work, or indeed the powers granted to the Secretary of State to influence and control a sport. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have genuine concerns. If we have state-influenced and state-controlled regulation through secondary legislation, and also on the face of the Bill, we will be in danger of finding ourselves in conflict with the UEFA regulations that monitor its competitions, FIFA’s regulations and the International Olympic Committee’s regulations, should we wish to submit for entry a team, either men’s or women’s, to the Olympic Games. That is what concerns me; I have a genuine reservation about it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I point out to the noble Lord that the whole point is that this regulator is independent. Obviously, it is influenced strongly by government decisions, but it is independent. Surely, many of the concerns that the noble Lord is expressing—as, indeed, is the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—are answered by the appointment of a sensible regulator who will act in a proportionate manner.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I only wish I could say to the noble Lord that that is what we have in front of us. Had we had the opportunity to sit with him and explore each and every clause as we have gone through this, we might have been able to say so, but that is not the case. This is not light-touch regulation. This is not even regulation that you find in the Companies Act.

Let me give the noble Lord a quick example; I risk admonition for repeating a point that I made earlier, but I will make it very quickly indeed. When you give powers to the regulator to explore not just the controlling influence of a football club but those who “significantly” influence a football club, those are very different roles. You have “controlling” in the Premier League; you have “significant influence” in the Bill. Significant influence can reach back as far as the Crown Prince, who has significant influence over the PIF, which owns Newcastle, whereas, by definition in this Bill, he does not control that club, nor would the Premier League investigate him on that basis.

So it is reasonable to accept the noble Lord’s premise—I wish it were true that this is light-touch regulation—but, in reality, this is incredibly intrusive, highly detailed regulation. It goes further than the regulation I put in place in 1990 when I was the Minister responsible for water privatisation and we were setting up Ofwat. That was light-touch regulation in comparison with this extraordinarily detailed Bill. That is the most important point driving my concern about unintended consequences—what some people call the “mission creep” of regulation.

I turn to the amendments. Given that we are going to have a Bill for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said—there is all-party support for having legislation of this kind—we may as well get it right. There is real merit in looking at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—backed so eloquently, as ever, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would

“ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively”.

I hope that it would not be just regulated clubs. I hope that all clubs in all sports would do that, because the benefits of having both executive and non-executive directors is well known to those of us in sport—not least in the British Olympic Association, which I had the privilege of chairing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has widespread support in this House for the work he has done on anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism training. I am glad that he tabled his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to thank him on behalf of sport and on behalf of football. That work has been absolutely critical; I say this not just as a fellow Leeds fan but because, across sport as a whole, it is vital that we put equality, inclusion and diversity right at the top of what we do.

We are expected to do that outside football. I have an interest to declare as the chair of Amey, which has some 13,000 people. Almost the first thing that I did as chairman was set up an ESG committee immediately beneath the board and chair it so that I could ensure inclusion and diversity were right at the heart of our policy and were in the DNA of everybody who worked in that organisation. I do not believe that that is different from sport and I do not believe that that is different from football.

So, if we are to have legislation—which, as noble Lords know, I regret—let us get this right and listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said in the first 50% of his speech, and to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mann. There is real merit in the Minister taking this away and thinking about what we would expect to see from the regulator in this context.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I am afraid that some of the comments that have been made have obliged me to do so.

However, before I come on to the amendments and the comments made in the speeches, I would just like all your Lordships to look around you. We are talking about equality, inclusion and diversity. What proportion of this Chamber is disabled, non-white, gay or lesbian? The answer is: very, very few. It is a compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that she is a great example of what women can achieve at the top of the football tree, and that we have a female Minister responding. But I stand here, as I said in my first speech to this Chamber, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club. It celebrated its 29th anniversary only just under two months ago and will celebrate, I expect, its 30th anniversary next 1 November.

I find it utterly unacceptable to suggest, as has been suggested, that we should not tackle the question of trans individuals in society. I am proud that I did a podcast the other week with a member of my club, who himself has undergone the process of moving from female to male. He is proud of having done it. There are issues that we have to address in society, as well as issues that we have to address in sport. I believe that on occasion it is appropriate to put things into legislation as an “encouragement” to people to behave in a certain way. It is all very well saying, “Well, we have the right policies and we’ll do it all right”, but I come back to this point: look at this Chamber.

I have not taken any guidance, as Lord Blunkett suggested, from the Premier League, and in fact, on a previous occasion in Committee, I made the point that actually the Premiers League, for all its right efforts, was not messaging correctly. I believe that that is the case here. In rugby we have had openly gay World Cup final referees and a captain of the Welsh rugby team, but we have no openly gay, top-level professional players at the moment, as far as I am aware. But football is behind the times despite the best encouragements from individuals, and it is therefore well worth while asking the question of the Minister and of the regulator, “How are you actually going to tackle these issues?”—because issues they remain.

I will conclude on the observation in relation to Rainbow Laces. Rainbow Laces has been adopted by sport throughout as a means of messaging to people as to how they should behave to other minority groups. They must continue to do so. It is not a political gesture; it is a gesture on behalf of society as a whole to other parts of society. I believe we have achieved so much, but we could achieve so much more.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the noble Lord and I can have a fruitful conversation outside this debate. For today’s purposes, does he understand that in a discussion about inclusion and diversity, women are concerned about women’s rights and women’s equality? Among women footballers and the parents of young girls they are encouraging to get involved in women’s football and training and so on, there is great discomfort, as the tennis guru Judy Murray said at the weekend. Will he acknowledge that this has nothing to do with individuals? It is to do with the political approach. At the moment, women do not feel included or represented in football because this issue is put to one side, and therefore everyone talking about EDI and all the rest of it is just a slap in the face.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, expressed the hope that we would not take another hour dealing with this group of amendments. We have taken well over an hour. I find this debate very odd because we all seem to agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are of enormous importance in football. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, rightly spoke of the great efforts that West Ham in particular has made and the great results. Many other clubs have done the same. I would be astonished if a Bill dealing with these matters did not require the independent regulator to look at equality, diversity and inclusion and to have broad powers across the scope of football to do so.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who knows how much I respect him, that I have had no contact at any point with the Premier League, unless you count occasionally buying a ticket to one of the member clubs. Far from filibustering, my intervention on the previous round was the first time I had spoken since Second Reading, and I kept it to about four minutes. I opposed this Bill very strenuously when it was proposed in the previous Parliament. I am sure he will allow that it is not exactly the same Bill. It has been beefed up in various ways, and those ways need scrutiny.

One of the ways in which it has been beefed up, even short of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in strengthening the EDI provisions. I have to stand back and ask whether it is proper for a regulator to tell private clubs what kind of people should be their ticket holders. Is there not a basic principle of proportionality and property here that says it is in your interest to have as many ticket holders as you can, and it is in their interest, if they are interested, to come? Does that intersection of who wants to come and how much they are prepared to pay not represent the right place in a free society? We are not some autocracy where we impose values on free-standing organisations.

In our present mood we sacralise the values of EDI but tomorrow it may be something else, and that would be equally wrong because there is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as a private space, and that is an essential building block of a free society. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—he will correctly me if I get this wrong—says it is shocking that only 4% of senior management positions are held by black people. According to the 2021 census, the proportion of black people in the UK is 4.0%. In other words, without any intervention, without anyone telling them what to do, we happen to have an exactly representative number. But even if that were not the case—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying, there is a much higher proportion of black players in Premier League clubs—surely that is meritocracy. Why would it be the business of government to try to bring that number into line with the population?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord not think it is rather odd that in a sport where something like 43% or 44% of the players are black, very few of those players make it through into management positions in those same professional leagues? Does he not think there is something slightly amiss there?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The figure that is out of whack with the population is the number of players, not the number of managers, which is exactly in line with the population as a whole. The noble Lord may have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with that because it is plainly meritocratic. Clubs are interested in winning, so they pay people who are going to produce the results that they want on the pitch. If their fans are not happy with it, they stay away. That is how the system works and why, frankly, I think the whole Bill is wrong. I realise I have lost that argument, but we are not some insecure South American junta that has to tell private clubs what to do and appoint commissars over sport.

I do not want to be accused of filibustering this one, and I have gone just over three minutes, so I will finish by saying that if we are to have this wretched regulator, let us at least make it as proportionate and as in line with the rest of our law as possible, on which note I will support the rest of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, because it seems quite sensible to bring any regulator into line with the usual standards of corporate governance.

17:45

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we did not quite give the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the debate of under an hour that he hoped for, but I note, for the benefit of the Government Chief Whip when he comes to read the Official Report, that this group is composed entirely of Labour Back-Bench amendments. We have heard the arguments and motivations for tabling the amendments advanced by noble Lords who did so; we have tested their arguments and examined the intended and unintended consequences. That is the work of this Committee, and I am glad we have done it. We had a fruitful and useful debate with quite a lot of agreement between noble Lords about their anxieties and some of the problems that we want to solve, but also some shared anxieties about the problems that might flow from the way in which the noble Lords who tabled the amendments propose doing so.

I start on a point on which I think we all agreed and add my strong support for the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and those who signed them, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about independent non-executive directors. They are sensible and constructive amendments. One reason we have been moving quite slowly in this Committee is perhaps, as is often the case, that the Government have listened to the debate and rejected all the amendments tabled so far, urging noble Lords to withdraw them and saying that they are not necessary. Amendments 54 and 157 are good amendments on which to break that trend; there was clear support for them from across the Committee, including the Cross Benches. I hope that, even if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendments as drafted, she will in this case look at how we can strengthen the oversight of the work of clubs through the work of independent non-executive directors.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his contribution and the support he gave to amendments we have previously discussed about the independence of the chief executive and the way in which they are appointed. There is some valuable stuff there for the Government to take away. It is very much linked to the broader debate we have had about diversity. If we can get the non-executive leadership of clubs right, then, as well as improving the scrutiny and accountability of the work of those clubs, we will add to their diversity—not just the diversity of the personnel sitting on the boards but the diversity of thought and the open-mindedness to make sure that the clubs are continuing the work that noble Lords have rightly pointed to. That includes making sure that they continue to be open, inclusive and growth-focused, concerned with attracting new fans to football and making sure that talented people, whoever they are and whatever their background, are able to rise as far up the football pyramid as their talents will take them. I hope the Minister will look favourably on Amendments 54 and 157.

Like other noble Lords, although I appreciate the motivations behind the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, I am worried about some of the consequences that might flow from it and the way he proposes it. That is not to disagree with what other noble Lords have said about the important issue that he raises, or to lose sight of the huge progress that has been made. I was not around in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, of which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us, but the behaviour of football and football fans and clubs in those decades was often not to the credit of this nation. We should be very proud of the strides that football has made, voluntarily, through the work of its fans and the people who operate the clubs, in being a more inclusive and welcoming environment open to the talents of everybody.

I know why the noble Lord has probed this area. He wants the work that is undeniably still needed to build on that to continue. Like other noble Lords who have probed it, I worry about some of the practicalities and where his amendment, as worded, would take us. There is a material difference between monitoring the diversity of a workforce and the diversity of a fan base and season ticket holders, as I think the noble Lord would acknowledge. I would particularly be concerned about asking fans and ticket buyers to disclose quite sensitive information that they do not presently share with the football team of their choice about their religion, ethnicity, sexuality and so forth. I am not quite sure how, for season ticket holders, that work would build on things.

Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, gives me the opportunity to echo the thanks that my noble friend Lord Moynihan expressed to him for his work on tackling anti-Semitism, not just in football but more broadly. I was in Downing Street when he first took on the role as the Government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, so I have seen the work that he has done in a number of spheres to tackle prejudice in that area.

Noble Lords will undoubtedly agree that diversity and inclusion in the workplace can be of benefit not just to staff but to an organisation corporately. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, expressed that this was a probing amendment to see what the Government’s view was and to highlight some of the work that football does. He is right to do so, particularly on that last element, because clubs across the football pyramid have a number of strategies and are doing great work in this area through their own volition. Arsenal, for example, have had a diversity, equality and inclusion plan called Arsenal for Everyone since 2008. Arsenal did that by themselves; they did not require a regulator to force them to publish a plan.

Article 27 of the UEFA club licensing regulations, which detail the standards that clubs must meet before they can participate in a UEFA competition, contains social and environmental sustainability conditions. It states that:

“The licence applicant must establish and implement a social and environmental sustainability strategy in line with the UEFA Football Sustainability Strategy 2030 and relevant UEFA guidelines, for at least the areas of equality and inclusion, anti-racism, child and youth protection and welfare, football for all abilities, and environmental protection”.


That is a wide-ranging list of good causes for it to encourage people to think about. There is not exactly a lack of corporate governance requirements in this area already placed on clubs, and noble Lords have pointed to a number of highly commendable initiatives to build on our work here.

I was in your Lordships’ House on Friday when the noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke in the archiepiscopal debate that we have in the run-up to Christmas, led by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. He warned against the temptation to reach for the legislative lever in every instance to drive forward good work. This is an area where a lot of great work is already being done, to the credit of people in football. I would be wary about measures that are too restrictive or prescriptive that would cut against that.

I will not go into the details of the lively debate that my noble friend Lord Reay and others had, other than to note that these are issues which are not party political; they were raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. My noble friend Lord Hayward’s intervention reminds us not just of his long-standing and pioneering role in championing inclusion in sport but of the fact that these are complicated matters that sport and so many parts of society are grappling with. I do not think that writing something into this Bill in the way that is envisaged would help that, but I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a detailed debate on this. It has been useful, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Knight of Weymouth, Lord Mann and Lady Taylor of Bolton for tabling these amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for the role she has played in supporting some of the amendments. It has been useful to have the discussion. The debate is a reminder that, at times, players are often at the brunt of quite a lot of unpleasantness, not least on social media.

I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee will join others who have spoken about the dreadful accident that took place at the weekend involving Michail Antonio, and wish him a speedy and full recovery. I cannot imagine what it was like to take the phone call that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, had to take. Our thoughts are with him and his family and colleagues.

Good corporate governance is the bedrock of any well-functioning business, and there is agreement on this across the Committee. However, the Government believe that this has been lacking at some clubs to date, and that is why it will be an important part of the regime.

I begin with Amendment 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. While I agree with the intention, I assure my noble friend that ensuring regulated clubs have good corporate governance is already well provided for in the Bill; for example, the mandatory licence condition requiring clubs to report against a new corporate governance code for football clubs. We do not feel it is appropriate to add this level of specificity to the regulator’s objectives. As my noble friend made clear, good governance protects fans and owners. Good corporate governance will contribute to a club’s financial soundness, which is already captured within the objectives in this clause.

Amendment 156, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 249, from my noble friend Lord Mann, concern equality, diversity and inclusion. I strongly agree with the principle of these amendments that clubs should be more transparent with regards to equality, diversity and inclusion. However, I believe that Amendment 249 is not necessary. As part of the corporate governance statement mandatory licence condition, all licensed clubs will already be required to report on what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion. The Bill specifically includes equality, diversity and inclusion in its definition of corporate governance. We therefore expect to see recommendations about equality, diversity and inclusion in the regulator’s corporate governance code.

On Amendment 156, as I have outlined, clubs will already be required to report on what action they are taking on EDI. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned important examples of where clubs are already taking action. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on my noble friend’s contribution, particularly as it relates to anti-Semitism. I also agree with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in his contribution.

Reporting on the diversity of staff and senior managers would be typical of how these types of transparency measures work. However, regarding the point on season ticket holders, we do not feel that it is the regulator’s place to act here. As a financial sustainability regulator, the regulator’s interest in equality, diversity and inclusion is that it contributes to good corporate decision-making, which in turn makes clubs more sustainable.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that, beyond this, it is not for the regulator to get involved in the diversity of a club’s fan base. A club might like to take note if its fan base does not represent its local area. Some examples of clubs reaching out to communities have been mentioned by noble Lords in the course of the debate. There are already actions being taken on fan diversity by clubs, competition organisers and wider stakeholders.

In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we think that EDI reporting is a good thing. A lack of basic good corporate governance threatens the sustainability of football clubs. We have seen in the past crises at clubs that may have been avoided with some simple improvements to how the club was run. That is why the regulator will introduce a new football club corporate governance code. The regulator will work with the industry to design the code and will support clubs in applying it, in addition to encouraging best practice.

The requirement for clubs to publicly report against this code is designed to increase transparency, scrutiny and accountability. Clubs will have the flexibility to interpret the principles of the code and explain how they have applied them to suit their individual circumstances. We are clear that the regulator will not prescriptively micromanage each club’s board. That is not its role, and would cause a significant burden to the regulator itself and to clubs.

Amendment 157, in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, seeks to add a further limb to a club’s corporate governance reporting by explaining how it meets the standard of the UK Corporate Governance Code in relation to the appointment of non-executive directors. I thank him for raising this issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for illustrating why a range of skills—what she referred to as a jigsaw—helps in delivering good governance.

18:00

I hope I can reassure your Lordships’ House that reporting against the UK Corporate Governance Code will not be required, as the independent regulator will develop its own code. That will no doubt take inspiration from existing codes, including the UK Corporate Governance Code as well as others, such as A Code for Sports Governance and the Wates Corporate Governance Principles for Large Private Companies.

Crucially, though, the independent football regulator’s code will be bespoke to football clubs in the football industry and will be produced in consultation with the FA and other stakeholders. Many of the basic principles of good governance are universal, but football clubs are, in so many ways, unique businesses. That is why we believe that a football-specific approach to the UK Corporate Governance Code is preferable here. We do not expect that mandating clubs to report on the process of appointing their non-executive director would necessarily be appropriate, as the code should be principles based. I am happy to meet my noble friend and others to discuss this further, should they find that helpful.

That brings me to my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s other amendment in this group, Amendment 159. As I just touched on, and in response to my noble friend Lord Knight, I reassure my noble friends that we expect that the regulator’s code will include recommendations related to executive and non-executive directors. I also assure my noble friends that providing clubs with guidance to ensure that they have an appropriate governance structure is at the heart of the Bill’s existing corporate governance provisions. We have not listed in detail what the code must contain, as that should be for the regulator to determine in consultation with the industry and perhaps informed by its “state of the game” report.

In designing the code, we expect that the regulator will draw on established corporate governance principles. That is unlikely to include quotas in the way that my noble friend’s amendment suggests—that would be a level of micromanagement that we do not think appropriate here—but good corporate governance principles will be front and centre.

On Amendment 158 by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the Government agree that the corporate governance code should cover a club’s decision-making process. Within the definition of corporate governance in the legislation, we believe the wording already appropriately covers that. Paragraph 7(2)(b) of Schedule 5 states that corporate governance includes

“the manner in which the organs of the club conduct themselves”,

and paragraph 7(2)(c) states that it includes

“the requirements imposed on organs of the club”.

That would cover a club’s decision-making process. As part of the code, we expect the regulator to produce high-level principles and what a good decision-making process should look like for clubs.

I would be happy to meet my noble friends to discuss these matters further. I hope they are reassured by the reasons that I have set out and will not press their amendments.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and I hope to be able to converse with her before Report, purely on the grounds that if you do not have a governing body that consists not only of non-execs, which I note my noble friend Lord Knight’s amendment alluded to as well, but also officers who are the executive directors of a board then it is difficult to progress. There has been unanimity today from all sides of the Chamber in relation to the direction of travel.

We are now two and a half hours or more in, so I will have to follow my own strictures in being very brief. I make it clear that I accept that scrutiny is crucial.

On diversity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is a real difference between woke gesturism and downright silliness and a genuine commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. We must be able to make that distinction, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, did so very well. I have to say to him that I had aspirations when I was very young to be the first blind football manager, but it was pointed out to me that I might be better being a referee so that when people shouted, “Get a guide dog!”, I could say, “I’ve got one already”.

It is nice that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raised the issue of Michail Antonio, and I am pleased that I had alignment with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this. Michail Antonio once scored a crucial goal with a dislocated collarbone, and we will never forget that. I wish him well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.

Amendment 55 not moved.

Amendment 56

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

56: Clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
(d) to promote the growth of English football (referred to in this Act as “the growth objective”);(e) to promote and protect financial investment in English football (referred to in this Act as “the financial investment objective”).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates two new objectives the IFR must promote.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope that this proves to be a quicker debate, because I would hope that what we are talking about here are not controversial measures but measures that go to the heart of the regulatory framework we are trying to establish. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is not in his place. Although we are supportive of the principles of regulation, as my noble friend Lord Hayward said, we are trying to make sure that that regulation is set up in the right way.

Our debates in Committee stage so far have all been about the first few pages of the Bill, which are about the regulatory framework and objectives; the point of my Amendment 56 is that if you only have an objective of sustainability, it is one-dimensional and that is not good for the game. I will freely admit that I have spoken to a Premier League club which wrote to me about that—Brentford—and I hope that noble Lords would agree that Brentford is exactly the sort of club we should listen to in this sort of debate, because it is a club that has come through the divisions and is seen as a well-run model club—and one definitely not guaranteed its place in the Premier League. So it has an important contribution to make to this debate.

The letter that Brentford wrote to me and to local MPs says: “a regulatory framework that prioritises stability above all else would be disproportionate. It could mean the regulator financially constraining some Premier League clubs more than others. For Brentford, a club that has risen against the odds to the Premier League, such restrictions risk stifling our ability to grow and compete with larger, established clubs”. That is why I tabled this amendment, to expand the regulator objectives. Otherwise, there is the danger exactly as written in the letter, which I am happy to share with all Members here and which has also been sent to local MPs.

The exact concern of Brentford’s chairman is that, if the regulatory framework is just based on financial sustainability, it risks entrenching the closed-shop nature of the top clubs and will restrict the ability of the Brentfords of the world to compete. From its point of view, having an objective that promotes the growth of all English football, protects financial investment in the game and means that you know you can reap the rewards from investing in a club is very important. Amendment 56 seeks to add this, and is, I hope, uncontroversial, because who would not want to promote growth? We know that that is the Government’s number one objective, and it is fundamental to the Bank of England’s remit and a lot of other regulators also have growth objectives.

In the new clause proposed in my Amendment 58, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) refer to the “financial soundness” and “resilience” of clubs and aim to ensure that the regulator takes into account the whole financial picture of clubs, looking at their assets and liabilities—their whole balance sheet—and their ability to meet any future liabilities. In other words, we want a holistic picture of their sustainability. Funnily enough, that is akin to what the Chancellor announced in the Budget about government spending and so-called “persnuffle”—or PSNFL—which looks at assets and liabilities to make sure you have a rounded picture of the health of the Government’s, or the country’s, finances. Amendment 58 tries to encourage a similar approach to looking at the overall wealth of a club and its overall balance sheet strengths.

Proposed new subsection (1)(c) looks to make sure that the heritage of English football, which we all agree is vital to all this, is rounded out in its definition, while proposed new subsection (1)(d) looks at all the things that are key to the health of the overall game. It would make sure that the regulator, when it looks at how it acts in this space, looks at the overall health of the game—the growth of football in terms of TV viewership, matchday audience, fan engagement, number of clubs and number of fans. I shall not repeat the arguments that we made earlier, but noble Lords will be aware that these are the key things—that media rights go to the heart of the value and TV stations around the world pay to back those media rights, for the health of those sorts of objectives that we would like to see it have.

That is why, in introducing this amendment, I am trying to make sure that we have a much more rounded definition, going to the heart of the framework of what we hope the regulator would look to do and have in place. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support what I hope is a very sensible objective and will take on board the concerns of the Brentford chair—if it was only one-dimensional and looking at financial sustainability alone. I hope that the Minister will be able to take those points away for further consideration. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I support Amendments 56 and 58, tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which together propose critical enhancements to the objectives of the regulator. These amendments seek to establish clear and ambitious goals for the regulator, while ensuring that its powers remain proportionate and carefully defined.

Amendment 56 introduces two new objectives for the regulator: to promote the growth of English football and to promote and protect financial investment in the game. These objectives are not just desirable; they seem to me to be essential, if we are to preserve the vibrancy, competitiveness and international appeal of English football.

The Premier League is the crown jewel of global football. Its growth and success have been driven by significant financial investments, made in good faith and with the legitimate expectation of stable and predictable regulatory conditions. Without that certainty, clubs would not have been able to commit to the infrastructure, youth development or community programmes that are now the pillars of our game. Yet, as currently framed, the regulator’s remit is heavily focused on constraints, restrictions and redistribution. While these may be important, without taking growth into account, they risk creating a chilling effect on the investment that has driven English football to its current heights. To constrain without also providing balance is to risk stagnation or, worse, managed decline.

Amendment 58 complements this by providing detailed definitions of these new objectives. It outlines what growth means in practical terms: increasing TV viewership, matchday attendance, fan engagement, the number of clubs and the number of fans. These are good proxies, in my view, for the growth of football and ensuring that the regulator’s actions are aligned with the long-term health of the game. Although promoting growth and protecting investment are vital, I listened carefully to the Minister’s argument that a growth duty or purpose could in fact be scope-widening. I believe that she indicated that it could place the regulator in conflict with the broader European framework of football governance. This would risk significant repercussions—but only, of course, for those clubs competing in European competitions.

This is one of the tensions at the heart of the Bill. You could have proper balance in the regulatory regime’s design, so that it is de-risked, light-touch, pro-growth and business-friendly and protects this highly successful industry—but, in doing so, you potentially risk the future of a smaller number of clubs which may, one day, be barred from European competition. Alternatively, you could do what the Government have done, and you therefore risk setting up the regulator to be harmful to growth, overly intrusive, risk-averse and dampening to investment—but, in doing so, you are more likely to be compliant with UEFA, although no one has been able to provide a cast-iron guarantee on that.

In supporting these amendments, I urge Ministers to take this opportunity to refine the objectives of the IFR to set it firmly on the path to success. We need to create objectives that support football’s future without overextending the regulator’s reach or compromising the autonomy of competition tools, which must rightly remain the domain of the competitions themselves. I hope that, as we deepen our scrutiny of the Bill, we can find a better balance.

18:15

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends’ amendment, for the obvious reason that, from the beginning of our discussions, we have not substantially defined in the Bill what we mean by “English football”, other than by alighting on the word “sustainability”. We also have not defined what we mean by the “heritage of English football”. That was specified in the impact assessment—in fact, it says on the first page that we do not know what the heritage of English football is.

This is a very helpful amendment from my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, because it at least gives us and the regulator an opportunity to have a firm understanding in the Bill, among all stakeholders in all leagues, of what we mean by the heritage of English football. It is important that it means the tangible and intangible elements that define the unique historical identity of English football. I am surprised that the Government, for whatever reasons, have decided not to adopt that in the Bill and have left it to—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I am a bit surprised, because the Benches opposite have, on several occasions, accused us on this side of trying to extend the reach of the regulator. The noble Lord asked: what is English football? In the Bill English football covers the top five levels—that is the definition. Personally, I think it should go to level six, but it is at level five. It is clear what it means by English football.

Under subsection 1(d) of the proposed new clause, Amendment 58 seeks to increase “the number of clubs”. I do not see how you can increase the number of clubs without it taking in other levels beyond those in the Bill. These amendments seek to extend the role of the regulator, which is rather inconsistent from those opposite.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

As usual, the noble Lord makes a very pertinent and astute point. I disagree with it, because what we are seeking to do is further define what is in the Bill. There is a lack of definition—there has been since we discussed the issue in relation to Clause 1 a week or so ago. That is the difficulty.

The general point the noble Lord makes is also pertinent, because we are still deciding whether this is a hybrid Bill. It is important that we define English football, because if we do not properly define it, there will be an issue of hybridity. According to the Minister’s letter, as I understand it, it is still only provisionally being ruled as a hybrid Bill, and there is no definitive position.

The point that I was making was that we need a proper framework. The new clause proposed by the amendment would add that definition to the Bill. It would therefore make it a better and more holistic Bill. At the moment, there are significant concerns about the Bill’s enabling powers and Henry VIII powers, and the new wording would go some way—were it to be adopted by the Minister; I live in hope that it might be on Report—to ameliorate that issue. For that reason, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Markham.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by offering sincere apologies for not being able to contribute at Second Reading. I am afraid that I had to attend a close friend’s funeral. I did, however, manage to be in the Chamber for the latter part of that debate. I have watched the debate back on Parliament TV, updated myself via Hansard and, where able, attended most of the Committee. I also apologise if parts of what I say might have been more appropriate for Second Reading, but I feel that your Lordships may deserve a bit of background on why I feel privileged to offer some reflections to the Committee on this matter. This may, mercifully, be the only substantial contribution that I make on the Bill.

I declare my interests, as set out in the register, specifically having around 12 years of direct experience in sports governance, but also make an admission. First, I have been a lifelong Chelsea supporter and, as an excepted hereditary, I have of course passed that unfortunate affliction down to my sons and even to my nine year-old daughter who, yes, plays football—although she confessed the other day to having considered the unthinkable: supporting Manchester City. Given Chelsea’s recent form, though, I hope that she will now revert to her inherited team.

I support my noble friend’s amendments that try to define the objectives of the regulator, as well as others that have already sought to address the actual purpose of the Bill. Where I hope we will eventually get to is that something can be financially sound, resilient and sustainable, and grow and be successful. We have already discussed that if sustainability is the sole rationale and motivator for this legislation, sustainability could have a far lower bar and be an inhibitor to growth and success. Given the context of being one of this country’s greatest exports, the success of the English Premier League and now the English Football League is not solely dependent on their sustainability. There is much more to it. I suggest that they are successful not simply because of their sustainability, or unsuccessful because of the lack of it. They are deemed successful because of a whole host of factors, be that results on and off the pitch, financial sustainability, fan engagement or community outreach, to name but a few. Are growth and success not things that we should ask clubs, leagues and all stakeholders to strive for? What enables them to be successful and what should we try to support through the Bill?

In my view, and as we have heard from other noble Lords, the UK is globally successful in the game of football, and the Premier League, the EFL and other successful domestic leagues have grown to a position of global prominence because of various factors, including the game’s heritage and the English language—the lingua franca of football, as indeed it is with most global sports. Football is successful in the UK because of the pro-business environment in this country, which encourages foreign investment into our game and, ironically, is potentially threatened by aspects of the Bill.

We must also credit the consistently strong leadership of the Premier League, its global appeal through strong marketing and its willingness to embrace expertise from abroad in players, coaches and support staff. Some of your Lordships might remember that this pursuit of excellence and diversity was strongly criticised in the first few years of the Premier League’s existence. It was seen as a threat to homegrown player development and that talent progressing up the pathway to the national team—an attitude that I think we can all now agree has been shown up by the recent successes of our national teams.

More broadly, football’s success relies on this country’s position in the world and, yes, the crucial part played by our strong domestic marketplace, characterised by the role that a fiercely loyal fan base has in supporting the leagues and their teams. Above all, it is the ability of so many of the clubs in the UK to build brands around themselves—some of them mega-brands—that has led to five of the top 10 best-supported clubs in their global reach being from the UK, with just one from Germany, one from Italy, one from France and two from Spain. The bottom UK-based team in that top 10, Arsenal, has over 40 million followers on Facebook alone, with a fan base that extends far beyond these shores.

All these factors are more complex and, frankly, equally as important as some of the simpler definitions contained in the Bill. Growth and success are what the Bill should seek to preserve, enable and maybe protect, rather than inhibit. To repeat: the Bill should be about preserving and promoting growth and success, not just ensuring, for instance, sustainability.

Do we measure success simply by sustainability or should we seek a broader, more detailed and more accurate set of definitions—a higher bar as a North Star for this Bill, as suggested by my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson in their Amendments 56 and 58? This could be a subtle but fundamental tweak to what this Bill is trying to achieve.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group, to which I have added my name. I am very grateful to my noble friends who have spoken to them, particularly my noble friend Lord Wrottesley, who brings many years’ experience of sports governance. The Committee is grateful to have had his insights. These two amendments attempt to expand the objectives of the regulator under the Bill. These objectives will be fundamental guiding principles by which the regulator will have to abide and will inform its operation from its conception.

Amendment 56 introduces two new objectives into Clause 6. The first is a growth objective and the second a financial investment objective. The growth objective is not intended to encourage a more activist regulator, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. We do not want to see the regulator take further action than necessary; we want it to have the growth of the sport constantly in mind so that, when it carries out its other duties, it does not restrict the ability of clubs to look forward and plan for the future. I take his point about our wording on the number of clubs; we want to see the growth of football, so if new clubs spring up and enter the pyramid then he and I would jointly welcome that objective. However, I take the point that this would create more work for the regulator and the regulatory regime. As he will see from our wording in proposed new paragraph (d), what we have suggested as metrics

“includes, but is not limited to”.

It is an attempt to point to some metrics for growth, but if there are better ways of doing it then we are certainly open to hearing them.

By trying to focus the mind of the regulator on growth, we would ensure that, when it is drafting its rules or working on the levy or financial thresholds it may set, it will always have regard to how its work and rules will allow clubs to grow. We mean not financial growth but growth in every aspect. That is why Amendment 58 tries to expand on the meanings of the growth objective and gives a number of examples in the legislation. As it sets out, that objective would include the

“continued … expansion of all aspects of regulated clubs and specified competitions”.

We want clubs to be able to increase their revenues so that they can continue to invest in the future of the game, not just for their own sake but for the whole pyramid, and help the regulator achieve its financial sustainability objective. We also want them to increase their match-day attendance, TV viewership, fan base and more.

The focus on growing the fan base relates to an amendment to which the Committee has already given some thought, which called for the inclusion of current and prospective fans in the stated criteria for the sustainability of English football. In a similar vein, this amendment is trying to stress the importance of expanding the fan base of English football and appealing to future supporters as well as current ones.

I will also address the inclusion of a financial investment objective, as my noble friend Lord Markham set out in moving his amendment. This would seek to ensure that the regulator always considers the impact of its actions on the security of future investment in English football. As all noble Lords will know, professional clubs in this country would not be the world leaders they are today or command the fan base that my noble friend Lord Wrottesley set out without significant investment. This amendment does not attempt to place any restrictions on the regulator but, as with the growth objective, seeks to keep it on the straight and narrow so that it exercises its functions only ever in a manner that genuinely benefits football.

18:30

If any of the regulator’s actions in any way damaged or hindered the ability of clubs to invest or to attract investment, the Bill would not have succeeded in its purpose to promote financial sustainability. This is particularly important with regard to the owners’ and directors’ tests. As noble Lords have pointed out before in this Committee, a new owner can bring huge opportunities to a club—the example of Brighton & Hove Albion has been used extensively—and can completely transform its prospects. These new objectives therefore seek to act as a warning of sorts—a warning to the regulator not to choke off investment or to damage the future of the game. Without an amendment such as this, I worry that the regulator could focus solely on regulating the finances of football clubs without regard to the risks required for them to succeed.

Amendment 58 follows a similar theme to some of the other amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I have tabled, which is that of improving clarity in the Bill. As we and others have said before, there are many areas of the Bill that are rather vague: terms, objectives and duties are not clearly defined and, as such, open to a wide range of interpretations or misinterpretations. As with our amendments on the meanings of sustainability and fans, to which we have given lots of time but not yet received the clarity and answers we sought, this amendment takes what the Government have written in their Explanatory Notes and simply puts it in the Bill. As I said on those other definitions used by the Government, if they are good enough to be used elsewhere, I am keen to hear why they should not be in the Bill.

For instance, on the heritage objective, I hope that the Minister will agree that it is helpful to say in the Bill that it includes both tangible and intangible aspects. As she will know from her work in the department, the UK recently ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible heritage, and her department is now leading some exciting work to get people to bring forward examples of intangible heritage. It seems to me that football is rife with examples that people might put forward for inscription on that UNESCO list, so I am interested in why we should not put that definition in the Bill to make sure that it is clearly in the mind of the regulator and all those doing the work and is not just hidden away in the Explanatory Notes.

This is particularly important when it comes to the financial soundness objective. On its own, “financial soundness” does not mean very much. Without an expanded definition—whether that is the one that my noble friend Lord Markham and I have put forward or one of the Government’s counterpropositions—I worry that the regulator could take that term to mean anything from limiting expenditure to asking clubs to release a quarterly financial statement. The Bill would be improved by more precision and greater clarity here.

It is also relevant to how we judge the regulator’s success. An objective is a goal that one wishes to achieve, so the objectives in Clause 6 are measures that can be used to determine how well the new regulator is performing its duties. But, if that is to happen, we will need a greater sense of what we all expect from the regulator when we are analysing its performance against these benchmarks.

That is why this amendment specifies that financial soundness

“means a measure of a club’s expected ability to continue meeting its liabilities and debts in the future”.

That gives us all a bit more with which to work. We will know that the objective has been achieved if all regulated clubs are in a position in which they have sufficient capital and cash flow to service their debts and meet their future liabilities.

As I have said, we are open to further discussion on the wording, but I hope that the noble Baroness sees what we are trying to achieve through these amendments in giving the Bill more clarity and precision, and some finer metrics by which the work of the regulator can be judged.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for Amendments 56 and 58. I look forward to reading the letter to which he referred when it is forwarded to the Committee.

On Amendment 56, while we appreciate the intent of the amendment and agree that English football should continue to be as successful as it has been, we do not believe the amendment is necessary to safeguard this. The growth of English football over the past 30 years and the financial investment in it have been widely regarded as a huge success and have turned it—as has been noted by a number of noble Lords across the Committee—into a global export. However, in pursuing such growth and investment, systemic issues have grown throughout English football which justify regulation. Some noble Lords have suggested that football’s growth is evidence that regulation is not needed, but these two things are not mutually exclusive. English football is both successful and fragile, with issues of sustainability throughout the pyramid.

We have discussed the reasons why the game needs regulating at some length, so I am not going to go through them again, but the main aim of the Bill is to address these issues to ensure financial soundness and resilience of clubs and to safeguard the heritage of English football—all things that football has shown itself unable to do. On growth and attracting investment, on the other hand, football has already shown itself to be incredibly good at both those things and does not need, in our view, a statutory regulator to promote them. Indeed, as is clear from its articles of association, “promoting” the game is one of the objectives for which the FA is established.

Noble Lords have raised concerns about breaching UEFA and FIFA’s statutes. In my view, stepping on the FA’s toes here is exactly the sort of thing that might risk that. That is why we do not believe that the regulator needs primary objectives to actively pursue growth and financial investment. However, the Bill already makes provision to safeguard these features. As part of its general duties, the regulator must have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football—domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, and investment into football—rather than a general growth objective.

The bespoke and novel duties in Clause 7 acknowledge the specific market features that have contributed to English football’s growth and will be key to its continued success. Much of the success of English football has come from investment and exciting competition, and we do not believe the Bill will in any way deter this. Indeed, a stable and more certain regulatory environment will be more likely to attract investors. These amendments would require the regulator to bring into scope anything that relates to the growth of English football. This would include things like broadcasting revenues, transfer fees, sponsorship deals and many other areas. Not only would this dramatically widen the scope but the regulator would also be required to become actively involved in these areas.

My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie highlighted that these amendments would broaden the scope of the regulator. We cannot on the one hand warn against scope creep and over-intervention in a successful free market and on the other hand call for a statutory regulator to be tasked with growing the market. Regulators exist to address specific problems that the market cannot address itself. Football has a sustainability problem and not a growth one.

On Amendment 58 specifically, the additional detail in subsection (1)(a) to (c) in the noble Lord’s proposed new clause is already included in the Explanatory Notes which cover heritage. Explanatory Notes provide illustrative detail about the intention behind legislation and not drafting intended for the Bill. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the purpose of Explanatory Notes is to provide additional illustrative detail. However, this kind of detail is not appropriate for the face of the legislation, because good legislation should be clear and concise, and the current drafting is in line with that ambition.

I want also to draw noble Lords’ attention to the letter I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on this same topic of a growth duty. A copy of that letter was also placed in the House Libraries. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and the Minister for replying. Before I come to address what has been said, I thank my noble friends for their contributions and especially my noble friend Lady Brady for her point that there are concerns about UEFA competitions as well that we are seeking to address in this.

Although I did not hear anyone say that these were not desirable objectives, I heard two reasons not to introduce them. First, the Minister said that we are already successful on investment and the Bill will not deter it. I am afraid that is where there is a fundamental disagreement, because the Bill introduces new aspects to this. It gives the regulator responsibility to make sure clubs are sustainable and says that the regulator can look at this through things such as the parachute payments and the solidarity payments. That fundamentally changes the investment proposition in clubs. The letter from the Brentford chair makes the point, as have others, that clubs would be much less likely to invest in new players and in resources if they did not have the safety net of parachute payments if they were to go down. That will directly affect investment in clubs via the change in the laws that we are talking about and the responsibilities of the regulator to look only at sustainability. It is the same for solidarity payments. We are changing the playing field and moving the goalposts, so we cannot expect everything to go on as normal. That will inevitably affect the investment proposition, so it will impact the amount of money we see going into the game.

That comes on to the second point that was raised about why we should not introduce these amendments: that we are somehow trying to expand the regulator’s duties, which goes counter to everything we have said so far about it being light touch. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that the regulator will have more than one objective when it looks at the measures it can take. If it has only one objective, about sustainability, we hope it will interpret it broadly, but I could make all clubs sustainable tomorrow by saying that all the Premier League money should be distributed. That would do it. It would give everyone loads of money, it is completely sustainable and the regulator could say, “That’s fantastic, job done”. But we know it would fundamentally harm the whole structure and the whole environment.

I do not think for one moment that a regulator would be as unwise as that, but the main point of what we are trying to do is to set out what we believe are the right objectives. As I mentioned, the Government have done that with the Bank of England and given it growth objectives alongside inflation objectives. They have done it with Ofwat and with Ofgem. They have given all of them their regulatory requirements and a growth objective. We are trying to make sure that the regulator is wise in any measures it puts in place by always having other objectives that are for the good of the game. That is not increasing its reach; it is just making sure that it has more than one objective. I hope this is something we will be able to talk about further.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Was my noble friend as surprised as I was by the Minister’s use of the phrase that the Bill should be clear and concise? Is not the problem we have been trying to tackle precisely that there is a complete lack of clarity in a Bill that is anything but concise?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, and I thank my noble friend for exactly that point. It is about the clarity of the objective. The most important thing we can all do as legislators is set down what we think the regulator should do. That is why we spent three days trying to work out exactly what we want. It is fundamental to everything we are trying to do. That is why it is taking time. I hear reasons such as, “It’s not necessary”, but why not make it an objective? If the regulator is going to do it anyway then fair enough, but why not be sure that it will take growth and success as its key North Star in all this? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Amendment 57 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Clause 7: The IFR’s general duties etc

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

59: Clause 7, page 5, line 16, leave out “, so far as reasonably practicable,”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that this one will be simpler. A lot of the amendments in this group are just trying to make sure that there is more specificity; I go back to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s previous point about making sure there is absolute clarity on what we want the regulator to do. Amendment 59 would take out

“so far as reasonably practicable”

because we want to make sure that there are no areas of greyness. We think that these are things the regulator must do.

18:45

In Amendment 61, as mentioned in the previous debate, we want to make sure that the regulator must always advance the growth objective in everything it does. As I mentioned before, the Bank of England and all our other regulators have a growth duty alongside their other objectives.

My noble friend Lord Maude is not here to speak to his Amendment 61A. It would make sure that, where possible—we spoke about this earlier—there are effective existing competition structures with their own regulatory rules, such as the rules on financial fair play. It says that, first and foremost, the regulators should look to those bodies and make sure that they are effective in what they are doing. If they are doing it and they have it covered, we should rely on them to carry on doing it rather than trying to come in over the top of them.

Amendments 64 and 67 are similar in terms of trying to avoid the regulator having an adverse impact on competition between clubs and between the Premier League and the EFL. They go to the heart of many of the concerns around UEFA that we have heard about in previous debates. UEFA is very clear that it does not want regulators impacting the competitiveness of one club against another but, as per our previous debates, giving the regulator the ability to alter the parachute payment system absolutely will have an impact on clubs’ investment and competitiveness. It will have adverse effects that will not only impact the attractiveness of the football but potentially put us in hot water with UEFA. Amendment 64 tries to make sure that the inherent nature of the game of football, which involves sporting risk and jeopardy, is taken into account.

Amendment 69 seeks to make sure that the regulator must have regard to the Section 6 objectives that, funnily enough, are set out in Clause 6. Again, they are fundamental to the good governance of the game.

This is a very sensible tidying up of language, trying to get the exact clarity that I know noble Lords want from this debate. As such, I hope that this will be quite a simple conversation at this point. I beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham for setting out the amendments in this group and, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. He tabled some of these amendments but, as we heard earlier today, is unable to be with us to speak to them.

This group of amendments concerns the general duties of the independent football regulator. Its role is to ensure the long-term sustainability, fairness and competitiveness of football in the UK; that is vital. The regulator is entrusted with overseeing the interests of clubs, players, fans and other key parties in the sport, so its role is invaluable. It is critical, therefore, that we lay out clearly and concisely, if we can, its duties and responsibilities.

The amendments in this group seek to provide the independent football regulator with a clear and effective framework in which to carry out its responsibilities, and to strike the right balance between governance, competition and the continued growth of the sport.

I speak in support of Amendment 61, which would introduce a duty for the new regulator to advance the growth objective. The whole Committee can agree on wanting football to flourish, expand its reach, and continue to thrive both on and off the pitch. That is the intention of Amendment 61 and the growth objective. Football’s growth, in participation and in financial sustainability, is critical for its future. The amendment before us would ensure that the regulator’s actions remain firmly aligned with advancing football’s expansion, ensuring that the sport continues to thrive and serve the interests of all involved, from grass roots to the professional game.

Amendment 59 proposes removing the phrase

“so far as reasonably practicable”

from Clause 7. This would complement Amendment 61 by strengthening the regulator’s mandate. By removing what is superfluous and ambiguous language, we would help to ensure that the regulator is not constrained by excessively cautious qualifiers. Instead, it would be given a clearer, more explicit duty to act decisively in line with its core responsibilities, including the imperative of promoting growth in the football sector. In the previous debate, we proposed additional wording that the Government did not need; here, we are seeking to help concision by striking out terms that we think are ambiguous and superfluous.

Amendment 61A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, highlights the importance of the independent regulator in working within existing competition structures where they are already operating effectively. The new regulator should not interfere unnecessarily with systems that are working well and delivering positive outcomes. Instead, it must focus on enhancing and supporting those structures, ensuring that they remain adequate and capable of meeting the needs of the game. That would prevent the duplication of regulatory functions and ensure maximum efficiency.

My noble friend Lord Maude’s Amendment 64 seeks to safeguard the integrity of football competitions by ensuring that the football regulator avoids actions that could undermine the important work and effort of competition organisers. His amendment would set a useful boundary between the regulator and the autonomy of clubs. Additionally, it would ensure that the independent football regulator does not conflict with the existing rules set by competition organisers. These protections are important for preserving the competitive spirit of football, which drives both the sporting and commercial success of the game. By ensuring that the regulator respects the frameworks that are already established, these amendments would permit football to evolve without unnecessary disruption and foster an environment where the sport can flourish at all levels.

My noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 67, which I have signed, seeks to ensure that the independent regulator avoids actions that could undermine competition. That competitive spirit is fundamental to football’s success, both in the excitement engendered among fans and the drive for clubs to grow and innovate. This amendment seeks to ensure that regulatory actions do not unintentionally harm what is such an essential element of the sport.

Finally, Amendment 69 seeks to strengthen the clarity and focus of the regulator’s mandate by ensuring that it operates consistently with the objectives outlined in Clause 6. Clause 7(3) states that the regulator must have regard to its regulatory principles, the “state of the game” report, the football governance statement and any guidance published. Curiously, though, it does not state that the regulator must have regard to its objectives under Clause 6. If the objectives are to mean anything, surely the Bill should try to create a duty for the regulator to have regard to those objectives in exercising its functions. I am curious as to whether that is a gap that we could close here.

The amendments in this group work together to provide the new independent football regulator with a clear, direct and effective framework for fulfilling its duties. They seek also to set out distinct boundaries and make sure that the regulator’s powers do not encroach on the competitive spirit of the clubs. I hope the Minister thinks that, in doing that, they strike the right balance between regulation and freedom. I look forward to her thoughts on this.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Maude of Horsham, for tabling these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, for speaking to the amendments in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Maude.

I start with Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The regulator’s purpose is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. To deliver this, the legislation sets out three clear objectives: club financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and heritage. It absolutely follows that we would expect it to always act with that purpose and those objectives in mind.

This amendment would have consequences for both the regulator and the industry. The result is that the regulator could face considerably more risk of legal challenge, even if it acted reasonably and in good faith in a way that it intended to advance its objectives. If the regulator always had to prove that any action it took was directly compatible with its purpose and would advance an objective, this would introduce a considerable burden on the regulator and the cost would ultimately be paid for by industry and, potentially, indirectly by fans. We are confident that Clause 7 as drafted appropriately constrains the regulator to act in line with its purpose and objectives without introducing unnecessary, costly and restrictive procedural burdens.

I turn to Amendment 61, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. As set out in the previous group, we appreciate the intent of amendments on this topic and agree that English football should continue to be as successful as it has been, but we do not believe that a growth objective is necessary to safeguard this. The sole aim of the Bill is to address issues that football has shown itself unable to resolve to ensure the financial soundness of clubs and the resilience of English football, and to safeguard the heritage of English football. As with the previous amendments in group 3, this amendment would dramatically widen the scope of the regulator, which is not something the Government wish to do. In order to satisfy the duty that this amendment proposes to always advance growth in every action it takes, the regulator would end up intervening on issues that affect growth, rather than effectively solving the problems it has been set up to tackle.

On Amendments 61A and 64, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, we are confident that the Bill is already clear that competition organisers will not be unduly restricted in how they manage their competitions. The regulator has a clear regulatory principle to co-operate constructively with competition organisers and to recognise the wider footballing context, including existing competition-specific rules. Let me be clear: the regulator will not be deferring to the leagues or their rules, but it is in no one’s interests for there to be conflict. The regulator will not be standing in the way of clubs’ ambitions. Provided they do so prudently, we have always been clear that clubs will be able to invest, spend and take calculated risks. This is reflected in the legislation.

On Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, while I understand the desire to explicitly protect the financial interests of the leagues, this amendment is unnecessary given the existing statutory duties including in the Bill. As I mentioned, the Bill already requires the regulator to consider the competitiveness of regulated clubs, alongside any potential adverse effects on financial investment. Clearly, these things impact on the competitiveness and success of the leagues themselves. Additionally, where we consider it relevant to specific functions of the regulator, there are explicit requirements for it to consider the potential impact on the finances of the leagues. For example, as part of the backstop process, the regulator has a specific duty not to choose a proposal that would place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either league.

Finally, on Amendment 69, in the name of noble Lord, Lord Markham, I reassure the noble Lord that the desired intent is already achieved by the wording of Clause 7(1). This states that that the regulator

“must, so far as reasonably practicable”,

advance the regulator’s objectives when exercising its functions. To meet this duty to advance its objectives, the regulator would have to have regard to its objectives, so the intent of the amendment is already achieved.

For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments and ask that noble Lords do not press them.

19:00

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I will not go around the same loop again. A lot of this is again around the growth and success objectives . We rehearsed those arguments quite well in the previous groups. However, I would question a new point that the Minister made: that, somehow, they would open up the regulator to legal challenge. I am not sure that I agree with that. I do not believe that the growth objectives that Ofwat, Ofgem, other regulators and the Bank of England have open them up to any more legal challenge. It is just saying that it is a criterion and trying to make sure that in any decisions they make, they have more than one objective that they are seeking to fulfil. I will not go beyond that and rehearse the arguments, but I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Amendments 60 to 64 not moved.

Amendment 65

Moved by

[Lord Mann]

65: Clause 7, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) adverse impact on women’s football.”

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 65 is not about whether women’s football should be covered by the Bill; it is about something quite different. I will very briefly illustrate it with an issue that would arise at a regulated club, the National League Solihull Moors Football Club, should this Bill go through. I do not know whether the issue has been resolved and, in a sense, that is rather incidental to my point.

The issue, from what I have ascertained, is that Solihull Moors has a women’s football team as well as a men’s football team and, because of that, with a licence, it would be regulated under the men’s football team. The women’s football team would be quite separate, but the women’s football team plays in the same complex as the men’s team. Also, the business had been structured with a set of community interest companies that were required to break even. The one that the women’s football team played on did not break even, which led to them being thrown off their pitch. However, the facility had been part-funded by the Football Foundation.

That is a particular comment on Solihull Moors, but also a real example from this year. Using it as an illustration, in that situation, where funding has been received and a women’s club has been, as some claim, thrown off so they are not able to play on a facility, is this an issue for the regulator? It should be. The regulator could, for example, look at whether the moneys that were given by the Football Foundation should be repaid. While it is a small issue in monetary terms, if you are a women’s football club and you are thrown off the pitch, it is a big issue. So the reason for tabling this amendment is to see whether this kind of situation is covered. If it is not, I suggest it requires an amendment similar to or the same as the one I have tabled. I beg to move.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support and to give an example of a similar unintended consequence. This is around the 3 pm kick-off on Saturday games and not allowing those to be televised. Again, that was set up exactly because Premier League games, if they were televised, would impact the attendance of the Championship League and other EFL games, because they knew that people would be watching those games instead. Within that regulatory framework, they had a view on the impact of how that one competition could impact the other competitions.

In a similar way, what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is trying to do is to add, in proposed new paragraph (d), the impact on the women’s game and make sure that it is one of the considerations taken into account. Without it, you could be taking action around the men’s games in the competition that has those unintended consequences—so I support it.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is one of those that reflects real life. Anybody who has set up any club of any structure at any point knows that, if you are working between two bodies—I have seen it very much at junior level between rugby and cricket clubs—their interests seem suddenly to contradict each other under a new set of circumstances. I hope that the Minister will have a reassuring answer about the flexibility and ability of the regulator to intervene and try to find a way forward, because this is a real problem that will occur every now and again. It is probably not a structural thing, but “Is the flexibility there?” is a genuine question. I do not think any of us wants one of our regulators to suddenly start having a negative effect.

My Amendment 70 in this group basically says that support should be available for the women’s game. We have already covered this issue at some length, so I will not go much further than to say that we should not exclude giving the women’s game some help, because it is developing and going forward, and it is very important to the foreseeable future of developing elite-level sport in this country. We should address that by having another look and asking what the capacity is.

I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is ready to speak to her amendment. Can we find out what flexibility there is and what the regulator is seen to be doing to handle these not quite down-the-line situations, where there are positive outcomes that we hope would be facilitated by it?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say just a word, because Amendment 72 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is included in this group. We have, to a certain extent, discussed this already, because this reflects on the kind of support that clubs would get were they to seek a licence, get a provisional licence or try to comply with the regulations that will be there. The Minister was very reassuring when we discussed this previously, but I hope that, at some stage during the passage of the Bill through either House, we can get a little more detail on how this may work in practice.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 72, but shall comment briefly on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Addington.

We need to be clear that this is a regulator for the men’s game, not the game of football. I am really excited to see the growth of women’s football; it has a massive impact on society. Some 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy, and football is one of those sports that connects and is changing the relationship between girls and physical activity and sport. I was at the Wales v Northern Ireland women’s game the other week and the groups of teenage girls coming to support in a way that they might not support the men’s game, and the little girls dressed in their Welsh kit and goalkeeper’s kit, was a really beautiful sight to see.

But the women’s game needs to be protected and nurtured, and I do not want to see any unintended consequences of regulation or anything that makes it harder for women to be involved in what is an incredible game. I am meeting the Minister this week, and this is one of things I will be discussing with her.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. In my view, these are proper probing amendments about unintended consequences—such as with Solihull—and the need to support women to get to the elite level, as well as the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is not about having an argument or asking the Government to rethink anything; these are truly probing amendments asking the Minister and those who work on the Bill to look at these points and make the Bill better. I am so thankful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in that. This group gets to the nub of an issue that can be dealt with very quickly.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. My understanding is that the regulator cannot take the women’s game into account, even where, in theory, the accounts may relate to both. Indeed, on the face of the Bill, as I read it—I look forward to the Minister’s clarification—it would be possible for clever accounting to move money and, indeed, even financial exposure, across to the women’s game and therefore exclude it from the consideration of the regulator. I hope I am wrong in that. I can see that there would be ample opportunity for approaches to the accounts and the financial strength of clubs to be manipulated in a way that I am sure was not the intention of the Government or the regulator. The Minister will no doubt clarify that when she comes to respond.

This goes back to the possibility of amending the scope of the Bill in the future. In other words, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, this is exclusively a men’s regulator. I was a bit concerned about the language in the report to Parliament and to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was prepared by the department, recommending that women’s football be “given a chance” to self-regulate. That is rather a condescending phrase to the sport. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of people in the sport have been rather concerned that the women’s game has not been given equal opportunity. UEFA has brought in solidarity payments for the Women’s Champions League clubs to support the growth of the women’s game. That is not the case in the UK. I can completely see the arguments that people like Kelly Simmons have made: if the benefits of the regulator are as strong as the Minister has expressed to the Committee, then it could enhance and expand club licensing criteria to raise standards in women’s football—the performance of women’s football as well as medical and welfare provision.

If the Bill offers so strong a benefit to the sport as the Minister makes out, it is unfortunate that the women’s game should be put to one side and simply told it is being given a chance to prove itself and, in due course, might see the benefits that the Minister says exist in this Bill for football. That is my biggest concern. I think it is a concern felt by many in women’s football; I see the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, nodding in assent.

It is important for the Minister to address both the role of the regulator in relation to what a football club does to promote women’s football and the wider implication that many in women’s football feel: that they are being somehow excluded from the great benefits we have regularly heard about in Committee from the Minister about the game as a whole.

I hope the Minister will respond to both those points; that would be helpful to the Committee. If they are not positive responses, then this will perhaps be something we should return to at a later stage, to make sure that the women’s game is not disadvantaged by the introduction of the regulator.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendments 65, 70 and 72, which focus on ensuring financial support for the women’s game and protecting it from many adverse impacts resulting from the Bill.

While I respect the intention behind these amendments, I believe that they are not strictly necessary. I want to underline the significant commitment that many Premier League clubs already have to the women’s game. A vast majority of Premier League clubs operate women’s teams—including West Ham, which had a fantastic 5-2 win yesterday. We do that not as an obligation but as a genuine commitment to growing and professionalising women’s football. We all want our women’s teams to succeed, thrive and contribute to the broader success story of English football.

The truth is that not one WSL team makes any money—actually, not one even breaks even. They all lose between £1.5 million and £5 million a year, so they are currently wholly reliant on the men’s teams playing in the Premier League for their funding. The Premier League’s commitment is not just rhetorical; it is backed by meaningful action. Premier League clubs have provided substantial financial support and shared their expertise, facilities and resources. A recent example of that is a £20 million interest-free loan, which was made available to the women’s NewCo to help build a robust foundation for future growth, alongside a co-operation agreement with the Premier League to assist with growing, commercialising and attracting investment to the women’s game. The Premier League also invests £6 million in over 70 emerging talent centres across the country, to bring brilliant and diverse talent into the women’s and girls’ game from the widest possible range of backgrounds.

19:15

Amendment 65, which seeks to mandate financial support from the Premier League to the women’s game, risks formalising what is already happening voluntarily and through market forces. The Premier League’s support for the women’s game is driven not by regulation or compulsion, but by a genuine desire and economic incentive to see it flourish. Turning this collaboration into a mandatory obligation could undermine the good will and partnership that has been so central to the recent success of the women’s game.

Amendment 70, which seeks to protect the women’s game from the adverse impacts of the Bill, raises a revealing point. By proposing such a safeguard, the amendment implicitly recognises the likelihood that the Bill could have a dampening effect on the investment in football, providing less money in the pot to share. That is a concern that I share. The women’s game is at a crucial stage of growth, where it needs the freedom to attract investment and build its commercial potential. The very last thing it needs is to be encumbered by the unintended consequences of regulation designed for a different set of challenges in the men’s game.

Finally, I must highlight an irony in this debate. While we discuss how to best protect the women’s game from the adverse impacts of regulation, we are simultaneously debating how to impose new regulatory burdens on the men’s game. These burdens risk stifling the very investment and innovation that made the Premier League the envy of the world. The Minister mentioned growth in football. If you ask the French or Italians about their growth, it would be a very different story, so we must never be complacent.

The Government’s own view is that the women’s game should have the opportunity to grow and self-regulate, not least by remaining autonomous, free and unburdened by regulation. They understand that, for the women’s game to professionalise and grow, it needs to invest ahead of revenues and take calculated risks. If we believe that commercial freedom and investment are the keys to the success of the women’s game, I have to ask: why are we so quick to strip those principles away from the men’s game? Why do the Government appear so resistant to reasonable amendments that will provide checks, balances and guard-rails as we take this leap into the unknown?

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow on from a comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on the contribution made by the men’s game and men’s clubs to the women’s team in the same club.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I worked with others to ensure that the women’s rugby tournament was brought to this country next year. We are pleased to say that we were successful in doing that, but it needed assistance from the Government and it received a grant.

The Minister has, on a number of occasions, referred to the levy being proportionate, and I have been critical of her on this. It is important that an indication is given as to whether money paid by a football club—let us take West Ham as an example—to support the women’s club will be taken into consideration by the regulator when assessing what payment should be made overall to the levy. There would be a serious danger that, if that money is included in the regulator’s assessment of what is proportionate, football clubs will, quite naturally, reduce the amount of money that they give to the women’s game.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for moving his Amendment 65, which probes an important area and a potentially concerning consequence. I am grateful for the example that he raised of Solihull Moors and look forward to the reassurances that I hope the Minister will give. However, even if she gives those reassurances, the noble Lord’s amendment is modest and I wonder whether there is a case—belt and braces—for us to make an amendment saying that the regulator should work in a way that does not have an adverse impact on women’s football. That feels sensible, even if the Minister does not share the concern about the specific instance that her noble friend has raised.

Like others who have spoken, we on these Benches are full of praise and excitement for the role that women’s football and women’s sport more generally play in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke powerfully about the inspiration that it is to many young women and girls, the transformative impacts that it has on their health and so much more. I am pleased that we have come such a long way from the days of old, when women were banned from playing professional football—a ban that was lifted only in 1971, but the effect of which can still be seen and has reverberated through the development of the women’s game for generations.

The FA took on the administration of women’s football only 30 years ago, in 1994, and the Women’s Super League became a fully professional league only in 2018. But, as noble Lords have pointed out, recent years have seen some striking, powerful and inspirational examples of the growth in the women’s game and, hearteningly, in the interest and appreciation that it is getting right across society. Correspondingly, there has been an enormous increase in the attention that it has garnered, with 77,000 fans attending the women’s FA Cup final last year. I know that all noble Lords fondly remember the astounding victory achieved by the Lionesses in the 2022 European Championship.

However, there is a concern, as has been expressed in this debate, that regulating women’s football now might not be the right moment in the development of the women’s game and women’s clubs. The Raising the Bar report, led by Karen Carney, stated:

“Given its stage of development, continued growth of matchday, broadcast and sponsorship revenue—with a view for the women’s game to become independently sustainable—is the right way to incentivise continued long term investment by clubs”.


Women’s football is obviously, and regrettably, not at the same stage of development as the men’s game—the men’s game had such a significant head start in terms of the professional apparatus around it—and the relative losses incurred by clubs are not in the same ballpark. Thus issues with financial stability are not comparable. There is recognition of that, although there was some surprise and, at Second Reading, a number of noble Lords from across the House rightly mentioned the women’s game as an area for us to be mindful of, so it was helpful to have had this debate.

Another issue is the level of investment that women’s football requires. As my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, for women’s teams to come closer to the men’s game, significant financial investment will be needed. We are therefore right to question whether that is best served by and encouraged through this regulatory regime. However, I note the paradoxes that my noble friend highlighted in making that point and applying it to the women’s game, while conceding the argument in relation to the men’s game. I therefore understand why, at present, women’s football might not be included in the scope of this new regulatory regime.

However, it is useful to have had this debate and it would be useful to understand the Government’s intent here. Perhaps the Minister can explain the means by which the women’s game might be brought closer to the men’s game and how, if that happens and it falls into some of the same mistakes that we have seen in the men’s game, the women’s game might be captured by this regulatory regime. On the flipside, if the men’s regime learns from the women’s game and is able to regulate itself better, would that mean that there will be a lightening of the regulatory burden or are we past the point of no return for the men’s game? It would be interesting to hear that.

Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I slightly regret the wording of giving the women’s game a “chance” to regulate itself, but I am sure from looking at the Government’s accompanying notes that it is not meant pejoratively.

Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, sits slightly uneasily with the others because it is not just about the women’s game, but she explained why she has tabled that amendment and why she hopes to hear a bit from her noble friend the Minister. What she is seeking here is a welcome addition; it is only right that the regulator should be required to give assistance to clubs that are seeking licences. One of the themes that has been drawn out by many noble Lords in our scrutiny so far is the issue of how clubs will be able to adjust to these new licensing requirements. If the regulator does not implement this scheme in the correct manner, clubs will suffer, so it is only right that it should provide assistance to clubs to allow them effectively and efficiently to understand the new requirements that the Bill and its regulatory regime bring about. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to her noble friend on that and the other amendments in this group.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Mann and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling these amendments, including on the important issue of the women’s game.

I reassure noble Lords that we are completely aligned on our commitment to women’s football. As I have said previously in your Lordships’ House, I was not allowed to play football when I was at school. I could not be more delighted that my nieces can not only play football but take for granted that they can, and that they are encouraged to do so. I am as excited at the growth in women’s football as is the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I asked a number of questions similar to those that noble Lords asked, so I hope that the answers I have had, which form a large part of my speaking notes tonight, will provide them the reassurance that I was provided when I asked those questions in preparation for your Lordships’ Committee.

At present, the regulator will not cover women’s football. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the regulator will not be concerned with women’s teams’ accounts even where they are affiliated to men’s clubs. However, it is empowered to obtain and consider information from a club’s wider corporate group. I reassure the noble Lord that clubs should not be able to circumvent requirements through creative accounting in the manner that the noble Lord described as potentially being an issue.

The regulator will be concerned only with the sustainability of the clubs which will be within the scope of its regime. Women’s football is in such an exciting place and we really do hope that it will be able to grow and succeed in a sustainable way. Indeed, the wider football ecosystem already provides financial support to the women’s game—a point made eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady.

The FA has a 2024-28 women’s and girls’ football strategy, which states that by 2028 it will

“secure significant additional funding and investment to support women’s and girls’ grassroots football and pyramid”,

among other things. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, the Premier League has provided a £20 million interest-free loan to the Women’s Professional Leagues Limited to help build strong foundations for the women’s game.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify what she has just said? Is she saying that the regulator would not be able to intervene in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in introducing his amendment?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On the example of Solihull, the response I made related specifically to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about the creative use of accounting being used to avoid things. My understanding is that it is empowered to obtain and consider information regarding the club’s wider corporate group where it has reason to do so. It might be worth me getting further clarification from officials and ensuring that a letter outlining that is placed in the Library so that all noble Lords are clear on that point.

19:30

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

That would be highly useful of the Minister, and I thank her.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government will continue to support the FA and Women’s Professional Leagues Ltd as the women’s game forges its own path. We completely understand the desire to see appropriate protections put in place for women’s football. As I said, I have a historical vested interest in that I was not allowed to play football at school, and none of us wants to see issues like those at Reading, where the women’s team suffers as a result of issues at the affiliated men’s club. My noble friend Lord Mann gave the example of Solihull Moors, which was also cited by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.

At present the intention is that this will be a regulator for the men’s game, and we have already discussed the reasons for that. Asking the regulator to then consider its impact on the women’s game could constitute a widening of that scope. I am confident that this is something that the industry authorities governing the women’s game will be able to tackle through their own rules for women’s clubs with affiliated men’s teams. They deserve the time, space and opportunity to do so.

I apologise if some of the language in the Explanatory Notes came across as clunky or inappropriate. I am confident that that was not the intention of those drafting them.

The Government’s position is in line with the recommendations of Karen Carney’s independent review of domestic women’s football, which was published in July 2023. The review recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation, and the Government support that recommendation.

On Amendment 72 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, I agree that the regulator should help clubs to comply with regulations as much as reasonably possible. It is in everyone’s interest for clubs to become compliant quickly and with as little additional burden as possible. That is why provisions for a collaborative approach are already in place. The regulatory principle in Clause 8(b) encourages the regulator to,

“so far as reasonably practicable, co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage, with … clubs”.

The regulatory principle in Clause 8(c) also encourages the regulator to be proportionate.

For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group and I hope that my noble friends and noble Lords will not press them.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister. I will say—and officials may be listening in—that if we had a situation where a football club had a licence and was being regulated by the regulator, and that football club then threw its women’s team off their pitch so that they could not play, the regulator would look particularly stupid and impotent, and doubtless would be suggesting that the Government and Parliament may need to amend the law. I hope this matter can be looked at to see whether there is a way in which we can get around that without giving extra powers to the regulator, so I look forward to receiving that letter and I am sure other noble Lords do as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

Amendments 66 and 67 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.19 pm.