House of Lords

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Monday 16 December 2024

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Anti-social Behaviour and Shoplifting

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Hazarika]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle anti-social behaviour and shoplifting.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

This Government will tackle anti-social behaviour by rebuilding visible neighbourhood policing, with 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers and PCSOs, and will bring in new respect orders to enable police to ban persistent anti-social offenders from our town centres. We will also introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker and end the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I was pleased to see that safer streets are a priority for this Government. Will the Minister agree that anti-social behaviour and crimes such as shoplifting, aggressive begging and phone theft are anything but low-level and can blight the lives of local residents and businesses? Many people who work in shops feel like they are living in a war zone. Will he agree that anti-social behaviour can so often be the canary down the coal mine and tell a wider story about what kind of society we are living in? Finally, will there be a focus on targeting often a small number of hardened criminals who are responsible for terrorising local residents and shops? Will the police and courts take this more seriously and consider the use of technology such as facial recognition?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am pleased to say to my noble friend that it is a “yes” to every point she has raised. Anti-social behaviour and shop theft are not minor crimes. They cause disruption in our communities. Shop theft in particular costs retailers across the nation millions of pounds, which is passed on to us as customers, and it is not acceptable. That is why, on shop theft, we are going to end the £200 effective immunity. For shop workers, we will protect them by introducing a new offence, because they are very often upholding the law in their shops on alcohol, tobacco and other sales, for us in this House.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, while I agree with everything the noble Baroness has just said, will the Minister join me in the hope that the sentencing review will result in fewer women being sent to prison unnecessarily?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not wish to pre-empt the sentencing review undertaken by David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, which was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor. Self-evidently, it is in the interests of society to have fewer women go to prison and to have an increase in community-based sentences. David Gauke and the Lord Chancellor will look at both of those matters as part of the review.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made about increased shoplifting being a result of increasing poverty in our society?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As always, shoplifting takes place for a range of reasons. But I will not excuse shoplifting and shop theft under any circumstances, because they are still crimes. I grew up on a very poor estate in Liverpool and in Cheshire. It was not acceptable to shoplift then and it is not acceptable now. We need to ensure that we tackle that by having neighbourhood policing, a greater emphasis and focus for the police on shop theft and greater support to retailers. I appreciate the noble Earl’s view on poverty: we look at poverty in the round and put measures in for a range of reasons to lift people out of poverty, to ensure that they can live reasonable, productive and effective lives.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has said that, before introducing respect orders, the Government will run a number of pilots, which is a very good idea. But current laws on anti-social behaviour have never been thoroughly reviewed and the Home Office does not even keep records on how they are being used at the moment. So, before the Government introduce these new respect orders, will they agree to review the current laws and how they are working, so that lessons learned could be used to inform the pilots?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that comment. We will keep all legislation under review. Again, after 14 years out of office, we want to review some of the measures: how they have been utilised and what can be done to improve community resilience. The most important thing we can do is certainly pilot the respect orders, but a really important issue will be the 13,000 neighbourhood police and community support officers, who can embed themselves more in the community, can look at what responses are required, can work with people such as shopkeepers in relation to the shop theft that my noble friend Lady Hazarika mentioned, and can work with the community to look at what could best be utilised to gain the support of the community in reducing crime.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the increasing theft of child/baby milk formula suggests that criminal justice measures alone will not deal with this problem. So what proposals do the Government intend to bring forward to have a discussion with those who produce and sell child/baby milk formula, in order to address this issue and the increasing impact on the poorest families of the rising cost of that formula?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that poverty is an important issue for this Government. If there are trends in the type of theft that is occurring, such as theft of baby milk, that will indicate some element of poverty-related theft. But we have to tackle poverty holistically, looking at a range of measures on social welfare, housing and the support we are giving through minimum wage increases and other things to ensure that we can help raise people out of poverty. The Government have a target to lift the poverty level. But that still does not excuse theft, which has to be at the heart of this Government’s approach. Shop theft is a key responsibility of mine at the Home Office and we will bring forward legislative measures, if supported by both Houses, to tackle it.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, having spent most of my working life working in a shop, I welcome the protections for shop workers and the Minister’s comments about the seriousness of shoplifting and crime. What encouragement can he give to law enforcement officers to also take this seriously?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The 2014 Act that changed the threshold and put a £200 threshold on shop theft did not change the law, but it changed the approach that law enforcement officers took: thefts under £200 were seen as thefts that we did not need to respond to or go out to. I regard that as unacceptable, which is why we are changing the law to abolish that £200 threshold to allow police to focus on the issue. Neighbourhood policing will help that. The shop workers’ defence and the aggravated offence of attacks on a shop worker are there to protect shop workers who are upholding the law in shops as the first form of defence. I have been a member of the shop workers’ union for 44 years. This is an important issue to the union—it has campaigned on it for 20 years—and it is an important issue for both Houses to recognise. I look forward to taking legislation through this House in due course.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the original question was entirely right: the repeat victim/offender location theory applies to both these offences. A small percentage of offenders account for a very high majority of offences. Would the Minister agree with me that there are three things police can do to bear down on this? One, as already indicated, is to attend the scene of an event and see what has happened, whether it is shoplifting or anti-social behaviour, rather than make a phone call. The second is that a linking offence or a linking event is the supply of alcohol to underage people through pubs and off-licences. The third is the uncontrolled street-level dealing of drugs. These are susceptible to some simple tactics. It is not an issue of resources: it is about uniformity of application and method. Perhaps the Government have an opportunity to make sure the police apply all three of those.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord; he makes three valuable points which we will certainly take on board. My right honourable friend Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister in the House of Commons, has recently chaired a round table which I attended with the chief constable of north Wales, who is the lead on shop theft, to look at how we can co-ordinate police forces better across county lines, how we can follow up on the points the noble Lord mentioned in terms of onward use of criminal activity such as alcohol and/or drugs, and how we can, through Operation Pegasus, resource and examine those serious shop thefts that are involving not just shoplifters on an individual basis, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others, but those criminal gangs that are organising very strong shoplifting hits. Operation Pegasus has just received additional resources from this Government to support its work.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that across this House we would agree that no shop worker should go to work afraid for their safety. But is the Minister aware of Home Office research showing that the majority of shoplifting offences are carried out by hard-drug users? Can the Minister tell us what steps government can take to reduce the stigma and shame around addiction so that more users seek help?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. One of the key things the last Government did—as in the last Labour Government, from 2005 to 2010—was ensure we had a number of community-based sentences and community orders to support people who had drug or alcohol addictions to overcome those addictions and therefore stop shoplifting because of those addictions. I certainly hope the sentencing review will consider that in the round. When the measures we have brought forward come to this House and to the House of Commons in due course, I hope that issue of how we tackle persistent offenders and intervene on their behaviour will be central to our purpose in passing legislation downstream.

Older People’s Housing Taskforce

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Lord Best]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will implement the recommendations of the report from the Older People’s Housing Taskforce, published on 26 November.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are thankful to the chair of the task force, Professor Julienne Meyer, and all its members for producing such a comprehensive, detailed and well-researched report. I recognise the importance of improving housing choices for older people, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all he does on this issue. We are committed to taking action on older people’s housing and will consider this issue as we develop our long-term housing strategy.

[Lord Best (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that positive response, and I congratulate Professor Julienne Meyer and her task force on a really good report. Have the Minister and his Government paid particular attention to at least three of the key recommendations from this report, such as that 10% of all affordable housing should be for older people, that planners should require a percentage of all major developments to be for older people, and that stamp duty should be exempt where an older person is downsizing, rightsizing, making way for and releasing a home for a family elsewhere?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise how important the right housing arrangements are in supporting people to live independently and well. The Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review. The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that local authorities should assess the housing needs of different groups, including older people, and reflect this in their local plans. We have strengthened the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage the delivery of mixed-tenure development. For most of those looking to downsize, the stamp duty due on the new property will be small. Stamp duty is an important source of revenue to provide essential services, and the Government have no further plans for relief for those looking to downsize.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Minister’s reply, the task force published its report two weeks ago, before the Government published their National Planning Policy Framework, and, despite what he says, that policy framework does not reflect the major recommendations of the task force. Will the Government publish a detailed response to all the recommendations of the task force, and will they implement some of the recommendations in the forthcoming planning Bill?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, we consulted on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and published our response on 12 December. We are determined to create a more diverse housing market that delivers homes to meet a range of needs. On the noble Lord’s particular point, we will respond to all 44 recommendations of the task force. However, my honourable friend in the other House, Matthew Pennycook, will look at this in the wider housing strategy.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the report of the task force mentions the LGBTQ+ communities only once, yet there is a growing need and desire for inclusive LGBT+ affirming retirement accommodation, as provided by organisations such as Tonic Housing. What plans do the Government have to address these specific needs?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. As I said, the task force report was published two weeks ago, and we are looking at each of its 44 recommendations to make sure that our housing needs are diverse for the country. It is in the national interest that the Government ensure that we have housing that reflects the country and that we take into account the needs of people of all backgrounds and all ages.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, in considering the housing needs of older people, is the Minister mindful that many older people are also caring? It is not at all uncommon for people in their 70s to be caring for people in their 90s, or for people in their 80s to be caring for older adult children with special needs. Will these responsibilities of older people also be considered when looking at housing needs?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. On carers, the Government are committed to ensuring that families have the support that they need. I want to ensure that people who care for family and friends are better able to look after their own health and well-being. The Department for Work and Pensions announced its intention to bring forward an independent review of the issue of overpayment of carer’s allowance in cases where earnings have exceeded the entitlement threshold. The Government are committed to reviewing the implementation of carer’s leave and examining the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important to have intergenerational development so that there are not ghettos of older people in one place and ghettos of young people, particularly students, in another? If developments are intergenerational, they can help each other. Will he therefore discourage the kinds of developments I see in Edinburgh—no doubt they are elsewhere too—where private developers build blocks for students which seem to me to be purely to make some additional money rather than in the interests of the students themselves?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point about intergenerational living. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on that particular case, but I am happy to take it away with me and have a private conversation with him.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, what levers do the Government plan to have to ensure that the recommendations in the report, such as accessible bathrooms and toilets, with doors to bathrooms that open outwards, are actually built into all new plans because of a high incidence of falls in the home? These affect not only morbidity but mortality rates. Similarly, how will they ensure that stairs are properly designed, as we previously debated, to decrease the number of falls of old people on stairs?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I understand that accessibility in new homes—and accessibility standards for buildings in general—is an important concern. Housing is one of this Government’s top priorities. Everyone deserves to live in a decent home where they feel safe. We will set out our policies on accessible new-build housing shortly, and we will make sure that accessibility is a part of the discussion when we bring forward our new housing strategy.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, in planning for older people in housing and with regard to accessibility, is it not also important to ensure that this accommodation is near accessible bus routes, for example? Will my noble friend the Minister look at how devolved powers can be used to ensure that local authorities work together with, for instance, local bus companies to ensure that proper provision is provided for older people in what can be isolated areas?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I will take it away with me and discuss it with Minister Pennycook. It will also be a cross-departmental discussion with the Department for Transport to ensure that the particular issues that my noble friend raises are addressed and thought of when moving forward so that we can make not only the house accessible within, but the route to the house.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, particularly that I was a member of the Older People’s Housing Taskforce. It is widely acknowledged that supported accommodation can significantly benefit the health and well-being of older people. That has the additional benefit of saving social care and the health service considerable costs. In addition, if it is placed in urban areas, it can support town centre regeneration.

However, due to the additional facilities, the building costs of supported accommodation are substantially higher than those of mainstream accommodation. In recognition of this, one of the task force’s recommendations to help to deliver supported accommodation was that it should not be subject to demands as heavy as the affordable housing and Section 106 planning obligations of mainstream housing. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will support this?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The Government will publish a housing strategy that will set out a long-term vision for the housing market that works for communities, building 1.5 million high-quality homes and the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation. Supported housing plays a vital role in delivering better life outcomes, improved well-being and health, as the noble Lord mentioned, and greater independence for many vulnerable people, including older, disabled and homeless people.

We recognise the challenges local authorities are facing as demand increases for critical services. We have listened to voices across local government and have announced £4 billion in additional funding for local government services at the Budget, including £1.3 billion, which will go through the settlement.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned earlier with regard to intergenerational housing, my community and many other communities have grown up with the older generation living with us, and it has helped in caring and sharing, by both young and old, as families stay together. That has faded a bit over the decades, but it is still happening. However, the challenge for communities and families in continuing to do that is ever-increasing with the costs for caring for older people. Is the task force looking at that in its report?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting and important point. When my honourable friend Minister Pennycook looks at the 44 recommendations from the task force—I thank the task force once again for its hard work in this area—we need to ensure dignity and a better quality of living for all generations. However, as the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, outlines, there is a particular issue in relation to older people’s housing. We need to ensure that the housing strategy reflects the mixed tenure of houses to be built and to work closely with local authorities up and down the country to ensure that they can decide what the needs are for their area.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the welfare of domestic animals.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his new job. The Government will end puppy smuggling, address puppy farming by tackling low-welfare dog breeding practices and consider whether more should be done to protect the welfare of companion animals. We are supporting some key measures in Private Members’ Bills and have already met with key companion animal stakeholders as the first steps in delivering on our commitments and developing an overarching approach to animal welfare.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer and for her passion for and enduring commitment to animal welfare. Does she agree that too many cats are being bred commercially without adequate safeguards to protect their welfare? Increasingly, unregulated, unlicensed, unscrupulous owners are raising cats with extreme, exaggerated features to sell as fashion accessories without any concern for the terrible harm to the animal. So-called bully cats, for example, are bred without fur, which predisposes them to painful skin disease, and their genetically shortened legs can result in joint abnormalities and agonising arthritis. Will the Minister join me in condemning the practice of breeding for deformity, which causes unacceptable suffering and distress? Will she commit as a matter of urgency to regulating cat breeding in order to ban such activity?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the licensing of activities involving animal regulations requires anyone in the business of breeding and selling cats to have a licence, and they must meet statutory minimum welfare standards. The noble Lord makes some very good points about recent practices that are not acceptable. Defra has been working on a post-implementation review of the regulations, which will be published shortly. We are also carefully considering the recommendations in EFRA’s report on pet welfare and abuse, and the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on feline breeding, which will also be published soon.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will find time during this Session to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is already 60 years old and rather showing its age? A fundamental improvement to the welfare of domestic animals would be to bring up to date the legislation regulating veterinary medicine and particularly veterinary medical practices, which are currently not formally regulated. That would enable the public—and indeed the animals—to be assured that veterinary medicine, and veterinary practices in particular, will provide modern, high standards of care. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at this issue, and an update is long overdue. Can the Minister assure me that she will provide time for that legislation?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We will of course continue to support the vital work of the veterinary profession, and I acknowledge the veterinary workforce’s commitment and dedication to animal health and welfare. My noble friend makes a good point, and we are very aware of calls to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is now very old. Defra is talking to key stakeholders and different veterinary groups to explore the best way to support the profession, and we are looking at the legislation.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, we are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers, but some of the UK’s major animal welfare issues are in plain sight and affect some of our most popular pets. I refer to the extreme conformations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but particularly the problem of flat-nosed dogs—so-called brachycephalic breeds—which suffer or are highly predisposed to ill health virtually all their life, with breathing, whelping, ocular and skin difficulties, and reduced lifespan. Legislation exists to deter the breeding of such animals, should that lead to a detriment to the health and welfare of the bitch or her offspring. Why has there not been a single prosecution under the legislation, given that this is a serious welfare issue?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, now that all cats and dogs have to be compulsorily microchipped, the number of microchipping databases has shot up to 23 but none of them talk to each other, so it is really hard for rescue centres and local authorities to rehouse the animals or find the owners. What plans do the Government have to introduce a portal to link up these databases, so that cats and dogs can be rehomed quickly?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are aware that there are some digital challenges within the department, and we are looking at that very carefully.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not enough is being done about puppy smuggling? How many prosecutions for puppy smuggling and for boiler-house productions have there been following the Animal Welfare Act? Boiler-house puppies could be relieved if the mother—the bitch—was present at the sale of the puppies. Will the Government enforce that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. On puppy smuggling, we have made a clear commitment to end puppy farming. We are also supporting a Private Member’s Bill in the other place on puppy smuggling, because we are determined to do our best to stop these abhorrent practices.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests. The public rightly benefit from fantastic access to the countryside through our network of public and permissive footpaths, as well as open access land. However, this brings pets into frequent proximity with farmed animals. Earlier this year, we supported legislation to update and strengthen police powers to deal with livestock worrying; it was not enacted. What plans do the Government have to increase protection for farmed animals?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to support a Private Member’s Bill, introduced by the Conservative Member of Parliament, Aphra Brandreth, which looks to introduce new measures to tackle the serious issue of livestock worrying. The Bill is going to focus on three areas which we support: modernising the definitions in scope, strengthening police powers, as suggested by the noble Lord, and increasing the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine in order to act as a deterrent.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Can the Minister tell the House when the regulations to ban the use of cruel, remote-controlled electronic shock collars for cats and dogs, which inexplicably failed to gain Commons approval before the election, will be introduced? Will she give a clear commitment to put them into effect as fast as possible?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Defra’s code of practice for the welfare of dogs supports positive reward training techniques for dogs, but electronic shock collars should be avoided. Furthermore, the code advises people to seek out professional advice for behaviour problems, and the best training options that are available. The Government are currently considering the available evidence on the use of hand-controlled e-collars and their effects on the welfare of animals.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

What measures are Government thinking of taking to try to eradicate dog fighting?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, dog fighting should not be taking place in this country. We are extremely keen to root it out where it is happening, and it is matter for Defra and the Home Office to work on together to ensure that, where it is found, it is properly cracked down on.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

People remain in danger from and are occasionally killed by dangerous animals. Are the Government satisfied that the current law is sufficient?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Ongoing attacks show that we need to do more to protect the public from dangerous dogs. There has of course been a ban on XL bullies, which has been updated recently. That is there to protect public safety, and we expect owners to comply with all the conditions in that legislation. More broadly, we are working with enforcement agencies and animal welfare groups to help prevent further attacks by encouraging responsible dog ownership, addressing dog control issues before they escalate and using the full force of the law where needed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have heard this afternoon the Government’s announcement on plans for substantial changes to local government. Of course, much of the enforcement of animal welfare regulations happens at local government level. Can the Minister assure me that Defra is fully involved in making sure that, whenever the changes happen, the animal welfare elements are maintained as a strong force in whatever new arrangements come in?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can completely reassure the noble Baroness that we are working very closely on a cross-departmental basis on any issues that cover more than one department’s interests. I am sure she is aware that I have a very strong interest in animal welfare and will be doing all I can to ensure that it is considered at every level.

International Anti-corruption Court

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

15:10

Asked by

[Lord Hain]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in considering whether to establish an international anti-corruption court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, we look forward to considering the draft treaty, which is expected next year, for the proposed international anti-corruption court. This Government fully support the objective of holding kleptocrats to account, but the idea of an IACC carries challenges and requires detailed consideration. Meanwhile, we will use all our tools to deliver an ambitious government-wide agenda to tackle the devastating impacts of corruption and illicit finance, both at home and overseas.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for confirming the Government’s support for an international anti-corruption court. As he has indicated, international experts from countries north and south, right across the world, now have an agreed draft treaty and will soon begin consulting with interested parties. So far, these include Botswana, Canada, France, the Gambia, Kenya, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland. Will Ministers ensure that the UK both participates officially in this treaty-drafting process and encourages more states to do so? Such a new court is vital to help combat global corruption, costing $2 trillion each and every year.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, we support the objectives of the proposed international anti-corruption court. We look forward to considering the draft treaty and will continue to engage in international discussions on this subject as they arise, and as we have done to date. As my noble friend said, these discussions should not detract from the work the Government are already delivering to hold kleptocrats to account. For example, the UK’s international corruption unit has a world-leading capability and has successfully investigated international bribery, corruption and related money-laundering offences within a UK nexus, resulting in prosecutions and the confiscation of stolen assets.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall the problems that we have had with the ICC, for example, as some countries simply will not sign up to these international bodies? Some of the most corrupt countries in the world are not going to adhere to anything that such an international court would do. I broadly welcome the idea of such a court, but wonder whether, in reality, some of the worst offenders simply will not turn up.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. We are working collaboratively, as my noble friend said, with other countries to ensure that we can look at this in principle and then see how we can achieve it. My main point is that we should follow the money. We have actually been extremely successful: the unit I just talked about has been successful in ensuring that illicit funds are returned and that we sanction people. An important tool in our armour is that ability to ensure that people know that, when they try to get funds out of their country, we will follow it and return it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recent announcements on anti-corruption, including the announcement that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, will be the Government’s anti-corruption champion. Is now not the opportunity for the UK to play a leading role in the drafting of a treaty, not simply to wait for it to be presented to us? If the UK is part of the drafting, we will have the best opportunity in a long time to address the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, made: that never again will global corruption be channelled through London, the City of London, London lawyers or any part of the British establishment. That will be an opportunity if we help draft the treaty, rather than wait until it is presented to us.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There is a range of options here, and I have met Judge Wolf. A range of experts is looking into the draft treaty, and we have been talking to international countries. What we need to do, if we are to get this court off the ground, is ensure that all these countries are working together and supporting the treaty. I heard what the noble Lord said, but I come back to my fundamental point: I will not wait until an international court is established, which can take time and requires consensus. We are determined—and this is why the appointment of my noble friend Lady Hodge is so critical—to follow the money and make sure that people do not get away with corruption.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the United Nations estimates that the cost of kleptocracy is something in the region of $40 billion per annum, much of which falls on the poorest countries in the world. When the international anti-corruption court was being mooted originally, the United Nations established the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which is intended to operate a joint working platform and intelligence sharing. As the Minister indicated, the centre, having become operational in 2017, is hosted by the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency. Can he advise the House on how many cases the centre has dealt with in the last seven years? In addition to the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, how many countries participate in the work of the centre? What steps are the Government taking to promote participation in the work of the centre? He said that one follows the money for the purposes of jurisdiction, and the United Kingdom is of course a centre for such funds.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I very much welcome the noble and learned Lord’s comments and I look forward to working with him to ensure that we can achieve these objectives. Since July 2017, the IACCC has received 331 referrals of grand corruption from 40 different countries, has identified over £1.4 billion of assets suspected to be the proceeds of corruption, helped freeze £631 million of stolen assets, and supported the arrest of 48 suspects in grand corruption cases. We will work collaboratively with all the countries that the noble and learned Lord mentioned.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I refer the Minister to remarks I cited, when we discussed this last, by the right honourable Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, who is a strong supporter of the international anti-corruption court. In pointing a finger at kleptocracy, he mentioned the Panama papers, the Pandora papers and Russian assets being used in the Channel Islands, the British Virgin Islands and UK dependent territories. In addition, he cited the need for this court to deal with the crime of aggression and the other offenses committed by Putin during the war in Ukraine. Can the Minister assure us that he will be used as one of our best advocates in the discussions which will take place on the formulation of the forthcoming treaty and making this court come about?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. I met Judge Wolf, who has proposed this for some time and has been campaigning for it. A range of international experts is looking at the proposed treaty, and they are doing very good work. We are committed to examining the outcome of that work and the development of a draft treaty as it proceeds. I emphasise to the noble Lord that we are not standing still and waiting for these institutions to be established. I have visited eight African countries, all of which faced corruption. One of the things that they have been incredibly pleased about is our ability to co-operate with and support them in ensuring that illicit funds not only are returned but do not get out of the country. We are absolutely determined to do that. With the appointment of my noble friend Lady Hodge, I know that we will push this up the global agenda, and we have a strong advocate in her in fighting this crime.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, following the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, does my noble friend the Minister agree that corruption is of crucial importance to developing countries and that, once the court is in operation, our very much diminished aid budget will be very much more effective?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I stress that not only are we following the money, ensuring that we take action against those who commit this crime, but in recent times we have been supporting the African Beneficial Ownership Transparency Network. I addressed its first in-person conference. With the African Development Bank, we are working to ensure that people cannot hide what they own. Transparency is another important tool in ensuring that we combat illicit finance.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:21

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the House approves the nominations of Lord Beamish, Lord West of Spithead, and Baroness Brown of Cambridge as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I fully support the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal. Would it be appropriate at this time to ask if it would be possible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct an investigation into H6 and all the allegations of spying by China?

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think it is for the Lord Privy Seal to instruct the Intelligence and Security Committee on its business or how to conduct it. I am sure it will take note of the report, is fully aware of the situation and will do whatever is appropriate.

Motion agreed.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:22

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the first part of Committee, I thought it would be useful to update the House as to how we will proceed. As noble Lords will see from today’s list, the usual channels have agreed that the Committee will sit until we have reached the target—that is the debate on the next 13 groups. We will break for dinner at around 7.30 pm for around an hour. During this time, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will take 40 minutes of questions on a health Statement given in the House of Commons last week. The House will then be adjourned during pleasure for an additional 20 minutes to give everyone participating in the Bill enough time for a proper break.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day)

15:23

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 11: Football governance statement

Amendment 110

Moved by

[Baroness Brady]

110: Clause 11, page 7, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “five”

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests as declared in the register. This group of amendments includes Amendment 110 in my name which addresses a concern about potential political interference in football’s new regulatory framework.

The Bill creates an unusual—and, I believe, likely to be unnecessary—requirement for football governance statements every three years from the Secretary of State. This is not merely a question of frequency; I believe that the expectation created for this statement may raise questions about regulatory independence and broader international implications, which we have discussed in this Committee a number of times.

As I and other noble Lords have pointed out, UEFA and FIFA maintain strict provisions against state interference in football. We have already seen UEFA’s general secretary express serious concerns about various aspects of this Bill. In that context, we are obliged to ask whether creating a requirement, or even an expectation, for regular political statements about football governance risks providing these bodies with an additional point of leverage over English football’s development. UEFA has been clear that it is watching the implementation of this framework very closely, including in relation to possible scope creep and stepping over the line, so it behoves us to consider carefully the possible practical implications of such a mechanism and to question its necessity.

Every three years, the Secretary of State may make a statement about football governance. The Minister may say that there is no obligation here, and that it is just providing for the possibility. However, it seems inevitable that putting this expectation into statute creates a very strong likelihood that these statements will then be made. What will they say—that everything is fine, or are they more likely to look at more areas that the regulator can examine and then expand into, as we have seen with this Bill so far?

As the general secretary of UEFA spelled out in a letter sent to me last week:

“UEFA has previously shared its concerns about the creation of an Independent Football Regulator … as normally football regulation should be managed by the national federation. It is essential to ensure that the establishment of this structure fully adheres to the principle of sports autonomy, thus preventing any risk of political or governmental interference in the legitimate and appropriate functioning of recognised sports governing bodies. The IFR’s mandate must be clearly defined and strictly limited to the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets”.


Despite these repeated warnings, it seems reasonable to assume that the expectation of a football governance statement will create not just inevitable domestic pressure for political intervention but opportunities for international bodies to question the regulator’s independence. There may be a whole range of wider issues going on with international governing bodies at the time of the football governance statement—for example, negotiations on the football calendar or the future of competition formats. With these football governance statements, we seem to be creating an unnecessary risk that the statements, almost irrespective of their content, may be deemed to constitute political interference. English football will not be served well by such a dynamic.

My amendment would align the statement cycle with the other five-year regulatory timeframes in the Bill, reducing the frequency of these potential pressure points. However, this is about not just timing but protecting football’s independence while maintaining proper oversight. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how necessary these statements are.

Professional football requires long-term certainty for investment. In my long experience, stadium development can take up to 10 years to plan and execute. Academy investment needs at least a five-year horizon. Infrastructure projects require stable planning frameworks. Yet we seem to be risking the creation of a system where policy could shift every three years in response to short-term political steers, with each statement also potentially triggering questions about regulatory independence. I worry that these regular political statements could create permanent pressure for intervention beyond the regulator’s core purpose.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us the Government’s perspective on these important questions. What is the rationale for creating this unique pressure point for political intervention? How does the Minister believe that it will support long-term investment, especially given the international oversight concerns? What protections exist or could exist against scope creep through these regular statements? How will the Government manage UEFA and FIFA concerns about state interference in relation to this? I beg to move.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend’s amendment, and to question whether it is wise for the Government to include this clause in the Bill. It says:

“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”,


and then it goes on. A Secretary of State can prepare a statement of anything at any time. It requires no statutory permission in a Bill to enable this to happen, but the effect of putting this in the Bill is, precisely as my noble friend has explained, to raise the spectre that UEFA, in particular, will see this as further evidence of political and government interference in football, which is a big concern for it. The Government have so far tiptoed around the edge of the concerns that UEFA has, but we know that the consequences for English football, if they go on to the wrong side of that line, will be severe.

15:30

My noble friend is absolutely right that the timescale suggested here is too short because of all the uncertainty, particularly when it is qualified perfectly clearly in subsection (4) that the Secretary of State can ignore the three-year timescale if

“there has been a significant change in the policy of His Majesty’s Government … relating to football”.

That gives a carte blanche to the Government to change their mind and revise their statement every few months if they wish to—I am sure they would not—but my noble friend said that football clubs are significant institutions that make very large investments for the long term. They are, very often, significantly owned by owners who have a very long-term view of their ownership. They want to invest and are very patient—a lot of this is very patient capital. A lot of the debate about football has been predicated on the assumption that all owners are only after short-term gain and want to strip assets and milk them for cash. Most owners of football clubs do not take that view. They want to take a longer-term view; it is an impact investment, a long-term investment, where the return they get is as much the impact on the sport and the community locally as it is a financial return.

We all know—it has been much debated in your Lordships’ House—that businesses require the maximum predictability and certainty. To expect major clubs to make long-term investments against the backdrop of a newly established regulator that may make decisions that almost certainly would be influenced by decisions made perhaps every year, or every few years, by the Government seems unwise in the extreme. I hope that the Minister will take this away and reflect with her colleagues in the department and ask whether it is wise to have this clause in the Bill—I certainly wish to probe whether it should be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest, having spent much of the past three months representing Manchester City Football Club against disciplinary charges brought by the Premier League.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, who has long been a friend of mine. She has unrivalled experience of being employed by Birmingham City Football Club and, for many years, West Ham United Football Club, and has achieved great success at both those clubs. I respectfully suggest, though, that here she protests too much. Clause 11(2) contains a very important restriction on what a football governance statement may do. It

“may not contain any policies that are inconsistent with the purpose of this Act or with the IFR’s objectives”.

The second protection is in subsection (6):

“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”.


Those are very considerable protections.

We listen to concerns that companies that own football clubs need long-term planning, but surely any company is subject to changes of government policy over the years. There is no protection whatever against those and the consequences thereof. I see absolutely no reason why football clubs should be protected by more than the three-year period stated here.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I start my comments on this clause, I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss a number of issues—they did not include this clause, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss other issues with her. My concern about this clause comes from the very first words of the Bill, which say that it is to:

“Establish the Independent Football Regulator”—


an independent regulator, not one circumscribed by a government Statement as laid out in Clause 11.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who said, if I heard him correctly, that this was unique. It is not. Sadly, my mind goes back to a previous occasion when the Government wanted to circumscribe an independent regulator. I remember the debate clearly, because the late and great Lord Judge made a massive contribution to it, scything through the then Government’s arguments about why they should have a Statement in relation to an independent regulator. The independent regulator to which I refer is encompassed in the Elections Act. The previous Government said, “Ah, we’ve got an Elections Act. We don’t really like what the Electoral Commission is doing, so we’ll put in a nice little clause which requires the Government to make a Statement”, which, in effect, circumscribed the Electoral Commission. What is fascinating about that set of circumstances, which Lord Judge and I—and the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—criticised comprehensively, is that the wording in Clause 11 is remarkably similar to that in Section 16 of the Elections Act. In fact, Clause 11(5) of the Bill is almost identical, word for word, to new Section 4A(7) of PPERA inserted by that section.

I said just now that people on other Benches spoke against the Government imposing some form of Statement on the Electoral Commission as

“‘not fit for purpose and inconsistent with the … role as an independent regulator’”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1604.]

We are talking here about the same wording. Those were words from the Liberal Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Labour Front Bench, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that

“this statement is unnecessary and the Government have provided no evidence for why it is needed … There was cross-party agreement that the commission’s independence is vital”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1602.]

I could go on quoting the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, making the point that a regulator is independent if it is independent, not because it is circumscribed by a set of conditions as set out in Clause 11. I recommend anybody to look at the relevant amendments to the Elections Act 2022, where the wording is virtually identical. The Government then wanted to circumscribe the Electoral Commission. I would not be surprised if the officials discussing this Bill when it was in draft under the previous Government said, “Oh, we’ve got a good basic tenet; we’ve even got a set of words which we can lift, virtually verbatim, and it’ll circumscribe the independent regulator”.

I opposed the Government’s imposition of that statement in the Elections Act, because I believed it circumscribed what should have been an independent regulator. When the then Opposition forced a vote on it, I sat where the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is now and abstained, because I refused to support the Government imposing on an independent regulator a provision which is virtually word for word that set out in Clause 11. I therefore strongly support the amendments and oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 111, which is part of this group, and pick up some of the points that my noble friends have raised in the debate.

My Amendment 111 states that the Secretary of State should not be permitted to revise a football governance statement simply because there has been a “significant change” in government policy on football. The reasoning for this comes from much the same place as my noble friend Lady Brady’s Amendment 110: both try to prevent the possibility of frequent changes in the Government’s policies for the regulator. If the Secretary of State took up every opportunity that the Bill allows to alter the governance statement—it could be every three years, after every general election and after every change in government policy—we could see this governance statement being altered rather frequently, every few years, with effects on the stability of football.

How would clubs have the certainty they need to plan their investment? As my noble friend Lady Brady said, football clubs plan their infrastructure and stadium developments over periods of 10 to 15 years or more. The talent pipeline, which is needed to develop the players of the future, requires much more than five years of careful thought and investment. To do all this and deliver the sustainability of English football, clubs need to know what the policies of the regulator will be over the long term. They need to know what the regulator will require of them.

My noble friend Lord Hayward reflected on a broader point in his remarks. The Government have been at pains to stress the importance of the independence of this regulator. I do not doubt their intention, but how will that independence be maintained when there could be regular and changing political statements setting out the policies to which the regulator will have to adhere? We need some assurances that these governance statements will not interfere with the operational independence of the regulator. To do that, it seems much more sensible that the Secretary of State should not be able to revise these statements on a whim or because the department’s Secretaries of State are changing with the regularity that we have seen in recent years.

I hope the Minister will address the points that have been raised and look favourably on these amendments. I look forward to her reassurances.

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments. Clause 11 permits the Secretary of State to publish a statement on government policy related to football governance. The statement is non-binding, but the regulator will be required to have regard to it when exercising its functions.

On Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, we believe that, given the fast-paced nature of football and the changing regulatory landscape, every three years is a suitable time to pass before the Secretary of State can amend this statement. This decision was reached following consultation with other regulators.

There is no duty on the Secretary of State to amend or publish a statement every three years, unless there is reason to. I understand the noble Baroness has concerns that this could present an opportunity to exert political influence on the regulator and thus a risk to the regulator’s independence. Although this is a standard provision for most economic regulators, I recognise the intent behind the amendments, to reduce the risk of interference.

The noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Hayward, raised concerns that this clause might limit independence. The football governance statement cannot be used to direct the regulator’s day-to-day operations, so it will not impinge on the operational independence of the regulator. The Bill has been brought forward as a result of the policy of this and the previous Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, the regulator’s statutory scope and powers would remain unchanged and it would be under no obligation to act in accordance with any statement. We want to ensure that the regulator remains free of any undue political interference; this drafting, as with the previous Government’s version of the Bill, achieves that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, raised concerns around UEFA’s position in relation to this clause. As I have reiterated previously, we have engaged extensively with both the FA and UEFA in the development of the Bill. As has been confirmed by the FA, we are confident that the Bill as drafted will not breach any UEFA statutes. The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. This was confirmed by the FA itself in oral evidence given to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on 14 May during the passage of the previous Bill introduced by the last Government.

15:45

UEFA has not raised any specific concerns about Clause 11. Indeed, UEFA itself told the Guardian in September, after its letter was sent, that it was extremely unlikely that English teams would be excluded from its competitions. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton said last week, both Italy in 2008, and Spain in 2015, have legislated for how TV rights are to be sold and how the revenues are to be distributed. Neither country’s football federation has faced consequences from UEFA. In fact, they have been among the most successful UEFA members in that time, with teams from the two countries winning around 40 competitions since their respective laws were introduced.

As I set out in the debate last week, we are speaking to the relevant authorities, and we will give noble Lords the reassurances they seek on their specific concerns regarding UEFA and FIFA statutes ahead of Report. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw her amendment. However, I am sure that this is an issue we will return to, and I welcome further debate at future stages.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and assurances about the purpose and scope of the football governance statements, and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. I remain concerned about the potential for these statements to introduce unnecessary political pressure points and raise questions about regulatory independence. I appreciate the intent to use them as an optional tool for accountability and transparency. However, I respectfully request that the Minister and the Government reflect on the points raised in the debate, particularly regarding the implications for long-term investment and the risk of creating permanent leverage for international bodies, such as UEFA and FIFA, that will disproportionately affect Premier League clubs playing or aspiring to play in European competitions.

I want to pick up on the comment about Spain made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Minister mentioned. That legislation concerns a very specific clause which was due to the dominance of Barcelona and Real Madrid. They sold their own rights and retained all the money, which collapsed the entire Spanish football system. That legislation is very different from the binary process of the backstop and allows for 10% of the revenues to be redistributed—as an aside, the Premier League is already distributing 16%. The clause is very specific and very different from this first-ever government intervention into British sport. The interaction between the statements and the broader regulatory framework must be very carefully managed to ensure that English football is not placed at a disadvantage in global competitions and subjected to unnecessary uncertainty and potentially harmful leverage.

I am also grateful for the Minister’s reassurance about scope creep and the need to respect the regulator’s independence. The Minister mentioned the FA’s appearance in front of the Select Committee; she will know that that was before this Bill was published. I suggest that it would be good for the Minister to speak to the FA again. There is room for further clarity on how these statements, if they are necessary at all, will be framed to avoid triggering concerns about state interference, particularly in light of UEFA’s clear reservations. I again ask the Minister to publish the letter UEFA sent to her, which, by all accounts, was very alarming.

With those points noted, I will withdraw my amendment, but I hope the Minister will continue to engage with stakeholders on these important issues. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

Amendment 111 not moved.

Clause 11 agreed.

Clause 12: Guidance published by the IFR

Amendment 112

Moved by

[Baroness Brady]

112: Clause 12, page 7, line 37, leave out from ‘under’ to end of line 38 and insert ‘this Act.’

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 12 I will also speak to Amendments 113 to 115 in my name and Amendments 116 to 119 in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson. These amendments address what is in my view a weakness in the Bill’s approach to regulatory guidance and consultation. They are important amendments because they go to the heart of how this new regulator will operate in practice.

The Minister has reassured us that this will be a collaborative regulator working closely with football; that is very welcome. Yet, unfortunately, the Bill requires the production of guidance only for the imposition of discretionary licence conditions. For every other major regulatory function, including some of the most significant interventions ever proposed in British sport, there is no obligation for the regulator to explain how it will act via guidance. Nor, indeed, is there any requirement to consult those affected as it produces that guidance.

I welcome my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s suggestion of a code of practice to guide the regulator’s approach in a number of important areas. Perhaps I can highlight just three crucial areas where I believe we need more clarity. The first is financial sustainability, the regulator’s core purpose. Despite extensive debates in this Committee about what financial sustainability means, or should mean, in practice, the regulator would have no obligation to define how it will assess soundness or resilience in guidance or what system it will use to make it work.

That means that a club such as my own, West Ham United, seeking to make long-term investment decisions, would have no clarity on how they might be judged. Worse than that, there is no requirement to consult with the industry on what these vital definitions should look like. Ministers have described the regulatory model as light touch. One of my amendments seeks to ensure that this is indeed the case when it comes to financial regulation, asking the regulator to publish guidance on the financial outcomes it wishes to see from clubs.

Secondly, there is the owners’ and directors’ test. This vital mechanism, critical to attracting responsible investment, is not written into the legislation. It is left—albeit with some considerations in the Bill—to the regulator to develop. Again, there is no requirement to consult clubs, leagues or potential investors on its design. I do not think it unreasonable to ask: how can English football expect to attract responsible, long-term investment without requirements for regulatory transparency or co-operation that would undoubtedly result in higher-quality and better-informed regulation?

Thirdly, and perhaps most concerning, is the backstop power over financial distributions. This unprecedented mechanism could fundamentally alter football’s financial flows, yet the regulator does not need to explain how it will approach such decisions or consult on its methodology. Billions of pounds are at stake, along with the very existence of the key competitive measures, tools, structures and incentives that currently underpin the English pyramid’s success. It is the most extraordinary of interventions, yet there is no requirement for even the most ordinary of procedural safeguards.

This absence of guidance risks creating real uncertainty. The Premier League recently agreed a new domestic broadcasting deal running through to 2029. Clubs are making infrastructure investments over similar timelines. As I have already said, academy and stadium developments require five to 10-year horizons. I must emphasise that it puts football clubs in a really difficult position to be able to make major commitments without any real clarity on how they will be regulated.

We have a real lack of a clarity on a range of areas in the Bill, compounded by uncertainty as to how the regulator will go about regulating in practice. My amendments in this group do not seek to constrain the regulator’s authority in any way. They seek only to ensure that its powers are exercised transparently and intelligently. They would simply require the regulator to provide guidance across all its functions and consult appropriately on its development. This is a minimal yet clearly critical requirement.

I hope and expect the Minister to say that it is her clear intention that this regulator will be collaborative. If that is the case, I think it is fair to ask: why not go the extra step and enshrine that approach in the Bill? What justification exists for allowing such significant powers to be exercised without clear guidance or consultation?

In conclusion, I encourage the Minister to examine these vital improvements and consider them clearly. Transparency and collaboration should not be optional extras. They should instead be the cornerstones of this new framework. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of this group of amendments. I particularly support those that would introduce a requirement for the IFR to consult those affected as it produces guidance. Consultation with key interested and impacted parties, particularly the leagues, is critical.

The IFR is an entirely new regulator operating in an entirely new regulated space with no real international experience to draw on. As I highlighted at Second Reading:

“The Explanatory Notes themselves acknowledge that football ‘was previously not regulated by statutory provisions’, and explicitly state that ‘the new regime and the distributions provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented’”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1850.]


A duty to consult on key areas, such as those set out by my noble friend Lady Brady, to ensure that unintended and potentially damaging consequences are avoided as the regulator begins its work and develops its guidance, is surely a no-brainer.

At our recent meeting with the shadow regulator, and in various responses from the Minister during Committee, the desire and expectation of the regulator to work in a collaborative and proportionate way have been repeatedly reiterated. Several amendments in this group simply put that consultative approach firmly and squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister can look favourably on them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too hope very much that the Minister and the department will look favourably on these amendments, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans. They seem to be absolutely essential for reasons of efficacy and to give confidence to those who will be regulated that they and others will be properly consulted. I would be very surprised to be told that the regulator would not intend to do so. If that is right, it is surely essential, as in other legislation, that this is put in the Bill so that there is no doubt about it and so that the confidence that is absolutely essential is promoted.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment about the bodies that will be regulated has a fair bit of common sense behind it. I am sure the Government will have done great work on consultation and making sure there is communication between the bodies that will be being regulated and the new regulator. If the Minister can tell us how this is being done, some of my worries will be removed. Also, stating where that information will be provided would very much help. If not, it has to be in the Bill somewhere.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my amendments in this group and say a little about the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Moynihan.

The amendments relate to the guidance the new independent regulator will be required to publish. My noble friend Lady Brady and I agree that the Bill, as drafted, should be strengthened to ensure that the regulated clubs have the information they need to meet the requirements of the new regulator.

My Amendment 116 would require the independent football regulator to issue a code of practice for competition organisers and licensed clubs. The regulator would be required to consult the FA, each competition organiser and each club in preparing this code. The overriding point of all the amendments in this group, I think, is to support clubs and competition organisers in complying with the requirements of the new regulator. We cannot expect the regulator to be effective unless it is doing its work in a clear way. These amendments would help to deliver that clarity.

I will not speak at length on this point as it is a simple one. We seek clarity from the Government more than anything else. Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance today that the regulator will produce a code of practice for regulated clubs and competitions? Might there be a way of publishing a draft code of practice while the Bill is being considered? That was certainly very helpful when we looked at the new regulatory regime brought in through the Online Safety Act, although I appreciate that, in that case, Ofcom had more of a head start than the shadow regulator does here—but it would be helpful if that were feasible.

My Amendment 117 delivers much the same result as the sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brady. Again, we want to give clubs and competition organisers a fuller picture of the independent football regulator’s plans for the future, so they can prepare for the impact it will have on the game. Again, I hope the Government will look favourably on this amendment and the point that lies behind it.

16:00

My Amendment 118 also seeks to place a clearer consultation duty on the new regulator. That is also reflected in my Amendment 116, but that consultation would be limited to the code of practice only. Currently, the consultation duty in Clause 12(6) gives the regulator total discretion to consult whomever it pleases without requiring it to speak to the regulated clubs, the FA, the Premier League or other competition organisers. It would clearly not be appropriate for the guidance issued under this subsection to be issued without consulting those groups at the very least. So, in what circumstances would it be appropriate for the regulator to issue guidance without consulting regulated clubs, the Football Association and competition organisers? If the Minister cannot envisage such a circumstance, I can see no reason why the Government would resist the amendment. If the Government expect the regulator to consult these groups, they lose nothing by putting that in the Bill. I hope she will look at this carefully.

Amendment 119 seeks to change the period during which the guidance may not be routinely revised from three to five years. I am trying to give the regulated clubs and competitions greater certainty through the change proposed in this amendment. This would bring the Bill into line with other regulators, such as Ofwat, which undertakes its price reviews for the water industry every five years. We have accepted that five years is the appropriate time period for the water industry to work, so why should not the football industry be given the same certainty and length of time as other sectors?

Amendments 113 and 115 are essentially consequential on my noble friend Lady Brady’s Amendment 112, so I will not detain the Committee by discussing those in detail—but the challenge they pose to the Government is clear. The guidance requirements on the regulator are too weak and there is an opportunity to give regulated clubs and competition organisers more information. So I hope the Minister will see that these are intended as constructive amendments.

Finally, Amendment 114 would require the regulator to publish a “statement of the outcomes” that the independent football regulator expects the clubs to achieve for them to meet the threshold requirements under Clause 18. Again, this is an important point regarding clarity. Only by being clear about what is expected of clubs will the regulator be effective in getting clubs to meet these requirements. So, again, this is a simple and constructive amendment and I hope the Minister will consider putting this duty in the Bill. She will have heard—and been struck by, as I was—the unanimity across the Benches of the Committee on this, so I hope she will look on these amendments favourably.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 119A in this group. Noble Lords will recall that, on many occasions, I have been active on the appointments made by the DCMS, in particular when it came to the consumer protection Bill in your Lordships’ House and the non-declaration of the CEO of Seatwave, which was an online European ticketing marketplace that was then to be sold to Ticketmaster. The announcement of the individual concerned to the DCMS board made no mention of that, and nor was there any declaration in the House, despite the fact that Seatwave was subject to very significant criticisms about ticket touting and the impact on consumers.

I took an interest over the weekend to look in more detail at some of the appointments that have been made, to satisfy myself and the Committee that they were wholly independent of government. Could the Minister provide the Committee, in due course, with a comprehensive answer on the process that has been followed to date for each and every appointment to the senior levels of the shadow football regulator, including when and how the legal requirements for Civil Service recruitment have been implemented, namely that selections must be based on merit and on fair and open competition? Departments and agencies can develop their own recruitment approaches, but how has the governance code on public appointments been followed, including integrity, merit, openness, diversity and assurance? Who has been on the appointment boards and how many appointments have been made from outside DCMS officials?

What would help the Committee to understand the question of the degree of true independence of the proposed football regulator is to know how many of the Bill team and the paid advisers to the DCMS are going on from government to join the shadow regulator and, in due course, the full regulator. Are the shadow regulator contracts in any way tied to appointments to jobs with the full regulator? If so, how many and whose?

My probing amendment does not question in any sense the integrity or competence of the candidates concerned. But I went on LinkedIn this weekend and had the opportunity to read, as a result of a connection on LinkedIn, that one of the most senior appointments made was based, in part no doubt, on the outstanding work that was done by that individual on football governance while doing their PhD. I will give one quote from that—and, again, it is not in any way impugning the integrity or professionalism or the outstanding nature of this somewhat long PhD. With this quote, I was a bit concerned about whether the independence of the appointments was truly up to the standard we would wish to see:

“Granting an authority the power to legally regulate the football industry, compelling all English football clubs to comply with the established economic framework or risk being unable to use their football facilities, thereby prohibiting the club from playing in any football competition, either domestic or international, would transfer economic power back from the clubs and leagues to the regulatory authority, reversing the process initiated by the creation of the EPL in 1992”.


That is a fairly major statement that counterbalances the Premier League’s autonomy and would question the true independence of the proposed independent regulator.

I have not had the opportunity to read the whole thesis. I look forward to doing so, and to reading any other public documentation through LinkedIn. I think it is incredibly important that, if we are going to have an independent football regulator, that regulator has to be truly independent. All the appointments need to be made on merit, bringing in the very best people in regulation from across the country, and indeed possibly from abroad, to fulfil those important responsibilities and posts. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us the confidence that that is exactly what is being pursued.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for putting forward these amendments.

On Amendments 112, 113, 114, 115 and 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, we clearly agree that producing guidance will be a really important part of the regulator’s work. It will help to clarify the practicalities of the legislation and ensure that clubs’ owners and competition organisers know what is expected of them and what to expect from the regulator. However, while I recognise the intent of the approach proposed, I disagree to some extent with the approach to guidance that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has suggested we take. Amendments 112, 113, 115 and 117 would require the regulator to produce guidance on all aspects of its functions. This is likely to be a disproportionate and needlessly burdensome requirement that would likely end up being more unhelpful than helpful.

There is little benefit in issuing guidance on issues that are self-explanatory or that do not have a direct impact on the industry. I will endeavour to find some examples of that type of guidance to meet some of the queries from noble Lords—for example, on every one of the regulator’s operational or administrative functions, excessive guidance would make it harder and more burdensome for clubs to understand and comply with the system, not easier, and National League clubs would potentially struggle to sift through reams of guidance to get to what was relevant to them. We expect that the regulator will publish guidance on all relevant parts of its regime, as appropriate. It is in everyone’s interests to maximise the industry’s understanding and compliance.

On Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, the regulator is already required to publish guidance on how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. We believe that this requirement is sufficient, and it will be for the regulator to determine what that guidance should look like and how best to aid the industry without unduly burdening it.

I turn to Amendments 116 and 118, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 116 would require the regulator to prepare and issue a code of practice for all competition organisers and licensed clubs. We do not believe that a code of practice for all clubs would allow for a proportionate, tailored approach to regulation, where what is required of a club should vary depending on the club’s specific circumstances. The regulator’s current approach of bespoke regulation will address the unique challenges and risks faced by clubs better than a list of one-size-fits-all recommended measures, and its guidance, as per Clause 12, should already help clubs to understand what is required of them and to comply.

On the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on Amendment 118, the regulator is already required to consult such persons it considers appropriate when publishing guidance. We strongly expect that this will include the FA, competition organisers and regulated clubs, since those persons will all be directly relevant to and affected by that guidance. However, we have not taken the approach in this Bill of listing every person the regulator should consult for every piece of guidance issued. To do so would, in our view, be counter to the operationally independent and agile regulator that we are trying to establish.

There may be times when different levels of consultation are necessary, or with different stakeholders. The regulator is best placed to draw the line between comprehensive consultation and needless bureaucracy, and to ensure that the correct groups are consulted on a case-by-case basis. On the specific consultation requirements in the Bill, including on guidance, the regulator has a regulatory principle that it should co-operate and proactively and constructively engage with clubs, owners, officers and competition organisers. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, some confidence around the collaborative points she raised. This amendment would require the regulator to consult on minor revisions to guidance, needlessly creating an administrative burden for the regulator and those consulted.

Finally, Amendment 119, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and Amendment 119A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to the Secretary of State guidance in Clause 13. Amendment 119 seeks to extend the period that the Secretary of State cannot amend guidance on the regulator’s functions from three to five years. While the regulator must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, as an operationally independent body it will not be obliged to follow it. The industry and fans alike have been clear that they do not want to see excessive ongoing government involvement in football. That is why the Secretary of State may not revise this guidance any more frequently than every three years. The Secretary of State must consult both the regulator and anyone else they consider appropriate before publishing or revising any guidance, and must lay the guidance before Parliament. While I appreciate the concerns of undue influence, extending this to five years, when there may be an issue that needs clarificatory guidance before then, would be sub-optimal.

On Amendment 119A, I agree that the regulator should be independent and free from government influence. I do not have the level of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, requested. However, I am confident that appointments will be made on merit. I will write to him with additional detail following the debate. Secretary of State guidance on this point would be unnecessary. The employees of the regulator will already be independent from the Government, like other regulators in the country. Independence has been at the heart of the regulator’s design, with it having sole discretion over its operational decisions. The aims of this amendment are therefore already achieved by the Bill’s current drafting.

I have noted the points from across the Committee on the amendments in this group and I am happy to discuss these further ahead of Report. However, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I take it that we have a consensus that there should be some way to find out what the regulation is and the reactions to it. Will the Minister give us an assurance that it will be published somewhere we can find it? That is the real point.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify whether he means once the regulator is up and running. I assume so. It would be very unusual for that to not be the case, but I will confirm that and get back to him, I hope, in the course of the evening.

16:15

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and for the points raised. I note her desire not to put any major burdens on the regulator, but I worry about the major burdens that that in turn puts on the 116 football clubs that this regulation affects.

I respectfully push back on the notion that the amendments are not necessary or that the IFR’s flexibility would be somehow unduly constrained by requiring proper guidance and consultation. Perhaps the Government could look at it another way: amendments of this sort could actually enhance the regulator’s ability to act effectively by building trust and clarity from the outset. That is really what the football clubs want: clarity.

The Minister points to collaboration, yet the Bill imposes no duty to consult on key areas such as financial sustainability, the owners’ and directors’ tests or the backstop powers. Without clear consultative frameworks, football will face uncertainty and investment decisions could stall. Football is a global business and investors require regulatory predictability. These amendments are not about adding bureaucracy but about ensuring that clubs, leagues and investors understand how regulatory powers will apply—that is what this is about.

Instead of creating unnecessary delays, the amendments, or amendments like them, would prevent regulatory uncertainty, providing everyone with a clear framework for guidance. Reactive and unclear regulation is likely to create much greater delays and generate a higher workload for the regulator and the clubs. I remain concerned that the existing provisions do not address the scale of the regulatory powers that the Bill is creating. The regulator will oversee billions of pounds in football revenue, critical tests of ownership and sustainability of the entire pyramid. We are the first country to do this and, in my view, these very wide-ranging powers demand the highest levels of transparency and consultation. Football deserves a regulator that collaborates in practice, not just in promise.

That said, I am somewhat—I repeat somewhat—encouraged by the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these issues, as reflected from all sides of the Committee. I hope that we might continue to engage on how best to embed these principles within the framework of the regulator. I will reflect further on her response and I hope we can consider how these concerns might be addressed as the Bill progresses. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 112 withdrawn.

Amendments 113 to 118 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Clause 13: Guidance published by the Secretary of State

Amendments 119 and 119A not moved.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Annual report

Amendments 120 and 121 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.

Amendments 122 and 123 not moved.

Amendment 124

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

124: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Delegation of regulatory powers to competition organisers(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations direct the IFR to delegate some of its functions under this Act to specified competition organisers.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IFR may only delegate a function to a specified competition organiser if it is satisfied that the competition organiser—(a) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with the same degree of stringency as the IFR;(b) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with regard to the IFR’s objectives under section 6;(c) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with regard to section 7(2);(d) would not alter or disregard its obligations under this section.(3) If the IFR is satisfied that the specified competition organiser meets the conditions set out in subsection (2), and the Secretary of State has directed the IFR to delegate a function under this Act, the IFR must abide by the Secretary of State’s direction.(4) If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the IFR has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the direction to delegate a function under subsection (1), then the Secretary of State may take such action as is deemed necessary to ensure the IFR does comply.”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope noble Lords will see this as another constructive measure that is in keeping with many of the issues on which there has been broad consensus in the Committee. The principle behind the amendment is delegating regulatory functions to the competition organisers where they are considered best placed to discharge them.

Many noble Lords have said that the competition organisers already regulate their own competitions to a large degree. We are all aware of the fit and proper owner test and of financial fair play, to mention just a couple of areas. We would all agree that competition organisers have extensive experience in this space, having been doing it for a number of years. If they were discharging a lot of the functions and the regulator was also discharging them, there would be the danger of duplication. Again, I think most noble Lords want the regulator to be light touch and low cost, particularly as all the costs are coming out of the pockets of the clubs.

I hope that this will be seen as a sensible move. The regulator would be asked to look at each area of responsibility and to decide which of the competition organisers might be best placed to carry it out. If the regulator thinks that, in delegating some of those powers, the current Premier League or EFL owner tests are insufficient, there would be nothing to stop the regulator saying that, on top of competition organisers’ existing processes, it would like them to add X, Y and Z. That would be entirely appropriate and would give the competition organisers the opportunity to prove themselves.

Given that the regulator would have overall responsibility, it would always have the opportunity to take the powers back if it thought the competition organisers were not up to the job. Amending the Bill in this way would be seen as a sensible move. It would send a good signal to football that we want to work with it in setting up the new regulator. We have all heard the Minister say that she does not want to increase the burdens on the independent regulator—in fact, she made that point in responding to the last group—so here is a way to reduce the burden we put on the regulator and to delegate it to a local level, where others are felt best placed to carry out the functions in a collaborative way. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, puts his case very powerfully but I for one am not persuaded, because the delegation of functions to competition organisers would frustrate the very purpose of independent regulation. The whole purpose is that regulation is done by the independent regulator. As I said in considering the previous group of amendments, it is of course vital that the regulator consults those affected and takes into account their concerns and expertise. But to delegate the responsibility to those who are being regulated, or to the competition organisers, would be an abdication of regulatory responsibility.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Markham and strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We constantly hear that the purpose of the Bill is for the regulator to be agile, to be as light touch as possible and not to impose unnecessary additional burdens on football. Every million pounds spent on the cost of running the regulator, as well as the additional compliance costs for football clubs themselves, means there is less of the pie to be distributed under the redistribution parts of the Bill.

Surely one of the key ways in which we can do our best to avoid that cost burden being excessive is to avoid duplication. The reality is that the competitions, the leagues, already exercise a self-regulatory function—not regulating themselves but regulating the clubs that are members of the leagues. That is in their nature: there are conditions of belonging to those leagues that they rightly enforce, and they are going to be obliged to carry on doing that anyway. It is possible that not all of them have done that perfectly, and that not all of them will continue to do it perfectly in the future, but it is also possible that the independent regulator will not do its job perfectly. We should consider that possibility at this stage of consideration of this really important Bill, given that many clubs—not just the Premier League clubs but right down through the pyramid—have concerns about the costs, imposition and impact that creating the regulator will involve. When we move on to the next group, we will be looking at the really big, crunchy part of the Bill that covers the regulator’s operating licensing powers.

If we are to be sensitive to these genuine concerns of football clubs—which, by and large, have been pretty successful over the decades—this is a good way of showing it. If this amendment is passed and accepted by the Government and goes into the Bill, none of it says that the powers have to be delegated to any particular competition organiser; but at least giving the possibility of avoiding this overburden of new regulation, cost and impositions on something which is already very successful would be a very good signal for the Government to send.

I hope the Minister when she responds to this amendment will not rule it out out of hand but will take it away and say that we should now be looking for ways to address some of these genuine concerns. This would be a very good way of doing it.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which, on the face of it, sounds sensible, obvious, simple, light touch and low cost. I rise also to defend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for pointing out the blindingly obvious biggest bear trap of the entire Bill up to now: delegating the power of the regulator to the very people it is trying to regulate. It would seem to any right-minded person that this is the least sensible thing to do. Being concerned about the power of the regulator but trying to persuade us that it could give some of its powers up to someone else to help them along the way defeats the object of having the regulator.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, there are two groups which, if the Bill goes through and is enacted, will be subject to regulation. There will be the competition organisers, of course, but the biggest burden will be on the clubs themselves, and that should be our principal concern. If the competition organisers, who would themselves be overseen by the regulator, are able to discharge the regulatory functions effectively without creating a whole new panoply of compliance and enforcement mechanisms and apparatus, surely that is worth looking at and considering.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

There is some merit in what the noble Lord says. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I met Rick Parry and some people from the EFL this week and they are quite content with this. They do not see this as an onerous burden on them. They are looking forward to the regulator, a level playing field and a real chance for them to progress, so they are not going to oppose this resolution.

16:30

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to consultation, on which several comments have been made during the discussions on this and previous groups, it is worth bearing in mind, when the Minister tells us that there will be wide consultation in whatever circumstances, what my noble friend Lady Brady said on day one of Committee. She said that the Government had consulted seven Premier League clubs, which did not include Manchester City. They consulted those seven clubs for about as long as it took Spurs to score four goals against Southampton yesterday. It was hardly serious communication and consideration. That is what worries so many of us: we are listening to a series of comments that sound reasonable in themselves—and I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said—but I would believe it if there had been a very clear indication at previous stages of the Bill that there had been consultation with the interested parties.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 124. I think it introduces a sensible and proportionate idea: that the independent football regulator should have the power to delegate certain functions to competition organisers, such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League, where it is appropriate. First, I want to consider the position of the leagues themselves, especially the Premier League and the EFL, both of which already play central roles in the regulation and operation of English football. These organisations are not merely administrative bodies; they are sophisticated, well-sourced entities with established systems for financial monitoring, licensing and governance.

For example, the Premier League currently performs all the UEFA licensing for clubs on behalf of the FA, demonstrating its capability to operate efficiently and effectively under stringent regulatory frameworks. It also has robust financial monitoring mechanisms in place, which ensure that clubs comply with obligations relating to profitability, sustainability and long-term planning. As I mentioned earlier in Committee, the Premier League also invests significant resources and time in performing its owners’ and directors’ tests to a very high standard, and intends to continue to do so.

Simply duplicating all these existing structures within the IFR would be inefficient and burdensome, as the White Paper that led to the Bill rightly acknowledged:

“The Regulator may wish to allow concurrent systems, or delegate responsibilities to industry bodies, in certain circumstances. It would manage this in a way that is coherent and simple for all involved, especially clubs”.


Unfortunately, however, no sensible delegation power currently exists in the Bill, so I commend my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson for addressing this issue and allowing for this conversation. This amendment would align perfectly with that principle expressed in the White Paper. It would be a smart, almost unarguable step to take: delegation would allow the regulator to focus its resources, especially in the early years of its life, on areas where independent oversight is essential, such as addressing market failures and managing systemic risks. At the same time, it would give the regulator the option of leaning on existing processes or information systems where they are already successfully implemented.

Delegation would also address an important practical reality. The workload facing the IFR will be immense. I am not surprised that the EFL wishes to offload some of its costs to the regulator, and that is its right. In its early years, this regulator will have to establish itself, build capacity and gain the trust of stakeholders across the ecosystem. That is a big burden. Allowing it to delegate certain functions, with appropriate safeguards, ensures that it can deliver its objectives without being overwhelmed by administrative tasks that others are well placed to manage.

However, this clearly cannot be done on blind trust. The amendment includes what seem to be important safeguards: the IFR must ensure that any competition organiser meets the same degree of stringency, aligns with its objectives, and adheres to its regulatory principles. This would seem to protect the integrity of the regulatory framework, while avoiding unnecessary duplication and, therefore, unnecessary cost.

More broadly still, this amendment raises an important question that we must address about the future role of the Football Association. While the fan-led review’s position was that the FA’s current governance arrangements make it unsuitable to house the IFR at present, it also envisaged a scenario where one day this might change. As the review noted,

“the FA might at some point be a suitable location for IREF … However, the Review has concluded that this is not appropriate at this time”.

This amendment raises the possibility of the delegation of certain functions to the FA, as part of its reform journey. If the FA continues to modernise its governance structures and demonstrate the capability to take on certain functions, it could play a much larger role in football’s regulatory framework.

Indeed, I encourage the Government to consider including the FA in the scope of this clause as such, because it should meet the same rigorous criteria that the leagues have to. Delegation to football bodies could be tied to a broad review of football governance a few years into this regime. This review could assess not only the progress of the IFR but the readiness of the FA and other football bodies to take on greater responsibilities. This will ensure that the IFR can be a dynamic institution, evolving in response to the needs of the game and empowering existing bodies to step up, where it makes sense. I believe that all stakeholders, including the most ardent supporters of the fan-led review, as well as those worried about the unintended consequences of this delegation, could support this kind of sensible amendment.

Finally, but most importantly, in a letter sent to me by the general-secretary of UEFA only last week, he said:

“UEFA appreciate the background of the Football Governance Bill discussions and proposals, and we were encouraged by the intent of the original Fan Led Review which stated that this regulatory area should be returned to The FA in time. UEFA supports The FA and UK policymakers in ensuring that this is still the case”.


The FA told me, also last week, that it has recently told DCMS that

“the FA is willing to take on delegated powers from the IFR, if there are services that the regulator believes we can operate and deliver effectively”.

I ask the Minister: is it still the case, as UEFA and the FA seem to believe, that the Government intend the future delegation of powers to be handed back to the FA at some point? If it is, surely this is an amendment that the Government could and should support.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I have spoken only once—about my little club, York City—but I have attended all the Committee debates. First, I think that York City will find it puzzling if, for the first time that there is an independent regulator, the same Act will say that some functions will be delegated. That is a confusion. Down the road, that might be thought about, but we want to see this person—man or woman—who will be the independent regulator doing the job. If it becomes an impossibility or too burdensome, it is at that stage that you delegate. But to say in the Bill, right at the beginning, that certain functions will be delegated, maybe to some powerful clubs, will be a confusion.

Secondly, no one would want to be an independent regulator. If I had the ability to do so, I would tie down the job, because, otherwise, it muddies the water. What we have not teased out a bit more, unfortunately, are the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on consultation—that is the key bit. I hope that the Government will think through those amendments, because, without consultation, the little club of York City would think that somebody wants to swallow it up.

Remember that all football clubs are like tribes. They will defend their colours and their game. The only way to deal with tribes is to make sure that they are consulted. I think this amendment is unhelpful at this stage. Let us see what happens with the kind of regulatory power that is created. This independent person must actually be independent.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say a little about Amendment 124, which my noble friend Lord Markham has outlined and to which I have added my name. I am sorry that we have not yet fully convinced noble Lords across the Committee in favour of it, but it might be helpful to clear up some of the confusions which have arisen.

We are proposing delegating these duties not to clubs but to competition organisers. In doing so, we seek to avoid the sort of confusion that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, has just highlighted about duplication in the regime. As noble Lords have pointed out, there are already football bodies which have a regulatory role—the Football Association, the Premier League, the English Football League and, indeed UEFA. They will retain many of those functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows well, Manchester City’s dispute with the Premier League is because of its powers to make some of the rules for the competition to which it relates. We are trying to avoid the duplication of regulatory functions. If an existing competition organiser has processes in place to carry out these functions effectively, why could the Secretary of State not direct the regulator to delegate them to these competition organisers and bring them closer to the clubs that are playing in that competition of their own free choice?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord emphasises that the purpose of the amendment is to allow for delegation of powers to competition organisers, not to clubs. But the noble Lord will know that the Premier League, which is a competition organiser, simply consists of the will of the 20 clubs.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The 20 clubs have competed to get into it. It is a changing 20, based on the ability of clubs to take part in that competition.

Similarly, it might be more appropriate for functions to be carried out by other competition organisers at other levels of football, if there are sufficient safeguards for them to do so in a way in which the Secretary of State feels is appropriate.

In our amendment, we have tried to reflect these safeguards to make sure that the same regulatory standards apply to the bodies to which functions are delegated. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 124 says that a function can be delegated only if the regulator is satisfied that the competition organiser would discharge the function with the same degree of stringency as the regulator itself and that it would meet the objectives established by Clause 6 and discharge the function with regard to the negative outcomes as outlined in Clause 7(2).

We are where are because there are elements of football which have not been good at self-regulating in a way that has pleased fans. More than one political party has been concerned enough to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House. Are we saying that we have reached a point of no return? If the competition organisers and other football organisations get their house in order and meet the standards set out in this Bill which the regulator is trying to do, will there never be a situation in which we will be able to delegate some of these functions back down to the level of competition organisers? This would mean a much more light-touch, organic form of regulation, which I think is what a lot of noble Lords in the Committee would like to see. That is the thinking behind the amendment and on which I would be interested in hearing an answer from the Minister.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Picking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, particularly focusing on the Premier League, we have discussed in previous debates on this Bill the league’s concerns that the burdens of new regulation and compliance costs fall more heavily on smaller clubs than on big ones. Looking at the effect of this, my concern is how this amendment would operate if it were to be incorporated in the Bill. I would expect the Secretary of State to be looking in the first instance at the lower leagues, as that is where the pain will really be felt of imposing new burdens.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. It may also be in the lower leagues that we see the examples of better behaviour. The Secretary of State may then feel that it is right and proper to delegate some of these functions to the competition organisers for the clubs in the lower leagues.

16:45

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the points that have been raised, I want to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the previous group, in relation to the regulator’s guidance. I can confirm that the regulator’s guidance will be published. Clause 12(5) of the Bill states:

“The IFR must publish any guidance”.


I also want to clarify a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, because I am concerned that if I let it lie then, at a later date, somebody may suggest that it was accepted. It was that only seven clubs had been met with. I stress to your Lordships’ House that this Bill is the culmination of almost five years’ work which started in 2019. Officials have had extensive regular engagement with key stakeholders, including with the clubs which will be subject to the regulation. All clubs have had a number of formal opportunities to share their views, particularly as part of the fan-led review and the football governance White Paper. Over this five-year period, DCMS has had hundreds of meetings with clubs, leagues, fan groups and other stakeholders. No club that has requested a meeting has not had one. I hope that clarifies that point.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

While I understand the Minister citing a series of meetings that have taken place over a number of years, we are now talking about a Bill which has been introduced by this Government with changes from the previous Bill. Some of those changes have already been debated, and some have not. Surely, it behoves the Secretary of State and any Minister within a Government to have slightly more than a half-hour conversation with seven members of the Premier League when we know that they are going to be the most affected clubs in terms of cost burdens.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I may need to agree to disagree on the level and extent of the consultation. The culmination of consultations between officials and the various meetings that have taken place constitute very sound consultation. I was concerned that it might appear to your Lordships and to people externally that only seven clubs had been met during the whole course of the design of a new regulator, which I think all noble Lords would agree would be highly unusual and undesirable. I may return to that point; noble Lords may raise it again in Committee. I look forward to further discussion of what constitutes consultation.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for his Amendment 124, which creates a mechanism for the regulator to delegate its function to the competition organisers. I understand that some noble Lords believe that the regulator should act as an overseeing body, only acting through the leagues and only stepping in once the leagues have failed to address a problem or, in some instances, not wishing the regulator to exist at all. Without wanting to disappoint noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Hayward, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others who support this amendment, I am afraid that the model of regulation is not one that we are proposing and nor is it the model that the previous Government proposed. Notwithstanding the points that have been raised repeatedly, this is now this Government’s Bill and we are very proud to bring it before your Lordships.

The fan-led review laid bare the issues with industry self-regulation, and this is an amendment where it is important for your Lordships’ Committee to reflect on the fact that football has had ample opportunity to get this right. We are legislating only because the leagues do not have the incentives and governance structures to address these problems adequately.

I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that this amendment could be argued to represent a bear trap. I also agree with a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. As has been demonstrated, compliance with current competition organiser rules has not proved an effective way of ensuring sustainability of the game. That is precisely why a new bespoke regulator is required, with the powers, incentives and agility to act where competition organisers are unable to.

However, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the regulatory system is already designed in such a way that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are already being met. If clubs are meeting their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s existing rules—then the regulator will not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. There is also the more formal

“Commitments in lieu of … discretionary licence conditions”


mechanism, where leagues will be given an opportunity to address specific identified financial problems so that the regulator does not need to attach a licence condition.

Beyond this, however, we do not believe that the regulator should delegate functions to the leagues—there would be a significant issue of accountability. In a case where a function was delegated and serious failings happened, accountability would then be hard to ascertain. We also do not think that a power for the Secretary of State to direct the regulator would be appropriate. Not only could that constitute undue political influence on the regulator but it would also open the door to continuous lobbying by competition organisers for regulation to be delegated to them. What is more, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to give this direction and for regulation to be delegated back to the industry without any prior parliamentary scrutiny.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the FA’s willingness to take on delegated functions, my department continues to have discussions with all stakeholders, including the FA, on a range of issues. It is encouraging that there is willingness in the industry to tackle the problems of financial sustainability. However, as the fan-led review clearly showed, the industry has not proved able to take forward the reforms needed at this time due to the governance and constitutional arrangements in place, as well as lacking the expertise required to deliver the regime we have been discussing. An independent body free of industry influence is needed; now is not the time to delegate functions. However, as with all aspects of the Bill, the Government will keep under review the effectiveness of the regime to deliver regulation. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. Is she saying therefore that we are, in essence, past the point of no return in relation to some of the competition organisers? I take what she says about the discretionary licence conditions that are available to the regulator that give it a bit of leeway with those that get their house in order, but if football were to get its act together, does she not foresee a circumstance in which some of the functions that are going to be given to the new regulator could be given to organisers, whether at the direction of Secretary of State, or by the choice of the regulator?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree that statutory regulation should exist only where it is necessary. In our view, the regulatory system is already designed to be proportionate so that intervention can automatically scale up and down as needed. Clubs that are already well run and are lower risk should not face additional requirements. We want standards in the industry to improve, and if this were to happen and the market was derisked, I would expect the regulator to be less involved and less noticeable. I want also to stress that the regulator will not stop the leagues imposing their own competition rules so long as they do not conflict with the regulator’s regime. However, this is not an amendment which we feel would serve the sector well, and that was why I asked the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords; it has been a genuine exchange of views. I am also glad that it gave an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, to make a positive point about Spurs over the weekend—and that there was a positive point available to be made about Spurs.

I genuinely appreciate the constructive challenge that we have had in this debate. I feel that there has been a bit of a misunderstanding, however. When we say that we are asking for delegation, as in contracting out the function, it is not abdication, because the independent regulator will always be ultimately responsible for that decision. It always has the final say. It is just trying to adopt the policy, which I think many of us believe in, in terms of devolution or subsidiarity—call it what you want—but it is another form of trying to make sure that the power is as close to the coalface as possible, at the same time always giving the opportunity for the regulator ultimately to make the decision. As my noble friend Lady Brady said, this point was absolutely envisaged in the White Paper. The FA and UEFA welcome it, and I must admit that I cannot see why we would not want those who are closest to it to have responsibility first.

Again, I want to clear up that I am not talking about the clubs; they are different from the competition organisers. The clubs and the Premier League, for instance, have very different views, as we have seen recently on financial fair play. The amendment is about giving those regulatory bodies—such as the FA, the Premier League and the EFL—an opportunity, where they are best placed to do it, to make those decisions themselves. If the regulator does not agree with that, ultimately it always has the final say.

I hope we will be able to return to this, because I hope it would demonstrate the collaborative approach that all noble Lords and the Government are trying to bring. I know that it is what we have all said many a time in this debate as well. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 124 withdrawn.

Clause 15: Operating licences

Debate on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the question that Clause 15 stand part of the Bill—and, indeed, Clauses 15 to 25. I do that not because I disagree wholeheartedly with this huge swathe of the Bill but because it provides opportunity to ask some questions about the nature of the licensing regime, which these clauses relate to. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions and assuage some of the concerns that lie behind them.

I want particularly to discuss how the Government plan to deal with the possibility of clubs seeking to leave the licensing regime en masse. What would be their response if football clubs simply wished to be unlicensed? If several clubs opted out of the regime and established a rival competition, how would that work in practice?

We have touched on this a little but not in great depth and, when we have, the Minister has said that the Government’s solution and the design of the Bill for clubs that attempt to skirt around the legislation and operate in an unregulated competition would simply be to use the delegated powers in Clause 2(3) to make such a competition a specified and regulated one. There would be a sort of game of cat and mouse if that scenario played out. The Minister has argued that allowing this to happen in delegated powers allows for greater agility, but it is worth pondering just how much agility it really can deliver. A statutory instrument made under Clause 2(3) is subject to the affirmative procedure as per Clause 91. It therefore must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses. There is therefore a limit on how swiftly the Government would be able to make such regulations and have them approved by Parliament.

It is worth also drawing attention to how this new licensing regime will interact with the existing licensing requirements from league organisers and UEFA. How do the Government envisage the regulator working with those bodies, which already license clubs, to prevent duplication of regulations and unnecessary further burdens?

Amendment 173 in this group, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend discretionary licence conditions by statutory instrument. This provision of the Bill is yet another example of where we do not have sufficient clarity or certainty for clubs and of the open-ended powers for the Secretary of State. Once again, we see a scenario in which the clubs will have to abide by rules but without the requisite certainty to enable them to plan effectively for the future. Today, we are debating the discretionary licence conditions in the Bill, but allowing the Secretary of State to amend the conditions specified in the Bill on a whim, if he or she wishes, surely defeats the purpose of putting them in the Bill in the first place.

17:00

I look forward to hearing more about Amendment 169A, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan has brought before us. It would expand the duty on the regulator when attaching or varying discretionary licence conditions. His proposed new subsection (3A) seeks to tighten the criteria by which the regulator will have to abide before it can enforce a discretionary condition, and his proposed new subsection (3C) sets out the guidance that the regulator must issue to such clubs. I welcome this amendment, because the more information that a regulator provides to clubs the better. The more detail that is established in the Bill and the more guidance that the regulator is required to give, the better it will be able to begin its preparations for the implementation of the licensing rules and the better clubs will be able to prepare for the new regime.

I hope the Minister will be able to answer those questions and explain what happens in the cat-and-mouse scenario that I have set out. I look forward to hearing noble Lords speak to the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 128, which gets to the nub of what the licensing regime should be looking at. It would require a personal statement to identify a club’s ultimate owner and that owner’s source of funds. It is really quite an important amendment because clubs, and fans in particular, have the right to know where the club’s money is coming from.

This is prompted by things that have happened to clubs in the past, when it has been quite clear to the outside world that clubs do not have the means—because their owners have failed to provide any detail or background on their own finances, despite having given assurances—to identify where their funding is coming from. I cite the case of Dr Tony Xia, who became the owner of Aston Villa back in 2016. He was approved as an owner by the football authorities, yet it later turned out that he had neither the money nor the resources. The club ended up just a week away from being unable to meet its tax liabilities.

Following the 2021-22 season, a survey of 92 clubs looking at data on wages and cash reserves revealed that many clubs, up to a senior level, were very close to not having the reserves that would ensure that they could meet their liabilities, pay wages and so on. Some clubs are very good at this—West Ham United is one of them and, apparently, Plymouth Argyle was one of the most financially secure that season, along with AFC Wimbledon and Tottenham Hotspur.

If we are seeking transparency through the licensing regime, it is clear that we will need to understand who the owner is, where their funding is coming from and how much that will kick in to ensure the safety and security of clubs for the benefit of their fans.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a concern with the whole of this part of the Bill and the way in which operating licences will be required and the adjudication made upon them. This part of the Bill is nine very dense pages of text, backed by three or four schedules. At various stages, it includes such dark phrases as:

“An application must be accompanied by … such other information and documents as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.


I used to be a lawyer, a long time ago, and I am reasonably accustomed to reading Bills and Acts, but when I start to read through this part of the Bill I can feel my lifeblood draining away. What of the owner or board of a small club looking at what will be required of them?

I noted that in the Minister’s winding up of the last debate she said that well-run clubs have nothing to worry about, which was meant to be reassuring. It does not matter how well-run a club is; it will have to comply with all this, and it will have to set itself up with lawyers, consultants and accountants to draw up a strategic business plan. A lot of clubs will not have a strategic business plan. That does not mean that they are badly run, but they will have to prepare such a plan. A strategic business plan is a document containing the proposed operation of a club: its estimated costs, how those costs are to be funded, the source of such funding and other information as may be specified by the IFR. That does not get done spontaneously or arise automatically.

The reality is that this is a very demanding regime intended to be put into law and enforced by the new regulator. I wonder whether there has been sufficient consideration given to putting in place a halfway-house system of regulation. Think about how companies are regulated: it is a requirement that, if you set up a limited company, designed to limit the personal liability of owners of the company, it is registered with Companies House. By law, certain listings are required and a certain amount of information has to be made public, including the filing of accounts. However, you do not have to get consent from a regulator to set up a company; you just have to register that it is in existence and subject to the laws that apply to it.

As we know, the state of football is pretty strong, stable, vigorous and successful compared with football in other, similar jurisdictions to ours. Have we given sufficient consideration to whether it might be good to take time, before we require small clubs up and down the country—which are not necessarily finding it easy to get through from week to week, month to month and year to year—to submit to this horrendous set of requirements just to get a licence to get on to the field of play in the first place, before they even set about winning a match, to go back to the drawing board and construct a regime that would require clubs to register in the same way that a company is registered, subject to rules and requirements for disclosure and transparency, and to changes being registered. That would reduce hugely the burden on clubs and would start to introduce the kind of consistency which, for reasons that I totally understand, is being sought.

I oppose the whole of Part 3 and its accompanying schedules—I am not even going to think about the plethora of regulations, guidance and further verbiage that will come out of it—standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient for me to say a few words on this. Primarily, I am drawn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for the reasons he gave. We have heard that this is a wonderful, successful league. Bits of it are but, unfortunately, those are the bits at the top. Most of the cultural capital, I am afraid, is in the less glamorous clubs with less successful balance sheets.

We have a situation where we want to maintain the whole of the football structure: five leagues. This has proven to have—let us say—attracted financial irregularity; I think it was described as “chancers and fantasists”. We have to do something to stop this or we will start to have more disasters that mean something to the fan base.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, starts to address this. I hope that the Government are far more in tune with that amendment than with some of the others in this group.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 128. We are getting to the crux of what this regulator should be about: making sure that there are sensible financial decisions, and that risks are mitigated so that they do not jeopardise clubs’ futures.

Clubs in the EFL are expected to lose around £450 million this season and are reliant on owners to fund the shortfall. If this funding is not forthcoming, it can lead to financial trauma. Only 66 of the 92 clubs that filed accounts for the 2021-22 season included data on wages and cash reserves. Nottingham Forest spent £58,606,000 on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves—five hours’ worth of reserves. Surely that cannot be acceptable.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments standing in my name in this group. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Maude if I address some of the plethora of regulations, conditions and verbiage concerned. I am proposing a number of amendments that I hope will facilitate and ease the position that the Government face in this context.

I turn to my Amendment 169A. It is unclear from my reading of the licensing section of the Bill whether the IFR is expected to produce a detailed and granular set of financial rules that would be applied in a blanket way to a large class of clubs or leagues; examples include the specific liquidity ratios, the debt-to-equity ratios, operating cash-flow metrics and size of financial buffers. Or will the IFR take an entirely bespoke approach, where every club will have DLCs—discretionary licence conditions—applied according to their own circumstances? That would drive a coach and horses through the competition organiser’s ability to provide a level playing field and maintain competitive balance. The third option is that the IFR could take an outcomes-based approach whereby it produces some high-level guidance with clear outcomes that clubs must achieve and league rules sitting underneath, giving effect to these principles and outcomes. For example, the IFR could have a series of outcomes relating to working capital, transitionally financed balance sheet health, resilience, protection of assets, et cetera. Leagues could colour in these outcomes into rules.

My own strong preference is for the third option. This amendment, which characterises the third option, is designed to create space for that conversation and, hopefully, allow the Minister to say that, where existing sustainability rules are in place and working, there will be an opportunity for that kind of league-led approach at all levels within an overall regulatory framework. Therefore, my recommendation is an outcome-focused, light-touch regulation, with step-in powers where issues are identified. That is why I have drafted Amendment 169A.

I turn to my Amendments 167A, 168A and 168B. The current test for attaching and varying a discretionary licence condition sets an extremely low bar for the IFR. For example, it seems to me that the test could be met in the case of a club that is already meeting the threshold requirement, on the basis that a discretionary licence condition somehow contributes to the club continuing to meet it.

The DLC test is even vaguer as regards the systemic financial resilience objective. The DLC needs only to advance that objective. While not necessarily the intention, this risks a very unpredictable, wide-ranging and open-ended power that could have a serious impact on club finances. It is also an issue that can be easily mitigated, while still allowing the IFR to meet its objectives. Again, I seek simplicity on behalf of the clubs. I am really concerned that here the detail is so great that it will swamp some clubs.

In the current drafting, potentially the only check on endless interventions, by way of DLCs relating to the systemic financial resilience objective, will be either the IFR’s discretion—in other words, the IFR deciding it has done enough for now—or the IFR being forced to have regard to avoiding adverse effects building up as a result of excessive intervention. Neither of those seems adequate to mitigate the significant risk to English football at all levels. I acknowledge that there is discretion for the IFR to not act in this way. However, I do not think there should be an option to do so, given the very significant risks to English football that would come with the powers being used in this way.

17:15

In addition, Clause 21 does not refer to the IFR’s published outcomes or make use of them as part of the test for whether a DLC can be attached or varied. This will not encourage the IFR to use outcomes in the way that has been discussed and set out in the DCMS policy papers, which were kindly put before us. I believe the Committee would take comfort from a restructuring of Clause 21 to set out that the IFR can introduce a DLC only where it has identified a clear risk to its threshold requirements, as there is still a risk that to be required to

“contribute towards the club meeting”

is very vague and could be a relatively low bar for the IFR to pass.

The words I propose—

“be required in order to”—

are introduced in several places to make it a requirement that the IFR must show that the new DLC was necessary to make sure that clubs meet, or contribute to meeting, the threshold requirements. This means that the IFR has to show that there is an issue that needs action and that it cannot be resolved in other ways, through club or league action. Again, the intention is to create greater simplicity where, at the moment, uncertainty and complexity exist. With that comes cost to all clubs, particularly those in the lower leagues.

Finally, on Amendments 174A and 174B, the notice period of 14 days specified in Clause 23(4) would not enable the club to align internally within its league on any commitment in lieu of a DLC that it might be willing to offer the IFR, especially if the commitment was in relation to a rule change that requires shareholder approval. That is difficult to get within 14 days. This risks significantly reducing the use of the commitments in lieu procedure.

In addition, although there is a consultation requirement before the IFR can attach or vary a DLC, there does not appear to be an explicit obligation on the IFR to allow a club or a league to make representations and offer commitments once the IFR has decided that there are facts that would in principle justify attaching or varying a DLC, but before the IFR has designed a DLC. The notice period comes after the IFR has investigated a potential issue and established an appropriate DLC. This significantly reduces the scope to offer other commitments, especially in circumstances where the issue identified by the IFR is time dependent, which is the purpose of my amendment to this clause.

Lastly, it appears that any DLC imposed upon this urgency-type exception in Clause 23(6)(b) is not time limited. In other words, the IFR could decide that it needs to urgently attach a DLC but the DLC could then endure for a longer period, even though the relevant league might be happy to replace it with a commitment. In that context, my Amendments 174A and 174B give the league concerned the opportunity to offer a commitment, even in instances where the IFR decides it needs to introduce an emergency discretionary licence condition. If this commitment is accepted, this will make the emergency discretionary licence condition temporary. I very much hope that the Minister will accept these amendments.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I listened carefully to the noble Lord and, bizarrely, in preparing for the Bill, I looked at the accounts of a number of the small league clubs the noble Lord seeks to protect with this. They all have to have properly audited accounts. The clubs I looked at—they are in the National League, the National League South and the National League North—have turnovers that vary between roughly £10 million a year and £400,000 to £500,000. They are properly set-up companies that have to file reports with Companies House, et cetera, and they all go through an audit process. It seems to me that, in any event, they will supply to their auditors many of the things the noble Lord seeks and asks for. If they did not, they would not be complying with a proper audit.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has made some important points and, of course, everything I have said is based on the fact that those clubs will be following that. They are basic conditions that any organisation, not least a football club, should follow. All my amendments—I have studied them carefully—seek to make it easier to ensure that the clubs follow those procedures and that the uncertainties and vagaries in the current drafting of the Bill are clarified, making it easier and more efficient for clubs to meet their obligations as companies and football clubs in the professional leagues.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, posed a number of questions about the operation of Part 3 in relation to licensing functions. I will add one further question, to which I do not necessarily expect an answer today. Pursuant to UEFA regulations and delegation from the FA, the Premier League currently licenses clubs for the purposes of their participation in UEFA club competitions. I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Arsenal Football Club—I realise that some of the other clubs supported by noble Lords would not have an interest in this matter for various reasons. My question is: will this function of the Premier League be affected by Clause 15 or any of the other clauses in Part 3?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 168 and 169, which connect with some of the themes raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Moynihan. One of the most sensitive areas of this regime is the imposition of discretionary licence conditions on clubs. The purpose of my Amendment 169 is to say that the regulator can introduce such conditions only after being satisfied that the conditions would

“not be met by the club complying with all rules, requirements and restrictions which … will be imposed by a competition organiser”.

Essentially, this does not go as far as full delegation to leagues such as the Premier League—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the broad criticism of that—but would introduce in one specific area what might be thought of as a limited principle of subsidiarity for the imposition of discretionary licence conditions.

The main purpose is to ensure that the regulator observes the norm of good regulatory co-operation—with not just the Premier League but all the leagues—by looking first to the adequacy of league arrangements in response to specific problems that will be the most politically and competitively sensitive, before stepping in and intervening with club-specific conditions attached. Why? It is because subsidiarity is a good principle of regulation where it is not inconsistent with the application of the intent of the law; also, I believe that it will foster the habit of regulatory co-operation more generally—not just on discretionary licence conditions. It will avoid duplication and confusion in regimes, and it will equip the regulator with a bit more political protection when it comes to the charge of political interference, because it can say, “We’ve looked to the leagues to step in first before stepping in”.

In the case of the Premier League specifically—let us face it, that is where the rubber hits the road on this issue most of all—it gives it, first, a chance to maintain system-wide and league-wide governance integrity before club-specific rules arrive, rather than risking the intervention of the regulator, leading to fragmentation between clubs. Secondly, it allows differences in application, inside the Premier League, of the general IFR rules in ways that account for differences in risk, finance and strategy, which we have heard discussed many times in Committee.

An example is capital buffers. The regulator will want to require cash reserves, and in the case of the Premier League, you want to take account of those areas where there are genuine differences from lower league clubs—differences in player registration rights, meaning players are more liquid assets, for example. The Premier League could design league-wide rules that are sensitive to these different conditions. The amendment does not say that Premier League rules would trump regulator rules, but where there are concerns, the regulator would look first to the Premier League to modify league-wide rules that respond to the concerns before the regulator directly intervenes.

Another scenario might be an issue of liquidity management inside a Premier League club. This amendment would point to the regulator first looking to the Premier League to take steps such as enhancing its monitoring systems, developing new metrics, et cetera, before it goes to individual licence conditions. This, again, would ensure that the league could retain the integrity of league-wide rules, rather than Premier League clubs having individual regimes as and when they trip up over certain rules.

What if the regulator wanted to intervene with a specific club as a matter of urgency? It could still do this. What if the regulator thought Premier League rules were inadequate to the task and insisted on imposing a licence condition that cut across and undermined league rules? Ultimately, it could still do that too; in fact, it may think that was the right thing to do. But what the amendment would do is introduce a prior stage that looks to the leagues to make league-wide governance adjustment first. In the name of good regulation, that seems to me a sensible, limited amendment.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to offer my support to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. These amendments take quite different approaches, but they seem to be driving at the same thing: a desire to clarify and improve the financial licensing section of the Bill. In my view, they highlight a really important principle—that the IFR should adopt an outcomes-focused, light-touch approach to developing its regulatory framework, and that it should work closely with football to do that.

These amendments would, in my view, be a vital step towards achieving a good balance in football regulation, one that safeguards financial sustainability by targeting clubs that have problems, which are clearly critical, while also respecting the unique responsibilities and expertise of the competition organisers. The current drafting of the Bill leaves critical questions unanswered about the regulators’ approach to financial regulation.

It is currently unclear whether the IFR will take a blanket, rule-driven approach that imposes granular financial requirements such as specific liquidity ratios or debt-to-equity thresholds across all clubs or, alternatively, whether it will adopt an entirely bespoke approach, applying discretionary licence conditions to every single club—all 116 of them—according to their unique circumstances and business models. If the IFR did the latter—it is entirely open to the IFR, because that is how ambiguous the Bill is—it would significantly undermine competition organisers’ ability to maintain a level playing field. Those licence conditions would necessarily need to be confidential to protect commercially sensitive information. For example, my club, West Ham United, would have no idea whether other comparable clubs were operating under similar conditions or not. That is a recipe for competitive chaos.

These amendments would mean that the IFR would need to take a far more balanced path to an outcomes-based approach, setting high-level principles and objectives while allowing leagues to implement their own rules to achieve those outcomes. Of course, they would be able, and must be able, to take a targeted approach to clubs getting into difficulties, stepping in at any time if those rules were deemed systemically not to be working, or if there was urgent concern about a single club or group of clubs. A more outcomes-based approach would ensure that the IFR focuses on the “what” rather than the “how”. By defining clear financial outcomes such as on balance sheet health, resilience, transitionary finance and asset protection, the IFR could establish a framework that addresses financial risks while avoiding unnecessary micro-management of clubs.

There is no reason why financial licensing should not follow this proportionate, targeted model, particularly as competition organisers such as the Premier League and the EFL already have sophisticated financial sustainability rules in place. If another competition organiser, perhaps one that has had less success in enforcing financial rules, wishes to give up this area completely to the IFR, that would be its right, but let us not forget that competition organisers have a deep understanding of their clubs’ financial dynamics. They already operate robust systems to monitor and enforce financial sustainability; for example, the Premier League has detailed profitability and sustainability rules, which are strictly adhered to, while the EFL has its own financial monitoring requirements tailored to the unique challenges faced by its clubs.

17:30

These amendments would not dilute the IFR’s authority; rather, they would help it achieve the light-touch, targeted approach that the Minister keeps saying she wishes to see. These changes would create space for a constructive partnership between the IFR and the leagues, allowing the latter to “colour in” the outcomes set by the IFR, with rules that are both practical and proportionate to their specific contexts. Such an approach would also alleviate the IFR’s workload and the cost. I have already said during this process that the National League is already really alarmed about the cost to its clubs. It would allow the IFR to focus on its core purpose of addressing risks and market failures, rather than duplicating or overriding established systems.

These amendments highlight the merits of light-touch, proportional regulation. That is important because, as much as we recognise the need for regulatory intervention, we must also recognise the risk of overreach. The noble Lords’ amendments make it clear that where league rules are already in place and functioning effectively, they should be allowed to form the foundation of the regulatory framework. The IFR’s role in such cases should be to provide direction and oversight, targeting problem clubs only and stepping in only where there is evidence of failure, or where issues arise that cannot be addressed by existing mechanisms. I hope the Minister will agree that this is what good regulation looks like, especially in such a complex ecosystem with multiple existing domestic and international regulators.

This is not a case of wanting to mark one’s own homework. It is about recognising that the leagues are often best placed to implement rules that are holistic and cognisant of competitive and investment dynamics, while the IFR can provide the framework, the strategic oversight and the step-in powers to ensure compliance and consistency. More of a partnership model, where leagues play a key role in implementing outcomes-based financial standards, would strike an appropriate balance between independence and collaboration. It would respect the unique strengths of English football while addressing its weaknesses. Let me be clear: this may well be how the regulator ends up working, but would it not be a good idea to provide that steer now, rather than leave so much room for discretion that we really have no idea how the regulatory system will work in practice?

These amendments provide an important chance to clarify the Bill, reduce the risk of regulatory overreach and ensure that financial licensing is both effective and proportionate. In my view, they would do a huge amount to give comfort to those of us who remain worried about preserving the vibrancy, fairness and competitiveness of the game we love.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to comment on this part of the Bill. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the clause stand part notice of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and to develop some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brady.

I begin with Amendment 128 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I feel that there is no balance in it; that it creates an imbalance in terms of its impact on smaller clubs. While I have problems with the whole clause, I think this is the most difficult and onerous part, in its capacity for gold-plating and regulatory overreach. I also think it cuts across existing primary legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act. What we are potentially seeing in these very loosely worded and wide-ranging powers—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord really saying that it is onerous for the regulator to know from a club who the owner of that club is, what the source of the funds might be or that the owner has funds that enable them to properly operate a football club?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think that is a fair question, but the amendment that the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to support today is what I might call a dangerous dogs amendment. It is basically reacting—legislation by anecdote or by the lowest common denominator. You find one bad apple in a barrel and you smash the barrel up and throw the apples everywhere. This will have a big impact on clubs.

I pray in aid the financial guidelines 17/6 that the Financial Conduct Authority put out in 2017 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That was about stopping people laundering money—fair enough. What it has actually resulted in is dozens of people in prominent positions, such as local councillors, Members of Parliament, judges, chief executives of local authorities—even Members of your Lordships’ House—not being able to open bank accounts, and their sisters, their wives, their husbands and their brothers not being able to open bank accounts, because of onerous, overzealous regulation.

I am not saying that the IFR would necessarily develop in that way, but some of the most innocuous wording in primary legislation can sometimes give rise to that kind of gold-plating. It began, of course, under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism regulations that we all supported. My point is that the sins of some clubs should not be visited on all clubs. My noble friend Lady Brady is absolutely right that if we do not have an objectives-based strategy, if we do not have a focused strategy for dealing with the most egregious issues, we will have a universalist approach of assuming that all clubs will be owned by dodgy owners—drug traffickers, people smugglers; I exaggerate for effect. There is the perception that that is the case and, of course, it is not the case at all. I say to noble Lords: be careful what you wish for.

On Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, I have very serious issues with this clause, because it fails on its own merits, in many respects, because it is not commercially flexible. If we are going to give a power, under Clause 22(5), for the Secretary of State to vary the licence conditions—and I have big problems with “add”—which are already settled, we will want to do that quickly and in an efficacious manner. We will not be able to do that using the affirmative resolution in this House and the other place, because we cannot move quickly or make decisions quickly to respond to commercial change.

I am also very worried about the limited sanctions available in terms of mission creep. Clause 22(6) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (5) only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR”.


Again, mission creep is almost built in there. Then, in Clause 22(7):

“A request under subsection (6) must explain why the IFR considers that the making of regulations under this section is compatible with the purpose of this Act”.


The question is: is a Secretary of State likely to refuse that? Probably not. There is not really a built-in self-policing mechanism in the Bill, and it is because of the wide-ranging powers and the permissive nature of this wording that I have problems.

The provision fails because it is too onerous and too draconian. However, it also fails on the other side, in that it cannot work quickly enough to address the specific club-based issues that the licencing condition variation is needed for. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider Amendment 128 carefully. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it invites the independent football regulator to exercise its powers ultra vires, which is not in the best interests particularly of smaller clubs.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I rise to speak to my Amendment 173, but first I echo the words of many other noble Lords. I support the outcomes-based approach the noble Lord, Lord Wood, is trying to achieve with his amendment, and I think there is broad support for that.

To pick up on the debate between the noble Lords, Lord Maude and Lord Bassam, on strategic business plans, and to give a bit of detail by way of background, the information one needs to provide for an audit is necessarily backward-looking, looking at the last year for which accounts have been provided. A strategic business plan, by its very nature, is forward-looking. I would be very surprised if smaller clubs with, say, a turnover of £500,000, do that as a matter of course. Lots of small businesses and shops have that sort of turnover, and I am sure they are not doing it either. I am not saying it is not desirable, but it could quite quickly turn into a consultant’s paradise if every single club, including the small ones, suddenly had to produce three-year or five-year business plans. They would have to resort to consultants to do that, which would become burdensome.

This brings us to another problem that we have talked about a number of times. Noble Lords have heard me talk about liquidity issues. By trying to solve the sins of one or two clubs, we are in danger of putting a burden on all of them, particularly if we are asking clubs to deposit money as part of a liquidity ratio to ensure they have a safety net. That will inevitably take money out of football. I had a meeting with the Minister and her team last week, and I thank her for that. We had a very good conversation about exactly this point, and what she promised was a proportionate, sensible approach.

That brings me to my Amendment 173. We are having very sensible conversations, in general, based on the desire of all noble Lords to do what is best for football. However, the problem is that whatever happens here, the Secretary of State has the ability quite easily to change everything. So, in response to everything we discuss, such as ensuring that the licences required are proportionate, the Secretary of State can easily say, “Well actually, we want a more muscular approach”. All the debates over the last five days and counting, the meetings and the various consultations could quickly be set aside because a different approach is wanted. That is my concern.

It does not matter where we have got to in the conversations we have had over the past few days: they will suddenly count for nothing if the Secretary of State can completely change the rules, raise the bar and change the discretionary licensing conditions. I would like assurances from the Minister. How do we safeguard against the fact that these—in my opinion, very good—debates could suddenly be set aside because in a few years’ time, a Secretary of State wants to take a completely new approach, which could be entirely disproportionate?

This has been a rigorous and constructive “two plus two equals five” process, as I call it, as we try to agree on an approach to checks and balances. None of us will be totally happy with how it turns out, but we have all had constructive input into to it. However, all of that could be quickly set aside by a future Secretary of State being able to change the approach.

17:45

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Under Clause 22(6), the Secretary of State may make the regulations the noble Lord is concerned about only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR, so the Secretary of State does not have complete discretion. We would be creating a new system which may reveal defects and omissions in its operation, so surely it is sensible to have a power to amend it if defects become manifest.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. Of course, we want to have the flexibility to react to such situations. This issue comes up in various other contexts, such as government statements. There are lots of points where the Secretary of State can vary the approach. The question is: how do we get the checks and balances right? However, I think there is basic agreement on this issue, and I would like to hear the Minister’s views.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Mann for tabling the amendments in this group. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will take each of the amendments in turn before responding to the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, and their opposition to the entire licensing regime standing part of the Bill. I will endeavour to get the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, a response to his question in the near future; I do not have the detail he requested today.

Amendment 128, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 129A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to owners. The first seeks to make identifying an owner’s source of funds a prerequisite for a provisional licence. I absolutely agree that it is crucial that the regulator has oversight of an owner’s funding, so it knows how a club expects to fund its activity and the source of this funding. I hope my noble friend will be reassured that this is why a club is already required to provide such detail as part of its application for a provisional operating licence.

When a club submits its application for a provisional operating licence, this must include a strategic business plan. Among other things, this must contain detail about the club’s operating costs, how these costs are to be funded and, crucially, the source of such funding. This will enable the regulator to scrutinise the source of the funds. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, importantly, a club must set out how much it plans to spend and how it will fund that cost. Furthermore, if the regulator has concerns at any time—even before it has received its provisional operating licence—about the source of an owner’s wealth, it can test that owner. Should it find that an owner’s source of wealth is connected to illicit finance, that owner will be found unsuitable.

I also agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider “significant influence” by owners. Of course, what is meant by “significant influence and control” would need to have been set out in guidance before clubs and the regulator can consider who meets this definition. That is why I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time, in order to give this clarity.

Noble Lords should note that the provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 that define “owner” come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation on the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day, whereas the licensing provisions and other provisions which rely on the definition of “owner” will be commenced later, by regulations.

I turn to Amendment 132, from my noble friend Lord Mann. Although the risk of clubs going into administration will be greatly reduced, it may still happen. The regulator revoking a licence would be the ultimate punishment and would be used only in the most extreme of circumstances. I assure my noble friend that the regime is designed to avoid the situation his amendment aims to provide for, and that ensuring that a club has a plan for adverse shocks is at the heart of the regulator’s financial regulation regime. This might include a plan to keep the club going if, for example, an owner can no longer continue to fund it. We have spoken to many football clubs while developing the Bill, and know that the well-run clubs already do this.

Turning to Amendments 167A and 168A to 168C, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his intention that the regulator should identify a clear risk before acting. The amendments are not necessary to achieve the aim in relation to his points on discretionary licence conditions, as was explained to the Premier League when it suggested these exact amendments prior to introduction. The regulator can attach discretionary licence conditions only if the conditions contribute to a club meeting the threshold requirements, or if the conditions advance systemic financial resilience.

The regulator is bound by its general duties, meaning that it must have regard to its regulatory principles and must act reasonably and proportionately. In effect, that means that the regulator can attach a discretionary licence condition only to address a risk it has identified. I assure the noble Lord that the regulator cannot take any action that is meaningless or does not advance its objectives. If a club feels the regulator is doing that, it can appeal any action through the appeals regime.

Ultimately, these four amendments all seek to raise the threshold for intervention and limit when and how the regulator can act. For every discretionary condition, the regulator would have to demonstrate that there was no possible alternative to achieve the aim than to impose that specific condition. This would be an unacceptably high bar, fettering when the regulator can act. In practice, we think the risk of legal challenge could lead to an excessively risk-averse regulator, afraid to act swiftly or at all.

I thank my noble friend Lord Wood for Amendments 168 and 169 and for his genuinely constructive approach to scrutinising the Bill, which I very much appreciate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also expressed concern on the points he raised. My noble friend has met with officials and me regarding these amendments and I hope that those meetings were useful. We believe these amendments would severely limit the regulator’s flexibility to meet its objectives and ensure clubs reach their threshold requirements. The regulator should not take its lead from the competition organisers. Of most concern is the blurred accountability that this approach would introduce. The fan-led review laid bare the significant issues with self-regulation, and that is why we are introducing an independent regulator.

That said, the system is designed so that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are being met. If clubs meet their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s own existing rules—the regulator should not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. The model in this legislation is the right one, with clear accountability, and where discretionary licence conditions are not applied in a one-size-fits-all way but reflect each club’s specific circumstances.

My noble friend Lord Bassam raised the basic requirement for clubs to have a sustainable business plan. I agree with him that that is important. That basic requirement, as well as the requirement for clubs to engage with their fans and ensure that their owners and officers are suitable custodians, are light-touch, appropriate measures that should already have been in place.

On Amendment 169A, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the regulator is already required to publish guidance about how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That will give upfront clarity to clubs and competition organisers. However, the Government do not believe that the level of detail in the noble Lord’s amendment is appropriate for the Bill. He and I would agree that we are not in-depth experts on football finances—had I looked ahead in my speech, I perhaps would not have said that, and I apologise. I am not an in-depth expert on football finances, the inner workings of football clubs or how football clubs operate; I will allow the noble Lord to make his own conclusions on the extent to which he is. The regulator will employ experts in this sector who will have far more knowledge of these areas than we do. They will also have a stronger evidence base on which to base their actions, informed by things such as the “state of the game” study and consultation with the industry itself. That is why we have required the regulator to publish guidance on discretionary licence conditions and why we think it should be left to do this independently. We do not want to unintentionally hamstring the regulator with overly prescriptive requirements for the guidance it must produce.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, if the regulator agrees with him that it should include detail on financial shocks, liquidity and debt management, it will include this.

I turn next to Amendment 173, from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The Bill outlines the specific types of discretionary licence conditions that the regulator may attach to a club’s licence to address its financial or non-financial resources or to improve systemic financial resilience. It is possible that, as the industry evolves, these types of conditions might not remain adequate to address the new or different financial risks faced by clubs, and there might be more effective ways to address them. That is why it is crucial that there is a mechanism in the Bill to enable the types of conditions available to the regulator to be updated. This amendment would deny the regulator this flexibility and potentially make the regime unable to adapt to changing economic circumstances. It is vital that the regulator has appropriate the tools to regulate football effectively, both now and in the future.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that the Bill does not give the regulator or the Secretary of State free rein to make changes. The Secretary of State can amend the types of discretionary licence conditions that can be attached only if requested in writing to do so by the regulator—a point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making a request.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

On that specific point, in Clause 22(8), the language is quite permissive and wide-ranging regarding who the IFR considers it appropriate to consult in respect of wide-ranging powers, particularly those to add or remove an item from primary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance that the Government will publish will tidy that up and make it tighter on who the IFR has to consult before it would write to the Minister seeking to vary the licence conditions?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We discussed in one of the previous groups why the legislation does not currently have specific people that have to be consulted every time. I commit to write to the noble Lord to clarify the specific point he raises. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making such a request. The Bill has not stated every single person the regulator would have to consult every single time, but there are principles at play around how the consultation would need to take place.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister but she will agree that the guidance could, for instance, include groupings of particular types of people who would be key stakeholders and would need to be consulted, because this would obviously be quite a wide-ranging intervention by the IFR.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I hope it will give noble Lords some reassurance that Parliament would also be able to scrutinise any change, as regulations would need to be made by the affirmative procedure.

We do not believe that Amendments 174A and 174B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would be helpful to the regulator, as we explained to the Premier League prior to introduction. The addition of a minimum six-week period would mean a total minimum of eight weeks once you include the minimum period for making representations or giving a commitment in lieu. That would mean an eight-week delay, during which the regulator would not be able to impose a financial condition, which might mean that the regulator would have no choice but to sit idly by while the issue identified at the club gets worse. That would be contrary to the regulator’s objectives and principles and is therefore not considered acceptable by the Government. Slow action has been a common feature of industry self-regulation. We will not allow it to become a feature of the independent regulator’s regime.

The regulator already has a regulatory principle to proactively and constructively engage with the regulated industry, including competition organisers. This means that regulatory intervention at one of their clubs should never come as a shock to a competition organiser. Once the regulator has given notice of its intention to attach a financial discretionary licence condition, the competition organiser will have a minimum of 14 days to propose a commitment in lieu. To be clear, this is a minimum; the regulator may well decide to specify a longer period, but, equally, if the situation was sufficiently serious and urgent, the regulator should not be prevented from acting without delay. The minimum period of 14 days therefore strikes the right balance.

Amendment 174B only adds further burden and confusion to the process of applying financial discretionary licence conditions. The regulator is required to follow the procedure set out in Clause 23, except in very limited circumstances. This includes urgent circumstances where the regulator considers that the issues are so significant and urgent that the condition needs to be imposed immediately. Under those circumstances, burdening the regulator with a requirement to go through the process of commitments in lieu when it has already acted under urgency and has its own regulation in place is not acceptable. This would also leave clubs in an ongoing state of uncertainty, where an existing financial licence condition might be replaced with a different competition organiser requirement. This would be unnecessarily complicated, confusing and burdensome.

18:00

I now turn to the question that Clauses 15 to 17 and 20 to 25 stand part of the Bill. I am aware this stems from a concern of noble Lords that clubs might leave the licensing system en masse, so I will now address this. However, I do not wish to hold up the Committee with detail on the basic workings of the licensing regime, which is unchanged from that which the Opposition introduced in the previous Bill when they were in government. I am happy to provide any of this detail in writing if noble Lords so wish, but in the interests of time I will not go through each of the clauses one by one.

One of the regulator’s main responsibilities will be to operate a licensing system for football clubs, through which the majority of its regulation will be delivered. The legislation is clear: if clubs do not have an operating licence, then they will not be allowed to participate in the specified competitions. If clubs wish to form a breakaway league, similar to the European Super League, or if clubs look to leave the licensing regime and still play in specified competitions, the regulator has the powers to stop this.

When it comes to breakaway leagues, the Bill contains a free-standing duty on regulated clubs that prevents them from playing in competitions that the regulator has prohibited. This prohibition binds not only licensed clubs but also any clubs that have played in a specified competition over the previous 10 years. This means that a club cannot simply forsake its licence to join a prohibited competition. If a club breaches this then a full suite of sanctions is available to the regulator, including where appropriate seeking an injunction from the courts.

The noble Lord is, I believe, raising the possibility of clubs banding together and refusing to participate in the licensing process. When enacted, this Bill will be the law of the land, and that law will require football clubs in scope to hold a licence in order to operate a team in the specified competitions. Again, failure to do so would be met with strong sanctions, including the regulator seeking an injunction from the courts. This would not be in any club’s commercial interest, as they would be unable to play in competitions where they generate their income and revenue.

From our extensive engagement with clubs, we believe the vast majority will welcome regulation and engage constructively with the regulator, not least because already well-run clubs should feel little impact from the regulator’s proportionate regime. However, if some clubs want to play chicken with the regulator and flout laws aimed at safeguarding heritage and sustainability, that would be appalling behaviour to show their fans, the global football community, commercial partners and the wider public. This is a regime with teeth, and that will not be something that will be allowed to happen.

To reassure noble Lords, we do not believe there is a credible risk that clubs will refuse en masse to participate in the regime. Clubs at all levels of the game welcome the regime. I hope that this has provided some clarity regarding this issue and the others raised by noble Lords, and I hope that they not press their amendments.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fruitful and helpful debate on what will be one of the key issues with which we will all have to grapple once the regulator is established. I thank the Minister for engaging with the questions I raised in the spirit of the probing nature of my amendments that began this group.

The answer that the Minister gave was that the agility and speed in the system comes from the ability to seek an injunction in the courts, at least in the first instance, then from the secondary powers and the designation that the Secretary of State allows. That might be more welcome to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of his profession than it might be to football clubs, but it is a helpful clarification, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving it.

This underlines the importance of getting the regulatory regime right and making sure that the regulator does its work in a way that commands the confidence of football clubs, so that they do not seek to get around the law or wish that there were ways for them to do so. With gratitude to the Minister and to the noble Lords for speaking to their amendments in this group, I will not oppose the clause standing part.

Clause 15 agreed.

Clause 16: Application for provisional operating licence

Amendment 125

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

125: Clause 16, page 9, line 35, after “rules” insert “which must be made no later than the period of one month beginning with the day this Act is passed”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Regulator to set out its rules regarding licences no later than one month after passage of the Act.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I shall speak to Amendments 125, 133 and 135. Hopefully, this will be a fairly uncontroversial, simple set of amendments, which try and set out clear expectations on timing.

I am very aware that, while there is uncertainty as to what the discretionary licensing regime may be, that has an unsettling effect on both clubs and potential investors into the sector. We would all agree that this is not something that we want. We want everyone to know what the rules of the game are, so they can either get on with doing whatever they need to do to apply to those licensing conditions and/or, if they are looking to invest in the game, so they can have that degree of certainty as to what the rules of the game are going to be, so as not to have that potential chilling effect on any new investment.

Amendment 125 tries to give the regulator a time limit of one month from the passage of the Act. I am very aware that there is a shadow regulator in place at the moment, so I hope that this is something that the shadow regulator is working on in the meantime. That is why I think that a one-month deadline is quite doable in that sense.

Related to that is Amendment 135, which says that once a club has put a discretionary licence application in, it will receive a reply from the regulator within one month. Again, I am very much assuming that these things are not a binary process. I would expect the club to be in liaison with the regulator as it put this application in and be receiving advice as it did so—so a one-month timeline at the end of that is quite relevant.

It is for us to set some expectations on the regulator in the Bill. In Clause 17(9), the regulator gets to set its own timing for it all, so it is quite appropriate that we are saying that, given the uncertainties placed on clubs, we expect these sorts of reasonable timeframes. Again, I am quite happy that we decide what those appropriate timeframes might be through our discussions on this, and there may be arguments to vary that slightly—but one way or the other, it is quite important that we set out what those timings and expectations should be.

Finally, Amendment 133 tries to give more time for how long provisional licences last. We want to try and avoid a cliff-edge situation whereby clubs are suddenly in the provisional licensing regime and then do not get beyond that. We would all then have a set of circumstances which I do not think any of us have really planned for, in terms of what would happen and whether the club would have to stop taking part in the competition at that point. Amendment 133 tries to give a bit more time around the provisional licence, increasing it from three years to four.

The main reason for these amendments is to make sure that these things are considered and that there is a good debate on what the appropriate timeframes are. It is reasonable that we put down what those timeframes should be, so clubs get as much certainty as possible in this. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to his Amendments 125 and 135. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to him and to the Minister what may be more palatable than what his amendments suggest. Amendment 125 is rightly concerned that the rules for a provisional operating licence should be made speedily. Everybody must know what the rules are. The amendment would require that these rules be made no later than the period of one month beginning with the day that this Act is passed. If the noble Lord is going to bring the amendment back on Report, I respectfully suggest that it would be more acceptable to say within one month from the date when the Act is brought into effect. The noble Lord will know that under Clause 99(1) and (2), Part 3—with which we are concerned—comes into effect not when the Act is passed but at a later date when regulations are made.

In relation to Amendment 135, the noble Lord is rightly concerned that the IFR should make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence speedily. He lays down a period of one month from when the application is made. The amendment would allow for an extension of only two weeks. It is an absolute rule, subject to a two-week extension period. I respectfully suggest that that is far too confined. It is normal in a provision of this sort to allow for the period to be extended if there are exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to envisage cases where, rightly, the IFR cannot take the decision within a period of one month plus two weeks.

For example, the IFR might reasonably take the view that it needs answers from the club to questions of detail, which it puts to the club, and the club may not provide those answers, or be able to provide them, within the period of six weeks for which the noble Lord’s amendment allows. I understand and I share the concerns at the root of Amendment 135, but it really needs to have an exceptional circumstances provision.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, looking at these amendments, I think that a little bit of agreement is breaking out that certainty and getting things done quickly are required in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may have made drafting suggestions on the hoof, and we are lucky to have him to fulfil that function for us, but something that clarifies and addresses the issues raised here would probably be helpful. If there is something that we have all missed and it is hiding somewhere, that is great, but we need those answers.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group, and I certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has suggested in relation to Amendment 125. We are grateful to him. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that we are seeking to make sure that we get the right balance with this group of amendments. We are keen to close the unfortunate gap that the Bill currently poses, which is that, if it passes without amendment, nobody will know what rules the regulator might yet specify or the period in which it might specify them. We need a bit more clarity for those preparing to be regulated and wanting to do so in this way would be useful. With gratitude to the noble Lords who have done the work of the Committee and suggested ways in which to improve on this ahead of Report, I look forward to hearing what the Minister thinks.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Addington and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for what has been a short but constructive debate. If the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, making changes on the hoof, I hope that he will accept that I am not going come up with a response on the hoof, but I will endeavour to look into the points that he raised and will get back to the whole Committee subsequently.

Starting with Amendment 125, I understand the desire for quick implementation, and the desire to make sure that clubs are given clarity on what is required of them as soon as possible. However, we believe that the regulator should not have an arbitrary deadline imposed on it to make rules relating to the application of provisional operating licences. The regulator should be able to conduct an effective consultation with clubs regarding the rules around this clause, and that should not be rushed. The regulator is already encouraged to be expedient, including in its regulatory principles, though I note that in a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, raised some concerns around the definition of “expedient”, which we are still looking into. Beyond this principle of being time-efficient, the regulator should not be subject to arbitrary, tight deadlines that would serve only to limit its operational flexibility.

18:15

On Amendment 133, we feel the current maximum length of three years for a provisional operating licence is the correct one and does not need extending to four. A three-year maximum strikes the correct balance between giving clubs time to raise standards to achieve a full licence, if needed, while not creating inertia within the process. A transition period is important, but so too is creating the right incentives for clubs to comply with the regime. The regulator will, of course, work with all clubs looking to obtain a full operating licence. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that there is already some flexibility. If any club is struggling with the deadline of three years, the regulator already has the power to extend the provisional licence period.

On Amendment 135, the regulator has the necessary flexibility to ensure that all clubs that meet the test for a provisional licence will be granted one. Rather than set an arbitrary and inflexible deadline in primary legislation, we believe the regulator should have the ability to set in rules the period within which it will make the decision. The regulator will have a better understanding of the industry and will be able to determine how much time is required for those applications. It will also be required to consult on those rules so that it can make sure the processes and timelines work for clubs, which is important. Ultimately, that will ensure that the regulator has the flexibility independently to set the timings for the application process, while still ensuring upfront clarity for the industry. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and I will respond to the points raised during this debate.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his helpful suggestions. Having some certainty on the timeframe is quite valuable; the major concern is that while uncertainty is out there, you will get clubs and potential investors holding back on investment. Addressing that is the main intention behind these amendments. I hope that, as we progress further, we can look at some of those helpful suggestions so we can get the balance right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 125 withdrawn.

Amendments 126 to 128 not moved.

Amendment 129

Moved by

[Lord Mann]

129: Clause 16, page 10, line 14, at end insert—
“(e) setting out all financial arrangements with external agents or other intermediaries involved in contacts or recruitment, or both.”

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I again refer noble Lords to my interests in the register relating to this debate. I was in a meeting with the chair of the supervisory board of one of the more successful German football clubs discussing regulation. I asked him if there was one thing that could be done to improve football from regulation inside England what it would be. His advice was that the best thing that could be done—which is not actually available to us in this House as an amendment—would be to tax football agents in the UK through the British tax system.

Why might the head of a major football club—a competitor—wish to see that happen? If that happened—or if anything else threw into question the transparency of football finances, particularly in relation to the acquisition and departure of the key asset players—behaviour would be modified. I recall discussions with people who gave graphic detail of how, in the olden days—but not old enough for me not to have seen it happen—there was the notion of “cash in the boot”. A player would be signed to a team, suddenly and unexpectedly, and would play a few games. In doing so, cash would be handed over. I do not think that; I know that. I will not cite examples even though I could—it would not be fair to do so—but that was not uncommon.

In the modern game—today’s game—the amounts of money are much greater. One has seen situations where football clubs get into financial problems, usually because of relegation from the Premier League, and do not seem to know who owns their assets. There is a myriad of situations. That includes contract details—I can think of some in the recent past, where the fans, sponsors and others were rather bemused to find that certain players were able to go, at no fee, to play for other teams because of a clause in the contract that most people were unaware of.

My Amendments 129 and 248 seek to deal with the specific problem of how agents behave. There are examples I could cite where, pre transfer, players have been sold or bought for significant amounts of money and, literally at the very last moment, they suddenly change agents. I will give a hypothetical example, rather than shine too much specific light. Let us say that a player is sold for many tens of millions, and they have a single agent. The day before their transfer documents are signed, they then change agency. The agent then sues the player for their loss—for the cut that they would have got—even though the agents’ fees are very significantly higher than the worth of the individual agent. Why would anyone choose to do that? If you are a purchasing club and you are competing with others for a prized asset, you might well be prepared to pay more money and whatever requirements there are. But why would a selling club do that? What would the advantage be? The answer is there is zero advantage to a selling club—none—or, potentially, a disadvantage. If there are £15 million or £20 million in agents’ fees, that amount of money might come in to your club. So what is the motivation?

One of the things that has bedevilled football across the world, not just English football, has been people taking a percentage. I have spoken to people who have been offered money to give statistics on 12 and 13 year-olds in their own club—a cash-based suggestion that would accumulate over time, should the player get to a level of being worth lots of money. That is the minutia, but the major cases will involve major financial transactions. Fans are often perplexed by certain purchases and the amounts of money spent on players. They say, “What is going on here? This player does not appear to be worth quite that amount of money, or indeed anything near it. It must be because of bad football decisions”.

I put it to the Committee that perhaps the transactions are determined not always by football decisions but by loans. Most fans can cite times they have been bemused when their club has loaned a player in and paid a very large amount of money to do so, even though no one has ever heard of them before. The player then disappears a year on, and no one ever hears of them again. Why would you pay £1 million or £2 million to loan a player who no one has heard of, who has no track record and who then has no future track record?

The taxman has an interest, which is why, if I were able to do so and it would have been within the rules of this Committee, I would have proposed that taxing agents via the UK tax system would be the best answer. While that does not give public transparency, it seems that it would mediate behaviour. However, these two amendments seek to allow the regulator—not the general public—to be able to see and assess what is being paid and what is in the contracts. That would not be in a public way, but in a private way—and that would modify such behaviour.

If we are interested in competition in the sport, taking out externalities that have nothing to do with the business of the sport is in the interests—including the business interests—of the industry and the sport. Shining a light so that people do not feel it would be appropriate to do their decision-making based on how much they receive as a reward for their wisdom in, say, selling a player would be to the health of the game. Anyone in the Committee who thinks that does not happen, and has not happened, is being extremely naive. Anyone who thinks that this happens only at the lower end—the non-league, with a bit of cash in a back pocket—is also being naive.

Because of the way the football business has worked, there is a lot of money to be made, and people have managed to find ways—legally—of making additional profits for themselves, particularly out of the movement of the key asset players. These two amendments seek to allow at least the regulator to see exactly what is going on. Indeed, this is important in the critical situation where, say, a club does not own the assets that everyone thinks it has, because it has managed to sell them off in advance to some third party and therefore cannot cash in on them. There are examples that I am very familiar with, where clubs have gone insolvent because of that. In some way, this power needs to be in the Bill, unless the Government could be persuaded that HMRC would be a better decision-making body and have all football agents’ transactions in this country taxed through the UK tax system. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I was getting overexcited listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, because we have lives outside this Chamber, and for my sins, I go in the Dog and Duck every now and again, where, somehow, people find out that I am involved with this Bill. My pint goes flat before I have had a chance to drink it, because they ask, “Well, why do you not get this sorted?”

One of the main questions that comes across is: “What are you going to do about the agents?” I did not think that that was really grating with supporters, but it is—from the top right to the bottom. I know because I support Manchester City, which used to be at the top, and I look after, where I can, Stockport County, who are reasonably not near the bottom any more.

Supporters are human beings. They work hard and pay their money to go to watch the football. Nothing grates more than when they find out how much agents get for doing these deals. As has been said, there is confusion about player ownership. Do two or three people own a player? Does a company own a third of that player? If we wish to sell that player, does that mean we need the permission of those other people before we can sell him? Is that value for the club? Those issues need teasing out.

I am attracted to the idea of an agent having to pay UK tax, which would really add some clarity to the Bill. To be honest, supporters do not quite get it. I am not saying that I am above them or anything like that, but they see it as nebulous. They want to know what practical things the regulator can do for them as football supporters. If the Government were fleet of foot, they would put agents’ fees at the front of the Bill and say that any agent of a UK footballer should pay tax in the UK. That would be universally supported by all supporters.

18:30

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that many of us who are concerned about football could talk all night about football agents and the concerns that many people have about them.

I want to talk about another amendment in this group. The Marshalled List says that this grouping is miscellaneous. The combination of topics that we are discussing in this section is rather strange. I want to say a word about Amendment 150 in my name, which concerns the concept and practicality of assets of community value. We would like to make this a condition of the licensing system. It is really important that fans have the reassurance that their ground is not going to be sold underneath them and all the assets of the club traded by someone who does not have the footballing interests of the club at heart. I am always surprised that more clubs’ grounds and assets of this kind are not deemed to be assets of community value. That would be part of the protection of clubs’ heritage but also—perhaps as importantly—significant in protecting clubs from rogue owners.

I have a particular interest in this because of what happened to Bolton Wanderers a few years ago. Thankfully, because of the actions of the fans and the supporters’ trust, the stadium, the pitch, the circulation area, the seats, the stands, the Premier Suite, our car park and the fan zone were protected when the local authority accepted that they should be assets of community value. It meant that those assets were protected. It was particularly important at the time because we had gone through the experience of having an owner whose main concern was not the footballing future of Bolton Wanderers but the assets. A rogue owner of that kind can do immense damage, so this protection is extremely important. I urge that consideration be given to making it a condition of the licensing that football assets are designated as assets of community value.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two groups of amendments within this group. Amendment 167 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor is about the removal of rogue owners. In a sense, this amendment poses the question: what is the point of a regulator that identifies bad practice and rogue owners but does not have clear powers and mechanisms to replace them? Our amendment seeks to incorporate within articles of association provisions that would oblige owners to give up their shares and make sure that those shares were given over to a new beneficial owner, subject, of course, to the usual checks.

Our argument is that the Bill must adequately address enforcement of the fit and proper owner test to enable the regulator to force an owner to sell their shares or force a director to resign from the board. In doing that, the regulator would be able to ensure that clubs have sufficient reserves to meet ongoing operational costs if an owner is disqualified.

At some point, it might be advantageous to consider having a central sinking fund in place to help cover interim costs. In the licence criteria, the regulator might also want to insist that clubs include in their articles of association a mechanism for the resignation of a director in those circumstances. That is important because we do not want situations such as Aston Villa found in 2016. In the mid-1990s Brighton & Hove Albion had owners not only who were deeply unpopular but who were not there because they had the best interests of that club at heart. More accurately, they were asset-strippers who eventually, without providing an alternative, sold the ground to a series of companies that set up a retail park. One of the saddest moments of my life was going to the last game there. We all knew what was going to happen to that site. It was going to end up as a Toys “R” Us. I have nothing against Toys “R” Us, but there were plenty of other sites in Brighton where it could have happily located.

I turn to Amendments 205, 208, 210 and 259, which are about protecting domestic competitions. Currently, the Bill does not require clubs to prioritise domestic over European or worldwide competitions. We feel that clubs should be property consulted before changes are made to competitions. The Bill should ensure that the regulator can designate European or worldwide competitions as restricted and not to be prioritised above domestic competitions. This would prevent clubs establishing a new entity to inherit the existing club’s identity and players—for example, the Man Cities of this world leaving the Premier League and calling themselves City Blues for the purposes of entering a restricted competition.

This is important because the ecosystem of competitions has been under pressure in the last few years. For instance, earlier this year moves were made to prevent replays in FA Cup matches. I think it would be fair to summarise that that was against the will of most clubs and largely for the convenience of the bigger clubs playing in European competitions. There is nothing wrong with them playing in Europe; it is very welcome and important for the success of our Premier League. We want to make sure that this carries on being the case, but the abolition of FA Cup replays went against the vast majority of clubs’ interests and has undermined the beauty of the competition in the sense that, periodically, replays provided much-needed funds for clubs in the lower leagues. It has also restricted the opportunity for lower-league supporters to see the bigger clubs when they enter the competition. It is important that the regulator has an interest in this and that we provide clubs with the certainty and security that they will be consulted about competition changes.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is relevant to Amendment 93 which, your Lordships may recall, requires the new regulator to regulate football agents. My motivation for that amendment was to try to keep transfer fees within football. As I mentioned, it is very important that the grass-roots clubs that develop the players of the future get their fair share.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, setting out all financial arrangements with external agents and other intermediaries involved in contracts, recruitment or both is an interesting one. My only question is: how will this work in practice? How will the regulator deal with highly confidential multi-million-pound transfers? The noble Lord mentions it being private and confidential and therefore not public, but potential leaks could affect these deals. What would the regulator do? How would he operate? How would he stop or block those transfers? The Premier League still has the best players. We still want to attract the best players. It is vital that we get this right to avoid the trap of unintended consequences. It is so important to protect the international reputation of the Premier League.

My amendment was tabled to ensure that no matter where the transfer comes from, that money stays within football. However, we would have to be careful about how that happened in practice.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, regarding Amendments 150, 152 and 164, I will not repeat what has already been said about community assets. I will speak just to my Amendment 248A, which probably counts as a miscellaneous amendment. It is a probing amendment, strong concerns having been raised by the Supporters Trust at Reading. It seeks to insert a new clause, after Clause 51, on ticket pricing, meaning that regulated clubs would have to adhere to the following rules: dynamic pricing strategies being prohibited, concessionary tickets being mandatory and ticket prices for away fans being kept at the level set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. It is a simple amendment, but I suspect that it will not be universally supported.

I understand why clubs want to use dynamic pricing and how it can be used very successfully, but this amendment seeks a more fan-inclusive approach. The Supporters Trust at Reading quoted the Early Day Motion tabled in September 2024, when 19 of the 20 2024-25 Premier League clubs increased their ticket pricing. Abolishing or reducing concessionary tickets would be very bad news for older or younger fans who felt the effects of the cost of living crisis harder than most. Also, Fair Game has said that the constant rise in ticket prices has priced long-standing fans out of the game and that there should be proper consultation with supporters to address their concerns.

I do not seek to open the debate on what a fan is, but this amendment is about giving consideration to how fans can be engaged in discussions about ticket pricing. I am expecting many noble Lords to tell me that this is too interventionist and that it will limit clubs too much, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, going through this long list of amendments, I think that we can all agree that “miscellaneous” is a good description of this group. On what is a competition, I added my name to one of the amendments, but probably should have added my name to the one about heritage. Is it a ground part of the heritage, is it part of the structure, is it what is going on? I should have put my name to this and look forward to the Minister’s reply. If we do not include this, we are missing an important part of why this Bill is justifiable.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the probing amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, although not necessarily the wording of it or the outcome. It is related to something that the noble Baroness and I have worked on for a long time and which is covered in my miscellaneous Amendment 258A. It binds the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and me to the same cause. There is still a major problem of abuse in the ticket market for football, not least for membership cards. Last season alone, in February one club had to cancel more than 30,000 membership cards. They were all in the hands of the touts. This is a massive problem now.

When we started to campaign to sort out the secondary ticket market, it was much smaller. Fifteen years ago there were some 120 professional touts. Now there are subscription groups which get together using bots to get hold of tickets, place those tickets on the secondary market and sell them illegally. Viagogo is, regrettably, used as a speculator—a ticketing lobby. From that, those tickets are sold abroad illegally with, quite often, information hidden behind the icons. This goes against the terms and conditions set by the clubs, which do a huge amount of work across football to make sure, especially at sold-out matches, that tickets do not get into the wrong hands.

18:45

I know that DCMS has said that there should be a consultation exercise on this, which is separate from the work that we are doing on this Bill. It said that it would be in the autumn. We are very nearly at Christmas. I hope that the Minister can confirm that in the next few days the consultation exercise which was promised by this Government will be launched. I praise this Government for taking this forward and for stating in their manifesto that action would be taken on this. I hope that it will not be slipped many years into the future because, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act it is illegal for any unauthorised platform to sell tickets for a football game. That worked very well for the London 2012 Olympic Games. I declare my interests there as in the register. It worked very well for football over the early years, but this has become an endemic problem in football, which needs to be tackled.

That is why this is a probing amendment. I do not expect it to be carried by the Committee, or the Government at a later stage. It is there because this is critical. We need stronger laws to cover ticket touting and that is what this is. It is ticket touting on the black market using modern technology to gain advantage simply for the touts and the platforms. Nobody else benefits. Among the smaller clubs, they get a big pay day, but it is not them which benefit, and it should be.

I have also tabled the completely different Amendment 129A, requesting that the much-debated question of what “significant influence” means be clarified. I will not rehearse that as we have rehearsed it at length in Committee and no doubt will return to it on Report. My amendment requests that the Secretary of State, in paragraph 15(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 1, should consult on what “significant influence” means. We discussed it in the context of the self-evidently clear example of the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia chairing the PIF, appointing the members of the PIF and the PIF owning a majority interest in Newcastle, but there are now many multi-ownership clubs. There is gossip in the market about the Qataris taking a greater interest in potentially acquiring a Premier League club. Tottenham Hotspur is quite high on the agenda, I am told, in which case it becomes another important issue: who in Qatar would be subject to the “significant influence” test?

We need to understand, before we finish work on the Bill, what “significant influence” means. The purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Government to require the Secretary of State to consult on that, so that there is clarification for all involved in football as to what that means, and then, inevitably, what the consequences are in terms of ownership of some of our leading clubs. That applies also to the highly complex area, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that we will be returning to at a later stage—we probably will—of multi-club ownership. Where multi-club ownership exists, how will the regulator approach it from a financial point of view, given that the Bill as it stands states that the focus should be on the ownership of the English club, where, in many cases, there are foreign ownerships associated with that club and with the overall owner of that multi-club ownership?

My final point, on Amendment 242A, is, again, a separate point, on the duty to notify of changes in circumstances relevant to the IFR’s functions. This is important. The notification in Clause 51, which is the subject of my Amendment 242A, appears likely to place a cost and complexity on clubs disproportionate to any chance of it being relevant to the exercise of the regulator’s functions.

The alternative drafting I have proposed is more workable. I hope it gets the agreement of my noble friend, who has spoken very eloquently on the importance of trying to simplify this and make it absolutely clear, so that there is no uncertainty or complexity and no additional cost is required, where clear drafting can help clubs meet the requirements of the regulator. I hope that the alternative drafting that I have put forward in Amendment 242A to Clause 50 is more workable for clubs and the regulator. Linking the notification of the regulator’s objectives as the sole factor—it is the regulator’s objectives that should be considered, rather than all the regulator’s functions—would clarify the situation and meet the spirit of what I believe is in the legislation. I hope this will meet with the Minister’s agreement.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

In speaking to my Amendment 332, I will follow the words of some other noble Lords and say that I find it quite confusing that we have so many disparate amendments grouped together.

My Amendment 332 would stop the Secretary of State being able to define a season. I hope that someone—maybe the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—will tell me that I have read this wrong somehow, or that it is not the intention at all, but I think we would all agree that, when it comes to regulatory or government overreach, trying to define a season and when it should start and end is not the role of government or a regulator. I hope that this is quite an easy one to clear up, because I would be very surprised if that is the intention behind it. The relevant Clause 92(3)(a) says that:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change … the definition of ‘football season’”.


It would be very welcome if that could be clarified; otherwise, I suggest that we might want to delete it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment very briefly on the subject of football agents, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I declare an interest: my son Joel Pannick is a football agent—I am very proud of my son—who works at Base. My perspective of football agents is that there are still abuses; they need to be regulated and they are regulated. The era of unregulated bungs no longer exists to the extent so vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

Let me say why I want, in the interests of balance, to inform this Committee of what the position is. Football agents are now licensed and they have to pass a demanding examination. They are regulated by FIFA and the FA. I should mention that the scope of the regulations was the subject of legal challenges in the last year, and those legal challenges partially were successful. It is the case that HMRC adopts a far more vigorous approach to this topic than it used to, and rightly so; it keeps a close eye on payments and receipts. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right that there are many agents who are not subject to HMRC because they are based abroad, but those based in this country certainly pay tax, and in many cases a great deal of tax. I thought I would just mention those factors in the interests of balance.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, I always balk when I see a group described as miscellaneous, or even worse in this case, “misc”. On the failure to give new names to the groups that have been degrouped, it is always helpful to have a go at giving us a theme. But I am grateful to the noble Lords who have covered a wide range of very important issues in this group.

I wanted to say a few words about my noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 332, to which I have added my name. A number of noble Lords raised in previous debates the concerning example of the delegated power for the Secretary of State to decide what and when a season is. I am glad we have had opportunity to discuss that on its own. This delegated power seems to be egregious. I am not quite clear why the Secretary of State should have a say on what constitutes a football season. I am not even sure why this delegated power is necessary—apart from granting the Secretary of State more powers over the game, there does not seem to be any particular advantage to her in granting herself this rather curious power. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I wonder whether UEFA has a view on this measure. Would it not regard the Secretary of State being able to intervene in the definition of a season as political interference? If the Government have had discussions with UEFA on this point, I would be grateful to know.

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Mann, actually got round to speaking to his Amendment 153 in this group, which relates to modern slavery—such are the pitfalls of a miscellany—but I wanted to highlight that one and congratulate him on bringing it forward. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that everyone has a duty to prevent this abhorrent crime. I was very proud to work at the Home Office when my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead brought through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has made large headway into cracking down on this abhorrent behaviour. Since then, both the Premier League and the English Football League have released an annual anti-slavery and human trafficking statement, as have all the participating clubs. As the Minister knows, I am wary of increasing the scope of the regulator, but I would be interested in hearing how she thinks this new regulatory regime will operate within the law that we already have to tackle modern slavery and what she thinks of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments on football agents. Whether they are more or less popular than lawyers, I will leave to others to decide—and indeed whether the existing regulation that is brought about by UEFA and others he mentions is, in this case, sufficient and not a requirement for further regulation, as we see in some of the other behaviours in football. I leave all these, and the miscellaneous other issues that noble Lords have raised, to the Minister to respond to.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords across the Committee for the thorough debate on this group. If the group is called misc or miscellaneous, that does not diminish the significance of the concerns raised.

I will take each amendment in turn. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Mann for his Amendment 129. While it is right that the regulator should have all relevant details of the club’s finances when assessing it for an operating licence, we do not believe this detail is required to be provided in the Bill. The personnel statement should detail any key individuals working specifically at the club in question and should not include external individuals. However, any relevant financial arrangements can be included within the strategic business plan, or the financial plan, if the regulator deems this necessary.

My noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Evans of Rainow, raised concerns about agents and their fees. A different perspective—it is always helpful to get a rounded perspective—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In response to the broader point regarding agents, as was noted, FIFA has recognised the need for the better international regulation of agents and has proposed reforms. FIFA’s member associations, such as the FA, will retain the ability to introduce stricter requirements on agents than those stipulated in FIFA’s regulations. The DCMS will work closely with the FA to ensure that any national regulations for agents are fit for purpose. The Government are working with the FA and FIFA to track the implementation of these regulatory reforms, which are due to begin next year.

Amendments 150 and 164, in the names of my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton respectively, concern assets of community value. Home grounds are often the most important assets that a club owns. That is why the Bill has prioritised key protections to prevent them being sold, used as collateral or relocated without the necessary considerations. “Asset of community value” status is another mechanism that a number of clubs and supporters’ groups have obtained for their home grounds.

19:00

We expect that the regulator would welcome any club that wishes to gain asset of community value status as another way to protect its home ground. However, we are confident that the legislation will provide the necessary protections to assuage fan concerns and keep these important assets protected, irrespective of their asset of community value status. Additionally, although assets of community value have proven beneficial for many clubs where there are no other protections, they can often involve a lengthy process with the relevant authority or making structural changes to the constitutional documents of the club.

Amendments 152 and 167 were also tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton. It is vital that the regulator has the necessary protections and enforcement mechanisms in place for its regime, so that clubs and their fans are protected from those owners who would seek to do them harm. We understand why this mechanism has been suggested to give further protection from unsuitable owners. However, I reassure my noble friends that the Bill already suitably achieves this and offers the safety that fans and others will be seeking if an owner is found unsuitable. Indeed, the regulator already has the power to require a club to make constitutional changes if the regulator considers that that is an appropriate way to secure an unsuitable owner’s removal, and it has the power to enforce against any non-compliance.

Turning to Amendment 153, I thank my noble friend Lord Mann for his amendment, which allows me to clarify the position. Modern slavery is an important issue, which I know he and all noble Lords care deeply about, as evidenced by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, raising this in his speech. However, we do not feel it is appropriate to add reporting requirements relating to modern slavery as a mandatory condition on all clubs under this Bill. The requirements for which organisations should publish an annual statement on modern slavery are set out in existing guidance and legislation. The extent of these reporting parameters is dictated in rules laid out by the Secretary of State and the Home Office, which we do not feel we should cut across here. As there is existing legislation on modern slavery, and given the Bill is tightly scoped around sustainability, the Bill should not make a separate provision for it.

Moving to those amendments relating to the concept of restricted competition, in the name of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, I recognise the intent behind these amendments, which is to prevent clubs from prioritising certain competitions over others. However, it is the Government’s belief that this is an issue beyond the scope of this Bill and the regulator. It is right that the regulator has the power to prohibit competitions that fundamentally risk undermining the sustainability of English football. However, we do not think it is right to dictate how clubs participate in competitions that are not prohibited. For example, we would be asking it to judge and prove whether a club’s team selection for a Champions League game relative to an FA Cup game constituted prioritisation. These are sporting matters that any financial regulator should not interfere in.

Moving on to Amendment 242 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the Bill requires clubs to consult their fans on any proposed relocation of their home ground. This guarantees that fans can have their views heard prior to the regulator making a decision. The regulator is also required to determine the impact of a relocation on club heritage. In the majority of cases, we would expect that the regulator would consider the views of fans of the club as the main stakeholders when it comes to club heritage. The amendment also references the duty on clubs to not change the crest, home shirt colours or name without approval. As the Bill stands, for the crest and home shirt colours, it is required that the majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales must support any change. Although the Government understand that the intention of this amendment is to further entrench these duties, this legislation has been designed so that these duties apply across the clubs and can be strongly enforced by the regulator if necessary. Amending articles of association can be resource intensive and requires shareholder agreement. Therefore, the Government do not see this as a necessary step to require all clubs to take.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may ask the Minister to give way very briefly, I raised the issue of the abolition of FA Cup replays in the context of consultation. Had that been in the future, would there have been an obligation on the FA to consult which the regulator could have enforced? The shape of that competition is very germane and important to football fans across England and Wales, and it seems to me that it is a significant issue that ought at least to be part of the regulator’s consideration.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an interesting point. The issue of the FA Cup replays would rightly be outside the scope of this regulator. The sporting calendar and the rules of specific competitions are matters for the football authorities to manage in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders. I am not sure whether that reassures my noble friend, but we can maybe have a longer discussion about it at another point.

On Amendment 242A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—apologies if I am going over paragraphs that I have already covered—the intention behind this amendment is to make sure that clubs are not overburdened with requirements to notify the regulator of every event that ever happens. We do not want this either, nor is it in the regulator’s interest to receive a flood of unnecessary information. As the clause sets out, the notification requirement relates to material changes in circumstances. It will be up to the regulator to set out what it considers to be material in guidance, which we expect it will produce on this. The regulator will already have burdens in mind when setting its guidance and enforcing this duty on clubs, given public law principles and its regulatory principles. We want the regulator to receive the information and updates it needs to regulate effectively. By raising the bar for when clubs are required to notify the regulator of changes, the proposed amendment risks doing just that.

Amendment 248, from my noble friend Lord Mann, would introduce a new requirement for regulated clubs to register with the regulator all player contracts, transfer fees and other fees annually for the previous 12 months. I reassure my noble friend that, where this information is relevant for the regulator to understand a club’s finances, it can already obtain it. All clubs will be required to submit financial plans which detail, among other things, their revenues and expenses. These plans should capture details about player contracts and transactions where this information is relevant to the regulator understanding a club’s finances. Furthermore, the regulator has extensive information-gathering powers. Should it need greater oversight of the detail set out in this amendment, the regulator can already request this information, and it would not have to wait 12 months to get it. Therefore, I am confident that the Bill already delivers the intent of the amendment.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for Amendments 248A and 258A respectively, which focus on ticket prices. I understand that the noble Baroness intends to address the recent rise in clubs removing concession pricing on tickets and other such changes that have left some fans priced out of match attendance, and she highlighted concerns raised by fans from Reading. Fans are justifiably concerned, and I am exceptionally sympathetic to that. I am equally grateful for the attention by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to ticketing and the issue of resale. These are huge issues that matter to fans, which is exactly why the Government have made it explicit that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. This also includes engagement on other operational issues, which is intended to capture many of the issues the noble Lord has made in his amendment. It is also important to note that any unauthorised resale of tickets for designated football matches is already addressed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Many clubs take this exceptionally seriously and work with police and relevant authorities on it. However, the regulator should not be seen as a vehicle to fix all of football’s woes, especially those that are well within the gifts of clubs, leagues and the FA to address. On the noble Baroness’s amendment in particular, it would also not be appropriate for the Government to dictate prices or concession categories, and there is limited precedent for such an interventionist approach on commercial decisions.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Before the Minister leaves that amendment, could she very kindly advise the Committee whether the Government intend to meet their expected deadline of a consultation exercise on the abuse of the secondary ticketing market by the end of this year?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

If I may, I will clarify that in writing after this session to ensure I give the right response. I am not trying to avoid it; I will ensure I give the Committee a response.

Amendment 332 is from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, also spoke to it. I appreciate that noble Lords may not welcome the use of delegated powers to amend the definition of “football season” in the Bill. However, to future-proof the Bill against any changes to the footballing calendar, we feel that the Secretary of State needs this power.

It is unlikely, but possible, that a specified competition might be organised in a unique way in the future, for which the current definition may not be suitable. For example, I am sure that noble Lords remember the impact of the 2022 World Cup on the domestic calendar. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that similar changes may occur in the future that impact the efficacy of this definition.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am now trying to be helpful, especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who will be able to opine on this suggestion. The reason why the Secretary of State has this power, as set out on page 46 of the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is that a specific competition may be played over two calendar years. That is the current definition. If it were not to be played over two calendar years, we would not be able to proceed with the definition of “football season” set out in the Bill.

We have been looking for simplicity here. Instead of Clause 92(1) defining a “football season” as

“beginning with the day in a particular year on which the first match of any specified competition is played, and … ending with the day in the following year on which the final match of any specified competition is played”,

a simpler way would simply be to delete “in a particular year” and “in the following year”. Then we would all understand that we begin on the day on which the first match is played and end on the day on which the final match is played. We thus would not need secondary legislation through a draft affirmative resolution for the Secretary of State to come back to both Houses of Parliament, as this simple amendment could clarify it all and remove the Secretary of State from this onerous task.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure that the Secretary of State would find it onerous, because it is not intended to be used very often. However, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and I appreciate that he made it in the spirit of being helpful.

This is not a power for the Secretary of State to dictate to the industry what a season is; it is the opposite. The power as currently defined in the Bill will ensure that the definition can flex to changes in the industry. It will also be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so I hope noble Lords will rest assured that the House will be able to scrutinise any changes. I am happy to continue to discuss that further with noble Lords after Committee.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think it would be helpful if the Minister took this away, discussed it and maybe checked whether a solution like the helpful one my noble friend Lord Moynihan suggested might be possible. That would remove one of the delegated powers that the Delegated Powers Committee has raised concerns about.

I was struck by the answer the Minister gave to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, reassuring him about various matters of gameplay that are not within the scope of this regulator. The timing of the season seems to sit closer to things that she reassured him are not the job of the new independent football regulator to look at than to delegated powers for the Secretary of State. I hope she will take this away and continue discussions ahead of Report, because that feels like a very straightforward and sensible suggestion.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I was getting to the point where I was offering to take it away, so I think we are in violent danger of agreeing. On the question of the House being able to scrutinise any changes, I think we will return to this issue later, before Report.

Amendment 259 is from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. I understand that concerns have been raised about the ways in which rules are made in the industry today, including in recent legal cases. However, the Government’s view is that the amendment as drafted is not appropriate. The scenarios listed in Clause 55(6) could well be time sensitive and urgent. They may require immediate action from both competition organisers and the regulator. It would not be right to burden the competition organiser with a requirement to consult every member club for the purpose of informing the regulator of changes to the regime on an issue that may not affect them all. We would, of course, expect competition organisers to be carrying out appropriate consultation on their own rules. However, we are wary of the regulator mandating and prescribing how the leagues develop their rules.

I will finish on the two government amendments, Amendments 320 and 330. They both correct erroneous cross-references and make no change to the content of the Bill.

For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

19:15

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very reassured by the Minister’s clear words about the powers of and information from agents. Despite the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we may be on the same side here, because I am in defence of British agents. With the complexities of football, there is nothing to stop anybody getting a legal cut from a transfer fee. The more transparency that is thrown on that, the more money is kept in the game.

The irony is that probably the main source of my information is agents. A second source is players and a third is owners and investors. The power of the agencies is often greater than that of the clubs themselves. That is the direction of travel. Therefore, it will be beholden on the regulator to ensure that at least there is maximum transparency. If a club wishes to give £1 million to another club in, say, Sicily for a player no one has ever heard of and who has played for two or three minutes, that is obviously a good business decision. The more out in the open that is, the healthier future the game has.

After that genuinely helpful reassurance from the Minister on my amendments, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment 129.

Amendment 129 withdrawn.

Amendments 129A to 131 not moved.

Clause 16 agreed.

Clause 17: Grant of provisional operating licence

Amendments 132 and 133 not moved.

Amendment 134

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

134: Clause 17, page 11, line 10, leave out “14 days” and insert “one month”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope this will be a nice, quick and simple group ahead of dinner break business. Clause 17 refers to awarding or refusing a provisional licence. I think we all agree that, if a provisional licence were not agreed, it would have serious consequences for a club, which would not be able to carry on playing or start a season, for example. That would have serious consequences on the fans, as well. All this amendment seeks is to give clubs sufficient time to respond. Generally, in serious situations, 14 days is not enough time to respond fully, so the suggestion is to give clubs a month in these circumstances. I beg to move.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments. Apart from Amendment 148, which I will turn to shortly, they all seek to extend to a month the minimum period for clubs, individuals and competition organisers to make representations to the regulator on a number of issues—far longer than the 14 days that the Bill sets out.

The 14 days set out in the Bill for representations is the minimum to ensure that the individual concerned has a fair amount of time to prepare and present any representations to the regulator, though it is not an absolute. The regulator may choose to specify a longer period if it thinks it is appropriate. However, the 14-day minimum also means the regulator can respond quickly to urgent issues without an extended delay if necessary. We do not think it is appropriate to introduce unnecessary delays into the regulator’s regime that would slow down decision-making and leave clubs in an extended period of uncertainty. A 14-day period for representations is not uncommon among other regulators such as the FCA and CMA.

Turning to Amendment 148 specifically, I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is to ensure that, if the regulator is looking to revoke a club’s provisional licence, the club will have an opportunity to make representations. I reassure the noble Lord that this is already captured by Clause 18(4), which says that, if the regulator considers that a club has not met the full licence test, it needs to give the club notice. This must include

“inviting the club to make representations about the proposed action”,

be that to extend the provisional licence period or to revoke the provisional licence. To be clear, the regulator would look to revoke a provisional licence only if the club had persistently and without excuse failed to take reasonable steps to meet the requirements for a full licence. This is a high bar. Therefore, the club will have had sufficient opportunities to take remedial action even before the opportunity to make representations under Clause 18(4). The club will also be able to appeal a decision to revoke a provisional licence if it believes the regulator has acted unfairly. This is yet another way in which the regulator can be held to account and decisions can be scrutinised.

I will close with the question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. I understand that the rationale of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in tabling the clause stand part notice is the same as that which we already discussed in relation to the earlier group on licensing. I am happy to provide further detail on Clause 18 in writing if the noble Lord wishes it, but, as I set out earlier, we do not believe there is a credible risk that clubs will refuse en masse to participate in the regime. Clubs at all levels of the game have welcomed this regime.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. The main thing is not only having a sensible conversation but making sure that the regulator is aware that, where there are circumstances in which more than 14 days are required, it demonstrates that flexibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 134 withdrawn.

Amendment 135 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Clause 18: Grant of full operating licence

Amendment 136 not moved.

Clause 18 agreed.

Schedule 4: Threshold requirements

Amendment 137

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

137: Schedule 4, page 96, line 13, at end insert “, and
(d) the home ground threshold requirement (see paragraph 6).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it a threshold requirement (which a club must comply with to obtain a full licence) to meet certain requirements (as inserted by amendment 147) relating to the club’s home ground.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I can deal with this group of amendments fairly quickly. It is again a disparate group, but the main theme is fan consultation and the requirements on a club. The amendments seek to alter the fan engagement threshold requirement by requiring a club to have structures and processes for effective engagement with their fans.

It is vital that there are proper requirements to ensure that a club applying for a licence, for instance, has a suitable home ground for a minimum period of 20 years. This would help prevent owners using much-adored home grounds as bargaining chips and collateral to strengthen their financial muscle against the wishes of fans. The clauses that we seek to insert would incentivise clubs to protect their home grounds as part of their heritage and their history.

Amendment 142 concerns ticket prices. This is important because we are in a situation where clubs pretty much have a free hand in raising ticket prices. Let us take the recent example of Manchester United, which has, in effect, doubled the price of some tickets and removed discretionary or reduced ticket prices for younger supporters—my noble friend Lord Shamash could say more about that than me. The amendment would insert ticketing prices as a relevant matter for consideration in the process of regulation.

That is the spirit and intent of the amendments. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that fans will be properly engaged in clubs’ consideration of these issues, that there will be proper processes and ways of ensuring that their voices are heard and that issues such as ticket pricing in particular, and playing in prohibited competitions and so on, will be something the IFR can look at, comment on and, in some situations, determine.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in response to these important amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions for consulting fans. We should pay tribute to noble Lords who have long championed the role of supporters in football, particularly those who have been involved in supporter trusts and similar bodies for many years. Their passion and their advocacy are no doubt one of the reasons that fan voices are becoming even more central to the governance of our national game.

I support the intent behind these amendments. Fans are the lifeblood of football. They invest not just their money and time but their hearts and identities into their clubs. Ensuring that their voices are properly heard, and heard with respect, is not just a moral imperative but essential for the long-term sustainability and integrity of football. The Premier League clubs recognise this too. In recent years, they have made significant progress in embedding fan engagement into their governance structures. Through its fan engagement standard—the first of any league to introduce such a standard—clubs are held to account for how they involve their supporters in decisions that matter to them. Fan advisory boards are now mandatory at every Premier League club and provide supporters with direct access to senior executives, enabling meaningful input on issues such as ticketing, matchday operations, club identity and community programmes. These initiatives represent a significant cultural shift. They create a platform for genuine dialogue between clubs and their supporters, ensuring that fans’ perspectives are considered at the highest levels of decision-making.

While I support the principles underpinning many of these amendments, I also feel it is important to raise a note of caution. Specifically, I want to raise the risks of the IFR being overly prescriptive when it comes to fan engagement and consultation. Clubs are not one-size-fits-all entities; each has its own unique character, fanbase and operating environment. For example, the dynamics of a global club with millions of international fans will differ significantly from those of smaller community clubs, many of whose supporters live within a few miles of the ground. Let us take, for instance, the idea proposed in some amendments that clubs must prove that a majority of their fans support certain decisions. While the intent is admirable and builds on the FA’s and many clubs’ approach to heritage assets already, we must acknowledge the practical difficulties of legally mandating such approaches.

How does a club definitively determine what constitutes a majority? Should a global fanbase have the same weight as local season ticket holders? What happens when opinions are divided? Would the IFR reverse a decision if, down the track, it was found that the wrong methodology had been used? These are complex questions without any easy answers. We should be careful not to create a compliance culture that detracts from the spirit of good engagement. It is really good to make this aspirational on both sides. For fan engagement to work well, the club has to feel confident, be open and get out of its comfort zone; the fans must enter into the debate in a constructive and open-minded spirit too. The difficulty will come if the IFR is drawn into micromanaging fan consultation and adjudicating on individual decisions, therefore inadvertently feeding an adversarial approach between fans, groups and clubs.

Now that might sometimes be appropriate, but I strongly believe the IFR will often be best to focus on ensuring that principles are upheld, leaving the specifics to clubs and their supporters. I also want to make the point that many of these new structures and processes for engaging fans, such as the fan engagement standard and fan advisory boards, are still new; they need time to bed in.

There are some brilliant examples of good practice already; for example, clubs bringing fan advisory board members into their clubs and having them spend time with football, commercial and operational teams so that they can understand the realities of life inside the club. But it is too early to say what the best approaches or designs of these processes will be. We should encourage more thoughtful approaches that allow these structures to mature and evolve, with periodic reviews to assess their effectiveness. A rush to codify overly detailed requirements risks stifling this organic progress and creating unintended consequences.

19:30

Fan consultation is a deeply valued and cherished part of football’s governance. The relationship between clubs and their supporters is unique, and we must do everything possible to strengthen it, but, at the same time, we would be wise to tread carefully. Prescriptive requirements, however well-intentioned, may not always reflect the diversity of clubs and their fan bases, nor the complexities or fiercely prized nature of their relationships.

I commend noble Lords for these amendments, many of which are thoughtful and helpful, and I hope that the Government will continue to engage constructively on these issues. As we move towards Report stage, we need to ensure that fan engagement is embedded in a way that respects the individuality of clubs while upholding the principles of transparency, respect and accountability. I look forward to discussions on how we can ensure that the amendments in this group can achieve their intended goals.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a very happy Manchester United fan. The last few minutes of yesterday’s game were bliss; they reminded us of what happened in 1999 when we won the treble.

I rise to talk again in relation to supporters’ trusts. I have been pressing this; I pressed it in debate the last week and, indeed, at Second Reading. The supporters’ trusts should be there on the face of the Bill. As I mentioned last week, there are 149 supporters’ trusts in the pyramid. Nearly all of them are recognised by the FCA and they operate under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act.

I ask my noble friend the Minister: why reinvent the wheel? We have a structure that works; it works very well indeed. I would ask that my amendment, “including supporters’ trusts”, be accepted. We understand—we are not trying to be prescriptive—that there will be other fan groups and people who might like to become involved in communicating with the club, but, having supporters’ trusts that exist throughout the UK, it would be a very sensible and easy move to make. I hope this amendment will be accepted.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, there is nothing wrong with supporters’ trusts, but working-class fans have other models as well, historically and currently; that voice also needs to be heard. Supporters’ trusts are one model and should be empowered, but they are only one model for football.

I have eight amendments here more or less doing the same thing. There is an issue here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, alluded to and spoke to, with the fan advisory boards. There is a fundamental choice here, and I would advise the Government to be careful with the politics of this. Some clubs are choosing the fans to go on their fan advisory board; it is not the fans choosing the representation but the clubs. That is one model, but it is many miles away from the Crouch review. It is the total opposite of what fans would hope to see. The fans in this country have not gone for the German model and demanded comparative boards, 50% et cetera, supervisory boards, and that kind of power in relation to the clubs.

I have helped to establish a range of Jewish supporters’ groups. These are Jewish supporters who want no more than to be meeting up with other Jewish supporters of their club—full stop. But they do hope as well to be able to give the occasional bit of advice, sometimes very productively and positively, to their club—if the club does not refuse, as one has, to recognise a large group of Jewish supporters who simply want to be themselves—and, if there are any issues, they want to be listened to. It might be about the provision of kosher food, or ticketing policy, or that there are a lot of fixtures on a Friday night and people are finding it difficult to be religiously observant and still be able to go. It might be to do with giving advice on issues relating to racism within the stadium. On issues like these, this is a group that should be listened to; it is not a group that should have the power to tell a club what to do.

But the idea that fan advisory boards should be chosen by the club is anathema to fans. Fans are perfectly capable of choosing their own representatives. Let us think about what will happen if this Bill goes forward and the regulator has powers, but clubs can still say to fans, “No, we will choose who the fan voices will be. We will pick persons 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. They will be there under our criteria. You, the fans, will have no say”. What will happen is that conflict will emerge, and the Government will not come out of the conflict well. The perception will be that the Government had the chance to ensure this.

Let us think about a supporters’ trust, made up of people giving of their free time to organise. As a member, you elect whoever to be your representatives, and they are then your representative; it is not the club coming in and saying, “No, we will pick Lord Shamash because we love Lord Shamash. If he is elected, that is all well and good because he represents what we would like to see in Manchester United”. That would be an invidious position for anyone to be in. I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that the fan voice on those big issues—moving the ground, changing the colour, changing the name—will actually be a fan voice. If it is not, then government and Parliament will become unpopular at some stage.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I want to respond very briefly to Amendment 224 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He made a wonderful peroration, but I am not sure it bore much relation to the amendment that he has laid down. Of course, none of us wants clubs to hand-pick fans who will be nodding dogs— ersatz fans who will go along with the corporate line of the football club. We do not want that.

I am not sure if this is a probing amendment for Ministers to consider before we get to Report, but it is a lock. It locks in and fetters the discretion of football clubs to make decisions that might be existential for the future of that club; in other words, diversifying activities, and not just in terms of the freehold. Clause 46 specifically mentions—

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If it was proposed that Peterborough was to be moved to King’s Lynn, or to Norwich, should not the Peterborough fans have the right of veto on moving their club out of their town?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Perish the thought. There are many Peterborough fans who do not live in the city of Peterborough but in the Fens; they may not be too displeased at going to King’s Lynn—not that I am in any sense proposing that. He alludes to the Posh. The Posh have been able to develop a number of commercial activities over the last few years. Darragh MacAnthony, the owner, started out in 2007 as a very rich man. Now he is just a rich man, because of his love for Peterborough United.

The point is that that club has been able to stay afloat financially because the board of the club, backed—disproportionately I would say—by the fan base, has supported the diversity of activities. The noble Lord’s amendment and Clause 46 as written would lock out the possibility of many clubs and boards making decisions to protect their long-term financial sustainability.

I respectfully say to the noble Lord, for whom, as he knows, I have huge respect—particularly for the great work he has done on kicking out anti-Semitism in football—that that is a different issue from regulated fans and setting up fan organisations. This amendment would be quite prescriptive for clubs, and it would not be in their long-term interests, particularly those teetering on the edge of financial instability and unsustainability. For that reason, I hope the Minister will consider these issues when she responds to the noble Lord’s amendment and others.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138A on what consultation means. The wording—

“leave out ‘consults’ and insert ‘meets regularly with’”—

is taken from the Explanatory Notes. On page 44, paragraph 271, under the heading “fan consultation”, they say the following:

“This mandatory licence condition … requires clubs to regularly meet with a group which the IFR considers representative of the club’s fans, which could be a group elected by the club’s fans”.


Throughout these debates, many noble Lords have quoted the Fair Game document, which refers to fan engagement as a communication process, and to a range of formal and informal face-to-face processes being part of that. That is what I am trying to get across here. It is important that clubs meet regularly with the fans and do not just consult. To consult could mean anything. It is not exclusive—of course, it could take various forms—but they must meet regularly. I hope that ultimately, the Government will accept that. It remains to be seen, but I will return to this issue on Report because it is very important.

I will comment on some other issues that noble Lords have raised, particularly my noble friend Lord Mann, who I usually agree with. I did not really take to his dismissive comment in response to my noble friend Lord Shamash. My noble friend Lord Mann said that it is all very well having supporters’ trusts, but you need organisations with working-class members. I do not know much about the Manchester United Supporters Trust, but I am sure it has working-class members.

I am a member of two trusts and have been for some 20 years. One is in Scotland—my old club, Dundee United; I pay £15 per year for that. I am also a member of the AFC Wimbledon trust, called the Dons Trust. I pay the princely sum of £10 per year for that. For that reason, I think there are more than a few working-class fans. I think that my noble friend Lord Mann was suggesting that supporters’ trusts price some fans out. I do not know if that is the case, but I would not have thought so. By definition, you would think that would be rather pointless.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My noble friend has misinterpreted my comments. Supporters’ trusts—I have been heavily involved in one as well—have all sorts of members, but there are other kinds of organisations that have never had the objective that supporters’ trusts have. That is the point: there are different types of organisations. Some purely want to go and watch football and not take on the more significant interests and structures that supporters’ trusts have.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, and I fully accept that point; I have misinterpreted what he said. He seemed to be suggesting that trusts were different from other supporters’ groups. There are a wide range of groups and that is exactly the way it should be.

I am afraid I cannot go along with my noble friend’s Amendments 139 and 140. I am not opposed to them per se, but he seems to be distinguishing between fans and elected representatives of club supporters’ groups. Surely, these are the same people: you cannot be an elected representative of a supporters’ group if you are not a fan.

19:45

I have bored noble Lords in the past by emphasising that we need to somehow pin down what a fan is. I return to the point that a season ticket holder is the best description of a fan—if it is a group where you know exactly who is involved. You have to know who people are before you can consult them. We have talked about my noble friend Lord Shamash’s international Manchester United fans, many of whom are involved with the club in different ways. It is important that we have a definition, and we will have to come back to that.

A couple of other issues have been raised. My noble friend Lord Bassam mentioned a proposal by a club to play home matches at a ground other than its home ground. That is essential. This is what is in the minds of some—Premier League clubs, I imagine—who want to play competitive matches in other countries. It may not be above the surface at the moment, but it has been raised before and it will come back again.

I have another point to make in relation to these amendments. My noble friend Lady Wheeler, on the Front Bench, is looking anxiously at me; I am sorry, but these are important points and I am not just speaking just for the sake of speaking. My noble friend Lord Mann’s Amendment 162, which would leave out sub-paragraph (2), is about clubs choosing who the fans are. It is essential that that is ruled out; otherwise, clubs could choose patsies—people who will not meaningfully criticise them or meaningfully convey the views of the club to the fans and vice versa.

For that reason, I very much support my noble friend Lord Mann’s Amendment 161, just as I support the amendment of my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor.

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

Addington.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

It is nice to have a little fan club.

My amendment may be making the ultimate pedant’s point, but the Bill says that a relevant thing that cannot be interfered with is the name of a team operated by a club. My amendment refers to the name of the club itself. Is my point covered by this? I do not know. If it is, tell me where and I will be terribly happy.

The main point is that we will be still talking about who a fan is this time next year unless the Government make a decision and come up with something solid. It affects how the regulator operates and who they exclude. The Government may well have to decide who they are going to offend, but please let us do it, because otherwise fan involvement will mean nothing.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I would like to make a short point, but it is an important one that has barely got a mention. Football clubs have a very strong interest in consulting their fans. The fans are their customers. The truth is that, if you look across the gamut of clubs all the way down the pyramid, the composition of those fan bases will be very different. Broadly speaking, the higher up the pyramid you go, the more dispersed the fan base will be. Famously, almost none of Manchester United’s fans actually live in Manchester.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

Do you think I should get up and answer that?

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I am sorry that we did not have a proper exchange, because I was looking forward to that.

The reality is that the revenue that local community clubs get is predominantly gate money—match day revenue. As you go up the pyramid, a greater proportion comes from commercial sponsorship and merchandise; and then, when you get to the Premier League, pretty much half or more is broadcasting revenue.

I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Brady for this. More than half of the Premier League’s revenue from broadcasting is international—that took me by surprise. The next-largest part is commercial—sponsorship, merchandise and so on—and the smallest part is the matchday revenue. The point is that all this comes from the good will of fans, either directly from their pockets or because of their engagement and commitment. Tottenham happens to have a very large fan base in South Korea because our captain is South Korean. Our biggest sponsor is an Asian insurance company. Why is it supporting Tottenham? It is because there is a huge fan base in Asia.

After all, as we know—although we are sometimes shy of saying this in these debates—the Premier League is the goose that lays the golden eggs that then cascade down through the pyramid, to a much greater extent than in any of the football pyramids in other European countries. Therefore, the way in which clubs consult will be very different—but the suggestion that they need a regulator to enforce upon them the duty to consult their fans is to ignore this really important point: it is in their interest to keep their fans, wherever they are, on board. If ever there were a vivid illustration of that, it is when the European super league proposal came up. It was killed not by politicians, a regulator, your Lordships’ House or the other place but by fans.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will speak briefly to my Amendments 238 and 241. I agree with noble friend Lord Maude that it is absolutely in the clubs’ best interests to make sure that they are consulting their fans on this. If we are going to put things down, though, I will speak to two essential points.

A football club shirt is more than just the colours; it is the design as well. Any football supporter would know that the blue and white hoops of QPR are quite different from the stripes of Brighton—fans could maybe be involved in that. I remember with some humour that one Brighton design was a bit like a Tesco bag and the fans used to wear an actual Tesco bag. That probably cost the club a lot of money in lost shirt sales. But, generally, the fans have a role in that and in the name of the club—my Amendment 241 is on this—which I think most people would agree is fundamental.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am glad that the Government Chief Whip has been here to see the lively debate on all sides of the Committee, including on his own Benches, on this group. He will have noted that only two of the 19 amendments come from the Opposition Benches. So I am very glad that he has been able to join us for this lively discussion as we head into dinner.

I will not elaborate on the points that my noble friend Lord Markham made on his two amendments, to which I added my name, other than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Given that the Government are already looking at club colours, I am interested in why this is not extended to home shirt design, which my noble friend mentions in his Amendment 238.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 241, the name of a club is hugely important. It is not uncommon for clubs to change names. I gather that Bournemouth began life as Boscombe St John’s Lads’ Institute and Arsenal started as Dial Square, in the Dial Square workshop, and then became Royal Arsenal, I think because of a local pub called the Royal Oak, and Woolwich Arsenal—

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Woolwich Wanderers.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think that is an informal one from fans of other north London clubs. But clearly the names of clubs do matter, and we would be interested in whether the Government agree with that.

Given the time, I will address the other amendments in this group as a whole. They attempt to require clubs to consult a whole host of different supporters’ organisations, community trusts and fan groups. I share the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough that, if clubs are required to consult numerous different groups—chosen through various methods and representing countless, and often competing, interests—it will be difficult for clubs to know to whom they are to listen. What opinions will they have to take on board and whose interests will win out? There is also a concern about whether this could lead to divisions forming among supporters’ groups of differing views, as they seek to influence the activities of a club in a manner that they would like.

I am concerned by what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said about football clubs picking the people who sit on their fan groups. That sounds like having a House of Parliament entirely dominated by the Executive—but that is for another Bill. The concern about this one is the old adage that too many cooks spoil the broth; that is, if we tried to have too many people vying to influence the views of a club, it would be difficult to differentiate the differing sounds and, perversely, fans’ voices would be drowned out in that cacophony. So a simpler approach might be required for fan engagement.

Trying to have a better answer to the question of who fans are, as we have said previously, runs to the heart of all this. But I agree with what my noble friend Lord Maude said: clubs are well advised to take on board the views of fans. They listen to them because they are the lifeblood of the clubs, and they make their views known pretty volubly.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their continued engagement on these important provisions of the Bill. I appreciate that I am one of the very few things standing between noble Lords and the dinner break, but I want to give a proper response and, I hope, the reassurance that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton is looking for. We must not forget that, at the heart of all of this, it is the fans who matter the most. Football is nothing without them, and the fan engagement threshold requirement has been designed to reflect this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, fans are the lifeblood of the game.

My noble friend Lord Bassam’s Amendment 138 seeks to make it explicit that clubs must have the appropriate structures in place to engage effectively with fans. I hope noble Lords can take comfort that this is already implicit in the Bill. The Bill already asks for all clubs, in order to meet their fan engagement threshold requirement, to have adequate and effective means to consult and take the views of fans into account. It would therefore not be possible for a club to meet this bar without also having the appropriate structures and processes for effective engagement with its fans.

On my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie’s Amendment 138A, it is important to avoid fan engagement becoming a box-ticking exercise for clubs. The intent is to ensure that dialogue can be constructive for both parties. This is why the threshold requirement requires a club to consult fans on the relevant matters. Consultation goes beyond just a meeting, which might lead fans to have only a passive role at their clubs. Instead, we expect clubs to seek input from fans on issues, with that input directly feeding into the decision-making or a club’s understanding of an issue.

I do, however, reassure my noble friend that the expectations on clubs will be proportionate to club resources and the demographics of the fan base. I hope that other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also feel reassured by that point. This will not be the same as the statutory consultation, and we expect that the regulator will provide more detail about what consultation should look like in practice. This will allow for a bespoke approach to be taken across clubs.

My noble friend Lord Watson raised points around making fan engagement more explicit. The intention of the regulatory principle is not to list every possible stakeholder the regulator should ever engage with during the course of regulation, however important that stakeholder might be. That could be a slippery slope to an enormous list that risks—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I understand my noble friend’s point about every stakeholder, but can she name a stakeholder more important than the fans?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite clear, as are we, that the fans are central—I made that point earlier. However, making an explicit list for every single type of consultation that the regulator should have could mean that an unintended consequence would be that we missed off important stakeholders. The intention of the principle within the legislation is to encode a participative approach into the regulator’s regime. We believe that the regulator will be more effective if those being regulated participate constructively; that is to say, they are brought in and are pulling in the same direction. It is already clear from the very purpose of the Bill and its origin that the regulator will be regulating in the interest of fans and communities. As part of this, it should of course engage with them and representative groups, as appropriate.

On Amendments 160 and 163, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, I reassure her that, where there are concerns that a club is not meeting the fan engagement standards, the regulator is empowered to gather information and look further into the situation. As it is a licensing condition, a breach of these requirements will qualify as a relevant infringement; if deemed necessary, the regulator can take enforcement action. The regulator will have the ability to receive evidence from fans when considering whether a club is meeting its licence condition or any other concerns in the regulator’s remit, but it will not adjudicate all consultations.

20:00

I turn next to the amendments from my noble friend Lord Mann and Amendment 161 from my noble friend Lord Shamash. It is important not to bind clubs to expectations on how to raise fan engagement standards. That is why flexibility in how clubs engage has been prioritised and bespoke approaches can be taken at clubs, and why the legislation does not specify supporters’ trusts or any other specific form of fan group in the Bill. Supporters’ trusts are often dedicated to championing fans’ issues and can be vital to dialogue between fans and their clubs. Where this is the case, we expect that many clubs will utilise the pre-existing structures to meet the fan engagement requirements, including consultation. If the regulator felt a club was excluding or not working with their supporters’ trusts where they should be, the regulator could require this through a licensing condition. This is highlighted in paragraph 271 of the Explanatory Notes. However, there will not always be the optimal form of fan engagement. It can be the case that there are competing supporters’ trusts or no supporters’ trusts. This makes it possible that such amendments would not work in practice.

In addition to the intention to expand the scope of fan consultation, my noble friend Lord Mann’s amendment seeks to add fan approval to both the sale of the home ground and the change of a club’s name. Regarding changes to the ownership of the home ground, potential adverse outcomes are entirely financial and do not impact the heritage of the club. If the change of the financial arrangements relating to the home ground were to lead to relocation then heritage would rightfully be considered and fan consultation would be required, as per Clause 48.

Changes to a club’s name is an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in Amendment 140, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in Amendment 241. Let me first highlight that the legislation already requires that the club’s fans are consulted on any matter relating to the name, under Clause 48(3)(c), as a matter that relates to club heritage. This is in addition to the duty not to change the club’s name without gaining the approval of the FA. The FA has been able to take a considered approach to name changes, listening to fans and heritage concerns, and taking appropriate action. This was demonstrated, in our view, in the case of Hull City. The FA is in a good position, with oversight of all levels of football, to ensure that name changes do not have unintended implications for clubs outside the regulated scope. The Government therefore believe that the FA is in the best position to take into account fan opinions and all the other relevant considerations, with the regulator acting to ensure these minimum standards are maintained.

On Amendment 238, from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, the Government understand the importance of home shirts, which is why the legislation looks to safeguard their heritage. However, with the majority of clubs producing a new design every season, and the design reflecting commercial decisions regarding shirt sponsorship, in our view it would be overly burdensome to require every club to carry out full consultation and determine that the majority of supporters approve of that design. Instead, we have decided to safeguard what is the most identifiable and long-standing feature across all of the club’s home shirts: the colour.

Amendment 147, from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, and Amendment 137, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, are contingent on each other. The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments to ensure that football continues to be played in a club’s home ground. Much of this is delivered through duties on regulated clubs, including home ground protections, to safeguard against reckless sales or ill-thought-out relocations. However, clubs may not own their home ground, and would therefore need the agreement of their landlord to meet this additional licensing requirement. This amendment would place a requirement on clubs to guarantee something that may not be within their control, as well as duplicating the pre-existing league home ground requirements. This legislation is not the appropriate place to amend property law, nor is it in scope to do so.

Instead, the fan-led review recommended that the Government explore the viability of introducing new security of tenure property rights for football clubs. The Law Commission is in the process of reviewing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, including an assessment of security of tenure for all commercial properties, with football clubs in scope. Following the review, the Government—namely, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—will consider the recommendations made and publish a full response.

There is a risk that this amendment would potentially catch instances where the club’s home ground has been deemed unfit for play, such as following bad weather, as AFC Wimbledon recently faced. The club would then have additional consideration and concern of a licensing breach when already in distress.

I finish with the question of whether Clause 49 stand part of the Bill. A club’s name, home shirt colours and crests are intrinsic parts of its heritage, intertwined with decades of club support history. The decision to materially change any one of them is therefore one that requires considered thought and consultation. This clause requires a club to establish that a majority of domestic supporters approve any material changes to its badge or predominant home shirts. This means that the changes can still be made, but only if and once the fans have voiced their support. This clause requires clubs to get FA approval prior to changing the name that the club’s team plays under. The view of supporters is a significant factor in the FA’s decision-making. However, the FA may need to balance wider considerations with regard to name changes—for instance, whether there will be any adverse effects on other clubs throughout the pyramid. This clause serves one of the key objectives of the regulator—protecting the heritage of English football—and it has almost universal support. I hope noble Lords will, for the reasons I have set out, not press their amendments and agree that Clause 49 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think this has been one of the better debates on the football regulator. It is about one of its core purposes and, as the Minister has just said, it all flows from the fan-led review and putting fans at the heart of our football business.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for her contribution. I well understand the mix of commercial pressures and the way in which that can collide with what might be seen on the face of it as being fan interests. It is a difficult balance that one has to try to secure in this legislation. I think the legislation does that, but who or what is a fan or a supporter is a difficult question, and they may not be the same thing all the way through. The noble Baroness raised the question of who it is relevant to consult over some of the issues. I think we are heading in the right direction with further clarity. I hope that the regulator can try to work its way through some very difficult issues here.

I am very happy with the responses that the Minister has given, and I think other noble Lords will share that sentiment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 137 withdrawn.

Amendments 138 to 142 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 9.08 pm.

Puberty-suppressing Hormones

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 11 December.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a Statement on puberty blockers.

At the outset, I wish to make clear the principles that drive the Government’s approach to this issue. First, children’s healthcare must always be led by evidence. Medicines prescribed to young people should always be proven to be safe and effective. Secondly, evidence-led, effective and safe healthcare must be provided to all who need it, when they need it. Thirdly, this Government believe in the dignity, worth and equality of every citizen, and recognise that trans people too often feel unsafe, unrecognised and unheard, and that must change. None of these simple ambitions has been achieved in recent years. Medicine has been provided with insufficient evidence, and young people have been left to go without the support and care that they need. This Government are determined to change that.

The Cass review made it clear that there is not enough evidence about the long-term effects of using puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or beneficial. That evidence should have been established before they were ever prescribed for that purpose. It is a scandal that medicine was given to vulnerable young children, without proof that it was safe or effective, or that it had gone through the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial.

Following the Cass review, the NHS ceased the routine use of puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence in children. In May, the previous Government issued an emergency order to extend these restrictions to the private sector. In opposition, my party and I, as shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, supported those decisions. Since coming into office, I have renewed this order twice, continuing restrictions until the end of this year. That was done jointly with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, and I updated the House via a Written Statement.

While the temporary ban was in place, I asked the Commission on Human Medicines to look at the current environment for prescribing puberty blockers, and we launched a targeted consultation. The commission is an independent body, made up of leading clinicians and epidemiologists, that advises on medicine safety. It took evidence directly from clinical experts, consultant paediatric endocrinologists and patient representatives, including representatives of trans people, young people and their families. After thoroughly examining all the available evidence, it has concluded that prescribing puberty blockers to children for the purposes of treating gender dysphoria, in the current prescribing environment, represents ‘an unacceptable safety risk’. Of particular concern to the commission was whether these children and their families were provided with enough time and information to give their full and informed consent. The commission found that children had received prescriptions after filling out online questionnaires and having one brief Zoom call with prescribers from outside the UK.

Consequently, the commission has recommended that the Government extend the banning order indefinitely, until a safe prescribing environment can be established for these medicines. On the basis of those findings, I am acting on the commission’s advice and putting in place an indefinite order to restrict the sale or supply of puberty blockers to under-18s through a prescription issued by either a private UK prescriber, or a prescriber registered outside the UK. This is on the advice of expert clinicians, the independent Commission on Human Medicines—advice based on the best available evidence—and follows the cautionary and careful approach recommended by Dr Cass. The legislation will be updated today, and will be reviewed in 2027, when there will be an updated assessment of the safety of the prescribing environment for these medicines.

We are working to grow a thorough evidence base for puberty blockers. The National Institute for Health and Care Research is working closely with NHS England to establish a clinical trial on puberty-supressing hormones. The NIHR is now contracting the team that will deliver the study and is working tirelessly towards recruiting the first patients by spring. The trial is the first of its kind the world over. It will help us better understand the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people, providing the robust evidence required.

The Cass review also made clear recommendations to the Government and NHS England on improving healthcare services for children with gender dysphoria. I will now provide an update on the progress made. NHS England has published its implementation plan, which will transform its services. It has also published a new services specification, to ensure that children and young people experiencing gender incongruence have an appointment with a paediatrician or mental health professional before being referred to specialist services. Dr Cass was clear on the need for the model of care to change and take account of children and young people’s holistic needs.

Since April, NHS England has opened three new gender identity services—in the north-west, in London and in Bristol—with a fourth expected in the east of England by the spring. That puts us on track to open services in every region by 2026. These services offer a fundamentally different clinical model. They bring together clinical experts in paediatrics, neurodiversity and mental health, so that care can be tailored to patients’ needs. At first, the new services were prioritising patients registered with the old Gender Identity Development Service, but I am delighted to report that the north-west and Bristol services are now taking patients off the general waiting list.

On the waiting list, Dr Cass’s review painted a picture of a service unable to cope with demand. Children and young people face unacceptably long waits for care, with some children passing into adulthood before their first appointment, leaving them facing a dangerous cliff edge. I am pleased to tell the House that NHS England is working with potential partner organisations to explore establishing a much-needed follow-through service for 17 to 25 year-olds, as Dr Cass recommended. Young people’s distress or needs do not vanish when they turn 18, and neither should their healthcare.

We do not yet know the risks of stopping pubertal hormones at this critical life stage. That is the basis on which I am making decisions. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first. There are some who have called on the Government not to go ahead with the clinical trial recommended by Dr Cass. Others on the opposite side of the debate want the Government to ignore the recommendations of the independent expert Commission on Human Medicines. We are taking a different approach. The decisions that we take will always be based on the evidence and the advice of clinicians, not on politics or political pressure.

Finally, there are many young people in this country who are desperately worried and frightened by the toxicity of this debate. This has not been helped by some highly irresponsible public statements, which threatened to put vulnerable young people at risk. In the past few months, I have met young trans people, who either have been, may be, or will be affected by the decisions that I and my predecessor have taken. I have listened to their concerns, fears and anxieties, and I want to talk directly to them. I know it is not easy being a trans kid in our country today. The trans community is at the wrong end of all the statistics for mental ill-health, self-harm and suicide. I cannot pretend to know what that is like, but I do know what it is like to feel that you have to bury a secret about yourself, to be afraid of who you are, to be bullied for it, and then to have the liberating experience of coming out. I know it will not feel like it, based on the decisions that I am taking today, but I really do care about this, and so do this Government.

I am determined to improve the quality of care and access to healthcare for all trans people. I am convinced that the full implementation of the Cass review will deliver material improvements in the well-being, safety and dignity of trans people of all ages, and the Government will work with them to help them live freely, equally and with the dignity that everyone in our country deserves. I commend this Statement to the House”.

20:09

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the right honourable Secretary of State for the careful and sensitive way in which he delivered the Statement in the other place. In line with my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State in the other place, from these Benches we welcome the Government’s announcement. Whatever your politics, most people believe that one of the first duties of any Government is to protect their citizens, especially our children.

As the Secretary of State said, there has been too much heat, and perhaps toxicity, around the issue of services for children experiencing gender dysphoria, so I welcome the tone with which His Majesty’s Government have approached this issue—less heat, more light—and that they continue to take an evidence-based but compassionate approach. I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for leading the review on gender services for children. The Cass review highlighted the importance of putting scientific evidence above ideology and laid out the fact that we simply do not know enough about the long-term impacts of puberty blockers on children. That is why my right honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Louth and Horncastle, when Secretary of State, banned the routine prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, and later extended that ban to private clinics.

We welcome the decision of the Government to follow the recommendations of the independent Commission on Human Medicines to extend the banning order until a safe prescribing environment can be established for these medicines. This is a common-sense approach, and allows time for more evidence to be examined to consider the holistic and long-term impacts of puberty blockers on children. The Secretary of State announced the clinical trials to gather evidence but, given understandable concerns about the risks of any clinical trial, can the Minister reassure your Lordships that these trials will have robust safeguards to ensure the well-being and safety of any children taking part, while recognising the importance of having these trials in the first place?

The Secretary of State in the other place also spoke about alternatives to puberty blockers for children suffering from gender dysphoria. As someone who takes an interest in social prescribing, I welcome the Government’s recognition that medication is not always the best solution, so will the Minister share details of some of the alternatives to puberty blockers that will be offered to children?

Finally, noble Lords will be concerned that, despite the lack of evidence, puberty blockers were prescribed to children with gender dysphoria when their safety could not be guaranteed. What steps are the Government and the NHS taking to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again and that future decisions are led by evidence? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s Statement. I have often said that there are many ways of being human. Growing up can often be a very trying time for teenagers. How much more difficult, then, for those young people with gender distress who are struggling with finding out who they are while being different from their peers, and all without adequate support? It is high time that proper services were put in place for young people struggling alone with these issues. Their families too need help to support them at this difficult time. For too long, children and young people who are struggling with their gender identity have been badly let down by a low standard of care, exceptionally long waiting lists, even by the standard of mental health waiting lists, and an increasingly toxic debate.

We always want to see policy based on the evidence. With any medical treatment, especially for children and young people, the most important thing is to follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is crucial that these sorts of decisions are made by expert clinicians, based on the best possible evidence. It is also important that the results of the consultation and the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines are made public.

Some might wonder why the treatment is deemed not safe for gender dysphoria patients but safe enough for children with early-onset puberty. More transparency might clear up the confusion and give more confidence to patients and their families. However, the Secretary of State himself admits that he does not know what effect the sudden withdrawal of this treatment for young people already embarked on a course of puberty blockers will have. These are the young people with the most urgent need for other types of care in the current situation, so what clinical advice have the Government taken about the effect of withdrawing these drugs on the physical and mental state of young sufferers of gender incongruence already on the drugs, and what physical and psychological support will be offered to them?

In the current circumstances, plans for a clinical trial are welcome, but we would like to know the criteria for those eligible to participate. What assessment have the Government made of the recent Council of Europe report, which raises the ethical and rights implications of offering participation in the trial to only a small group of patients? If the only way to continue access to these drugs is through participation in the clinical trial, whose scope, length and start date have yet to be announced, this lays the Government open to accusations of coercion and breaches of human rights.

We welcome the plans for additional treatment centres in Manchester and Bristol as well as London, but can the Minister say why they will not be up and running for two years? Is it lack of funding, lack of premises or lack of sufficient therapists with the appropriate specialist training? This is a very sensitive area, so the wrong people could do more harm than good. If that is the reason, is there a plan for training up more qualified therapists in time for the opening of the regional treatment centres? I very much look forward to the Minister’s replies to these questions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for her work in this very important area. I also refer to the actions taken by the previous Government, which set in train the action we are continuing. As both the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly said, this is about keeping children safe. There is nothing more important than evidence-based action—which is what we have before us—and taking the necessary steps.

The Cass review made it clear that there is not enough evidence about the long-term effects of using puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence to know whether they are, first, safe and, secondly, beneficial. It is important to bear both in mind. The Commission on Human Medicines independently found that clear evidence of unsafe prescribing exists and recommended that there should be a ban until there can be a safe prescribing environment. That is where we start, and last week’s laying of legislation stops that unsafe prescribing to children and allows time to develop the necessary safeguards, as recommended by the commission. I should just clarify that the legislation is indefinite, not permanent. There will be a full review in 2027 so this continues to be a very live issue.

The clinical trials, referred to by both the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be a world first. It is important to pay tribute to that. In addition to the work currently being undertaken to respond to the recommendations of the Commission on Human Medicines, the trial is presently undergoing development and approvals. The aim is to begin recruitment early in the new year. I am sure there will be an opportunity to update the House on that detail.

In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the numbers will be uncapped, which is important. I am sure we all agree that better-quality evidence is critical. The development of the clinical trial between the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England will provide the better-quality evidence that we are all looking for.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke about new services. To make the situation clear, NHS England has already opened three new services in the north-west, London and Bristol. The fourth will be in the east of England and will open its doors in spring next year. The noble Baroness also asked about the timetable; we are on course to have a service in every region of England by 2026. I cannot always confirm developments of that nature, so I am glad to do so because it will help reduce the waiting list, which noble Lords are rightly concerned about. It will also bring services closer to home, which is crucial too.

Furthermore, this is a very specialist area, so recruitment and training are key. This is part of the reason for the—I would not call it a delay—realistic timetable. There is also the need to work with local trusts and take into account all the various operational considerations, so realism rather than delay is how I would put it to the noble Baroness.

I agree with the points made by noble Lords on the Front Bench about tone and discourse. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for welcoming the way the Secretary of State made the announcement and what the announcement refers to. We have a real responsibility in this House—and outside it—to handle conversations on this topic extremely sensitively. This is about people’s lives. I absolutely agree with the point just made: the public debate has been frighteningly toxic. Irresponsible statements made recently have put young people at risk of serious harm and that has to stop. That is one of the many reasons I welcome the Statement—and the tone and discourse this evening.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about alternatives to puberty blockers, no exact alternatives are being offered. However, within the new services there will be an emphasis on, for example, psychosocial support.

In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the—she did not use this word, but perhaps I might—transparency of evidence, all the commission’s recommendations have been published in full as part of the Government’s response to the consultation. The full advice, as I hope the noble Baroness will understand, was prepared solely for Ministers, but we are considering whether it should be published. I know the noble Baroness will understand that, as with all advice prepared for Ministers, there are legal and other matters that must be considered before it can happen.

I will say a word on mental health support, which is so important for children and young people. An offer of an appointment with a mental health professional has been made to everyone on the national waiting list for children and young people’s gender identity services. Those who joined the waiting list on or after 1 September will have an appointment with a mental health professional or paediatrician before being referred to specialist gender services. Those who are not on the waiting list and are directly affected by the restrictions can access NHS mental health services through a dedicated single point of contact, supported by clinical nursing.

I hope that is helpful, and if there are any points I have missed—

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Can the Minister address the issue of the children who are part-way through a course of treatment? Will they get mental health support as a priority?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

For those who are already on puberty blockers, there is an immediate withdrawal. But I hope that what I have outlined on mental health support covers all the areas the noble Baroness, and indeed all of us, are concerned about. The approach is as compressive as possible, and the new gender services I described should make it even easier to provide the service. It is not a matter of waiting until 2026; we absolutely understand the need to provide that support now, and we are making that available.

20:25

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the thanks given to the Secretary of State for his careful and scientific approach to this issue and for his very sensitive Statement in the other place.

It might be helpful to elaborate on just one or two of the points that have been raised, particularly the use of puberty blockers for precocious puberty—that is, for children who enter puberty too early—which is a licensed use of these drugs. We are confident about that use because we have many years of experience, and because it is a very different situation from prescribing for young people with gender dysphoria. The difference is that children with precocious puberty have an abnormal hormone environment, which we normalise, whereas in young people with gender dysphoria we are taking a normal surge in pubertal hormones and disrupting it. That is why it is much less clear what the long-term impact of that intervention is, and why we need careful clinical trials.

The second thing it would be helpful to clarify is the appropriate question, asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about children and young people who are already on puberty blockers from private or overseas sources. In addition to the comments made by the Minister, it is important to know that NHS England has set up a telephone number that young people and families can ring to receive a mental health triage. Young people’s mental health services have been forewarned and are on hand to provide that triage for that small group of young people who may be in significant distress because of fear of interruption of their supply of puberty blockers. There is provision that, in those circumstances, and where the clinician thinks it is in the best interests of that young person to continue on puberty blockers, an NHS prescriber is allowed to continue the prescription. We hope that those in distress will come forward and contact NHS England and therefore be supported through the system.

One of the other misunderstandings about puberty blockers is that they have become totemic as the main treatment or entry-point treatment for young people who want to transition, or who may in the longer term be trans but may not go on to a medical pathway. Young adults have said to us that they wish they had known when they were younger that there were more options for them than a binary medical transition, and that there were many more ways of being trans—that they could remain gender fluid, continue to be non-binary, or in the longer term continue to be a cis adult, as some do, and not go through any medical interventions at all.

Having a multidisciplinary team that can support young people in that decision-making without necessarily rushing them into a medical pathway is crucial, and that is what the new services have now embarked on doing.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for bringing her expertise directly into the Chamber. We are very glad that she is in the House to do so, and she has actually answered a number of the points better than I ever could.

I will emphasise one point that I am particularly interested in, because I know it has been raised a lot, about why the legislation is being laid in respect of the use of medicines just for gender dysphoria. The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, referred to this. It is really important to emphasise that the medicine might be the same, but the fact is that it is not licensed for gender incongruence or dysphoria—that is the key point. These medicines have not undergone that process, which means that safety and risk implications have not yet been considered. It is true that there are licensed uses of the medicines for much younger children or for older adults, but the issue here is about adolescents, and it is an entirely different situation.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I might return to the conventional asking of a question to the Minister—a very quick question. There are a number of practitioners who are considering, if not giving, sex steroids to patients who are requesting gender reassignment; either oestrogen or progesterone, or the equivalent male hormone. Have the Government yet considered how patients will be treated in this situation? There are certain, clear dangers involved.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point my noble friend rightly raises, and I emphasise again that what matters here are safety considerations—particularly when we are talking about children and young people—but also the evidence in respect of treatments, that there should be the prescription only of medication which is safe and appropriate to the actual patient and situation.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, given that puberty blockers almost invariably lead to cross-sex hormones, can the Minister explain why the proposed trial cannot study those who have already used or are using puberty blockers, rather than starting with a new cohort of children? Given that the trial will look at the long-term effects on health, does she have any indication of how long that trial will need to continue, and is it right that it might be for up to 30 years?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I do not recognise the last point that the noble Baroness made about the time. The aim is to start recruiting participants in spring next year and, as I mentioned, the National Institute for Health and Care Research is working with NHS England to develop the clinical trials. They are the first in the world and I will be very pleased to provide further information as and when it is available.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the Minister. I commend the Secretary of State for his very clear Statement and for his courage, because he has had to stand his ground. He kept his cool, despite receiving unpleasant smears and abuse not only online, but even, to a certain extent, from the Back Benches in the other place.

I am slightly confused about something. I think we can see now that puberty blockers are a medicalised euphemism for chemical castration. The same kinds of drugs, when given to Alan Turing, were used as punishment for being gay. I am still not convinced, and do not really understand why the Government still think it is appropriate to conduct a clinical trial on children with these drugs. The Minister emphasised “uncapped” as though that was positive, whereas I thought that was scary.

As this medical scandal unravels, more and more young people are de-transitioning, but the NHS has no services to deal with this. I wonder whether the Minister would agree, perhaps, to meet some of the charities that are doing this kind of thing—there is Genspect’s Beyond Trans and its special service providers—just to discuss what the NHS might need to look at, moving forward in a different way.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I very much welcome the generous and supportive comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in respect of the Secretary of State’s Statement. I am grateful for those. I note that she finds the reference to “uncapped” scary. I presented it as the way to gather the widest amount of relevant evidence, because that is a clinical trial; that is what is so important. The reason it is being done is that there is insufficient evidence and there has not been such a trial, and we need to do one for this particular situation.

In respect of meeting charities and others, the Secretary of State has been very keen to—what I would call—reset the relationship with various groups which all have different sets of thoughts on this. I have joined him in those meetings. He has also been meeting those with lived experience. We continue to do so. We have wanted to detoxify the debate, and those meetings have helped immensely. We will continue to have that listening ear.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. The tone, as we have already heard, has been absolutely right. Thinking about the clinical trial, I would like to know a little more about the timing. If we are intending to run a clinical trial that is going to be looking at efficacy and safety, it will not be an easy trial to run and it is going to take some time. It would be really welcome if the Minister could keep the House informed, which she has already promised to do.

I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s view on the following point. It is really important to get this clinical trial on the puberty blockers going, but we also need to understand the value and the evidence supporting all the other interventions too—the psychosocial support, the psychological support, and all the other interventions—so that it is not just this clinical trial but a broad understanding of what really helps these young people. `

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to raise the second point. It is a whole range of interventions, and that is certainly something that we have very much in mind for consideration, for the reasons that we have heard in the Chamber this evening and the points that my noble friend makes. In respect of timings, it is a planned pathway study and that includes a clinical trial component. It is, as I said, to build evidence. I am glad to say that it remains on track to commence recruitment early in 2025, but only after there has been ethical approval. When that is granted, that is when the final study protocol will be ready, and I know that noble Lords will have a lot of interest in that. We will be issuing further updates in early 2025, and if there are any particular questions, noble Lords are very welcome to raise them with me.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the scale of the trial. I also note the report from the experts at the Council of Europe, which the noble Baroness referenced. In the other place, the Secretary of State said in response to my honourable friend Carla Denyer that the clinical trial would be “uncapped”, and the Minister repeated that word this evening. However, an article published yesterday in the Metro, arising from various freedom of information requests and headlined, “Trans Youth ‘Languishing’ While Waiting Six Years For Gender Healthcare”, said:

“If a trans young person joined the waiting list for gender-affirming healthcare on the NHS today, they would have to wait 308 weeks for a first appointment”.


In that context, I am struggling to understand where the Government will secure the resources from to run a trial to provide the resources needed to have this uncapped clinical trial allowing access to puberty blockers.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

In view of what the noble Baroness said, it is quite important to consider that the children and young people’s gender services waiting list currently has 6,237 people on it. I certainly agree that waiting lists for these services are too long. We are committed to changing that, which is why I outlined the timetable for the new gender services and the opening of the new centres. They will increase clinical capacity and reduce waiting times for sure. On the point the noble Baroness raised, there is a commitment to the clinical trial, and I am glad there is. As we have brought forward this legislation in an absence of evidence, it is incumbent on us, as a Government, to follow through on what the previous Government started in train, which is to use a clinical trial to provide the evidence. Otherwise, the debate would remain uninformed and not evidence-based, and that cannot be helpful.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and congratulate the Secretary of State on the moral clarity and leadership that he has shown in balancing the evidence base with compassion. Perhaps I may press the Minister on a few points. An indefinite ban is not the same as a permanent ban. Is there a chance that the indefinite ban, which goes to 2027, may segue into a permanent ban as more information and evidence arise over the next few years?

Given that it is pretty well understood that puberty blockers have given rise to fertility problems, bone health issues and psychological health issues, I cannot understand the inconsistent policy of keeping children currently on puberty blockers in the system, when we know that there is no positive evidence base and only a negative one. I think that will affect many children.

My final point is about the eight new regional centres that will be set up. Will we be certain that the ideologically-driven zealots—clinicians who misuse their position and have prescribed unsafe puberty blockers for children and young people—will not find themselves in these new facilities? That is an important issue as we wait for the clinical trial and ruminate on the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned. We need to start again on this and to understand that there are more treatments available for the most vulnerable children, who we need to protect, than merely puberty blockers.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord about the vulnerability of children and young people in this regard, which is why we are taking this action. His last point gives me the opportunity to say that we are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass review in full. That is a very useful guideline and tool for us to use.

I have no expectation that the situation that the noble Lord described in his third point will happen. Recruitment is subject to all the usual provisions, and I know that the gender services will seek to recruit very positively. If the noble Lord finds out anything else, I am sure he will raise it with me.

On whether the ban could become permanent, the review—at the risk of repeating myself—will report in 2027, as the noble Lord said. I believe that we should wait for that.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the tone of the Statement. In today’s society, there is huge pressure on young people, through social media and more widely. I would really not want to be a teenager right now.

There is also huge pressure on the NHS, with multiple calls on its services. Can the Minister elaborate a bit more on how His Majesty’s Government are going to increase the number of staff and make sure they are trained to support young people? How can we support those staff? This is a tough area for them to work in. We also need to protect them from malicious complaints to make sure that they can do their job.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Baroness has raised the issue of staff. It is vital that people are allowed to go about their work—as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, should have been too—without fear of physical, verbal, online or direct abuse. I am sure that we all agree that the abuse has been an absolute disgrace. I agree about protecting those who are doing this. On the point about service, as has been said, this is about a group of vulnerable children and young people. It is our duty to provide the services to support them and to make them evidence based.

20:46

Sitting suspended.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

21:09

Amendment 143

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

143: Schedule 4, page 97, line 24, at end insert—
“(f) gambling advertising and sponsorship.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires clubs to consult fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by apologising that my involvement in the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill has prevented me from attending earlier sessions of your Committee’s deliberation. But I am very conscious that the fan-led review, which in a sense led to the Football Governance Bill, found that many fans raised severe concerns about the level of gambling advertising and sponsorship in sport. This is especially notable because it was unprompted, yet nothing in the Bill addresses these concerns. It should, and that is why I am moving Amendment 143 and speaking to Amendment 255. In doing so, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.

Gambling in the UK is worth £15 billion a year and with it comes gambling harm, which is a major problem in our country. It is worth reflecting that over half of the gambling industry’s profits comes from those already suffering harm from gambling. Official statistics show that millions of people, including a horrifying number of children, are impacted by gambling. The Department of Health says that there could be more than one gambling-related suicide a day. Gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship encourage more gambling, more profit for operators and more gambling-related harm. It is a serious public health issue.

The previous Government’s White Paper on gambling included no meaningful measures to address it. Nothing was offered to tackle the relentless bombardment of gambling messages, costing the industry over £1.5 billion a year, which has grown exponentially since the liberalisation of advertising in the Gambling Act 2005.

Speaking from the Dispatch Box just a couple of years ago, the noble Lord, Lord True, said:

“My personal view, as a sports fan, is that I am sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 446.]


His view is supported by a huge percentage of the population, including football fans, over half of whom believe that all gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship should be banned.

Research evidence backs the call for action. A group of academics recently highlighted the unprecedented number of young people being exposed to gambling adverts. They concluded:

“it has become quite clear that the gambling products being offered and the ways in which they are promoted are harmful to individual and family health and damaging to national life”.

Despite proposing no action, the White Paper itself even acknowledged that gambling marketing can encourage people to start gambling, to gamble more, or to resume gambling after stopping.

Of particular worry is the entrenched link between gambling and football. It has raised concerns about not only the welfare of fans—especially the younger ones, who I will come to in a minute—but the opportunities for match fixing and corruption. Though rare, such incidents serve as a stark reminder of the risk posed by financial incentives tied to betting. It must surely be questionable that some of English football’s gambling sponsors do not even operate here. For example, Nottingham Forest’s primary shirt sponsor this season is a gambling operator that targets customers in China, where gambling is illegal. Surely that sort of thing should not be allowed.

Again, of particular concern is the way young and impressionable fans, who idolise players and clubs, are inundated with gambling logos. These are emblazoned on kits, around stadia and in programmes—as well as on TV, radio and online. It has normalised the idea of betting and makes it seem like a harmless activity.

21:15

The reality, however, is far from harmless. Gambling messages linked to football create a dangerous association for children between their love for the game and gambling. Research clearly shows that children as young as 11 can name multiple betting company logos simply from seeing them in a football context. Children are much more impressionable than adults; exposing them to gambling at a young age has been shown to make them more likely to gamble in the future. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that, according to official statistics released just recently, the number of children experiencing a gambling problem has doubled in the last year; and the situation is getting worse.

Research by Bristol University found a staggering increase in the number of gambling messages seen during the opening weekend of the Premier League this year. Its figures show that there were nearly 30,000 gambling messages disseminated over the weekend, almost triple the 11,000 recorded last year. As Football Supporters Against Gambling Ads has said:

“Our game has become a billboard for an irresponsible gambling industry to advertise products that are causing serious harm to fans”.

And imagine what that advertising bombardment does to a person who has given up gambling and is trying to avoid starting again.

While the UK has shied away from meaningful action, other nations have acted decisively. The UK has more research showing the negative impact of gambling marketing than the research output on this issue of Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain combined. Yet these countries and many others have implemented near-total bans on gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship.

Our Government already have the evidence but are taking little action. Only 20 minutes ago, I received an answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the Minister. In it, she says that she has tasked the industry to

“raise standards to ensure that levels of gambling advertising does not exacerbate harm”.

I have to question the Minister. Whatever does that mean? Is she expecting the industry to reduce the amount of advertising, change the nature of the messages in the advertisements or what? The evidence is very clear indeed. Gambling advertising leads to more gambling harm. The solution is to reduce it, to reduce sponsorship and so on.

In the absence of the Government taking any action, many clubs are taking matters into their own hands. Almost 40 football clubs have supported the Big Step campaign and ceased all links with gambling companies. In the case of AFC Wimbledon, for instance, 79% of fans surveyed support it because it said:

“As a club at the heart of our community, we are committed to being a force for good”.

Luton rejected sponsorship deals as the board was “uncomfortable” promoting pro-gambling messages to young fans. Incidentally, such clubs—even some in the Premier League—have demonstrated that it is possible to replace from other sources revenue lost from gambling companies.

I worry that the Minister will argue that government action is not needed, given the voluntary action being taken by the football authorities. That voluntary action simply is not working. The “whistle to whistle” ban has not reduced the overall number of gambling messages. The proposed ban on gambling logos on the fronts of shirts will have little impact, as those logos represent under 7% of messages seen during a game. And the voluntary code of conduct, much praised by the Government, has already been breached on multiple occasions, including cases of gambling links on the children’s pages of club websites. Self-regulation has not worked. That is why I am arguing for these two amendments.

One of my amendments suggests that fans should be consulted on the issue. Opinion polls suggest they will support the banning of commercial relationships between their club and gambling companies. The other simply requires the regulator to ensure that such a ban is put in place. Both are likely to lead to the same result. They present an opportunity for professional football to restore its reputation as a force for good in this country; for clubs to show they are capable of putting their fans above short-term profits; and for the Government to demonstrate that sporting Great Britain can lead the way in protecting the health of the next generation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I commend him on his leadership of Peers for Gambling Reform, of which I am a member. I apologise that I have not taken part at Second Reading and earlier parts of Committee. The Bill was being covered for the Green group by my noble friend Lady Jones. I am pleased to share with your Lordships’ House that her hip operation on Friday went very well and she should be back soon after Christmas. In the meantime, noble Lords get me instead.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, has outlined the arguments, which I think are unassailable, for both amendments. I am particularly taken with Amendment 255, to prevent gambling advertising and sponsorship in football, because that will take us to where we need to go.

I declare a recent meeting with the group Gambling with Lives, particularly Liz and Charles Ritchie, who were bereaved following the gambling suicide of their son Jack in 2017. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, we are seeing increasingly awful levels of harm, particularly among young people. There has been a doubling of the number of young people aged 11 to 17 with problem gambling, and 44 % of people who exhibit problem gambling are at high risk of thinking about suicide.

It struck me, listening to the Committee earlier today, that a phrase was used a great deal: fans are the lifeblood of the sport. Surely that is an illustration of the fact that the health of fans should be a matter of great concern to football clubs. The Lancet commission on gambling declared very explicitly only a month or so back that gambling has to be treated as a public health problem, and public health solutions are needed. That means protecting people from the gambling messages bombarding them.

I will quote a couple of statistics from 2021-22. There may have been a slight improvement since then, but not very much. During a single televised match, 3,500 gambling logos can appear. On “Match of the Day”, a gambling brand was visible up to 89% of the time. This can be described only as a bombardment and, as the noble Lord said, the consultation very clearly showed the views of fans.

We have also seen real progress from the Big Step campaign, which has been commended and is another illustration that campaigning works. But people are having to devote their lives to this cause, because the Government and the clubs are not doing the right thing. This, surely, is a place where the Government should step in to act.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will be unsurprised to know that I oppose these two amendments, which I will do briefly.

If the gambling industry is pouring money into football, I would say that that is a good thing. Anti-gambling commentators talk as if this were drug money coming from the Mafia. The whole tone is moralistic. We have already heard mention of match-fixing and cheating, as though it is all incredibly sordid and terrible. But let me just remind the Committee that betting firms are legitimate businesses. What, so they use their sponsorship to increase their market share—what is wrong with that? Is all football sponsorship beyond gambling to be forced to pass an ethics test—some kind of purity test? This is football, not some puritan revival movement.

Let us be honest: lots of football clubs need and appreciate this sponsorship money. It is all well and good that the Premier League has collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of clubs’ match-day shirts. That is a voluntary measure—it is up to it—but the truth is that, as we have ascertained in these debates, the Premier League can afford such lucrative virtue signalling, as I consider it. For the lower-tier and lower-league clubs and for the EFL, however, such sponsorship money is often invaluable. The Bill aims to help clubs become more financially sustainable, so the last thing it needs is external parties or legislators turning off one financial tap. This would mean that some cash-strapped clubs would face ruin if deprived of such revenue.

The Bill has been put forward in the name of fans and, whatever my reservations, I do not doubt that people have the fans at the heart of their discussions, whichever side they are on. But I remind noble Lords that millions of fans are less bothered about what logo appears on a player’s shirt or on advertising boards than they are about the quality on the pitch. There is more than a whiff of nanny state when they are patronisingly told by anti-gambling advocates that the ban would be for their own protection. It seems that anti-gambling campaigners do not trust fans to make their own decisions and make the right judgments about how they spend their own money.

Writing on this issue, Jon Bryan—who is an excellent commentator on the whole issue of gambling, which he posits and reminds us is a pleasurable leisure activity—says that it also undermines any notion of fans’ agency. The notion is put forward that, as soon as fans see a logo on a football shirt, they will rush off and place a bet, as though they are being groomed and just one punt away from addiction. This treats adult fans as children, and it is infantilising. It is often posed—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

On that last point, is the noble Baroness aware of the amount of in-game gambling that takes place through television and, of course, mobile phones, where the betting companies encourage fans watching matches to bet during the game on who will get the next corner, whether somebody be sent off, whether there will there be extra time in a cup tie and so on? Is that not interfering with the normal cut and thrust of the game in a way that is potentially dangerous, not least—I would like her to answer this point—to young people, particularly children?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

First, I would make a distinction between children and adults. Secondly, as somebody who is from a large, football-obsessed family, I am more than a little aware of all the encouragement that football fans have to put on a bet. But not all of them do when they are encouraged and, what is more, even if they do, they do not necessarily become problem gamblers, which is what is being posited. It can be something that they enjoy.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

This is not a case of me positing anything—I hope the noble Baroness accepts that. The figures I quoted are from the Gambling Commission and the Government.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have some figures, but I wanted to put forward a counter to these amendments without going into the details. I have spoken on this on many occasions in this House and I have written about it. I have figures, and we can swap our statistics. But I wanted to argue that it is proposed that allowing advertising of any sort around football, and allowing gambling to be associated with it, normalises gambling—but that is a slightly odd argument because gambling is a normal activity. The vast majority of people who put a bet on do so without a problem: it is part of their private leisure pursuits, which they enjoy. It is completely within the realms of spending money that they probably should not spend—it is Christmas and I have done a lot of that over the last few days when shopping. One makes choices and spends money that one probably should not spend, but it does not have to be turned into some kind of problem. It is our choice, and there should be some perspective about the threat.

The Gambling Commission does not give credence to the idea that gambling problems are completely out of control. Despite a lot of noise and rhetoric, there is no evidence that there has been an overwhelming increase in problem gambling since advertising was made legal by none other than Tony Blair’s Government in 2007.

21:30

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I do not disagree with the noble Baroness’s principles or beliefs when she talks about the nanny state and it being up to individuals, but where does she sit on smoking? Smoking was acceptable and everybody smoked, and sponsorship in sport was rife, with motor racing teams and darts competitions named after cigarettes. People do not smoke any more; society has changed. Unless you take positive action, you do not get that change. There is nobody in this Chamber now smoking; there is nobody in the hospitals smoking; there is nobody inside or outside football grounds smoking. That is a great thing. It is called taking responsibility for society. I wonder what the cost of gambling is to the NHS and the various other bodies that have to pick up the pieces of our individual choices and liberties. Those liberties are your own until they affect me and you, and him and her, and the NHS; it then becomes my responsibility to say something about it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was on my last sentence, but I will now make it two sentences.

The noble Lord says that nobody is smoking now. It happens to be the evening of the Terrace Club’s Christmas bash. That is the House of Lords smokers’ group, and I can assure the noble Lord there are quite a lot of them smoking, cross-party, including from his own party. They are drinking and smoking, and every party is represented. It is in the hut round the back, by the way, in case anyone wants to pop out. There are quite a lot of people who smoke still.

Smoking advertising was taken out of sports, and a number of sports nearly collapsed—darts and snooker had a real problem. The funny thing is, guess who came in to save them? The gambling companies came in and saved those working-class, grass-roots, rank-and-file sports. Good on them, I say. The working classes were grateful at the time, and they did not all become problem gamblers as a consequence. They enjoyed the sport.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to address gambling sponsorship in football, and include proposals to ban sponsorship entirely. This is a significant issue. I acknowledge the genuine concerns that many have, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of gambling in sport. However, I would like to provide some context and explain why I believe that further interventions in this area are not required at this time.

The Gambling Act review has recently and comprehensively considered the role of gambling sponsorship across all sports, including football. The Government’s response reflects the extensive engagement and evidence gathered during that process. As part of this, the Premier League has already taken significant, proactive, voluntary steps to address concerns, demonstrating its commitment to act responsibly.

Most recently, the Premier League and its clubs have led the way, not just within football but across all sports, by taking the voluntary step to move away from gambling sponsorship on the front of shirts. This was a key ask made of us by the DCMS, and we agreed. This is a significant decision, and one that I do not believe any other major sports organisations have taken.

The impact of this step on clubs is, frankly, quite painful. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, most clubs cannot afford to do it, but they have done it anyway because they have been asked to. The typical difference between gambling and non-gambling shirt sponsorships is around 40%. For some Premier League clubs, this decision will mean a reduction of around 20% of their total commercial revenues. For clubs in the bottom half of the Premier League table or those newly promoted, the financial hit will be especially pronounced in the short term, and comes on top of the £250 million hit to Premier League clubs over the Parliament, as I have already mentioned in this Committee, following the Budget’s rise in employer national insurance contributions. The pressures are acute, but the Premier League clubs took this decision, fully aware of the difficult commercial consequences, because it was the right thing to do and was aligned with what the Government asked of us.

Furthermore, the Premier League has led the way in driving forward the development of an all-sports code of conduct, published earlier this year. This sets out standards on gambling partnerships, including the critical issue of awareness and responsible gambling messages, that all clubs and sports organisations will adhere to. The code reflects the seriousness with which football in particular is addressing this issue, and provides a strengthened framework for responsible engagement with the gambling sector.

It is important to acknowledge the vital role that gambling sponsorship plays in supporting clubs across the football pyramid. For many clubs, particularly those outside the Premier League, gambling sponsorship represents a significant source of revenue. That is the reality we all need to be conscious of, especially in the context of the Bill, which focuses on financial sustainability. Noble Lords may be aware that the EFL has a much greater reliance on gambling sponsorship, including its title sponsorship deal with Sky Bet. The Premier League itself has never had a gambling sponsor. This demonstrates that the issue is not uniform across football and that heavy-handed interventions may well risk disproportionately affecting clubs lower down the pyramid.

The Premier League’s voluntary decision to phase out gambling on front-of-shirt sponsorship is just one major step, but it is proof that football is taking this issue seriously. It shows that football can lead the way on responsible change, even when it causes difficulties for clubs, without the need for heavy-handed interventions. We must properly address concerns about problem gambling and the need for responsible behaviour and stringent regulations. Football must clearly be part of the solution, as it wants to be, just as all sport needs to act responsibly. However, I argue that the Premier League in particular has already shown important leadership here, taking proactive and voluntary steps that, as far as I am aware, no comparable organisation has yet replicated.

In the light of the progress already made, I respectfully suggest that football does not require further statutory intervention in this area. We have shown—but of course we must collectively continue to show—that we can be relied upon to make progress on this vital issue.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his vigilance on this topic, as he always showed when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. I know he will be particularly vigilant as the Minister holds the responsibility for gambling. I am sure that she will be glad to have the chance to talk about something directly in her portfolio, in addition to the work that she has been doing on the Bill.

I am pleased to hear that the hip operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, went well, and even more pleased that she missed my disobliging comments about Arsenal this evening. That is the team she supports, so it is probably just as well that she was not here to hear them.

Of the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am more taken with Amendment 143, which seeks to require football clubs to consult their fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. I am mindful of the example of Wonga, a payday loan company rather than a gambling firm, and Newcastle United. It was an important reminder of the discomfort that fans feel when they are forced to wear the logo of companies and others of which they might not approve when they buy the football strips of the team they support.

Engaging fans on sponsorship is worth while, particularly where the companies are ones about which clubs know that fans have views. The noble Lord set out the growing concerns about the prevalence of gambling in sport and its potential to influence fans, particularly younger and more vulnerable groups. If we can strike a better balance between the immediate commercial needs of clubs and the long-term interests of the fans who support them then that is worthy of our consideration.

I am struck too by the points that my noble friends and others have raised about the importance of sponsorship deals on the finances of football clubs—particularly those in the lower leagues—to maintain their financial stability, which is such an important point underlying the Bill. Although Amendment 143 has much to commend it, the consultation must be a genuine and two-way conversation between clubs and fans to address the importance of investment in the sport and the good work that many are doing.

The second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, Amendment 255, seeks to prevent regulated clubs and competitions promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship altogether. In doing so, it rather overrides the open-minded consultation of his first amendment. I think this goes too far: an outright ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship would, in my view, be too blunt an instrument for addressing the complex issue of gambling and the broader questions of sponsorship in football.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling both amendments and the fact that we can consider them side by side in this group. I look forward to hearing what the Gambling Minister has to say about them.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend on this one—both noble friends, actually. I am afraid that if you want to see a country where gambling advertising and gambling problems are linked, you just have to look at Kenya—especially at the young. There is a chronic problem there, and it is doing enormous damage. Football has enormous reach and enormous power; it will reach out to you, and it reaches out to the most impressionable. I hope that the Government take some action here, showing a way forward that at least reduces the harm.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, means well with her point about the front of the jersey, but it is a team game. People run up and down; the back is still there.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for these amendments. As Gambling Minister, I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impacts of gambling sponsorship in football. Slightly bizarrely, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to discuss gambling in your Lordships’ House. I am confident, from working through the measures in the White Paper, that it will not be the last, but I acknowledge the noble Lord’s long record of campaigning on the issue of gambling harm.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and join others across your Lordships’ House in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, a speedy and good recovery. We look forward to the noble Baroness working with us while the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is recovering from her operation.

Starting with Amendment 255, the Government do not believe the regulator should have a role in commercial matters such as sponsorship. This is outside the scope of the regulator and commercial decisions are, rightly, decisions for clubs. Further, what constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, with significant consequences for clubs and the sport more widely. This might mean players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors.

All major football bodies have published their joint gambling sponsorship code of conduct, which sets minimum standards for socially responsible gambling sponsorships within football. The Government will closely monitor the implementation of the codes of conduct to ensure they have a meaningful impact. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about children and young people. I am happy to liaise with him and other noble Lords on this further as the codes of conduct are implemented.

On Amendment 143, I agree that where gambling advertising and sponsorship appear, it must be in a socially responsible way. Both the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, mentioned that the Premier League has already made a decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season. That is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, referred to around 40 clubs that have already taken action on gambling sponsorship. As I set out in my speech at the GambleAware conference on 4 December, I really want to see the gambling industry further raise standards to ensure that levels of gambling advertising do not exacerbate harm.

I apologise to the noble Lord if my response to his question was not clear. We are trying to address volume across different companies, where even if one company has only a small amount, the collective volume can become quite significant. That is a specific issue we have asked the gambling industry to look at. Where there is volume across the piece, individually it might not be excessive but together it might represent a significant amount of gambling advertising beyond what is deemed acceptable. This work will be monitored closely.

21:45

I am also aware of the increasing prevalence of white-label operators using football in this country to advertise to consumers outside Great Britain. I am engaging with the Gambling Commission and industry to gather further evidence of their prevalence and impact, and if further action is needed we will take it.

As for the Bill, current drafting already requires fan engagement on clubs’ business priorities and strategic approach. Discussion of a club’s overall approach to sponsorship could reasonably play a role in these consultations. We do not, however, think it appropriate for the regulator to require fan engagement specifically on gambling advertising and sponsorship.

The fan engagement threshold is intended to ensure that fans have a voice in key decisions regarding their club, but we need to ensure this is proportionate. That is why we have not listed every possible issue on which clubs should engage their fans in specific, minute detail.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on gambling direct marketing, the Gambling Commission is introducing stronger rules on direct marketing, requiring all new and existing customers of remote gambling operators to opt in to the direct marketing they receive based on the product type and channel, and further restrictions to make sure that bonuses are offered in a responsible way that does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling.

Although I understand the reasons for the noble Lord’s amendments, for the reasons I have laid out I cannot accept them. I ask the noble Lord not to press them, but I look forward to continued dialogue with him on issues relating to gambling.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a short but interesting debate that has raised many issues. I do not think now is the time for me to go through them all. Suffice it for me to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, basically said that gambling is a matter of personal choice. That is a view she is entitled to take. The vast majority of people have come to the view that gambling, like alcohol, tobacco and drugs, is a public health issue. That means there is a need for a degree of intervention in that activity. I, and Peers for Gambling Reform, have been debating what the level of that intervention should be.

I am certain that gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship lead to more harm in this country. We know that there is more than one gambling-related suicide every single day, and that should be of deep concern to us all. Collectively, we need to take more action than is currently being taken. That is why I hope we will have the opportunity to bring amendments such as this back at a later stage and to continue the debate then. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 143 withdrawn.

Amendment 144 not moved.

Amendment 145

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

145: Schedule 4, page 97, line 24, at end insert—
(f) the club’s political statements and positions.”

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 145 seeks to add to Schedule 4 a consideration of a

“club’s political statements and positions”

in the part of the new regime that concerns the fan engagement threshold requirement. I and my noble friend Lord Markham, who has added his name to the amendment, have sought to do this in as neutral a way as possible, reflecting the fact that political statements and positions are rarely one-sided. They are usually complex matters with a number of competing and conflicting views.

We have seen in recent weeks the case of Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi, who twice amended his rainbow-coloured captain’s armband with expressions of his Christian faith. Plenty of people would say that rainbow armbands supporting gay rights and written expressions of Christian faith are not irreconcilable things. The problem in his case is that his expression of his religious faith fell foul of FIFA and FA regulations banning

“any political, religious, or personal slogans, statements or images”

on players’ kit or equipment, while the other was deemed an acceptable form of political expression.

During the last World Cup in Qatar, we saw the great dismay among LGBT+ fans when the FA chose to suspend its advocacy on their behalf while the tournament was taking place in Qatar. I am very proud that my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the former Sports Minister and now the shadow Secretary of State, wore the one love armband—which a number of fans and others were very keen to see worn—when he went to cheer our national teams on in the World Cup. Although, as a Welsh-born man representing an English constituency, I think he found it just as difficult having to reconcile deciding for whom to cheer in the England v Wales match that he saw.

We have seen many other examples of this being a growing area of concern for fans, clubs and those who have to navigate these choppy waters. Whether it is taking the knee, the decision about when to hold a minute’s silence and over what, the singing of certain anthems and songs or the decision to light certain stadia up in yellow and blue in support of Ukraine but not white and blue in support of Israel after 7 October, these are very difficult matters for clubs to decide. They should be able to decide them for themselves, but the amendment my noble friend and I have brought forward asks them to discuss these matters with their fans, to try to take on board their views, to take them with them and indeed to encourage them to think about these matters and perhaps change their mind.

In doing so, the amendment asks the Government to recognise that religious or philosophical belief is itself a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so is worthy of our consideration when we are looking at supporting diversity in football, and that diversity of thought is really important if we are to grapple with these very thorny questions as a society.

The amendment also seeks to ensure that football clubs remain genuinely independent and free from external political pressure that might distort the relationship between them and their supporters. If we are to safeguard the integrity of football as an independent sport, we cannot allow it to be co-opted into political campaigns, whether from the Government or from any other political group. The duty to consult fans on political statements and activities is a safeguard which ensures that clubs will remain true to their roots, focused on the sport and not caught up in advancing political crusades or day-to-day rows.

I hope Minister will look at our amendment with the neutral consideration we have tried to give it in the way we have worded it. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 244 and to support Amendment 145, moved by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. My amendment seeks to formalise a duty which will prevent clubs, players and employees of clubs publishing political statements that bring division and conflict into a game that should be about generating unity.

We have seen over previous years multiple instances of virtue signalling, such as taking the knee before matches after the Black Lives Matter protests, and the wearing of certain armbands—as my noble friend has said—and laces, which are the latest attempt to campaign. I would say that it is a small “p” political campaign. I may differ somewhat from my noble friend Lord Hayward on this, so it is probably a good thing that he is not in his usual place.

Politics is not just about party politics. It is about the pernicious influence of political campaigning affecting—infecting—football, our national game. I remember the dark days of the 1970s, when a number of London clubs were perceived to be involved with the rise of the National Front and its racist politics. That gave rise, of course, to instances of football hooliganism. That was not a party-political issue, but it was a political issue. We do not want to go back to those dark days when, for instance, Millwall was associated with football hooliganism and some elements of racist behaviour.

I am not even sure that these initiatives work. The figures quoted a week or so ago in Committee show that 43% of players in the Premier League are Afro-Caribbean or Black African. They have achieved that through their skills, their abilities, their resilience and their physical fitness, not because they wore multi-coloured boot laces. UEFA already bans political statements such as these, but it has not been successful in implementing and enforcing such rules. The Government could really take a lead on that.

If the Government are so keen to have a regulator to enforce numerous other rules, many of which overlap UEFA’s rules, surely it is only right that the regulator impose rules on political statements and attempts to impose political views. My noble friend is quite right: we have seen recently the unpleasant behaviour of fans cheering on pro-Palestinian extremists; and of course, we have the ongoing debate, discussion and rivalry between Celtic and Rangers in Glasgow. That is very much a political issue.

Article 16 of UEFA’s own regulations, entitled “Order and Security at UEFA Competition Matches,” prohibits

“the use of gestures, words, objects, or any other means to transmit a provocative message that is not fit for a sports event, particularly provocative messages that are of political, ideological, religious or offensive nature.”

My own bugbear is bad language, particularly in front of children and young people. It is terrible, unacceptable, for grown men to be swearing and using really unpleasant language. However, do we really want to add into that mix the poisonous disputes of politics and political issues? I do not think we do.

Why do we not try to replicate, and perhaps enforce, UEFA’s rules in the Bill? We must remember how divisive such actions have been with supporters and fans. No one likes to be told what they should believe or how they should act. Fans themselves are diverse; they do not need to have these views forced down their throats—such as the preachy proselytising of Gary Lineker on any number of fashionable so-called progressive causes, or a pretentious new Jaguar advert which does not actually feature a Jaguar car.

Fans want to watch a football match and support a team; they do not want to be in the middle of a political bunfight. Fans turn up to watch their favourite team play, not to see a session of Parliament. For those reasons, the Minister should give consideration to this amendment. It would save us from further discord and conflict, which we do not need. Fundamentally, we have to trust the clubs themselves to do the right thing by their fans, their players and their boards and deliver good policies organically, rather than enforcing these kinds of initiatives, which have been proven not to work necessarily.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. What he said was exceptionally perceptive and wise. Look at Marcus Rashford, for example, who exploded on to the football scene in the UK in 2016, aged just 18, and scored on his Manchester United and England debuts, before becoming one of the country’s most exciting prospects. He became a household name at the same time and was recognised with an MBE for his work off the field, campaigning on child hunger, which he faced growing up in Wythenshawe in Manchester. He challenged the then Government in 2020, imploring Ministers to offer free meals to needy children in the school holidays.

The position for international sports federations—and, indeed, for clubs in this country—is to recognise that a balance needs to be struck, which is what my noble friend Lord Parkinson was arguing for. The balance to be struck in the Olympic movement is recognising that the IOC Athletes’ Commission opposes using athletes for political propaganda or campaigns, while providing the opportunity for them to exercise their views and opinions in official media settings or on social media accounts, which are so powerful. Surely this is not a subject for the regulator; this is a subject for clubs and the organisers of the competitions in which they play.

22:00

We should be very aware that UEFA has clear rules on this. If we want to have clubs playing in Europe, we need to accept the fact that Article 44 of the UEFA rules, on political action, states:

“The promotion or announcement, by any means, of political messages or of any other political actions inside or in the immediate vicinity of the stadium is strictly prohibited before, during and after the match”.

So a balance can be struck between people airing their views, with the recognition that the expression of political opinion in official media settings or on social media accounts is fine, and recognising that if we want to play in the European competitions organised by UEFA, we need to abide by their rules. That is a significant point for the whole of this legislation. We can mandate the regulator to undertake a whole series of important steps on regulating English football, but if he conflicts with UEFA, it is UEFA that will dominate and ultimately decide whether our clubs play in Europe. We should never forget that on every step of our way along the legislation that we are considering, both tonight in Committee and, ultimately, in another place.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I make a brief reminder here that objections have been raised to all sorts of things. I remember when it was the poppy on jerseys in a football match. Apparently, a political statement is one that you either do not understand or do not agree with. I ask the Government, and indeed all noble Lords, to be very careful about this. These amendments are trying to exclude things that might be positive and good, because there will always be somebody who disagrees with them. All I will say is: tread very carefully here. Remembering the dead of World War I and World War II would not be seen as an overt statement in this country, but apparently it is elsewhere.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I am so glad that these amendments were tabled, because it gives us a chance to reflect. The statement that to determine what is right and wrong between different countries and cultures is very complicated so it is easier to say that it has no place in the game seems fair enough to me. Politics is complicated. We find it complicated in this place, even though we are the legislators and the politicians. Once you start introducing it into football, you can get into a real mess.

I am also not sure about a few things, so I want to share some confusion. One difficulty is that, for example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, last week that he does not consider the rainbow armband to be political, but I think that it is highly ideological and political. Last month, the FA dedicated a 35-minute video to the Rainbow Laces campaign, showcasing an activist-heavy panel that included its women’s talent and senior game EDI consultant coach developer. That title gives the game away before we go anywhere.

Guess what? That particular individual used to work for Stonewall before being brought into football. I hope that we in this House understand that Stonewall is at least a highly contentious political organisation which is now at the heart of defining what is considered to be inclusive football. The problem with this profusion of rainbows on laces, pitch flags, ball plinths and all the rest of this branding is that any objection on the basis of politics leads to an accusation of being insensitive to lesbian and gay people or being homophobic. Indeed, it is the very opposite. I think that trans ideology is discriminatory against lesbians and gays because it does not understand same-sex attraction. If noble Lords are lost and are thinking, “Oh God, what is she going on about?”, that is fine. It is a political matter and nothing to do with football. I worry when football managers and teams get embroiled in this.

I was unsure about this amendment. I am usually the kind of populist democrat who says, “Vote on everything; go and have a vote”, but I did wonder when the noble Lord said, “See what the fans say—don’t put out a statement unless they agree with you”. Maybe it is because I am from a Celtic family—although some of them support Spurs. I hope that noble Lords can get their heads around this. Celtic’s fan base has gone completely bonkers on the Israel-Gaza question. It is like a Hamas support group on tour. The irony is that their sloganeering in support, as they would see it, of the Green Brigade and all the rest of it—their support for Gaza resistance—has put them completely at odds with Celtic’s owners and the board, although the Celtic Trust, the shareholders’ group, agrees with them. It has split the club. But everyone should keep out of this. Let them sloganise away, but do not get involved one way or another. Make the political point.

However, I cheered when Crystal Palace put out an official statement after the 7 October pogrom. I thought it was great that at last somebody had come out and condemned the murders and hostage-taking. We have seen what has happened to Israeli teams, which have been subjected to anti-Semitic attacks, one of which almost brought down a Government on the continent. We know what is going on. I am interested that football is getting involved in this. I have already commended those Spurs fans who have started a grass-roots campaign in support of Emily Damari, the last remaining British hostage. I want Spurs fans to chant this young woman’s name at the ground. Her uncle Rob is a Crystal Palace fan. As he pointed out, they may not have the grass-roots campaign, but at least Palace put out a statement.

I am into all this. I genuinely do not want to say that we should sanitise football clubs of all political discussion. It is impossible. It is not going to happen. I do not want the Government interfering in it or a regulator being involved. I do not want people being in a situation where they fail, or refuse, to acknowledge that they are putting forward, for example, EDI policies. These are politics in disguise, although they will not admit it. Politics is complicated. Let us keep it out of football. The fans will be political just because they are stroppy like that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. These amendments seek to add a requirement for a club to consult fans on any political statements or stances.

Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would additionally mandate fan approval of any political statement or political activity made by the club, its players or any other staff. This includes fan approval in relation to the issuing or wearing of items of clothing with political connotations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, outlined, what we view as political is disputed. It is not the place of a statutory regulator tasked with sustaining the stability of the game to limit or add approval processes for political speech or action or, indeed, to determine what is defined as political in the first place.

On Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clubs may wish to consult their fans in this regard as part of their regular fan engagement. However, this is not something that the regulator will require of clubs. The Bill is intended to ensure that fans have a voice in key decisions regarding their club, but we need to make sure that this is proportionate. That is why we have not listed every possible issue that clubs should engage with their fans on in minute detail.

As has been mentioned, it is notable that many sporting personalities have used the attention that sports receive to campaign on issues that concern them. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, highlighted Marcus Rashford as an example. To be clear, we do not want to inhibit free speech. Instead, as is the case now, fans are equally able to use their own freedom of expression to protest political statements or actions made by their club. As well as potentially constraining freedom of speech, these amendments would not improve the regulator’s ability to deliver its objectives. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group for their considered thoughts. Like the Minister, we do not want to inhibit free speech. The difficulty is in questions of an acceptable political gesture or article of clothing conflicting with the free speech of those who take a differing view. That is where it is important for clubs to be mindful of the wide range of views that are out there and to have an earnest conversation with their fans and with society more broadly.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right to mention the poppy. Sadly, it is already an article contested by some—we have crossed the Rubicon that he warned us to be wary of. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to the sectarianism that there has been for a long time in certain football clubs. This is not a new matter but one which is growing and where there are new, more complicated areas of contention. I agree with the sentiment that a number of noble Lords expressed that it is important to get politics out of football.

I hope that the Minister will reflect further on this ahead of Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughts and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 145 withdrawn.

Amendment 146

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

146: Schedule 4, page 97, line 27, leave out “crest” and insert “badge”

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 146 and speak to my Amendment 237. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for adding his name to them. These amendments are identical in nature, seeking to change “crest” to “badge” in the two instances where it is used in the Bill. These were the first amendments that I tabled on this Bill. They are short and simple but very important.

I appreciate that heraldic terms can seem confusing to the uninitiated, but if we cannot get this right in your Lordships’ House, where all Members are armigerous, where can we? It might be helpful to start with a brief glossary. A full heraldic achievement consists of many elements. The most common and obvious of these is the shield or escutcheon. On these, or on a diamond-shaped lozenge for women, is borne the coat of arms, the design of which is particular to the person or institution which bears them. We are surrounded by many splendid examples of these in your Lordships’ Chamber. Noble Lords might have found their eyes hovering over them from time to time during some of our longer debates, as mine sometimes do. If noble Lords’ eyes start to wander during the debate on this group, I will take that as a sign of focus rather than distraction.

Sadly, the stained-glass windows which were designed for your Lordships’ Chamber by Augustus Pugin were lost during the Second World War. The replacements installed in 1950, sadly not illuminated now because of the late hour, show the coats of arms of Peers who lived between 1360 and 1900. The armorial bearings running beneath the Galleries are of various sovereigns from Edward III and Lord Chancellors from 1377 onwards.

What first catches the eye when it drifts in our debates is the escutcheon bearing the coat of arms, but other elements can be seen. As Peers, we are entitled to supporters—figures or objects placed either side of a shield; very often these are animals, real or imaginary, such as the lion and unicorn in the royal coat of arms, but they can be figures as well. My late noble friend Lady Thatcher, for instance, had as supporters an admiral of the Royal Navy to commemorate the victory in the Falklands War during her celebrated premiership and Sir Isaac Newton, who, like her, was born in Lincolnshire, in recognition of her earlier career as a scientist.

22:15

A common error is to use “crest” to describe a coat of arms or a heraldic achievement in full, but the crest is another distinct element, originating in the decorative sculptures worn on the top of helmets by knights who jousted in tournaments. Like those decorations, it sits atop the helm in a heraldic display and might be an animal or indeed something else; in the old coat of arms and crest of the borough of Whitley Bay, it was a representation of the lighthouse on St Mary’s Island, rising out of a coronet of four lily flowers. It is therefore wrong for this Bill to refer to crests, not just because they are one specific heraldic element but because, like coats of arms and supporters, they have to be granted officially.

Not a single one of the 116 football teams in the top five English leagues which the Government envisage this Bill will cover has been officially granted an arms or a crest, but I was delighted to learn, in considering this important aspect of the Bill, that a number have officially been granted the use of a badge. This is a further element of heraldry, consisting of an emblem or device which denotes allegiance to a particular person, family or corporate body. If noble Lords’ necks allow, they will see that we sit underneath some splendid examples of these: the white hart of King Richard II and the Tudor rose adopted by Henry VII. Another famous example might be the three ostrich feathers of the Prince of Wales, used by the Welsh Rugby Union and by the Welsh national team.

Given its historic connections with jousting and sporting competition, it seems entirely appropriate that footballers, who are in many ways the modern knights and jousters, should bear heraldic elements denoting their allegiances. Here is one area where I think we can all agree on the benefits of a long-established and light-touch regulatory regime. Founded by royal charter in 1484 by King Richard III, the College of Arms has delegated authority to act on behalf of the Crown in all matters of heraldry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, acting alongside the Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland. If a heraldic claim is sufficiently complex or contested, it can be decided in His Majesty’s High Court of Chivalry, a civil court presided over by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, as Earl Marshal. How fortunate we are to have him as a Member of your Lordships’ House, to maintain vigilance in this important area of the law.

Although it has existed since the 14th century, the Court of Chivalry is rarely called upon to sit. It was last convened in 1954 for the case of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd. Before that, it had not sat since 1737, and before hearing the case, the court first had to rule whether it still existed. The judge who heard that case on behalf of the Earl Marshal was the Lord Chief Justice, another Lord Goddard, who established very clearly that the court did exist and that it had

“an absolute jurisdiction, by prescription, in matters of honour, pedigree, descent, and coat armour”.

This case might seem arcane to some, but it does have some concerning implications for football. Manchester Palace of Varieties had displayed the arms of the City of Manchester in its theatre for more than 20 years, and on the common seal for more than 60, and it denied that Manchester’s leave or licence was necessary for it to do so.

From the outset, modern football teams have made use of heraldry on their shirts. Many, from the date of their foundation, used a version of the coat of arms of the town or city in which they played, without official licence to do so. This rarely caused problems; town and city councils were usually happy for the local team to display the local coat of arms. At the national level there was a similar situation. The Football Association used the Royal Arms in various versions and contexts until 1949, when it was granted its own arms—perhaps the most famous coat of arms in the country. Some may like to sing about three lions on a shirt; I like to think of them as Argent three lions passant guardant in pale azure. No other clubs have regularised the use of the emblems that they use. In most cases, nobody has challenged them for their use, but there have been exceptions or problems which have emerged when clubs tried to register these arms or insignia as a trademark. When Doncaster made an application in 1968 to register its arms as a trademark, the borough lodged an objection against the local team. A similar problem arose in relation to Rotherham United.

In the early 1970s, particularly in the wake of the Trade Descriptions Act, passed in 1968, football clubs and governing bodies became concerned about the misuse of club badges, particularly by companies that produced souvenirs. The clubs were not able to protect or license the use of their badges since, in most cases, they were not registered.

In January 1972, the Football League consulted its lawyers for advice about how to protect its members’ interests in their visual identity. Since many of the devices were heraldic, the lawyers approached the College of Arms to obtain guidance about the ownership. They visited the college to meet Rodney Dennys, one of its officers, as Somerset Herald of Arms in Ordinary. At this meeting, and in subsequent discussions, it emerged that the Football Association was not keen for football clubs to be granted arms themselves. Accordingly, a plan was devised in which the College of Arms would grant 92 individual badges to the Football League, one for each of its member clubs at the time, and the league would then license the use of each badge to the appropriate club.

Before these badges could be granted, the Football League would itself need to become armigerous—given the right to bear arms. Its coat of arms was granted on 25 March 1974. Sadly, the Football League makes no use of these arms today, although it used to be seen flying in its banner form, 25 feet square, above Wembley Stadium in the early 1980s. The Football League was granted a crest—a football surmounted by a swift—and a badge, which incorporated a chain of 12 links, representing the 12 clubs that originally formed it.

Fully kitted out, the Football League now could start the process of granting individual clubs their badges. The process proved rather protracted, but 25 clubs were granted badges, in five batches of five. The first grant was made on 27 October 1975, consisting of badges for Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Manchester United, Hull City and West Bromwich Albion. Time, alas, does not allow me to recite all their blazons, but, for the sake of my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I can say that their club’s badge is

“a lion rampant reguardant azure supporting with the forepaws a crozier or all within an annulet azure”.

A further grant was made three days later, with badges for Leicester City, Bury, Birmingham City, Exeter City and Cardiff City. In December 1976, badges were granted to Huddersfield Town, Lincoln City, Carlisle United, Manchester City and Aldershot. In April 1977, they were granted to Liverpool, Stockport County, Blackpool, Doncaster Rovers and Newcastle United. I am sure I do not need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that his team’s official badge is:

“Upon a hurt a lozenge or charged with a cross crosslet fitchy azure”.

The fifth and final grant was made in May 1979 and covered Sheffield United, Millwall, Leyton Orient, Oldham Athletic and Northampton Town. The Government Chief Whip will be pleased to know that the case of Millwall illustrates the problems which arose in this process. There was hearty debate between the club and the College of Arms over how its badge should be blazoned. As Somerset Herald, Mr Dennys tried hard to preserve the rather specific position and look of the leaping lion in the original existing badge, but the club had already demonstrated a preference for naturalistic lions over heraldic ones and soon afterwards reverted to the original image—a version of which, I understand, it uses today. If no one at the College of Arms liked that, I am sure that, in the words of the famous Millwall song, they did not care.

That perhaps offers some clues as to why these 25 badges are the only examples of legitimate heraldic badges in English football today. However, the rather incomplete and unsatisfactory way that the legal situation was left poses a number of questions, which I hope the Government will consider as we look at this Bill. Does the Minister share my concerns that only 25 of the 116 clubs which are likely to be regulated by this Bill have badges which have been officially granted? Does she share the concerns that have been raised about the fact that these badges have been granted by the English Football League when many of those 25 teams, now and in the future, may not play in the leagues that it oversees? What discussions, if any, have her department had with the College of Arms or the Court of the Lord Lyon about these matters?

If the Minister is unable to answer tonight, as I appreciate these are rather more technical than some of the other questions I have asked, I would be very happy for her to write. There is an important point underlying all this, and one that I intend to return to on Report if we are not able to sort it out now. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, in the interests of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and me—passionate Leeds supporters—I feel that my noble friend Lord Parkinson seems to have made an error. The first Leeds United badge, which actually began life in 1908, 11 years before the formation of the club we know and love today, was originally used by Leeds City Football Club—the team that preceded Leeds United. It was based on the coat of arms of the city of Leeds and it featured three owls. In some variations, it included the Latin motto “pro rege et lege”, which translates as “for the king and the law”. The team colours, blue and yellow, also came from the city’s crest. In 1965, came the owl badge. It was considered by some to be more representative of the team known as the Owls, Sheffield Wednesday—which my noble friend did not mention; he mentioned only Sheffield United—than of Leeds United FC, despite three owls featuring on the crest of the city of Leeds. The badge would have donned the shirt of a little-known youngster by the name of Billy Bremner.

On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is sadly not in his seat, and me, and taking only one minute of the Committee’s time, I needed to correct my noble friend Lord Parkinson on his lack of knowledge of this rather important issue of a recognised badge for Leeds United.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My point was that the 25 badges and clubs that I listed are those which have been granted through delegation by the College of Arms to the English Football League. There are many splendid but unofficial badges used by teams elsewhere in football.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Very brief.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I will take that advice.

I put my name to Amendment 237, because I thought that it was about an identification symbol. That is what heraldry is all about, except that we do not use it any more to define who is going to belt who over the head in the middle of a medieval battlefield. All I can say after listening to the speech on this amendment is that I have learned much, but I am not sure when it will be useful.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for these amendments, which address changes to club heritage assets and what should be safeguarded by the regulator. I if may say so, this debate could be used as the definition of a lordly debate.

The Government understand that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord seek to avoid a misuse of any heraldic terms. I am grateful for the historic background that he gave in what was one of the Committee’s more unusual contributions, but one from which we all learned a great deal.

This specific clause is intended to work in tandem with the FA heritage protections, with the regulator acting as an enforcement backstop to the FA’s rules. The FA’s heritage protections use the term “crest”, and therefore this amendment would risk the regulator being out of step with the rest of the industry. However, I stress to the noble Lord that officials have liaised with the College of Arms on this. We are keen to ensure that the Bill does not incorrectly signal that the regulator would ever override the separate process of the College of Arms. We have engaged and will continue to engage with the College of Arms to ensure that it is content. This may be something that we return to upon further discussions with the college and the FA. I acknowledge the intent of these amendments but, for the reasons that I have outlined, ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for the way that she has engaged with this and her promise to look at it further. She is right that this is a very House of Lords issue, but I was alerted to it by comments on social media from those who watch your Lordships’ proceedings, so it is both an ancient and a very modern issue, and one about which people feel very strongly.

I am glad that the Minister has begun dialogue with the College of Arms. Just because others are getting it wrong, it does not mean that we should get it wrong in legislation. For the reasons that I have set out, I think that we can nudge towards the present legal position in the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for that and will certainly take her up on the offer to discuss this further between now and Report.

In my research I was pleased to learn that a football first appeared in heraldry as far back as 1604, when the Clarenceux King of Arms at that time granted arms and a crest to Sir William Jordan, who was briefly a Member of Parliament for Westbury. Noble Lords may be as surprised as I was to learn that a football appears in the 17th century grant given to him. His crest is

“A football or encircled by a scroll inscribed PERCUSSA RESURGO”—

“Struck, I bounce back”. That message of resilience is perhaps one to cheer us on as we consider these amendments in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 146 withdrawn.

Amendment 147 not moved.

Schedule 4 agreed.

22:30

Clause 19: Revocation and cessation of operating licence

Amendments 148 and 149 not moved.

Clause 19 agreed.

Clause 20 agreed.

Schedule 5: Mandatory licence conditions

Amendments 150 to 154 not moved.

Amendment 155

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

155: Schedule 5, page 99, line 11, leave out paragraph (ii)

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I asked for this amendment to be degrouped because I wanted to ensure that the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion reporting was treated separately and as an important issue in its own right in the Bill. I thought that would mirror the way the Government have treated the same topic. I had problems with the original Bill that the Conservative Party introduced when in government. I was ready to oppose it, but in a fairly limited way. When the Bill came back with the new Government, things had been added. One of the announcements the Government made was of the importance of adding EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—and that they were bolstering that in the Bill. I immediately became concerned. As we have all noticed, we have discussed it quite a lot already, but there is always more to say.

I want to establish something: it is admirable that corporations, institutions and football clubs are today keen to try to make themselves more welcoming places for minorities and for everyone. They should not employ any discriminatory practices that prevent people being able to participate equally—in this instance as fans, in employment or at any level of staff, management or players. The only thing that should matter is merit rather than prejudice; that should be the key principle. To be clear, my objection to the regulatory requirement for EDI reporting being added to the original Bill was not because EDI is some righteous vehicle for fairness in football governance but rather because EDI is a bureaucratic process—I would even say a bit of a virtue-signalling racket. It is expensive, ineffective and often counterproductive, and it opens the door to political interference by the state in football, something that a number of us are worried about.

On effectiveness, I remind the Committee that the Post Office won awards for its diversity and inclusion policies. The Post Office also had a modern slavery statement, a carbon reduction plan and a very worthy statement of corporate social responsibility. All the while, senior management at that same Post Office allowed its own sub-postmasters to be treated in the most inhumane, unfair and possibly unlawful manner. You can tick all the good governance boxes in the world and have award-winning EDI schemes on the books, but it does not equate to good governance.

To be less cynical, most employers mean well when they decide to implement EDI measures, but they can be so desperate to be seen to be doing the right thing that they rush into initiatives that do not work even on their own terms. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the CIPD, has found a worrying number of business leaders who say that they did not do any research before launching their EDI schemes.

Talking of research, I urge the Minister to look at the government-commissioned report of the inclusion at work panel. It was convened by Kemi Badenoch when she was Equalities Minister and Business Secretary. In case that allows anyone to dismiss the report as some kind of biased Tory report, the panel comprised a range of private and public sector experts. It was advised on by a renowned Harvard University professor. It really is just research. The report concludes that EDI practices are often polarising and counterproductive, and can even be unlawful. For example, in pursuit of a more diverse workforce, overzealous employers have used so-called positive discrimination even though it is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. I am worried that this is the kind of thing that will happen in football.

I remind noble Lords of the case that I mentioned very briefly in the debate on an earlier group in relation to the Royal Air Force. In 2022, hoping to meet its diversity targets, it overlooked eminently qualified white applicants for female and ethnic-minority recruits. This was then found to be unlawful, and those candidates who were passed over received financial compensation.

I remind the Committee of the case of Linzi Smith, who was reported to the police, a victim of surveillance and barred by her beloved Newcastle United Football Club for holding legal views and expressing them, not at a football ground but on social media. Her football club and the Premier League have disciplined her, and she is now banned from attending football. It is an atrocious case.

I also draw attention to a compelling new study released by Rutgers University, which has found that EDI training often sows divisions and resentment in organisations, and that EDI practices can lead to perceptions of prejudice where none objectively exists. For example, it can happen when prioritising EDI schemes, then sending employers on endless training sessions and workshops, and telling them—depending on their race, sex, disability or whatever—that they are either victims or oppressors. Guess what: this fosters and exacerbates conflicts and resentments.

What is heralded as an effective solution to bigotry and prejudice seems instead to be fuelling the very problems that its advocates claim to want to solve. Therefore, I ask the Minister to pause and think before adding this to the Bill, to avoid opening up a hornet’s nest of division in football clubs.

After all I have said, we should not be surprised to discover that things are moving pretty quickly and we could be behind the times. In America, US corporates and organisations are now realising that what they call DEI rather than EDI is causing real problems; they are starting to realise that they should get out of it. Richard Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, recently wrote that one of the most important events in America this year, outside the presidential election, was the intellectual collapse of what was described as the “DEI fad”.

The Wall Street Journal and various other American newspapers have noted some of this. Walmart, America’s largest private employer, is just the latest company to abandon DEI. It announced that, from 25 November, it was rolling back a slew of initiatives related to DEI. This has included winding down programmes providing assistance to suppliers that are 51% owned by women, minorities, veterans or members of the LGBTQ+ community. It is also phasing out the phrase “DEI” in its corporate messaging, and says that it will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers based on race or gender diversity.

According to the City Journal, Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, has dismantled its global equality, diversity and inclusion department as it oversees a broad revamping of the company’s workforce. It is now emphasising hiring on merit, while truly caring for people, regardless of arbitrary one-dimensional identity or affinity group labels. It says that that is the way to go.

This is not just me going on about EDI; this is major corporates across the world, which have tried this stuff and said that it has been a disaster. You can also look at Harley Davidson, the car maker Ford, and the farming goods company tractor today. They have all rejected EDI goals, targets, report writing, quotas and so on. We have also seen consumer boycotts that have forced brands such as Bud Light and Target to retreat from EDI-inspired marketing campaigns. That seems to me to indicate that maybe a pause is required.

I now want to come back to football.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am glad that you agree.

Football can learn from other people; and, as we are importing EDI from the corporate sector and the university sector, we should see where it has been a disaster there before we impose it on football.

Most people in football, for obvious reasons, are not experts in EDI. You can imagine a situation where a football team is basically told that the regulator could punish them if they do not live up to the EDI requirements stipulated in the Bill. They will do what every organisation does in this situation. They will think, “We don’t know anything about critical race theory; we don’t know anything about decolonising; we don’t understand this stuff, so what should we do?” Of course, they outsource the work to the experts, who know. Third-party outsiders are brought in house. They are the kind of professionals who know all about EDI. Those professionals are not necessarily motivated by fair-minded, pragmatic goals. They are often activists: individuals or organisations committed to what I consider to be a political ideology—something like critical race theory. Look at how the diversity industry has wrought havoc on all levels of the public sector in this country: universities, museums, the Civil Service. This is a real source of contention. It does not matter what side you are on; it is causing divisions.

What began as an attempt to remove barriers for historically disadvantaged groups has grown into a thriving grievance industry. We have seen that one of the slogans of EDI is to bring your true, authentic self to work. My attitude is that you should leave it at home. The only thing you should bring to work is your professional self.

I commend the Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, for making the point that your political views, if you are, for example, a hospital doctor, should stay at the door of the hospital. We are not interested in your true, authentic self. But of course, all the people are coming in and saying, “I have to express my true, authentic self as a doctor and tell you everything I have ever thought about Israel and Gaza”. That is out of EDI. That is where it came from. Your own Health Secretary has rather courageously pointed out that that that should be discouraged, if not disciplined.

This part of the Bill will oblige clubs to employ expensive pen-pushers with a particular expertise in writing reports, all because of the mandatory inclusion reports. These reports will not write themselves. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who is not in his place. He was talking about the challenges of writing complicated business plans. You have to get all the lawyers in. Let me tell you: to write an EDI report, you also have to learn a new language. It is a completely different world. They will be paying people to write this stuff.

It does not come cheap. The cash-strapped clubs facing financial strain—an issue we are keen to do something about—will now have to find the money to pay all these EDI directors. By the way, the assistant director of EDI community services in one local council was earning £103,000. These guys are not cheap. Which council was that person working for? Birmingham. It has gone bankrupt. This is what happens. You can waste money and your priorities can get completely distorted.

I do understand, by the way, that many football clubs have big EDI departments. The Premier League is like so many big well-endowed organisations and corporations, which very often have huge EDI sections—it is a growing industry. I disapprove of that, but that is up to them; I just do not want it to be regulated. But legally requiring smaller clubs to publish their inclusion strategies—explaining how their strategic plans will fulfil the EDI requirement, with annual equality reports and so on—seems to me to be taking their eye off what should be important. It inevitably steers organisations away from their actual purpose: winning games. Diversity training cannot become as important as football training. Encouraging clubs to demonstrate their EDI credentials could be an indulgent and dangerous distraction from what they should do and what they can do best.

22:45

As a final PS, one group that certainly faces more discrimination in this country than any other, according to all the data that is ever shared on this, is white working-class males, who are always at the bottom of the pile of all the groups that are looked at. The one thing that football clubs in this country do well is including white working-class males. So pat yourself on the back if you are a football club, as far as I am concerned. But of course, in EDI-speak, those white working-class males are not being brilliantly included in local community football without anyone having a policy on it; they are considered inherently privileged. In fact, under EDI CRT rules, that white working-class football club is more privileged than a multi-millionaire black footballer—it is a ludicrous inversion.

I will finish with one final type of cognitive dissonance. I do not think we can sit here discussing equality, fairness and inclusion without talking about one important thing: the fact that football is currently not inclusive for women and girls in some instances because of the controversy around the reality of biological sex. The fact that a six-foot trans-identifying male who identifies as female can end up playing in a women’s team and showering in a women’s changing room, jeopardising the safety and privacy of female footballers, makes the competition—the female game—totally unfair.

I mentioned on another group the Judy Murray interview in the Herald, and I will quote that to finish:

“I’m all for inclusivity in sport, but we’ve always had categories for a reason … And the most obvious categories are men and women … You coach girls and boys differently. They’re physically different … when children reach puberty, the boys begin to pull away from the girls hugely because they obviously become bigger, stronger and faster … Those who are born male should only compete in male categories”.

Does the Minister agree? The “What is a woman?” question seems to me to be an obvious signifier of fairness in sport and, if all we have is EDI box-ticking and we cannot be fair to women in sport, what are we doing here in the first place?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I rise to support my noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley, and I was pleased to sign the amendment. Noble Lords should remember that the corporate governance statement is not a voluntary part of Schedule 5; it is a mandatory licence condition and a threshold requirement. A club simply cannot progress in the licensing process unless it abides by this rather pernicious sub-paragraph of Schedule 5.

My noble friend Lady Fox made an excellent case in saying that this should be removed from the Bill; it is disappointing. We have heard many times from the Government Benches—including the Minister and the Chief Whip, who is no longer in his place—that it is hypocritical for us on these Benches to criticise the provisions of the Bill, given that the previous Conservative Government introduced the original Bill. But noble Lords will now know that I refute this suggestion because I personally would have opposed many aspects of the Bill. I think it is a terrible Bill, frankly, and would have opposed it under the previous Administration.

The Benches opposite cannot make that charge on this particular aspect of the Bill, because this is a brand new inclusion by the current Administration. I am not sure why the new Government thought this was an important measure. It is disappointing that there are no Labour Back-Benchers supporting their own Government on one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, although I concede that the hour is late.

There are already a whole host of measures that clubs and leagues take to progress inclusion and diversity. We had debates previously, a week or so ago, which made the point that this is covered, comprehensively, by the Equality Act 2010. It is also covered by a number of employment Acts, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which would prevent direct and indirect discrimination without the heavy-handed nature of this provision. Because it is going to be set down in primary legislation as part of a corporate governance statement, it will very quickly become not just statute law but case law, so it will be a de facto tablet of stone—irrevocable, a settled document.

That worries me, because we know there is a huge amount of bureaucracy—and I can say this as a former human resources specialist. There are, per capita, more HR specialists in the UK than practically anywhere in the European Union and the developed world. That means there will not just be this corporate statement; there will be the bureaucracy of impact equality assessments, people specs, job specs, race action plans, EDI plans, LGBT plans, et cetera. This is what it will become. It will be about a divisive attempt to segment and disaggregate different fan groups. I think that will be deeply regrettable. Therefore, I think it will give rise to anger and resentment—the very opposite of the sense of cohesion, belonging, unity of purpose and community pride, which surely are the raison d’être of football.

As an example, Peterborough United—Posh—posted a single photo on its Facebook page of a Pride flag. I do not have a problem with a Pride flag. I treat gay and lesbian people with respect. They are football fans; they can come and go as they wish. I make no value judgment on that. But it gave rise to an absolute deluge of negative comments on the Facebook page, and it set fans against each other. It was seen, cynically maybe, as virtue signalling by Posh. It was a kind gesture, but it backfired, I am afraid.

The Bill claims to have the interests of the fans at its heart, and the Government claim the same. It strikes me as incredibly bizarre that they have no clue what the fans actually want. Is there any quantitative or qualitative data to back up whether this provision is needed in the Bill? Football fans are not interested in EDI. They want their clubs to be run properly; they want the teams to deliver high-quality football. They actually believe in fairness and decency, not tick-box virtue signalling.

Finally, there is the issue of cost to the clubs. Policy Exchange, the think tank, has highlighted its recent annual report, Politicising Business, the enormous cost that EDI can place on clubs. It has analysed the cost of the new EDI rules that the FCA brought in for firms that it regulates in December 2023. It estimated that the new rules will incur a one-off cost of £561 million, and ongoing costs of up to £317 million a year to businesses—that is over £500 million for firms simply to improve their diversity and equality policies, which are already embedded in existing legislation. Surely this cost will be prohibitive.

Finally, I ask: what are the objectives? What are the key performance indicators? What does success look like? What does a cost-benefit analysis look like? This is about appearing virtuous and will result in conflict and discord. I do not believe that it should be in the Bill. We should trust clubs to do the right thing and to treat people both properly and fairly.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late and I found my brain somewhat pounded into stupefaction by the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I found myself, perhaps disloyally and strangely, in agreement with the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on that matter. In this state of stupefaction, I am concerned about the serried ranks on the Government Benches waiting to jump on any mistake that I might make, so I hope that they, or perhaps their ghosts, will forgive me for any. I shall make just three quick points because the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have said it all. I could perhaps just say what they said, but I shall try to make three very quick points, in view of the lateness of the hour and the evident but brave tiredness of the ranks in front of me.

My first point is that EDI is, believe it or not, for those who desperately believe in it and think it is tremendously important and essential to have in the Bill, a passing fad. It is a fashion. It is not even a fashion that we came up with: it is a fashion that we imported from America. My wife was, for many decades, a fashion designer in New York and she would point out to me how the colour would be decided in New York and the next year it would be copied in London. The line, the cut, the theme of fashion would be decided in New York and a year later would arrive in London. So it is with all these moral panics that, for the last decade we have seen arise, one by one, be taken very seriously and gradually fade away.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about how, even now, American academia having become obsessed with it for many years, everybody is getting bored with it because it actually turns out to be a bit of a disaster. One by one, all these moral panics will disappear and, in coming decades, people will ask, “Why on earth did they think that way? What on earth told them to do that?” There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, no academic evidence. The academic evidence that companies such as McKinsey used to make hundreds of millions or more out of companies for selling these lines has been shown to be disreputable by careful academic analysis. I know; I used to work for McKinsey. There were 800 people around the world when I worked there; there are now 46,000 and the numbers grew on stuff like this, without any really valid academic basis. It is a passing fad and I hope we will not allow it to become implanted into football just at the time that it is beginning to fade.

My second point is that it crowds out useful activity. I spent decades advising chief executives of the largest companies in the world as to what they should do, and the one thing that I and so many others like me advised them on was focus: do not allow yourself to get distracted. But noble Lords who have been here during this Committee will remember that I have frequently described the Bill as a Christmas tree. What we have heard is everybody trying to hang baubles on the Christ1mas tree.

23:00

I am chairman of an educational think tank and, once a year, for many years, we published a list of all the things that people thought should be taught in schools. There were about 200 new ideas every year—kids should be taught gardening, or emotional intelligence. If you try to do that, you move away from being able to teach kids how to read, write, add up and become useful citizens in the world. It is the same with football clubs. If you put all of these things into the Bill—gambling, EDI, whatever—you then have to think about the board that does not have the time to focus on whether it has the right team and is hiring the right players, whether the coach is any good, how the team is doing, or if the staff are happy. There will be none of that. The board will spend most of its time, as is the case for many boards nowadays, talking about which of the many regulators, including this new football regulator, it has to satisfy. The board will lose focus and it will crowd out useful activity.

Thirdly, this has unintended consequences. Think of an earlier moral fad: ESG. The FCA has required all companies registered on the London Stock Exchange to have an ESG plan, and the wording looks much like the wording here for EDI. Since that happened, scores of companies have left the London Stock Exchange. It is dying as we watch it, and that cannot be surprising. If you are a chief executive, chairman or major shareholder of a company that is going to list, and you are asked where you are thinking of listing and you ask where you should list, you will be told that in London there will be this ESG regulation all over you which will be a huge time sink, requiring you to hire lots of people, and that you are going to have to show all sorts of compliance. Such a chief executive will say, “Fine, I think I’ll go over to NASDAQ and sign there”. So it will be if we put too many onerous requirements, such as EDI, on football clubs.

Companies or investors that think they might invest in a British football team will say that it is not worth the candle, as they will not be able to focus on being a good football team because they will have to do all the things that the Bill requires, with a regulator—already all these shadow people are being hired, one by one, to plan how they are going to exercise control over football clubs. They will decide not to do it. I can predict that with this Bill, especially if we add all of these baubles to the Christmas tree, we are going to see the Premier League—the greatest league in the world—gradually go down the drain.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by my noble friends which seeks to remove equality, diversity and inclusion requirements from the corporate governance code outlined in the Bill.

First, I acknowledge a concern that I believe underpins this amendment: the sense that EDI has, in some cases, become a compliance-driven exercise, where box-ticking and slogans replace meaningful action and real change. I recognise the frustration with the rise of what some see as the EDI industry, where jargon-laden initiatives create more paperwork than progress and risk alienating those they seek to engage. I share those concerns.

I know from my experience in football and the wider business arena that real change does not come from bureaucratic edicts or tokenistic gestures. In the end, change comes from understanding people and the barriers they face, the biases they encounter and, above all, the opportunities they need to succeed. For me, EDI must be about more than processes; it must be about outcomes.

This is where football, and particularly the Premier League and its clubs, is showing how it can be done and done well. The Premier League’s equality, diversity and inclusion standard, or PLEDIS, is a good example of an enabling framework that empowers clubs to embed EDI in their operations while avoiding the pitfalls of bureaucracy. I am very proud to say that West Ham United have been awarded the highest level of PLEDIS you can get.

PLEDIS is not a blunt tool; it does not impose rigid, one-size-fits-all rules. Instead, it provides clubs with expert guidance and a structured framework to identify their own unique challenges and set meaningful goals. For example, clubs are supported to collect and analyse data so that they can understand where underrepresentation exists, whether in senior leadership, academy coaching staff or community programmes. Clubs are helped to develop tailored plans based on their specific circumstances, whether that means increasing female representation in the boardrooms or improving accessibility for disabled fans. PLEDIS helps to bring about a genuine culture of learning and development. We have held some really good educational sessions about unconscious bias, cultural awareness and inclusive leadership.

I am not saying that everything the Premier League does is perfect, but we have tried collectively to develop a system that avoids the pitfalls of bureaucracy and instead empowers clubs to take ownership of their EDI journey. You need some outside help and challenge for it to work effectively. You need external expert support to ensure that clubs are not left to navigate this work alone and to help clubs turn principles into action, with practical advice rather than burdensome mandates. The key to success in EDI is not just to measure compliance but to drive cultural change. That is what the Premier League approach aims to achieve. I believe that PLEDIS almost always continues to be used when clubs are relegated to the Football League, because clubs find it so valuable.

Consider too the impact of initiatives such as the Premier League’s No Room For Racism campaign. Although public facing, this work is backed by systemic efforts within clubs to tackle discrimination, create pathways for underrepresented groups and hold those in power accountable for progress. The Premier League has developed great programmes to develop more black coaches, bring more South Asian players through the talent pipeline and help black players on the path to becoming club executives.

All this matters, and I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Fox that it cannot be about box-ticking. It is about ensuring that every player, coach, staff member and fan feels that football is for them. When implemented correctly, EDI does not create diversion or resentment; it fosters unity by ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate and succeed.

I have a lot of sympathy for my noble friends who worry about the potential for overreach or missteps in EDI, and my noble friend Lady Fox is right that poorly conceived and implemented EDI policies will be burdensome and ineffective. But now that EDI has been put into the Bill, my approach will be to work with the football regulator to ensure that it is done thoughtfully, innovatively and with that laser focus on outcomes. Football clubs will have nothing to fear from embracing this work. EDI done well is not a threat; it can strengthen clubs by ensuring they reflect the communities they serve and are able to attract diverse talent, and will fundamentally make their clubs better places for everyone to work.

This does not have to be a binary choice between rigid mandates and doing nothing. The best path forward is an enabling framework supported by expert guidance and underpinned by meaningful accountability. Clubs should be encouraged, not coerced, to embrace this work; it can and it should be aspirational. I urge the Government and the regulator to consider how these requirements can be implemented with that spirit in mind.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing this amendment and for giving us opportunity to look at the new additions that the Government have put in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough reminds us, this is one of the areas in which the Bill has changed from the Bill that was before the previous Parliament. He did not like the other one either, but I think that it is clear that he likes these provisions even less.

While I am highly supportive of efforts to improve equality of access for people in football and indeed in all sports—when we last looked at these issues, I spoke about the progress we have made in tackling the horrendous racism and homophobia that blighted football for a long time—I share some of the concerns that my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, have raised about enshrining in law what are clearly shifting sands. As the ever-changing acronyms and the ever-expanding rainbow of colours on flags and lanyards show, this is an area that continues to change, and we must not allow the noble aim of opening up access for people and treating everybody with equal respect to be pegged to a certain moment in time in the way that it is done. I am mindful too, as my noble friend Lady Brady has just reminded us, of the enormous strides that clubs have taken to drive improvement in this area, and we congratulate West Ham on the recognition that they have won for their work on that.

We must be very wary of what is a mandatory requirement in the Bill, in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment focuses on, and the clear cost and burden that will impose on the clubs that have to comply with it. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough spoke about those costs and burdens, and he was right as well to worry that, with the work that is done in this area, we sometimes inadvertently bring about division rather than diversity as we pit various groups of people against one another in what sometimes feel like informal hierarchies of grievance.

I share some of the concerns that my noble friends have raised, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for honing in on this further requirement that the Government seek to impose on clubs. I hope the Minister will respond to the points that they have raised.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, all I can say about this is that I may not have disagreed with every single word that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, but I certainly disagreed with her tone.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, reflecting the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I fundamentally disagree on this area of the Bill, but I am glad of the opportunity for your Lordships’ House to debate this issue and thank her for the amendment, as it allows me to clarify why the Government have added this provision.

The Government believe that equality, diversity and inclusion are key elements of good corporate governance. This is not about moral panic, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, or virtue signalling, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, will have a different view on the research from the likes of McKinsey, but it has shown that diversity on boards and in organisations promotes better governance, decision-making and transparency—arguably, the noble Lord’s point about its growth as a company might demonstrate that it could have a point. All this, in terms of better governance, decision-making and transparency, contributes to improved financial sustainability. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, highlighted the value of considering EDI within the corporate space.

This relationship between diversity and better corporate performance is recognised also by the Financial Reporting Council and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. The industry is already taking action in this space, and I welcome the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in this area and her example of PLEDIS, but for a regulator that will be introducing a corporate governance code and requiring clubs to report against it, it is only right that such a code also covers EDI. The regulator will look to co-operate with other stakeholders, draw on the expertise of the sector and add to industry initiatives. I am sure that they will want to engage with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this point as well.

As with fan engagement, this will be a statutory baseline, so clubs that already champion equality, diversity and inclusion will not have any additional burden placed on them other than having to periodically report on these things. Under the corporate governance code, clubs will simply be required to explain how they are applying the code and what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion. That is not onerous, but it is a very helpful transparency measure. This transparency will only be a good thing, and I am afraid that if noble Lords disagree with that, we are simply of very different minds on this issue.

23:15

I want to be clear that the regulator is not going to prescriptively micro-manage each club’s board or set EDI targets and quotas. That is not the role of the regulator, and it would cause significant burden to both the regulator and clubs. The regulator will not be able to become involved in issues relating to freedom of speech, or, as we discussed earlier in Committee, the diversity of fans. This clause relates only to a club’s internal governance and staff. This is not the place for a debate about trans participation in sport. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I ask, given that this is a specific difference from the previous Bill, what specific football-related research was commissioned by the Government that led them to believe that it was imperative to add this provision to the new Bill? If that question is too difficult to answer now, perhaps the Minister will write to me.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, it is getting late and I have just dropped all my notes. This is not actually about football per se; it is about good governance. The regulator will be concerned with sustainability. As a sustainability regulator, its interest in equality, diversity and inclusion is that it contributes to good corporate decision-making, which, in turn, makes clubs more sustainable. This is why the regulator will encourage good EDI in clubs by requiring them to report on what action they are taking to improve EDI. That transparency will only be a good thing. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment for the reasons I have given.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I offer to send her the academic study headed, “Study linking ethnic diversity with performance by McKinsey questioned by academics”? I am very happy to send her this. It completely rebutted the McKinsey finding that she quoted. It would be very useful were she to understand that that has been rebutted, so that she might not be quite so keen on the ideas she wishes to espouse, and we could come together on that point.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord is very welcome to send this to me, but I am afraid that, as somebody who used to work in governance myself, I am quite committed to the concept that good governance should also include good EDI.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

Why?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

For the reasons that I have outlined in my speech.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all those who joined in with this short debate. To the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Moynihan, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, I emphasise that, despite what anybody says, they are not my friends, even though they call me their friend. I do not mean that in any rude sense. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has decided that he has taken against my tone. I do not know what I have done wrong there. I did not think I had a tone: I just made a speech. I just want to clarify that they are not my friends, but they spoke brilliantly well and interestingly on this issue.

It is very important to draw the Government’s and the Minister’s attention to new evidence that has emerged. I know the Minister did not mean to say this, but it is not advisable to say, “I have worked in this, and I am committed to this view”, given that circumstances are changing and new evidence is emerging all the time. It would be better to be open-minded. I made the point about the Post Office, and it is a good example. The Post Office won those awards for EDI and good governance at the same time as the Post Office scandal.

I definitely do not want to micromanage freedom of speech—and I do not think that the Government have any intentions of doing that through this part of the Bill—but to say that this is not the appropriate time to raise trans inclusion is not true. The truth of the matter is that it is through EDI policies that the issue of trans has become so controversial for women in women’s football. I have not raised this just because I am trying to shoehorn it in; that is the basis on which it happens.

Before I formally withdraw because of the time, I finish by saying that I absolutely do not think that football clubs should sit back, do nothing and not care about the fact that they are inaccessible to anybody or should put up any barriers to anyone getting involved in football. Most football clubs are at the heart of their community, and they do not need to fulfil all these schemes to involve a wide range of people. Every small football club I know is going way beyond anything that any EDI pen-pusher could imagine to involve the socially excluded from the local area. They are the heart and soul of local areas. My concern is that they will end up spending too much time writing reports and not doing that. That is my concern about EDI: it is an industry, so it is not helping to include anyone or create any diversity and so on. It has become a politicised, dangerous threat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 155 withdrawn.

Amendments 156 to 167 not moved.

Schedule 5 agreed.

Clause 21: Discretionary licence conditions

Amendments 167A to 169A not moved.

Clause 21 agreed.

Clause 22: Scope of powers to attach or vary discretionary licence conditions

Amendment 170

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

170: Clause 22, page 14, line 33, after “conduct” insert “or conduct which it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment permits the Regulator to restrict funding for clubs which may be linked to conduct harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 170, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 194, 196 and 197. These all relate to foreign interference in football clubs, a topical issue today, given the debates that have taken place in another place on Chinese espionage and the Government’s tardiness in introducing a foreign influence registration scheme.

Amendment 170 in my name seeks to expand the scope of the regulator’s role in varying a club’s licence conditions. As drafted, the Bill is clear that the regulator may vary a club’s licence conditions to restrict its acceptance of funding which the regulator reasonably suspects to be connected with serious criminal conduct. This is a very significant power and an important one—none of us wants to see funding connected with serious criminal conduct in football. By the same token, I hope the Government would agree that funding that the regulator reasonably suspects to be linked to conduct harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom should have no place in football either.

There is an important point here, as those involved in funding football in this country might be involved in perfectly legal activities internationally, which, while legal elsewhere, may harm our national interest. I hope the Minister can explain why, if the regulator is equipped to make a judgment about criminal conduct, it would not be able to make a judgment on conduct that is harmful to the national interest as well.

Amendment 194 seeks to expand the terms of reference for the regulator’s determination of whether a person has the requisite honesty and integrity to own or run a football club to include whether an individual is a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The principle behind this amendment is that proscribed terrorist organisations have no place in football. I am sure that all noble Lords in the Committee agree with that.

The Government may argue that this amendment is not necessary but, given the number of foreign owners of clubs and the many appointments of international officers in the football sector, it would give the regulator the power it needs to protect football from people who are found to be members of proscribed organisations. Sadly, it is far from inconceivable that somebody resident in the UK might be found to be a member of such a proscribed group. In those circumstances, surely the Government would want the regulator to have the tools to end their involvement in football swiftly. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of people who are members of proscribed terrorist organisations being involved in football clubs in this country? Have the Government looked at this and deemed it unlikely? Have Ministers come to a view about an acceptable level of risk? If the risk is greater than zero, can the Minister explain why the regulator should not have a power such as I have set out?

I accept that proscription is not always of the same utility in relation to different terrorist networks or to the work of lone wolves. I would be happy to discuss a broader criterion, perhaps looking at a reasonable belief that someone is involved in terrorist-related activity, to capture that. I think there is a loophole that we ought to try to close in our scrutiny of these provisions.

Amendments 196 and 197 relate to Clause 37. They seek to ensure that the regulator can carry out its duties effectively, responsibly and in close co-ordination with key public bodies that can assist its work in this area. Amendment 196 would require the regulator to consult a range of bodies, namely the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Serious Fraud Office, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority.

The regulation of football clubs cannot be divorced from our wider national interest. Football is more than a sport. It is a vital part of our national culture, economy and global reputation. We know it is a sector that can attract bad actors, financial mismanagement and, in some cases, criminality. Whether it is safeguarding clubs from fraud, tackling money laundering or ensuring that stadia meet safety standards, the regulator will need the insight and expertise of these key agencies in doing its work. This is about equipping the regulator with the best possible advice. I hope that the Minister will look at that with some care.

Finally, Amendment 197 would replace the mandatory “must” with the discretionary “may” in relation to the regulator’s engagement under Clause 37(3). This minor adjustment carries significant practical implications. Its purpose is to avoid placing an excessive legal burden on the regulator to consult in circumstances where it may not be necessary or proportionate. By providing discretion, we would give the regulator the flexibility it needs to prioritise its resources and respond to situations on a case-by-case basis. This amendment would not weaken the regulator’s responsibilities; rather, it allows for common sense to prevail. It reflects our commitment to safeguarding the integrity of football while ensuring that the regulation is not heavy-handed. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s excellent amendments. They are straightforward, sensible and in keeping with recent developments whereby the previous Administration established in primary legislation quite strict rules about the takeover of British businesses by foreign entities. Soft power and the global kudos and prestige of football cut both ways. They could be used by bad actors, foreign countries and state-owned entities in those countries for nefarious and possibly criminal activities such as money laundering.

Therefore, the Government would be wise to take on board the concerns that some of us on this side of the Committee have. In that respect, Amendment 196 is sensible, because we have a regime which looks at foreign entities’ ownership of UK interests. It would be irresponsible to disregard the intelligence and information provided by the agencies mentioned, particularly the National Crime Agency and the security services, in making a reasonable, fact-based decision about the efficacy or otherwise of ownership.

Given that ownership runs through this Bill quite prescriptively at a micro level, in terms of very small clubs, it is only sensible for the Government to consider how big strategic ownership decisions would be affected by this Bill. In that vein, it would be wise for the Government to consider accepting these amendments.

23:30

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments. I will take them in turn.

On Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to allow the regulator to block a club from accepting funding that it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom. I agree that it is important to protect clubs from harm; that is what the Bill as a whole seeks to do. The intention of having this power, as set out in the Bill, is to protect English football from illicit finance and keep it out of the game. Illicit finance is inherently unsustainable.

However, I caution the noble Lord as to the implications of a football regulator discerning what is harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom and then blocking such funding. This is not something that a regulator can determine. They can make evidenced-based decisions on facts in a clearly defined framework. It also must be noted that there are protections in the Bill that go beyond protecting against serious criminal conduct to protect against wider harm. For example, the owners’ and directors’ test will look at the fitness of a club’s owners and officers, including any criminal history and investigations and whether the individual has been prevented from entering the UK. This seeks to protect English clubs from unsuitable owners or officers making decisions that may endanger their club. This, in conjunction with the power to restrict funds suspected to be connected to serious criminal conduct, will help to ensure that clubs are protected from harm.

I turn to Amendments 194, 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. On Amendment 194, I reassure the noble Lord that the intent of his amendment is already achieved within the current drafting. When assessing an owner’s or officer’s fitness, the regulator must have regard to any criminal convictions and proceedings, including those included in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act. Consequently, the current provisions in the Bill deliver the intent of this amendment. I hope that he is reassured by that.

On Amendment 196, I agree that it is vital that the regulator has access to information when assessing the suitability of owners and officers. The regulator may need to work closely with other organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions. That is why the Bill establishes information-sharing arrangements with a range of organisations including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office and why it adequately empowers the regulator to gather information, including from other organisations, to assess suitability. However, to require the regulator, as the amendment would, to always consult multiple organisations, even when this is not necessary to its ability to make an assessment, would be disproportionate. It would lead to slow decision-making, impacting on growth and investment. It would be a wholly unnecessary burden on clubs. As part of the fitness test, officers will be assessed on their competence, specifically their qualifications, experience and training.

Amendment 197 would give the regulator discretion as to whether to consider these matters when assessing competence. General public law obligations would still require the regulator to act consistently and fairly when testing officers. However, this amendment would give officers less certainty about what they will be tested on.

Finally, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the whole point of the owners’ and directors’ test, which has been carefully designed, is to ensure that club custodians are suitable for assessing an owner’s fitness—this is absolutely crucial. It is right that any owner passes the tests set out in the Bill, so it would not be fair, appropriate or responsible to exempt certain types of owners from testing, but that is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. This amendment intends that owners with diplomatic status or who are Heads of State, Government Ministers or high-ranking officials of foreign Governments would not be tested. I do not need to tell noble Lords about some of the people this could exempt from testing. That means that the regulator could not consider any personal finances or criminal history, no matter how egregious. Instead, it would have to ignore these matters, so the regulator could be letting unsuitable owners in. This could be incredibly risky for the club, and any incumbent owner captured by this amendment could also never be tested, even if concerning information subsequently came to light.

Suitability should be based purely on an impartial assessment of the criteria set out in the Bill. This will ensure that the test can be applied consistently, remain fair, transparent and robust, and focus on whether an individual is suitable to own a football club. For the reasons I have set out, I would therefore be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As the Minister spoke, I wondered whether the staff and relevant board members of the regulator will have the requisite security vetting to be able to consider some of the matters that they might need to in this area. One reason I was keen that they engaged the appropriate authorities was to make sure that things which are, by nature, highly classified and sensitive can be provided to them so that they can give advice. If the Minister is not accepting my amendment to open the channels of dialogue there, is she able to say anything, now or later in writing, about the vetting that staff and others at the regulator would receive?

I am conscious that immediately before we came into this Committee, the Minister’s noble friend the Lord Privy Seal moved the Motion to appoint members to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We make sure, rightly, that people who are suitably qualified are able to look into this area of our laws. I wonder whether she can just say a little, now or later, about the vetting and assistance that staff will have?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I could talk at great length about this, but instead, I reassure noble Lords that I can confirm that staff will be able to engage with all relevant authorities on such issues.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I appreciate that it is late. If the noble Baroness could put some of what she might have said in a letter, that would be useful. It is unfortunate that we are reaching what is a rather serious subject at what I know is a late hour with very few people left in Committee, but it would be helpful to hear a bit more about this as we ponder the issue further ahead of Report.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would like to make it explicit that they will have the relevant clearance to deal with this issue.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. If there is more she is able to say, I am sure that other noble Lords who are not able to be here and who take an interest in these matters would appreciate that.

The noble Baroness said that the regulator is not really equipped to decide what is harmful to our national interest. That is why, in our version of the Bill, we had the provision on taking into account UK trade and foreign policy. I know the reasons why the Government have taken that out of the Bill—because of the concerns UEFA and others raised about political independence—but I worry that, in doing so, we might lose something about our national interest which is quite important. That is why I was seeking to reinsert that criterion into the consideration. We might come back to that issue once she is able to say anything more that she wishes to, and once other noble Lords who are interested can join the discussion on this point.

Given the hour, and with gratitude to the noble Baroness for all her answers today, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Amendment 171 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 11.40 pm.