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.