Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (10 Mar 2025)
17:03 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 267 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
18:01 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 257 - Amendment 7 disagreed.
18:37 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 8 disagreed.
19:36 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect the financial sustainability and success of English football.(1A) The Secretary of State must, in taking any action under this Act, have regard to this purpose.(1B) The Independent Football Regulator must, in exercising its functions under this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the purpose clause to include financial sustainability and success, and to give legal effect by requiring the Secretary of State and the IFR to have regard to that purpose.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I begin this first day on Report by thanking the Minister for her considerable engagement on the Bill. It is nearly two months since Committee finished, and I am sure that scarcely a day has passed in the weeks that have intervened without her talking about this Bill with the Bill team or with colleagues across your Lordships’ House. I am particularly grateful, on my behalf and that of my noble friend Lord Markham, for the many meetings she has had with us on the Opposition Front Bench to talk about it. I know she has spent a great deal of time talking to noble Lords from across the House.
I also welcome the government amendments that she has tabled, some of which develop thoughts raised on all sides of the House in Committee, demonstrating that she and her team have listened to some of the concerns that we raised in Committee and that she has heard those from all sides of the House.
I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who have seen a lot of the issues they raised—through, I think, more than 100 amendments in Committee—taken forward. I hope we might yet still be able to persuade the Minister of one or two others, but we thank her for the amendments she has brought forward.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group, which includes Amendment 15, to which I have added my name. As I said in Committee, the Government have been very vocal in their demands for existing regulators to institute cultural change within their organisations to help deliver economic growth, rather than excessively focusing on risk.
In January, the Chancellor said:
“Every regulator, no matter what sector, has a part to play by tearing down the regulatory barriers that hold back growth. I want to see this mission woven into the very fabric of our regulators through a cultural shift from excessively focusing on risk to helping drive growth”.
That is a call I strongly support. Regulators have a significant influence over the economy, and it is only right that they take into account the need for growth in their actions and decisions. It was a significant oversight not to include such a commitment to ensuring the continued growth of football, one of our most successful sectors, from the outset in the remit of the new regulator.
I would therefore like to thank the Minister for listening to the points raised on this issue and coming forward with the government amendment that obliges the regulator to have regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football. It is an extremely welcome change to the Bill and an important addition to the IFR’s duties. I thank the Minister.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as declared in the register. I begin by welcoming the positive engagement that many of us have had with Ministers and the department since Committee. It is clear that the Government have been listening and are responding thoughtfully to a number of concerns raised by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I thank the Minister and the Bill team sincerely for their collaborative approach. Most importantly, I believe the ongoing dialogue we have established will result in a more effective Bill, which of course is our job here in this place.
I rise to strongly welcome Amendment 14, the Government’s proposed inclusion of a new duty on the IFR to avoid the adverse impacts on growth. This reflects the balanced and proportionate approach many noble Lords have advocated throughout this process, and which I know the Government genuinely intend. This is a very positive development. The new duty should help to ensure the regulator does take such a balanced approach in practice. Its inclusion is an acknowledgement that, to ensure that English football remains financially sustainable, we must not inadvertently constrain the game’s ability to continue to grow and succeed.
This is an important way to frame the approach of the regulator from the very beginning, but I hope it will also have specific practical benefits. For example, the new duty should help to prevent the IFR adopting an overly risk-averse or restrictive approach to financial regulation which could otherwise limit football clubs’ ability to invest and innovate. It should also serve as a significant check on any regulatory decision around the flow of Premier League funding, ensuring that determinations on financial distributions remain balanced and proportionate, and avoiding unintended harm to the commercial strength and international competitiveness of the league.
In short, this growth duty does offer some meaningful reassurances to football clubs that the regulator will approach its task constructively, supporting the long-term success and dynamism of the whole game and helping us to navigate the challenges of the future, not just fix the issues of the past. I am very grateful to the Minister. There is more to do, and we will talk about a number of further proposals throughout Report, but I am happy to offer my support for this amendment. I believe a growth duty is a meaningful and substantial step forward in this legislation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has said. I too have greatly benefited from the constructive engagement of the Minister and the Bill team, and I am very grateful to them for the time they have taken and the listening they have done to the concerns that were raised during Committee. I should declare my interests for today. One of my areas of practice is as a barrister of sports law; I represent Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings —and I am a supporter of Arsenal Football Club.
I have one lawyer’s point on Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. His proposed new Clause 1(1A) and (1B) would put on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State and the IFR, in exercising their functions, must have regard to the purpose of what will be the Act. That is entirely unnecessary because one of the basic principles of modern administrative law is that powers conferred under an Act may lawfully be used only to advance the objectives of the Act. That has been the law since the statement of Lord Reid in the Padfield case of 1968. It would be unfortunate if this Bill included something that is otherwise implicit in all legislation; it would cast doubt on Bills that do not include such provisions.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise merely to add my support to what has been said, and to commend the Government for having been on a journey to recognise some of the points made in Committee, which, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson said from the Front Bench, was some two months ago. I hope I will not be thought ungracious if I simply comment that it was mildly irritating for us to be criticised for submitting this Bill to the scrutiny that we did in Committee, and to be accused of filibustering, when the Government were all the time listening to what we were saying and moving in the direction we were advocating.
I would merely comment that a number of us across the House advocated in Committee that an obligation to pursue growth in English football should be a key part of the purposes of the Bill. That was rejected by the Government at the time—almost contemporaneously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer using her bully pulpit to advocate that all the other regulators should be doing precisely what we were proposing.
We welcome the conversion and the journey, and we hope that more concessions will be made towards making the activities of this regulator less damaging than seemed to be the danger in the way the Bill was originally constructed. There will be more for us to discuss on that subject later.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will speak briefly about the growth amendment in my name. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of growth and, generally, I welcome the input from the Minister and the collaborative manner.
I want to make one point quite clear for the record. There are two main reasons for the success of the Premier League. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, pointed out, it has 44% of the best players in the world. Secondly, every game is competitive. Why is that important in this context? Two elements that the regulator can be involved in could impact that. One is the backstop: if there is too much redistribution between the Premier League and the other leagues, the Premier League will no longer be able to attract the best players in the world, and that will impact the attractiveness of the sport. The other element is the parachute payments: if those are impacted to a degree that clubs no longer feel confident to invest in new players if they have just been promoted or are under threat of relegation—making those games less competitive—the Premier League will become less attractive.
That is why it is very important to put on the record that, instead of having one just dimension where the regulator considers the sustainability of clubs—that would always point it towards redistributing more money —it now has the twin objective of growth. That will mean that it needs to counter that with making sure that the Premier League and all of football is very successful—because it can attract the best players because it has the financial resources to do so—and that all clubs want to invest because they know that they have the safety net should they be relegated.
Again, I am very pleased to see that that extra dimension is now added in there. That will be an important point that the regulator will always have by its side as it considers the Bill.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, at the end of the day, the purpose of this first amendment is simply to increase financial sustainability and to require the Secretary of State to do a number of things. The Bill as it stands clearly and simply states the purpose, review and key priorities:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
I for one would be content not to put in finance and many other things, because that opens a big can of worms. The Bill then spells out clearly in Clause 2 how to achieve that particular purpose. This amendment would truncate a big piece of work that has been done.
So I still support the idea that the purpose of this Act is to protect, promote and sustain English football. That is a wonderful way of doing it. The amendment would reduce it to financial sustainability and the Secretary of State having powers to do this, that and the other. This particular Bill is really about the independent regulator; do not suddenly introduce the Secretary of State in the purposes. So I would not like to support or go with this amendment, because it is not as careful and clear as the purpose we have at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendments, and for his kind words and his engagement on this Bill. I extend those thanks to all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for their engagement, and for the time and input that I have benefited from over the last few weeks and months.
I will start with Amendment 2. I reassure the noble Lord that, although the Bill does not specify the requirement to consider both prospective and current fans, this is implicit within the existing requirement. Football would not serve the interests of fans if the game were unattractive or unwelcoming to new fans. The regulator is also inherently future minded, with the requirement to focus on sustainability and the long-term protection of the club and its heritage assets. Future fans are therefore already required to be in the regulator’s mind when it makes its decisions. This is also reflected in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and for the recognition that the Government also want to see the growth of English football in non-financial ways such as she set out. I take the points she made about the drafting and the need for precision in this Bill, so I thank her for her engagement on that point as well.
I congratulate my noble friends Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Brady, in particular, who raised the issue of growth in Committee. As I say, I am glad that the Government have brought it forward, as it is consistent with what they are doing vis-à-vis many other regulators—so I am glad that we have the government amendment here. I am glad, too, for the recognition that the regulator and all who care about English football will be focused on prospective fans as well as current ones. This is more than just a preservation order being slapped on football; it is something to encourage its sustainability and growth.
As my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham said, it is welcome to see the change from some of the responses that we had in Committee. I thank the Sports Minister for the apology that she gave to my noble friend Lady Brady, following an article that she wrote in the Daily Mail. I think that that was appreciated by my noble friend and the others who were mentioned in it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his lawyer’s point, which I take on board. I would have been very happy if the Minister had said that she would accept just proposed new subsection (1)—but I heard also what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said. I proffered Amendment 1 in the spirit of compromise, but in the spirit of compromise I am happy to withdraw it and move on to other amendments.
Lord Addington
“(c) meets the social responsibility duty set out in section (Social responsibility duty).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes in the definition of English football sustainability the social responsibility duty created by the amendment after Clause 51 in the name of Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the amendments to which I put my name are trying to point out the fact that we regard these football clubs as being social assets—things that should actually reach into their community. We were inspired by a series of meetings with various bits of the football community, because they did not seem to be taking it on board that wholeheartedly—so I proposed a series of amendments giving specific duties to what those clubs covered by this should do.
I give great thanks to the Minister, who clearly listened to at least the concept of this proposal, if not my particular idea, and has come up with the Government’s own Amendment 32. I am really here just to say that, if the Minister wanted to add to her amendment by accepting mine, I would be incredibly grateful—but her own amendment, bringing in corporate governance to the schedules of the Bill, is one that may give us a chance to grow and develop the idea of community interaction between clubs and the communities that they serve. That is very important. There has been far too much talk in this debate about financial aspects and great growth, et cetera. Nothing stays still for ever; Italian football has been very popular and may be again—who knows?
The fact of the matter is that these are things that we now regard as social assets, and clearly that is something that the Bill should embrace. Saying that they have an outstanding duty to their community is something that we should embrace. I would not feel bad if any of the other professional sports in this country took on some of this duty as well—I would welcome it with open arms.
I thank the Minister and look forward to her comments on my humble efforts, but this is very much the Minister’s championing of an idea, and I thank her and the Government for bringing forward her amendment, which I shall wholeheartedly support when it is moved.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 32, which would make the economic and social impact of a football club part of its corporate governance requirements. It has become something of a cliché to point out that football clubs are deeply woven into the fabric of their communities, but it is such an important part of why football is so important in the lives of millions in our countries.
If I may, I will very briefly share what this looks like in practice, through the example of my own club, West Ham United. I am proud that our foundation reaches over 50,000 people annually across east London, operating in some of the most deprived boroughs in our country. When West Ham moved to the London Stadium, we made a commitment that this would not just be about a bigger stadium but about deeper community roots.
The foundation now delivers over 30 different programmes, focusing on health, education, employment and social inclusion. During the pandemic, players and staff personally delivered meals to vulnerable residents. The club and fans made significant financial contributions to local food banks. None of this was seen as charity; it was about responsibility. It is what a football club is all about. Our award-winning Players’ Project has seen first team players become ambassadors for specific community initiatives, giving not just their names but their time and their genuine engagement. These connections matter profoundly to local residents.
What makes these initiatives particularly powerful is that they leverage what football does uniquely well: they bring people together across the divides of age, background and circumstances. When a young person struggling with education attends a programme at West Ham United, they engage in ways that traditional institutions often cannot reach them. I have seen the personal impact for myself countless times.
The economic impact is equally significant. West Ham supports thousands of jobs, directly and through a supply chain predominantly sourced within east London. My club has contributed £323 million in gross value added to the regional economy through supply chain, supporting employment and the visitor economy. Match day brings vital trade to local businesses, where targeted employment programmes have helped hundreds of local residents find sustainable work.
These amendments would help to ensure that such contributions are not peripheral or dependent on the good will of particular owners but are fundamental to how clubs operate and are governed. I commend the Minister, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for supporting these amendments. I know that this is a particular passion for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in relation to his Amendment 50, which is also part of this group. I believe he has had some productive conversations with the Premier League about how we can build on our experience and support football charities.
I believe the league will now be examining how we can work with expert organisations, such as the NCVO, to make good governance advice more accessible to small community organisations. This would be a good use of the Premier League’s reach and profile within communities, so I am pleased it is happening.
Football clubs receive extraordinary loyalty and emotional investment from their communities. These amendments formalise that this relationship is reciprocal and should be embedded in governance structures. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask as we develop this new regulatory framework, so I fully support these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, we have spent some seven days discussing the detail of the Bill, and I think this is probably the first time I can rise and say that I actually agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. It is true that football has the power to do an awful lot of good. Many clubs—not just West Ham —actually do an awful lot of good in their community. The Minister has tabled Amendment 32, and my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have added our names to it, because this is one of the issues that we have discussed with the Minister and have mentioned in this House.
I will resist the temptation to talk about the good work that Bolton Wanderers does in the community. Suffice it to say that it is one of the few clubs that has actually got a chair who not only talks about helping the community but actually involves herself in the overnight sleep-outs for charity and other such activities. It is a mark of the level of commitment that many of the people who run football clubs have towards their communities and it is something that we should appreciate.
There is sometimes an accusation of sportswashing when clubs make big gestures, but an awful lot of direct involvement with communities can make a difference. In this context, it is particularly important in terms of men’s mental health, because many football groups are reaching people who would not be reached in any other way.
Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has taken to talk to all of us about these issues, and for the amendment she has tabled, which I am very happy to support.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I commend Bolton Wanderers and West Ham on what they do in and for their local communities. There are many other clubs which do likewise—I know about Arsenal and Manchester City.
I too very much welcome government Amendment 32. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says what he says. I respectfully suggest that his amendments are overregulation, which we all wish to avoid in this Bill. Government Amendment 32 suffices.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in case everyone thought a bout of consensus had broken out, I beg to differ. I have some reservations about this group. I find myself at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which neither of us will be surprised by, but I also find myself at odds with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, which is perhaps more surprising having been through Committee.
Let me raise some of my reservations. We have been consistently told that this legislation is necessary to protect football clubs precisely because they are such intrinsic parts of our community and interwoven into our society. It is those authentic, organic relationships with local areas and generations of fans I am worried this Bill could undermine. I am not convinced that the clubs need a regulator to add something that could become a performative and unnecessary corporate governance duty. That is one of my reservations.
I was also somewhat surprised to see the Government’s Amendment 32, making a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community part of its corporate governance. That was somehow quite insulting, as though clubs need officialdom to tell them to be socially responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, indicated, that is very much the ecosystem of connectedness that is in clubs’ DNA. There is a danger of overregulation here.
In a later group on regulatory principles, the Government’s Amendment 18—which I do welcome—states as a regulatory principle that the independent football regulator should have regard to whether any requirement or restriction is necessary before it imposes it and asks the IFR to consider
“whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.
Amendment 32 seems to fail that test. I am worried about putting in the Bill a regulation that could be interpreted as asking football to take on responsibilities far removed from football in a regulatory fashion that makes them behave somewhere between social engineering and social work. I would like some reassurance that this will not contradict or add a burden of regulation on clubs in what they already are doing. Why do we need to have it written down in the Bill?
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I think there is a severe danger of there being a consensus around the sentiments, at any rate, reflected in this group of amendments. The point has been made by a number of your Lordships that this is what good clubs do. Successful clubs are deeply rooted in, and serve, their communities, act as a focal point for social action and social activity, and can do enormous good.
On Thursday evening, I shall go, in hope, to watch Tottenham play in the Europa League. The following morning, I shall attend the governors’ meeting of the London Academy of Excellence Tottenham, which is a brilliant sixth-form academy that serves disadvantaged young people with academic promise from across the community. Its principal business sponsor is Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Its premises are in the Lilywhite House, which is the office headquarters of the club. It is brilliantly successful. Tottenham, like most successful clubs, is deeply entrenched and embedded in the local community.
I therefore have some sympathy when the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asks about whether this is necessary. The clubs that take their social and community responsibilities seriously because that is what they need to do as part of their success and their obligations—it is part of the debt they owe to the communities they are part of—will not find it a regulatory burden, because they are, as the noble Baroness said, doing it already. While I am generally allergic to new regulatory powers when the case for them is not overwhelmingly proven, I am willing to make an exception in this case.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I would like to offer praise to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for having a go at a very necessary social responsibility question in his Amendment 3, so I thank him for doing it. His name is also on Amendment 32 in this group, which is a distillation of what I think he would like to say to already successful clubs that are engaged in social responsibility in their area. Amendment 32 would be the one I would go for if a vote were called, whereas the noble Lord’s Amendment 3 has woken us up to the possibility that if you are working in a community and living in a community, you have a responsibility to it—you should not just take the money out.
As a vicar in Tulse Hill near Brixton, when most of our houses were not in very good shape and I was living in a vicarage, I felt that my duty and responsibility to Tulse Hill estate and St Martin’s estate was to engage the local council fully, and it agreed to provide a lot of change as a result. I understand the question of responsibility, but I think Amendment 32 gets what the noble Lord wants in Amendment 3, so he should go for Amendment 32 and not for Amendment 3.
Lord Markham (Con)
From this side, I would like to join the recognition from all noble Lords about the social value that clubs bring. I need only to look at my six year-old, who is barely ever not wearing his Cole Palmer shirt, to know that it is much bigger than just an economic interest. Clubs fully understand that, and I think that point was made very well by all noble Lords—the particular examples from my noble friend Lady Brady were very well made.
Clubs realise that they are the leaders in their field, and I think we have all seen countless examples of them doing it again and again. In terms of getting the balance right, though, we shall talk later—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point as well—about wanting to make sure the regulator is light touch. I think the Government get that right in their Amendment 32—again, I think we all agree on the intentions—but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may go slightly to the other side of the fence. However, I think we have a united gathering, for want of a better word, around the Government’s amendment. From our side, we very much welcome that, and welcome the continued work of the clubs on the social front as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this issue on Report and giving us the opportunity to discuss it further. I also thank him for his very kind words and, not least, for his persuasive arguments over the past few weeks. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for their time on many occasions. I am also grateful to noble Lords from across the House, irrespective of whether they agree with the government position, although I feel that there was a general consensus.
I think that what we are all agreed on across your Lordships’ House, including the Government, is that clubs play a vital role in their local communities. It is a key part of what makes football our national game as well as our local anchor. However, as I previously stated in Committee, we believe that the noble Lord’s amendments would expand the scope of the regulator too far and are potentially overprescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed much more elegantly than I can.
The regulator should be focused on areas of critical need, addressing genuine market failures rather than regulating on issues that the industry can solve. There are many different ways a club can make a difference and serve its local community. We have heard some fabulous examples throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, including a number we have heard today, such as that of West Ham during the pandemic, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton mentioned the charity work of her team, Bolton Wanderers.
This is why we are confident that government Amendment 32 strikes the right balance. We want to encourage clubs to continue their great work in their local communities without restricting the manner or form in which they achieve it. For example, clubs could match their community outreach initiatives to the size and resources of their clubs and to the specific communities’ needs and issues, which may vary. This could include the bespoke training for charities and community groups envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Like him, we agree that the regulator can shine a light on this vital work carried out by clubs up and down the country and therefore encourage more outreach. That is why we have brought forward the government amendment, which would require clubs to report on the actions they are carrying out.
Government Amendment 32 would mean that the regulator includes clubs’ community contributions in its corporate governance code and adds criteria for what constitutes corporate governance for football clubs. I welcome support for the government amendment from my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who have co-sponsored the amendment. This is very much in the spirit of co-operation and discussion that we have had over the past few weeks. It will be explicit in the Bill that a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community is part of its corporate governance. That will ensure that clubs outline how they contribute to their local communities in their corporate governance statement.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, we do not think this is heavy-handed or overregulation; this is, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, said, what good clubs already do. If they were not contributing to their local community, they would, however, be expected to explain the reason for that in their statement. Their report would be published online to allow for public scrutiny so they can be held accountable for their actions or inaction. We believe this will encourage transparency and, as with the approach to corporate governance more widely, this will in turn encourage greater action in this space.
Above all, this approach will allow flexibility for each club to comply in accordance with their resources and size and in a way suited to their own community’s needs. Additionally, when the regulator publishes its corporate governance report on clubs, best practice can be shared with the industry. The approach will also ensure that we do not step on the toes of the likes of the FA, which already spearheads good social and community initiatives across football.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that we are taking appropriate action to ensure that this important issue is captured without giving without rise to scope creep. For these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I commend government Amendment 32.
Lord Addington (LD)
Well, my Lords, there were hints of normal service being resumed at the end of that. It just goes to show that we have to look at what we are actually trying to achieve here. If good clubs do it anyway, why should they be hamstrung by doing it when bad ones do not? That is something I would say: a bit of basic fair play. Also, the idea of light-touch has been spoken about very much in this debate—it is one of the mantras—but I just received information from the EFL saying that it is worried about this, because what does “light-touch” mean? Does it mean doing virtually nothing? The noble Baroness shakes her head, but we will possibly drag that out during the course of the Bill. I have heard Lords debates in which “light-touch” was described as being asleep at the wheel and only paying attention when there is a disaster.
I would hope that the careful use of regulation, encouraging people to do the things they should, is something we do not shy away from. The good ones do it—bravo—but let us make the rest join in. I hope that we can take this principle forward in this Bill and other pieces of legislation. Just because somebody is good does not mean to say that everybody will be. I do not know how many pieces of legislation have that principle running through the middle of them like a stick of rock. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and look forward to supporting the government amendment when it is moved.
Lord Moynihan
“(3A) In exercising their powers and functions under this Act, the Secretary of State or the IFR may not act in a way which conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 4, I shall speak to Amendment 5, which is consequential. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for her much-appreciated constant support for all Members of your Lordships’ House, not least me, regarding meetings, letters and her engagement on the numerous issues that are relevant to the Bill, which already this afternoon has been improved.
My amendment recognises that English football operates successfully in an intensely competitive global market. In Europe, UEFA runs the Champions League. This summer, FIFA hosts the first Club World Cup competition, with $1 billion in prize money available. Chelsea and Manchester City will compete for the trophy in the States. They do so for one reason: FIFA and UEFA recognise the Football Association as the sole governing body for all rules and regulations governing football in England. That is why the FA has a veto over any rule change in the constitution of the Premier League. The FA is the sole member of UEFA and FIFA. The FA is the sole footballing member of the British Olympic Association, meaning that the FA has control over the men’s and women’s Great Britain Olympic football teams. All England’s professional football teams are members of the FA. The English Football League, made up of the three fully professional divisions below the Premier League is self-governing, subject to the FA’s sanctions. In another place, David Newton, giving evidence to the committee, stated that
“the FA is responsible for 16 million or 17 million players and all the money flows within football”.—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 14/5/24; col. 63.]
Like every other league in England, the FA Premier League comes under the jurisdiction of the FA and must submit its rules each year for approval and sanction. However, this fundamental duty of the governing body is not reflected in this Bill, which is why my amendment seeks to protect our football clubs, to avoid jeopardising their growth in international competition and the authority of the FA. Sadly, as drafted the Bill removes the FA from the face of football regulation in England. Its 13 mentions in the 124 pages are mostly definitional: the company number is there in one reference; the FA is referred to as the Football Association in a couple of others; it is not there as a voting board member of the IFR. Otherwise, it is purely an organisation that is consulted without any authority, without any need for the IFR to take into account what the Football Association, the one recognised governing body of football in this country, feels. The FA is given one power, on page 40, in Clause 49(2), which is its one power in the whole Bill:
“A regulated club must not change the name of a relevant team operated by the club unless the change has been approved by the Football Association”.
That is the one name-changing power in the Bill.
UEFA has never hesitated in making clear that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the Football Association as the sole governing body for football in England, in accordance with the UEFA and FIFA statutes. UEFA stated that legislation that
“compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”
would be non-compliant with these statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. UEFA warned last year that there should be
“no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding”
the national governing body
“from Uefa and teams from competition”.
UEFA’s statutes do not permit it to recognise the primacy of a state-licensed regulator. The autonomy of the FA cannot be challenged. It has no right to hand its core powers to a government-appointed regulator which conflicts with UEFA’s regulation. This was well covered in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said:
“I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. 761.]
She referred to the letter, which she said was a private letter from UEFA, and there was no intention for it to be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out during the debate, the letter
“is obviously relevant to the Bill … Transparency demands, in my respectful submission, that we be allowed to see it—unless UEFA will not allow that”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. 1236.]
We heard in January that UEFA did not want it published, but only a couple of weeks ago we had a different answer from DCMS. A request was made to the DCMS freedom of information team, and the reply to James Wild MP reads as follows: “We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act. We regret that we were unable to respond to your request because it exceeds the cost limit set out by the Act. Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information when the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information. We consider your request would be over the statutory limit, because this would take considerable resources, involving many staff across the department. UEFA is a key stakeholder across sport and is engaged with the department on a regular basis”.
It would take some imagination to work that into a script of “Yes Minister”. Consider if every country established its own regulator without the national governing body being at the centre. This would lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and, in essence, challenge and hinder the ability of UEFA, FIFA and the IOC to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards.
This amendment, recognising that the FA is in no way part of the proposed legislation that your Lordships are considering, would protect English football and our clubs. In many ways, it is a growth amendment. If the Minister is right and there is no threat of scope creep, the amendment lies comfortably in the Bill. If I and my colleagues are right, its place in the Bill provides a protection against mission creep, which none of us wants to see. I therefore hope that the House will support us, and I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict with UEFA and FIFA regulations. They are the governing bodies, despite the lunacy of some of their decisions, most recently the FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend half-time so that there can be a concert while players seek to maintain warmth and fitness. Notwithstanding that, they are the governing bodies, and the structure of English football recognises this.
It does so because both UEFA and FIFA impose in their rules and regulations an obligation on member associations—the FA, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says—to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations, and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations. The FA imposes a similar obligation on member leagues and the Premier League—its rule B14. It imposes a contractual commitment on clubs and the Premier League to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA.
Notwithstanding all this, I am, with great respect, doubtful as to the wisdom of Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State or of the IFR to go to court and say that the decision is a breach of a UEFA or FIFA regulation? It would be welcomed enormously by sports lawyers such as me. The opportunities for litigation are endless because, regrettably, the UEFA and FIFA regulations are not always drafted with the precision and clarity—I put it modestly—that we expect and see from the parliamentary draftsmen in this country.
I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, could address this point when he comes to reply. There will be a further enormous expanse of litigation in football, and we will find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation—to challenge in the courts—if his amendment is accepted.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I almost expected the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw these two amendments following the meeting we had yesterday with the FA. I am absolutely certain that his shoulders dropped when we asked a question of the FA regarding FIFA and UEFA, and the FA confirmed to the people there—I was there, as were the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington —that it had had letters and emails from FIFA and UEFA supporting the regulator. Their only concern was—choose the words you want—state creep, scope creep or mission creep. Providing that those things do not happen, they are content that we have a regulator.
The threat from UEFA and FIFA was discussed time and again in Committee. I think that fox was completely shot yesterday because the FA openly and honestly said, “We have had letters and emails saying they have no problem with the regulator, providing there is no state creep, scope creep or mission creep”, which I believe there will not be.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I chaired the meeting referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I too was very puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, decided to proceed with his amendment today. The FA was very clear that UEFA and FIFA were very happy with where we had got to with the legislation and that they were satisfied. It made clear too that DCMS was right not to want to publish the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made clear and obvious reference.
I agree with the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was somewhat surprised that he—the lawyer and expert in football litigation that he is—made some of them. As he said, only one group of people will benefit from this—those who do sports lawyering.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press his amendments—they are not necessary. If we were to be mistaken and accepted them into the Bill, it would slow down the operation of the independent football regulator, and I do not think anybody wants that. It could lead only to a reduction in the effectiveness and speed of the regulator’s operation. I hope that having heard what the FA said about it, as he did yesterday, and the assurance it gave to me and others in the room that it is happy and that UEFA and FIFA are happy, he will in good grace not press the amendments.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has articulated the case for his amendments with great clarity. Without revisiting all the arguments made in Committee, my fundamental concern is straightforward: we must avoid inadvertently ceding control of English football to external bodies.
The relationship with international governing bodies inevitably creates tension points where our interests may diverge. The Premier League, UEFA and FIFA are not just partners, fellow rule-makers and governing bodies; they are also competitors that run competitions involving English clubs.
Unless UEFA and FIFA provide unequivocal confirmation that nothing in this Bill raises concerns about state interference, the truth is that the Premier League will face ongoing vulnerability. The regulator could become a strategic pressure point of international football politics, with English football losing sovereignty over our domestic arrangements as a consequence.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to reassure the noble Baroness, who was unfortunately not able to attend the FA meeting yesterday, that the FA was very explicit—and it was asked very directly—that it is content with this Bill. It assured those of us who were present at that meeting yesterday that it has assurances that UEFA is not at all concerned with this Bill and is happy with it as it stands. Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was at that meeting, so he can confirm that that is what was said.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, if what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, is true—UEFA would say that, wouldn’t they?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen and which, in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department says it cannot find within three and a half days, and within £600, even though the Minister referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates in Committee.
This letter is assuming an almost mythical status, which is unhelpful to this debate; that is reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in Committee. We would be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had expressed concerns about the Bill in the letter that has not been shared. Noble Lords rightly want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed, because of the very serious ramifications they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady—with their great experience from their own involvement in football—as a former Sports Minister who understands the byzantine world of international sports regulation better than most Members of your Lordships’ House in pursuing this point.
I take on board what noble Lords have said about the private briefing that they were able to attend yesterday and the assurances that were given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horse’s mouth. We know that UEFA wrote expressing concerns about the Bill earlier in its passage, and it has not said anything further. I find its silence deafening. We are asked to accept reassurances passed through an intermediary to a private meeting of your Lordships. It seems to me that this matter could be settled either if the noble Baroness was able to reveal the letter that we are all searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information Act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or if—in the absence of that, and in the face of the deafening silence—we could put in the Bill what seems to be a reflection of the Government’s own position. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will give way in a minute. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says about the income generation that this will provide to sports lawyers, but I think he would accept that there is plenty in this Bill for sports lawyers to get involved with in the new regulatory regime that it ushers in, and I suspect that they will find plenty to occupy them, with or without this amendment. I give way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord whether he would have been in the habit when he was a Minister of revealing the contents of private correspondence?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was always in the habit of complying with the Freedom of Information Act and, in this instance, my advice to the noble Baroness would be to give us as much as she can about UEFA’s concerns. It is very clearly a matter of concern here in your Lordships’ House. I hope the matter can be settled. Maybe the noble Baroness can say a bit more about the correspondence that she has had with UEFA but, if not, I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan will continue to pursue this important issue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I had been slightly unnerved by the tone of the debate up to this group. I now feel myself in much more comfortable territory—under attack and revisiting the issue of international competitions.
I understand the intent of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes. I would like to thank him for his time, both in writing and in meeting myself and officials. However, I would like once again to reassure your Lordships’ House that these amendments are not necessary. At the very least, they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist; at worst, they attempt to create an issue that does not exist.
I would be a brave and foolish Minister if I proposed legislation that risked us being banned from international competitions. UEFA has again confirmed in writing with the Secretary of State, just last month—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam highlighted, the FA confirmed directly to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just yesterday—that the Bill, as drafted, does not breach UEFA statutes.
The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. I know that there have been requests to see the letter that UEFA has sent to the Government that was leaked to the media last year. I wrote to UEFA, following the conclusion of Committee, asking whether they would be content for me to release the letter, but they replied that they would rather that communications be kept private. It is important that I respect this request to ensure that the Government can continue to have honest and constructive conversations with our stakeholders.
I turn to the issue of the FOI. This is—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on what a freedom of information request should state.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As if I planned this seamlessly, I was just coming on to the FoI request. In my view—this is not what I got from the Box note—this is a lesson on how to get an FoI request rejected, unless rejection was actually the intent. I hope the Benches opposite will bear with me as I explain. The FoI request referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson, was an extremely broad request for all correspondence ever to the department from UEFA. In the response, the requester was advised to narrow his request to a particular timeframe for the department to be able to respond. In my humble view, that sounds perfectly reasonable. I understand that such a letter has not yet been sent in, but, clearly, the responder may choose to accept the advice from officials.
Turning to the specifics of the amendments themselves, much as I do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, lose the opportunity for future litigation, I am afraid that, rather than protecting English football, his amendments would have serious unintended consequences. The amendments would see a regulator established by an Act of Parliament in this country take a position of deference to a private international organisation. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament but leave English football in a very weak position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised concerns, both today and on the fourth day in Committee, that the Bill compounds the problem of UEFA’s and FIFA’s ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable. While I do not accept that that is currently the case for the Bill, amending current drafting, to fix in statute that the regulator must fall in line with whatever rules those organisations set, would surely create such an issue. The result of these amendments would be a concerning loss of autonomy and independence for the regulator and, in turn, for English football as a whole. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. I will attempt to respond to the comments that have been made.
I attended the meeting yesterday, and I was very attentive to what was said. The first question was about UEFA, and the first thing said in response by Joanna Manning-Cooper, who represented the FA at the meeting, was that UEFA has been
“happy since the start of the journey”.
I wrote that down; that was precisely what she said. I have to say to noble Lords that the correspondence that was sent in September last year to the Secretary of State reflected five pages of unhappiness about the potential of this legislation as far as UEFA was concerned. It is inconceivable, to any noble Lord who has read that letter, that that could possibly be seen as UEFA’s happiness since the start of the journey.
I make that point because I would never have started with the strength that I have had on this subject in Committee, and today, unless I had read the letter. I was sent two different copies of the same letter from two different sources; it has been widely distributed. Everything that I said in my opening remarks reflected the content of that letter and the very real concerns that UEFA had.
I am surprised that the Government have not published that letter, and I believe that they should have done so, because it is simply not true to say that UEFA has been happy since the start of the journey. It is also disingenuous to say that the request that was made was so wide as to have taken a great deal of time, when everybody knows precisely what correspondence was requested. The Written Question placed by James Wild was: please provide an electronic copy of correspondence from UEFA
“on the proposal to introduce a football regulator”.
That is specific; it is not wide in its remit. Everybody knows which letter we are talking about. It is disingenuous to say that it would take three and a half days for a civil servant to go through all the letters that UEFA has sent on the subject of the introduction of a football regulator, when this Bill has been only a year in the making, including the time that the Conservative Party spent on it. As I said, I would not have taken the view that I had—including when listening to the meeting yesterday—if I had not also registered very significant surprise at the comment that the Bill will take no powers away from the Football Association.
Lord Moynihan
“(3) For the purposes of this Act a “specified competition” includes—(a) the Premier League,(b) the English Football League, and(c) the National League,and any successors to those leagues.(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the competitions specified in section (3).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I shall speak also to my Amendment 82. The purpose of Amendment 6 is found in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report of 20 November last year. It makes the very reasonable point that, in a Bill of this kind, it is probably wise and helpful to state in it whom it refers to. The fact of the matter is that the Bill makes no reference to whom it refers.
The committee says that
“the Bill’s scope and purpose should appear clearly in the Bill. Clause 1 … states the purpose of this Bill as being to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Yet the meaning of ‘English football’ (and therefore the remit of the IFR) is incomplete and requires filling out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We recommend that the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill”.
This is because it is self-evident and clear that the
“Government policy is … that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated”.
It concludes:
“This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
It is fairly rare that a Bill of this magnitude and importance—certainly in sport—does not say to whom it refers but instead says that, in due course, the Secretary of State will come forward and tell us to whom it refers.
An argument has been put forward that if the Bill said to whom it refers it would make it hybrid. It is indeed interesting that, in describing this amendment, the Government called it a hybrid amendment—but it is not at all. As far as I was concerned when tabling it, it was to put in the Bill to whom this legislation refers, which seemed self-evidently sensible. However, I can see that there is the possibility that saying to whom it refers can turn it into a hybrid Bill—some people would hold that view. I was advised by the head of public Bill procedure that my amendment would put certain leagues in the Bill as leagues that need to be included in the independent football regulator’s remit, as set out in regulations.
The regulation-making power in Clause 2(3) does not specify any leagues and has a dehybridising provision attached to it. So it is interesting that, without naming the clubs or the leagues to which this legislation refers, the Bill still has a dehybridising provision attached to it.
I assume that the Government recognise that, if the Bill said to whom it referred, there was a possibility that this would make it hybrid. The way that this has been done so far is by avoiding putting a hybrid provision in the Bill, in that there may not be a genuine class of football clubs playing in certain leagues but not others. In the view of the officials, the leagues specified in my amendment do not form a genuine class. Therefore, if the House agreed to my amendment, the Bill would be at a high risk of becoming hybrid. I do not want to put that to a vote and test the will of the House because there is clear evidence, in both Houses, that there is a will to move forward with this legislation. If there is therefore a move by the Government to avoid it being tested for hybridity by putting the clubs and leagues into secondary legislation, that is the decision that underpins the Government’s wish to enact this legislation.
However, I will move this amendment because it is important to try not to avoid saying to whom and to which competition the Bill refers. When we scrutinise legislation we need to know to whom it refers. It is neither sensible nor wise to bring legislation forward before either House without clarity on that point. Therefore, I believe that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made an important point for the House to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that the name of this group on the list circulated by the Government Whips’ Office is a little unfortunate. This is an important issue into which we stumbled unwittingly in Committee. It is not clear that even the amendment which my noble friend Lord Moynihan has moved would make the Bill hybrid. This is a question which needs to be considered separately. Both in the amendment which my noble friend Lord Markham and I brought in Committee, and in the other amendments brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, relating to National League North and South, we stumbled across the conundrum that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has set out: that, by trying to say in the Bill whom it regulates, there was a risk that it would have to be considered hybrid and dealt with in that way.
As my noble friend has said, this reflects the concern raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. In its eighth report, it recommended explicitly that this delegated power be removed from the Bill. It said:
“Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
It is unfortunate that we have been unable to find a way around this problem. In one of the meetings which my noble friend Lord Markham and I had with the Minister and the Bill team between Committee and now, we asked them to go back to parliamentary counsel to see whether there was another way around this. No other way has been found, which is unfortunate.
I take the point that the Minister made in our conversation that it is very clear who is being regulated by this Bill in the first instance. There has been a lot of consultation with them, both during the previous Parliament and in this one. My concern, reflected in my Amendment 85, is about those who might be brought into scope—say the women’s game, or the National League North and South if, in due course, future Governments were to agree with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made in Committee. There are plenty of people in football who have not had the same degree of engagement with this Bill that the top five leagues have had which has got us to this point. That is why I tabled my Amendment 85, which concerns the dehybridising provisions of the secondary legislation that might be brought forward by this Bill to try to ensure that those football organisations that might come under the scope of the Bill in the future can have the same level of consultation and opportunity to give their views that the top five leagues in the men’s professional game have had hitherto.
I am grateful to all the minds that have been applied to this problem and to the members of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for highlighting it. I regret that we have not been able to find a way of saying in the Bill who is being regulated but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, none of us wants to delay the Bill by exploring this point further. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting one: hybridisation being caused, in effect, by naming some clubs, or rather the structures. The main thing here is that we want the Bill to progress. Any danger of hybridisation is something that we want to avoid. Thus I shall be resisting these amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the defect of imprecision is unfortunate, but it can be cured by secondary legislation, which is far preferable to the serious risk that the Bill would be hybrid.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the group. It is an issue that we have discussed at length throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. I for one thank noble Lords who suggested that it would be helpful if we could progress the legislation so that we get the regulator in place.
On Amendments 6 and 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, again, the noble Lord may be trying to solve a problem that potentially does not exist. There is no doubt as to which competitions are in scope of the regulator’s regime at this point, and which will not be. By delegating this to secondary legislation, we are following the precedent established by other similar sport-related legislation. Without wanting to seem ungracious, this includes the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be very familiar with, as he was the Bill Minister in the other place during its passage.
The approach that the Government are taking is both reasonable and the result of extensive, evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future- proofs for future innovations and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new domestic competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.
The Government’s intended scope for the regulator is well known; it has been a subject of policy development process over many years, both by this Government and the previous Government, which has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes to the scope in future would be based on clear evidence and proper consultation as part of a published Secretary of State assessment. The requirement to consult before future uses of the power is set out on in the Bill. Any changes would be subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
On Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, this is a standard provision in many Bills, including the Media Bill, which I note he was the Minister for. To future-proof this legislation, regulations have to be able to be made in a timely way; getting bogged down in lengthy parliamentary proceedings could undermine the Government’s ability to keep the regulatory framework up to date and ensure that it remains effective. This is of no benefit to anyone, including the industry. This comes back to the perceived issue of hybridity that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today.
As I set out in Committee and in our memorandum, the policy intent being the top five tiers of men’s English football has never been in doubt. Throughout the development of the policy over the past three years, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on this scope. This amendment would serve no purpose other than to delay the implementation and effect of the regulator. It would be set up, incurring a cost, but unable to act while crucial regulations establishing its scope were bogged down in years of process.
I have set out very clear reasons for the approach taken on defining the scope of the regime and will not take up your Lordships’ time further relitigating this issue. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not around for the 1975 Bill—I was far too young—but I was present for the 1989 Bill, as the Minister rightly pointed out. I was working on that important Bill with my great and noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, whom I am glad to see in his place today.
There is a serious point, which was why I tabled this amendment. When we look closely at Bills and scrutinise them, we really must try to start from the premise that we know who we are talking about and which competitions we are talking about. When the Minister says that there is absolutely no doubt about which competitions and clubs we are talking about, one would expect the House and the Government to put it in the Bill.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 28, which refer to the owners’ and directors’ test, which goes far beyond the regulatory requirements in sport—in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League. It would require an additional test to be made to determine a potential owner of a football club, and that additional test is one of influence. My amendment seeks to leave out reference to the “influence” a person can have over the activities of a club in being considered for a licence to operate as a professional football club in England, to create clarity in the Bill.
In trying to understand what “influence” means, we are immediately referred to paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, where, in keeping with the financial regulation, we are once again somewhat left in the dark:
“The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence or control for the purposes of this Schedule”—
in other words, for the purposes of the test. As such, as we scrutinise the Bill before us, we have no certainty as to the meaning of “significant influence”, yet its impact on the Premier League and on EFL clubs could prove far-reaching.
In Committee, I took the example of Newcastle to seek clarity from the Government by working through a specific case. Newcastle is majority-owned and financially controlled by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, the PIF. The PIF became the majority shareholder and de facto owner of the club, with 80% of the shares acquired, in October 2021. The chair of the PIF is the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of Saudi Arabia’s King. MBS, as he is known, runs the Saudi Government.
For once, there is a clear distinction between this Bill and the one inherited from the last Conservative Government. In the Conservative Bill, there was a protection against the Government-appointed regulator investigating whether MBS, the Crown Prince and chair of the PIF, was a fit and proper person to exercise control over Newcastle through the chairmanship of the PIF. This Government then deleted the very protection which the previous Conservative Government put in the Bill that required the regulator to have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. This removal was a direct consequence of UEFA’s insistence to the Prime Minister that such protection politicises sport.
Sadly, I assure the House that, for anyone who has read this Bill, the answer to Newcastle fans is that, unlike under the Premier League or UEFA rules, the Crown Prince is open to investigation by the regulator, and the Minister was clear on that question. That is exactly what the Government intend the regulator to do, because they have removed the one protection it had. The regulator in the Bill has full rights to use his or her many powers to investigate and opine over the suitability, or otherwise, of any owner who exercises a degree of influence over any club, including Newcastle United. That is just one example. Such detailed and intrusive due diligence risks being replicated across the Premier League unless the Bill is amended as I propose.
The Secretary of State will write the guidance that determines what significant influence or control means, yet there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult anyone on drafting that guidance. We can speculate what the definition might be by looking at other legislation where the same phrase is used, but there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will follow the same approach on this Bill as has been taken for other legislation. So, it is not worth relying on the Companies Act guidance, because there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to follow that guidance. The Premier League rulebook requirements about acquisition of control are significantly narrower in scope than this Bill. In fact, I could find no example of any legislation regarding any sport anywhere in the world that is so intrusive as to have the phrase “significant influence over”, as a criterion for ownership.
Without any doubt, the Crown Prince is an owner in the context of the Bill, an owner who exercises influence over the activities of the club as defined in proposed statute and regulation. I understand that, since December, it has been made clear to the Government that any proposal to put the Crown Prince through the detailed due diligence would be resisted. After all, it does not exist in any other sport worldwide, so it would be the first time any country had legislated to that extent for the ownership of a professional club. It would potentially lead to the PIF revising its proposals for a substantial investment in the Newcastle area, or so that is said in the world of sport. I hope that the Minister can dispel that rumour and confirm that nothing of the sort has been said to anyone in Number 10 or DCMS. It would also help the House to know, if the Saudi Crown Prince is to be excluded, whether all state entities are to be excluded from the influence test.
This is the most far-reaching direct political intervention in the running of any sport in the history of this country —a country which once gave the world rules and regulations for sport to be universal, autonomous and self-regulating, in the context of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a historic irony that it should now be our Government to be the first Government to take control of sport. Existing Premier League ownership tests are already onerous, as they should be. The influence test only creates uncertainty, militates against growth and has the potential to be deeply damaging to English football without generating any benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my substantial Amendment 45, together with the consequential Amendments 42, 43 and 44. I have followed the Bill closely from the stand—it has been televised on every occasion it has been debated.
My amendment seeks to delete the unnecessary and counterproductive Clause 27, which is prematurely engaged at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement between the seller of a football club and perhaps a number of purchasers. By deleting Clause 27, notification will be engaged only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and heads of terms and a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that point, Clause 28 would be engaged as in the Bill.
Football is a game of dreams, and some dream so hard that they want to own their own club. In a small way, I am one of those people. Back in 1932, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete, and he was known as Flying Fuller. Back then, he answered a small advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press and acquired 250 shares in the Norwich City Football Club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending the annual general meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates ever since.
From that 40-year perspective, I can tell noble Lords how clubs change hands, and it is not how the Bill contemplates. The Bill anticipates that, at some point, someone dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR so that an army of Rachels can measure them up for the sheepskin coat, which is the particular uniform that owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they might be subject to an HMRC winding-up order or that there might be other cash flow issues; even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by a civil servant.
How have we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are opened, how could the purchaser even know whether the deal was feasible? Then, unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books for fear that person was a charlatan. Noble Lords can see the jeopardy here.
Quite simply, the new law, and Clause 27 in particular, would prevent buyer and seller being put together. This Bill purports to stop clubs going bust, but the actions of the Bill would ensure that they did.
As I look back and reflect on the ownership of our club in Norwich, during my small slice of ownership, I recall how Norwich City Football Club was owned by Robert Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out of his sails, it needed somebody with deeper pockets to take over, but nobody came forward. By and by, a man called Geoffrey Watling, who owned a local taxi firm, came forward to act as midwife, and he held that club while he hawked it around. Here was a modest man with a deep interest in the community. He understood what the role of the football club can and should be, and he put himself in harm’s way when nobody else would step up to the plate. All Norwich fans thank him for what he did. The main stand, even today, is named for him. Eventually, Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, together with her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, acquired the shares of the club in a story that was beautifully told in the Times about three weeks ago. It must have been a very expensive taxi ride for them both, and no two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club.
Last week the club entered a new phase with a new owner, Mark Attanasio, taking a leading role. We hope he can bring us to past glories. By all accounts, he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have Delia’s blessing than Rachel’s.
The purpose of telling these tales is that had there been a regulator operating under Clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel long before he did. Kind-hearted Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed Clause 37(4). He only owned a taxi company; he had no qualifications. You would have to question why a husband and wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harm’s way to own Norwich City Football Club in Norfolk, similarly failing Clause 37(4), because being a cook is not necessarily the requisite qualification for club ownership. Put simply, as a result of Clause 27, our club would have folded; it would have prevented these deals before they even started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop for clubs in trouble—a vortex from which few will be able to escape. The consequence of Clause 27 is to condemn a club in trouble to extinction.
My amendments would not prevent the IFR eventually certifying someone under Clause 28, but it would stop the snuffing out of hope at Clause 27. Of course, it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat in the first place. In my view, the regulator should not be allowed at this early stage to prevent clubs doing different and taking those calculated risks—the rolling of the dice.
Football is not just embellished by the great players—the Beckhams and the Ronaldos. It is decorated by the local characters, people like the Roberts, the Geoffreys, the Delias and the Michaels. We should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the dull men’s club—a system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities, and big business and remote shareholders with fat lawyers are preferred. This is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes set out in Clause 1, where the economic and social well-being of local communities are key objectives.
I was with Delia on that infamous “Let’s be ‘avin’ you” rant 20 years and two weeks ago. It passed into our legend and our lexicon. It is part of the colour of the game and our nation, yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost if we do not attract and cherish the community-minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line. Let us abandon Clause 27 and just rely on Clause 28, at which point the deal’s certainty is greater.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I return to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeking to leave out “influence or”. There are in fact two references to “influence” in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b)—the one that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, focuses on—mentions
“a higher degree of influence”,
and Clause 3(2)(c) mentions “a degree of influence”. Is there any assistance in the Bill as to what is meant by either of those concepts? They seem very vague indeed to me.
In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, on page 83, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this—to
“prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence”,
but that is a different matter. Significant influence is plainly distinct from
“a higher degree of influence”
or “a degree of influence”. I am not suggesting that the Minister provides guidance now, but it may be a matter that can be addressed when the Bill goes to the other place. There really needs to be some assistance provided to the regulator and others as to what these vague concepts mean.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, we are on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the degree. Naturally, the removal of
“a higher degree of influence”
seems to be watering down the regulatory powers of the regulator. That is a very dangerous road to go down. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If Amendment 7 were pushed to a vote, we would not support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the forensic way he set out the case for his Amendment 7. The example with which he illustrated it—one he has used throughout the passage of this Bill—is certainly one that captured my attention, coming from Whitley Bay. It is causing some concern across Tyneside and among Newcastle United’s many fans across the world. I would be failing in my Geordie duty if I did not take this opportunity to wish the team the best of luck for the Carabao Cup this weekend.
I understand that the Minister cannot speak for a regulator that is to be independent and that does not yet exist, but I hope she will be able to say a bit about the implications of the Bill, such as the one that my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out. It clearly has some very serious consequences, not just for Newcastle in the example he has given but potentially for other teams in the future. I look forward to hearing what she says.
I want to say a little about my two amendments in this group, Amendments 46 and 47. As we said in Committee, among the many changes the Government have made to the Bill, compared with the Bill that the previous Government brought forward in the previous Parliament, was one we understand the case for. In the earlier version of the Bill, there was a provision stating that the regulator must have regard to the Government’s foreign and trade policy when making determinations for the owners’ test. This is an example of a concern that UEFA raised. That has been reported publicly, and the Government were very clear when they made the change to the Bill now before us that it was in response to concerns by UEFA that this undermined the independence of the regulator and that if it was to have regard to the Government’s foreign or trade policy, it would be too close to the Government’s view, in the eyes of UEFA.
I can understand the rationale for making that change, but in Committee I expressed some concerns about the unintended consequences of that and the potential loopholes. I gave the example that if there were to be two potential foreign owners of a club, one from a friendly nation and one from a nation with which this country does not enjoy friendly relations—we can all think of some examples that would spring readily to mind in the troubled world we face today—we would all be clear on which way we would like to see the independent regulator come down, even if the Government are not able to direct it, or if it is not able to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy.
My Amendment 46 would insert a provision highlighting
“whether the individual is reasonably believed to be, or have been, involved in terrorism related activity”.
I am sure that noble Lords would not want such a person to be an owner or director of one of our prominent football teams.
Amendment 47 sets out a number of agencies—the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Serious Fraud Office and others—that the new regulator may consult in carrying out its test. I have watered down my amendment from Committee to say “may consult”, not “must consult”, in the hope that this will find some greater support from the Government. I understand the reasons for the change that they have made to the Bill, but I do hope that the noble Baroness will be able to look at these ways in which we might be able to tighten up the potential for a loophole, so that we can avoid seeing the sorts of people that none of us want to see taking control of English football clubs.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, for tabling their amendments, as it provides me with the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on these points and provide some clarification. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in wishing Newcastle good luck in their forthcoming match. We can agree on some things in your Lordships’ House.
I start with Amendments 7 and 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Before I go into a bit more detail, I would like to clarify whether incumbent owners or officers could be tested. Indeed, they can be tested. The regulator can test incumbent owners or officers where it has grounds for concern about their fitness or, for owners only, the source of their wealth—but, I repeat, only where there are grounds for concern. It is vital that we have a strong definition of an ultimate owner in order to give transparency to fans and hold owners to account. The Government are intent on providing the regulator with the tools to identify the ultimate owner as accurately as possible.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, point on precedent, this is why the Bill’s drafting takes its lead from the precedent of other Acts using “influence or control”, including the Companies Act’s “persons with significant control” regime, and the economic crime Act’s “beneficial owners” regime. We are confident that we have the correct definition to achieve the Bill’s aim. It ensures that an individual who exerts significant influence over a club, more than that of any other owner, can still be identified as the ultimate owner even if they do not have formal legal control. In fact, without this definition, ultimate owners could circumvent regulation. It is fundamental that clubs have suitable custodians in order to secure the future of clubs and, most importantly, to protect the game that fans hold so dear. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord can understand the importance of the definition.
I turn now to Amendment 28. As I outlined in Committee, I agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider significant influence by owners. That is why the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time in order to give this clarity. I want to make it clear that the Bill’s provisions that define “owner” in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation for the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day.
We have taken on board the valuable points the noble Lord raised in Committee. After looking at this again in detail, we stand by our position that the intent of this amendment is met without needing to change the Bill. We do agree that, before guidance is produced, clubs should not be expected to identify those who meet the definition of an owner by exercising significant influence or control. I would therefore like to provide greater reassurance that the scenario the noble Lord is concerned about should not be an issue. I can commit that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced before clubs are required to identify their owners who meet the definition of having significant influence or control to the regulator.
In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on why we have not defined “significant influence and control” on the face of the Bill and are putting it in guidance instead, this approach is based on precedent. As I mentioned, the Companies Act also sets out the definition of “significant influence or control” in guidance rather than legislation. The Secretary of State’s guidance will give clarity to owners about who meets the definition.
Turning now to Amendments 42, 43, 44 and 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I think it was a bit cheeky and that one should take a slight exception to the notion that Delia Smith is just a cook. I would argue that she is, through her professional career, arguably also a highly successful businesswoman. Leaving that point aside, however, the requirement to notify is there for a reason. Keeping unsuitable owners and officers out is a core part of the regulator’s regime. We want the regulator to block these individuals from entering the system, and not to have difficult, costly battles to remove them after the fact. So it needs to know who a club’s respective new owners and officers are before they buy or join the club. Put simply, the regulator needs to be able to gather the information that it needs to test them and work with them and the club to ensure that they submit a proper application in good time. It will help the regulator prepare to act quickly when it receives the application.
Clause 27 plays another important function. If a person has, for whatever reason, become an owner or officer of a club without the regulator first having found them suitable, they still have to notify the regulator as soon as possible after the event. Without this provision, there could be untested, unsuitable individuals in the system that the regulator was unaware of.
I move now to Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham. We agree that it would not be right for money related to terrorism to find its way into our clubs. The Bill, as already drafted, already stops that through its provisions on serious criminal conduct. Serious criminal conduct includes offences listed in Section 41 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. That is an extensive list of terrorism-related offences, ranging, to name a few, from membership of a banned organisation to encouraging terrorism to offences related to funding terrorism. Serious criminal conduct, including these terrorism offences, is considered under the ODT “source of wealth” and “honesty and integrity” tests. The club licensing regime lets the regulator block funding that is connected to serious criminal conduct. That is why we are confident that the Bill appropriately and thoroughly deals with terrorism-related activities.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 47, also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham. I am pleased to have another opportunity to highlight the information-sharing agreements that the regulator can and will use to its advantage. I absolutely agree that the regulator may need to work closely with other organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the discussions we have had on this point.
The Bill establishes a gateway for the regulator to share information with a range of organisations, including HMRC, the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. It also creates a specific gateway for HMRC to share information with the regulator and empowers the Secretary of State to create other such gateways by regulations, as needed. The regulator may already consult whoever it needs to in order to make robust decisions. The regulator will seek information and expertise from relevant organisations to help it to stay live to both national and international concerns. The shadow regulator is already building a strong relationship with the NCA and law enforcement to ensure that the regulator is in a strong position to gather and receive the information it needs. We are confident that the Bill adequately empowers the regulator to gather such information. For the reasons I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and his comment that by accepting this amendment, we would be watering down the regulation. On the contrary, if you look at the regulatory requirements of FIFA and UEFA, the FA, the Premier League or any of the other national governing bodies in football in Europe—which I have done—it is not a matter of watering down. This makes a much more intrusive additional layer of regulation which does not exist in any of the other countries. I simply put it to the noble Lord that there must be a reason for that. There is a good reason why, to the detailed regulation which exists in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League, it is unnecessary to add this additional layer.
My noble friend Lord Parkinson on the Front Bench mentioned the exchange that took place over the clause having regard to foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. It was a classic example of when UEFA said “Jump” and the British Government’s position was “How high?” I fear that if you take the FA out of the equation, which has happened now, we will see far more work for lawyers in the future than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, anticipates. His point, however, on this amendment was perceptive and accurate. If the legislation is not changed this evening, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State at a future opportunity to make it absolutely clear in his consideration, which he will undertake, to make sure that there is clarity on that.
As far the Companies Act is concerned, I simply say to the House that there is no requirement whatever for the Secretary of State to take it into consideration when opining on this subject. If there is, it should be written into the Bill. Once again, as I have mentioned before, there are 31 different areas where we are going to wait to hear the detail of the competitions, the clubs and exactly what “influence” means—this is all for the future. This is in many respects a shell Bill, but using “influence” over has the impact that I have mentioned in the example of Newcastle, and I am very concerned about it.
I ask the Minister to write to me if she would, because I appreciate that she will not have had time to respond to the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the owners of Newcastle, not just with regard to the club, but to the response to this Bill when enacted in their investment in the Newcastle area, over and beyond their financing of the club. As I understand it, those rumours that are circulating are well grounded, but the Minister will no doubt be able to tell me. This is meant to be a growth Bill: all regulators are meant to grow the businesses that they regulate, but I fear that this will have exactly the opposite effect, and I think Newcastle may be on the receiving end of that. If we do not change the Bill to remove the “influence” over as a key criterion of control, we will have made an error, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Maude of Horsham
“3A “(1) The Secretary of State is to nominate a person (“the nominated person”) to be the chair.(2) The nominated person must appear before a relevant Parliamentary Committee if invited to do so.(3) The Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person unless the relevant Parliamentary Committee has held a confirmatory vote if the Committee wishes to do so.(4) Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person.(5) Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may proceed with the appointment of the nominated person.(6) A relevant Parliamentary Committee is any Committee of the House of Commons, or House of Lords, or of both Houses, which has notified the Secretary of State, in writing, that they have assumed the function of scrutiny of football regulation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the chair may undergo pre-appointment scrutiny and be approved by a select committee of Parliament.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I do not need to detain your Lordships for long on this.
The amendment puts into the Bill what the Minister has already committed to in her letter to my noble friend Lord Moynihan on 13 January, in which she said that the chair of the independent football regulator will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the DCMS Select Committee. We welcome that commitment. It is a good commitment. Of course, her word is her bond. But her word is not necessarily the bond of future Ministers, and it is important that this commitment is in the Bill. It is very hard to see why there could be any objection to that.
I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment. If the Minister is inclined to say that she will bring back at Third Reading an improved version which gives effect in substance to what is contained in my amendment, I will be content not to press this amendment to a Division.
However, it is important to reflect on why it matters that this appointment, which will happen if this all goes through, will happen on a regular basis. New chairs will be appointed. The nature of the debates that we have been having in your Lordships’ Chamber today illustrates how important it is. It remains the case that what is being introduced for the first time is a regulator of a sport which includes the most successful sporting league in the world of any kind. English football is a huge success. We take risks with its success at our peril but also at the political peril of the Government of the day, who, if things go wrong, will rightly be blamed for setting this up in a way that has created that peril.
I know from my own experience that subjecting the chair of an important public appointment to scrutiny by a Select Committee can be hazardous. I remember an appointment that I made as a Minister was subjected to that scrutiny. The candidate whom we had selected did not measure up under the examination of the Select Committee. We had to re-run the process. That candidate had not shown themselves to be across the issues and the sensitivities, and that was an appointment which required strength and the ability to stand up to the Government and resist the blandishments of the Government, whoever the Government were—and it was the Government that I was a member of. The Select Committee was right. So it is important, given how the actions of this regulator can damage something which is important economically for the country but also very dear to the hearts of billions of people across the world. It gives pleasure and, periodically, as we all know, pain, to many of us. It is very important that the person carrying these awesome responsibilities is fully tested before they take up their role.
While we welcome the commitment that the Minister has made, that this appointment will be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee, I urge the House to support the idea that this commitment should be in the Bill, for other Ministers in the future who may not have the same good intentions that she has. Therefore, I urge the House to support this amendment, unless she is willing to commit that she will come back at Third Reading with something giving substantive effect to what this amendment would introduce. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, to respond briefly to the noble Lord’s comments, I quite understand where he is coming from in ensuring a proper and effective process in securing good-quality public appointments. His reflections on his experience were very interesting.
However, this amendment possibly goes a bit too far. I am not sure the noble Lord would have approved of giving Parliament the effective veto that his amendment, looking at the detail, clearly does. I am sure my noble friend the Minister has made an offer in good faith to ensure that there can be pre-appointment scrutiny of the post of chair of the regulator. I hear what the noble Lord says but, tempting though it is, it would lead us down a path which is not common in our jurisdiction. I know that in the States, there are public appointment processes in which, effectively, Congress can veto an appointment, but I do not think that is the road that we want to go down.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Of course, it is right that it is usual for an adverse vote in a Select Committee where there is pre-appointment scrutiny to be only advisory. I cannot remember, but there may even have been an example of a Government ignoring that, and it has not been binding. If the Government want to come back with an alternative version which reflects the comments the noble Lord is making, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment in favour of that. But the reality, of course, is that whether in the Bill it is a binding vote of the Select Committee or an advisory vote, the effect is pretty much the same.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Paragraph (4) of the noble Lord’s amendment says the following:
“Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person”.
According to my interpretation, that is clearly a veto. I am sure the Minister will reflect on the noble Lord’s words.
The other amendments in the group which the Minister has tabled today, and which my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have signed up to, are pretty straightforward and I am sure the House will support them. They simply make sure that there is a proper process to ensure declaration and registration of members of the regulatory board and the expert panel, and I commend the Minister for bringing those forward.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, in the debate on the sunset clause in Committee, it was evident that the Committee felt strongly that there should be greater post-legislative scrutiny. The Committee was clearly agreed on the end, if not necessarily the means. I am glad that since that was moved, the Minister has tabled amendments which are extremely helpful in that regard. I ask her, in that spirit of helpfulness, to respond to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham and me. Its effect is certainly capable of being interpreted in the way the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just described. It may be that the Minister has some alternative to offer at Third Reading, as my noble friend suggested, and we await with interest what she has to say.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but I just want to describe my experience. In 2009, I went before the Health Select Committee as a candidate for appointment to the chair of the Food Standards Agency. The record will show that the vast majority of questions I was asked were to do with my previous role as the Housing and Regeneration Minister, working for Lord Prescott. Three of the Members I was facing lived in areas where they did not want any development, which I had approved. They were not at all interested in the appointment that I was up for and being scrutinised on, and they went back to the past, so we have to be careful about that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, and I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Given that, to be fair, noble Lords on both sides of the House have consistently advocated proper scrutiny and oversight of this new regulator, which, after all, has unprecedented sweeping powers, it is appropriate and reasonable for us to seek to test the personal manifesto, vision and leadership of someone who assumes the chairmanship.
We are told that there are some interesting names in the frame: Sanjay Bhandari, for instance, the Kick It Out chairman, has been mooted as a potential leader of the new regulator. Whether that happens is another issue, but the Minister will know that the civil service public appointments process can sometimes be criticised for its secretiveness: it is not that transparent until right at the end, when the basket of appointables is placed in front of the Minister. With that in mind, the case for opportunities for new candidates to put their arguments to parliamentarians for pre-legislative scrutiny is quite compelling.
Having served for four years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I know from experience that, yes, it was make or break. Senior civil servants and Permanent Secretaries did sometimes drop a clanger at those meetings; equally, they often rose to the occasion. There was inherent value in them having the opportunity to put their case.
Finally, there is a precedent. Senior appointments to the Financial Conduct Authority routinely go before the Treasury Select Committee, and there are other Committees that interrogate the candidates put forward. Just because it has not been done before does not mean it should not be tried on this occasion, given that we have a brand-new body with wide-ranging powers.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this amendment, which does not undermine the Bill. Even though I am very much a Football Governance Bill sceptic, I know it is going to happen, so I want to improve it. Irrespective of party affiliation, we will improve it by testing the mettle of candidates for senior leadership roles. For those reasons, I implore the Minister to look at this amendment benignly and perhaps support it, if not tonight, certainly in the form of a new amendment along these lines at Third Reading.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as the debate has progressed, I have become a little more concerned about this. There is clearly the idea that this independent body is going to be a political football—pardon the pun—kicked around at the beginning, in the form of the question of who is acceptable. We have to trust independence a little more, I am afraid. None of us will be happy with everybody all the time, but I think we have to have it.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 10 and to support the other amendments in this group. Our amendment is quite modest and uncontroversial, in that we seek to limit the number of individuals appointed to the expert panel to 20. I think we would all agree that 20 is actually quite a large number. It is the figure that was in the Conservative version of the Bill, which for some reason the Government removed. I must be honest, 20 sounds like a lot to me, so to enable that figure to be higher probably leaves us open to jokes such as, “How many regulators does it take to change a light bulb?” Twenty will definitely do it, and I hope the Government will be happy to bear that in mind. There is a serious point here. We talk about wanting a light touch and to remove red tape, but a body of more than 20 would definitely be unwieldy.
I support the amendments tabled by the Minister and others. I welcome transparency being at the heart of the regulator’s work, and it is entirely correct that any potential conflicts should be openly declared.
Finally, there is a consensus that Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Maude is a sensible move. As my noble friend said, we are perfectly happy to accept the assurances the Minister gave about subsequent chairs. She is happy for this to happen for the first chair, so the precedent has been set. I therefore hope that it is not a big ask that some assurances are made for future ones, and that there is flexibility in respect of the format.
I will also take the opportunity, given that there has been quite a bit of press speculation, to ask whether there is any update on the timing for announcing the potential candidates and when we might see them in place.
I hope the Minister will either accept this amendment or give an undertaking for Third Reading. If not, my noble friend will have our full support if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
It was slightly disingenuous of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, when we are talking about pre-scrutiny of approval, to name a proposed candidate when, apparently, there are two proposed candidates. If he knows the other candidate, perhaps it might be helpful if he named him or her as well.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I was merely reporting what had been published on Sky News, and I think thousands of football fans would have considered it. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that no disingenuousness was intended.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. On Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, I understand the desire for the scrutiny of the appointment of the regulator’s chair and I am grateful for the thoughtful speech he made outlining the reasons behind the amendment. Getting the chair right, both now and in the future, will be pivotal for the success of the new regulator. I will not go into names or press speculation. I understand that progress is being made on the appointment. I am not involved in that, so I will not comment further.
The chair, as the public leader of the regulator, must be a competent and strong individual, free from any vested interests. I assure noble Lords from across the House that the existing public appointments process is robust, run in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and one that Parliament can and should have faith in.
As per Cabinet Office guidance, parliamentary Select Committees can already carry out pre-appointment scrutiny hearings and offer their views to the Secretary of State. The chair of the regulator is subject to that scrutiny. The Secretary of State will, of course, weigh any committee’s views carefully, as the Cabinet Office guidance already sets out; this will be the case for the future.
However, the Governance Code on Public Appointments sets out that Ministers have the ultimate responsibility for appointment decisions for which they are accountable to Parliament. It is not common for Parliament to hold a statutory right of veto over such public appointments and we cannot see a reason to set that precedent with this regulator. In response to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, our view is that this amendment would represent a veto.
Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seeks to place a cap on the number of members of the regulator’s expert panel. The regulator’s independent expert panel will play a vital role in making various important decisions across the regulator’s regime, when and where it is appropriate. It is essential that the panel has a range of relevant expertise and experience to reflect the diversity and complexity of decisions that may come before it.
The number of members of the expert panel is to be determined by the chief executive officer in response to the operational need. The Government do not want to fetter the effectiveness of the expert panel by introducing a cap on the maximum number of members of the panel as this amendment seeks to do, however sensible that level may appear to noble Lords. The regulator needs the flexibility to react in the event of high workload for the panel. The regulator will be required to deliver value for money and has a regulatory principle underpinning this. We do not believe that the CEO would appoint and maintain an unnecessarily bloated panel.
Finally, I turn to government Amendments 9 and 11. In Committee, my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton, among others, emphasised the real importance of protecting the regulator from conflicts of interest. The Government are in complete agreement that the independence of the regulator must be protected, including against vested interests. Although the Bill already makes provision for managing such conflicts of interest, we have tabled government amendments to strengthen these protections even further and beyond any doubt.
The amendments require the regulator to establish and maintain a system whereby the members of the regulator’s board and its expert panel must declare their relevant interests, and a record of these interests must be kept and maintained. This will ensure that all board and expert panel members declare relevant interests from the outset of their appointment and on an ongoing basis. This is good practice not only for transparency but to help the regulator manage any conflicts and to insulate its decisions from potential vested or competing interests.
I hope that those reasons have reassured your Lordships’ House and that noble Lords will not press their amendments. I will move government Amendments 9 and 11 in due course.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. On the comments made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am open-minded about whether the Bill should contain what is effectively a veto or whether it should accord with the more usual practice. As I said, if the Minister were to give an undertaking that she would come back with an amendment framed in those terms at Third Reading, I would be willing not to press this amendment to a Division, but I have not heard that commitment from her, which is a disappointment.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is obviously scarred by his personal experience. I simply remind him that hard cases make bad law, and his sounds like a particularly hard case, for which he has my sympathy.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, seemed to be recommending—arguing, really—that there should be no pre-appointment scrutiny at all, let alone whether it should be in the Bill. Therefore, he is presumably urging the Minister to withdraw the commitment she has made that there should be pre-appointment scrutiny. On the substantive point he made in arguing that scrutiny would turn the regulator into a political football, the reverse is actually the case. It is important that the regulator should be genuinely independent, and my experience of observing these scrutiny procedures is that Select Committees are particularly concerned to test the capability of the nominee to exercise genuine, robust independence. Rather than turning the nominee into someone who is overly influenced by the scrutiny, it is to test whether they are capable of withstanding it. That is the consideration.
I am grateful for all contributions, but in the absence of the quite modest commitment I have requested the Minister to make, I want to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8.
Baroness Twycross
“Declaration and registration of interests of members of the Board
6A (1) The IFR must establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Board.(2) In this paragraph “relevant interest”, in relation to a member of the Board, means a financial or other interest that may be relevant to the IFR’s exercise of its functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Board.
Baroness Twycross
“Declaration and registration of interests of members of the Expert Panel
23A (1) The IFR must establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Expert Panel.(2) In this paragraph “relevant interest”, in relation to a member of the Expert Panel, means a financial or other interest that may be relevant to the IFR’s exercise of its functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Expert Panel.
“(d) to monitor and promote the reduction of English football’s climate and environmental impacts (referred to in this Act as “the environmental objective”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add climate and environment impact reduction to the IFR’s objectives.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will not move Amendment 12 but I will speak to Amendment 13. Is that all right?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
You would need to say “not moved” to Amendment 12, but if you speak to it now you can then move it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you very much.
Amendment 13 is quite an important amendment for me, because a noble Lord challenged me earlier, saying, “Surely you’re not going to bother to push this to a vote; otherwise, it could be in every Bill”. Well, yes, of course: as a Green, I would like an awareness of the Climate Change Act to be inherent in every Bill. Unfortunately, it is not at the moment. That is why this amendment is so important.
I am a football fan. Despite being a Green and despite all its flaws, I absolutely love football. I am well aware of the power that football clubs have over their fan base and their sphere of influence into wider society. We all know now that we have to limit our impact on the planet, that we need to use less plastic and that everything can be polluted by plastic—our own lungs, the sea, absolutely everything. Some clubs are trying very hard, but many, many fail.
Amendment 13 tries in particular to acknowledge the link between environmental and financial sustainability and the urgent need for the games regulator to be empowered to drive greener practices. The idea that the independent football regulator’s remit should include consideration for environmental sustainability is backed by Pledgeball and fellow sport and sustainability organisations Sports for Climate Action and Nature at Loughborough University, the Cool Down Sport for Climate Action Network, and the Football and Climate Change Newsletter.
In 2021, in response to a number of high-profile crises that had arisen in the sport, there was the fan-led review, which has been discussed already, chaired by the former Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch. Many of the review’s 10 findings focused on financial stability at the clubs, fan input, equality, inclusion, diversity and welfare, but it is also crucial that a focus on environmental standards and sustainability is part of the regulator’s remit.
In Committee, Ministers resisted amendments about environmental sustainability on the basis that such measures would put a burden and cost on the regulator and on the clubs. Ministers also argued that voluntary sustainability efforts by clubs and leagues were, and would continue to be, sufficient. However, although some clubs are doing commendable work in this area, progress is inconsistent, erratic and lacks enforcement. Without regulation, football will have fragmented, inadequate responses to climate threats.
It has been predicted that, at the current rate of climate change, one in five English clubs could be at high or very high risk of flooding by 2050. The average grass-roots pitch already loses around five weeks of play every season due to adverse weather. Approximately 120,000 fixtures are called off each year due to unplayable conditions of various kinds.
Additionally, government policy already links financial stability to climate risk. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee is required to consider climate risks in its financial stability assessments. Defra has also asked several major UK regulators, including Ofcom, to submit a report on how climate risks are affecting the sector. Football should be no different.
My Amendment 13 would ensure that clubs comply with the Climate Change Act 2008 to secure the long-term environmental sustainability of English football. I simply feel that this is too important to leave, so I will move it later.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 25 seeks to address a key issue: how the new regulator will operate in practice and the transparency with which it will exercise its powers. But first, I welcome the Government’s decision to adjust the frequency of the Secretary of State’s statement on football governance from every three years to every five. This sensible change now aligns the timing of various key processes across the Bill, ensuring consistency, clarity and practical efficiency. I thank the Minister for listening to the points raised in Committee and responding positively with her amendment.
On guidance and consultation and my amendment, the Bill currently requires guidance only for discretionary licence conditions, leaving many critical regulatory functions without similar obligations. I want to briefly highlight three key areas where greater clarity is essential and guidance should, in my view, be mandatory.
First, financial sustainability is the regulator’s primary purpose, yet there is no obligation for the regulator to define how it will assess soundness or resilience through guidance. Clubs making long-term investment decisions deserve clarity on how these will be evaluated. Can the Minister please confirm that the regulator will define these incredibly important terms, which influence the overall approach the regulator takes and therefore what regulated parties should expect, in the “state of the game” report?
Secondly, the owners’ and directors’ test—vital for responsible investment—lacks detail in the legislation itself. Without requirements to consult clubs and existing and potential investors on its design, we risk creating unnecessary uncertainty. There is a requirement to consult on the definition of “significant influence or control” within the ownership rules, but no consultation requirements for the test itself.
Thirdly, the backstop power over financial distributions could fundamentally alter football’s economics, yet the regulator need not explain its approach or methodology ahead of a determination. For a mechanism with such profound implications, this seems to represent an obvious gap in procedural and legal safeguards. This uncertainty around guidance could create practical problems. The Premier League’s broadcast deal runs to 2030. Clubs like mine are making infrastructure decisions spanning similar timeframes or even longer.
How can responsible planning occur without regulatory clarity? Surely mandatory guidance across a whole range of areas in this Bill would be conducive to generating greater clarity and regulatory certainty. These amendments would require the regulator to provide guidance across all functions and to consult appropriately. I am not seeking to constrain the regulator’s authority, just to ensure that powers are exercised transparently and coherently. If, as the Minister assures us, this will be a collaborative regulator, I ask her to commit to embedding that principle more comprehensively in the legislation itself.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling this significant addition to the Bill.
Our national game has a vital role to play in support of the Government’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050, not least because there is a vital connection between the long-term financial sustainability of English football and its long-term environmental sustainability. We know that climate change impacts sport; we therefore need to equip clubs, especially those in the lower leagues, to mitigate the vagaries of extreme weather, whether in the form of droughts or torrential rain. Incorporating a duty to monitor and reduce the climate impacts of English football would only enhance its value to our nation and local communities.
Football clubs have a history of social, cultural and even moral leadership. I celebrate the example of Kick It Out, a campaign established in 1993, under the name Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football, to raise awareness and tackle all forms of discrimination in sport. Given this precedent, I invite noble Lords to imagine the difference it would make in South Yorkshire if Barnsley, Doncaster Rovers, Rotherham United, Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday football clubs together led the way in our region to a more climate-friendly future.
Why should English football not be on the front foot, rather than on the back foot, in the journey to net zero? I am tempted to call it an open goal. I commend the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we had a useful debate in Committee on environmental amendments. I was one of those promoting them, but I was much reassured by the Minister’s comments that they were not necessary. I support those comments. This is where I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: if, with a bit of research, she looks at the workings of all the other regulators, even the FCA and so on, she will find that all of them publish a commitment to sustainability and acknowledge the role and responsibility they have for ensuring that we meet net-zero targets. These amendments, well-intentioned though they are, do not need to be in the Bill. They are not necessary.
It would be better if we focused on what clubs are currently doing. My own club, Brighton & Hove Albion, has a sustainable transport policy, and most football clubs now commit to such policies. I think we get most of our fans to the grounds by some form of public transport—I am told that it is about 50% or 60%—and most clubs would recognise that as an agreeable target. Legislation is not required to do that; what is required is close working with the local authority and the transport undertakers.
While there is a good intention behind this proposal, I do not think we need to have it in the Bill. Most regulators already subscribe to statements on sustainable practices. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield made a good point, clubs are already working hard in this area to promote good environmental practice. Although these amendments are well intentioned, I believe that they are unnecessary, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will not push them.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27—not as a learned lawyer, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is in his place; not as a former Sports Minister with immense understanding, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; and not as a senior and experienced administrator of a huge club, like the noble Baroness, Lady Brady—but as a humble fan. I have not spoken much on the Bill, but when I have, I have spoken as a lifelong football fan who pays regularly to watch my beloved club, Tottenham Hotspur, for better or worse. I very much sense, feel and hear the varied opinions of fans on the independent football regulator, reflecting a mix of hope, scepticism and concern.
I acknowledge that there is some enthusiasm on the terraces, but it is tempered by doubts about the regulator’s scope and power. Some fans are worried that it will not address their immediate concerns, such as the rising ticket prices, the loss of cup replays or clubs prioritising lucrative overseas pre-season tours over local engagement. Posts on X suggest scepticism about whether the independent football regulator can truly challenge the entrenched power of the Premier League’s wealthy owners. As one user noted:
“It can’t force clubs to lower ticket prices”.
Others fear that it may impose bureaucratic burdens without delivering meaningful change, potentially even threatening the competitiveness of English football. Fans can be quite astute in their analysis and hopes for what a regulator was intended to do, as they now meet the harsh reality of what a regulator might actually do.
This comes at a time when some clubs—dare I use the example of English football’s biggest commercial club, Manchester United—face demonstrations from their fans demanding change. Fans are themselves motivated by a myriad of reasons, and much of their ire has to do with the performance of their team on the pitch. However, one of the issues at the heart of the Manchester United fans’ fury is ticket prices. That was why a specific fan demonstration was organised—following the raising of ticket prices to £66 and the removal of some concessions in December last year—and the issue continues to rumble on. In February, the Fulham Supporters’ Trust described the decision to sell adult away tickets for the Old Trafford cup tie at between £51 and £61 as “callous”, with away tickets capped at £30 for Premier League matches.
I do not want to be accused of picking on Manchester United, especially as it is having as poor a season as my own club, where the natives are also extremely restless, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, knows. Again, that is for many footballing reasons, but also because of the restriction on ticket concessions that was announced this season. The same can be said of a number of other Premier League clubs, where ticket prices are going only one way and potentially acting as a barrier to many fans experiencing the beautiful, great game at a ground.
It must be acknowledged that clubs, especially Premier League clubs, are facing challenges. Clubs generate huge revenues, but, equally, they have huge outgoings and are continually chasing footballing talent and investing to achieve success in a highly competitive international market. They also face national financial pressures, such as the impact of the Labour Government’s national insurance increases on their employee base; the Labour Government’s increase of the national minimum wage; the further compliance costs that will accompany the Labour Government’s new Employment Rights Bill; and then the independent football regulator’s levy. We can debate the impact of the IFR on the footballing pyramid, but a question I share with millions of football fans is: will all these additional costs and that of the IFR on EPL clubs, and every single club in the land, mean that ticket prices will go up?
Rather than meeting the aspiration of helping fans to reduce ticket prices, the cost of the independent financial regulator is likely to do the exact opposite. Therefore, I have sought to make a modest amendment to Clause 14: that the IFR’s annual report include
“a review of the impact of the activity of the IFR on ticket prices”,
to give us fans some comfort that the burden of the independent football regulator will not fall on us.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the debates on this Bill have been somewhat lengthy, so I will be incredibly brief. I support, with absolute delight, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on her Amendment 13. I do so for three reasons.
The first relates to the oft overused phrase “soft power”. No one can deny football’s huge following or the impression it has on so many—and that applies equally to fans in this country and abroad. As has been said already, the Premier League makes up the largest share of the UK’s television exports, and football is broadcast to over 1.5 billion people in just shy of 190 countries. As noble Lords have noted, throughout the ages football has pushed and campaigned on many important issues, so it is right that the many things that clubs promote at home and abroad should include the environment, nature and broader sustainability.
That leads me to my second point, which is, in effect, football’s hard power. Clubs can make a difference through not just all the sites they own but what they offer during matches to the fans.
My third point is broader: I wish to speak to those who cannot support this amendment, however well intentioned it is, because they do not support the idea of a regulator. The debate we are having now is about this amendment; it is not about the Bill in its entirety. Whether we agree with it or not, the Bill will end up passing. So the question to me now is not about the virtue of the regulator but about how we can improve it.
To conclude, this amendment does not have specific targets or rules on what exactly clubs should fund or what their boards should look like, or seeks to interfere needlessly in how they are run or how their games are played. The key is that this amendment calls for regard of what is already in other legislation. It is something that we are all expected to do ourselves and, as has been said, that so many clubs do already under their own steam: to play their part. If the noble Baroness presses her amendment to a vote, I respectfully urge all noble Lords to support her.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood, as well as my noble friend Lord Maude’s earlier point about the individual who will become the regulator. While we are discussing Manchester United, I note that I am a season ticket holder of the club; my noble friend Lord Ranger made a point about the recent increase in ticket prices.
This regulator will be answerable to supporters, while at the same time—as my noble friend Lady Brady said—making it clear what the owners of the football clubs can expect for investment purposes. This independent football regulator will be located in Manchester. Given the sheer size and scale of the protests—75,000 people go to Old Trafford week in, week out, and they may be minded to go to the location of the regulator— I would be interested to know what calibre of person, he or she, will be able to cope with those protests, which will inevitably end up outside their premises. How will they interact with those supporters, while at the same time making sure that they act professionally and responsibly so that the owners of the football businesses can carry on with the investment that we all want? Ultimately, this is about the future success of the Premier League.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome government Amendment 24, which reduces the minimum frequency of the revised football governance statements from every three years to every five years. That is a positive direction of travel, reining in a disproportionately burdensome bureaucracy. I was fearful that clubs might be in a perpetual state of having to fulfil the paperwork rather than improve governance, let alone improve football. I am glad to see that amendment.
Another worry that some of us have raised is the need to rein in politicised mission creep, so I oppose Amendments 12 and 13. Amendment 13 seems to be the focus, linking this Bill to the Climate Change Act and linking environmental sustainability to economic sustainability and making climate and environmental impact reduction part of the IFR’s objectives. I think this is incredibly unwise for a number of reasons. It goes against the Government’s Amendment 14, debated earlier, which all sides of the House lauded and I agree with, which is a commitment to avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football.
Let us be honest: outside of football, even the Government are now acknowledging that net-zero targets and environmental regulations are often expensive and burdensome barriers to economic growth. They do not allow the Government and whole swathes of the corporate world to pursue, for example, infrastructure projects such as building houses. I do not think that it is uncontentious to say that, because “environmental sustainability” and “economic sustainability” will appear in the same provision, there is no tension between them; I think there is. I also think that this would really be an example of scope creep, which the Minister has assured us will not happen; UEFA and FIFA have been promised that it will not happen, as we were told earlier.
In Committee, I spoke against adding football clubs into this ever-greater, non-football-related political territory, setting essentially politically driven environmental hoops to jump through. In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Government had no intention of accepting these Green demands into the legislation, and I was reassured. But I want the Minister to promise, if she can, that the independent regulator will not—once this Bill is passed, which undoubtedly it will be—simply slip them into the governance remit. I am worried because the green lobby is very active, persistent and wealthy and, to be honest, has an interest in pursuing this after this Bill is long gone.
Larger clubs with lots of money might well be able to go along with a lot of these things that this Bill demands. We know that there are all sorts of Premier League football clubs at the moment that are more than happy to have sponsorship by green energy companies and so on. We have seen a lot of that happen. I think this could amount to eco-virtue signalling that ticks the social responsibility boxes of the big clubs and a sort of greenwashing that we know the corporate social responsibility industry does so well. But I fear that it will distract smaller clubs from their core role of thinking about financial stability and improving their governance so that we have better football clubs, and it will drag them into this extraneous environmental sustainability world.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, many clubs do what they can to promote the environment, and that is all well and good and I totally support it; what I do not support is Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. What the noble Baroness is seeking to do is to impose on the IFR a duty to exercise its functions in a way that is compatible with the Climate Change Act. If the Climate Change Act already imposes duties on everybody including the IFR, this is otiose and unnecessary; if the Climate Change Act does not impose duties in any event on the IFR, I am very doubtful indeed that it is appropriate to use this legislation, which is concerned with many other topics, to impose such a duty. In my view, it is not necessary to put this in the Bill.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes a substantial point about why in law it probably will not really help, but in spirit I am with it.
More importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, made an important point about fans not being able to afford to watch football. I have been amazed for a long time, probably about 20 years, that working people in particular, with perhaps two children, might visit two games a week. I do not know how they afford it. It has always been, generally, a working person’s game—it is not a class issue, but I think, generally speaking, it has been—and it has inelastic demand. By that, I mean that it is a tribal thing: we cannot explain the reason that we get excited and depressed about football teams. I am hoping that Sheffield Wednesday will win tonight; I will be depressed, I will be—
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Not surprised when that does not happen.
There is something within us that is very hard. The most obvious thing a football fan could do would be to stop going to the games to effect change in a club, but it is very hard for them to do so. Therefore, a regulator asking reasonable questions of a club about why it has increased ticket prices is a very sensible option. If it is there to check on the validity and, I suppose, the due diligence around the ownership, I would have thought that this is the very least it could do in looking around the due diligence and looking after the fans.
No one else really looks after the fans. Outside the Premier League, the quality of looking after the fans is pretty awful. From the toilets to the restaurants—if they ever pass as that—it has traditionally been pretty diabolical. I would have thought that the regulator ought to be looking at such things, as well as whether the money going into the club is straightforward and comes from the sources that are alleged. I will certainly support the ticket price amendment, should it be put.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to this debate, I have discovered that I have no original points to make. I discovered, having had a quick discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that if it is in law anyway, it is law. On enforcement capacity, probably the earlier amendment of the two was better or more relevant, but we have already said that it is out of scope following Committee.
When it comes to ticket pricing, it will be interesting to hear what the Government think will be done, or what is within the capacity of the regulator, to at least justify ticket price increases. There is enormous pressure for prices to go up, but you also have a duty to your community. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this. I will base any reaction on the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the two government amendments in this group. They reflect amendments I tabled in Committee. The first reduces the frequency with which the Secretary of State may revise the football governance statements, bringing it more in line with the parliamentary cycle rather than every three years. The second removes the Secretary of State’s power to amend the definition of the football season. This always seemed a disproportionate power. Why a Cabinet Minister ought to define a football season is a point that has bemused many football fans. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 24 and 87, which she has brought forward on those points.
Like other noble Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood for his passionate speech in favour of his Amendment 27, which seeks to require the regulator’s annual report to include a review of the impact of its activities on ticket prices. The important argument here is not that the regulator should dictate ticket prices to clubs. I recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made about how clubs often try the patience of their fans, but it is a commercial decision for clubs to take. There is a distinct possibility that the activities of the new regulator may force clubs to increase ticket prices further.
This is different from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, made in pointing to the duty already in the Bill. The regulator will charge a levy to clubs. It will bring in higher compliance and legal costs, and many clubs will have to hire extra staff to comply with the new legal duties. That is all acknowledged in the Government’s impact assessment. When we couple that with the Government’s job tax, the increase in the minimum wage and the impending duties in the Employment Rights Bill, we can see that football clubs will be facing significant cost pressures over the coming years.
Inevitably, the only solution for many clubs—here I am thinking not predominantly about Premier League or Championship clubs but about clubs in League Two and the National League, which are the smaller and less well-off clubs—will be to hike ticket prices to offset these new and increased costs. It is clear that we need this assessment of the impact of the regulator’s actions on ticket prices. If Parliament is to give its assent and create this regulator, I think it owes it to fans to make sure that the impact of that cost is properly accounted for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friend Lord Ranger and others have reflected on the fact that fans have very high expectations of this Bill and this regulator. They hope that the Bill, including the provisions in Schedule 4, will allow them to benefit from lower ticket prices, but I fear that the reverse is likely to be the case—higher costs leading to higher ticket prices for fans. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ranger will pursue his point on behalf of football fans across the country.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Brady has retabled her very sensible amendments to ensure that the regulator publishes guidance, not just to its functions under Clauses 21 to 25 but to its functions under the whole Bill. The regulator needs to translate the somewhat abstract powers and duties set out in the Bill into a more detailed and cohesive explanation of the rules it will be producing to support clubs in understanding precisely what will be expected of them. If it does that clearly, that may go some way to mitigating the costs that the new regulatory regime will impose on them. My noble friend’s Amendment 25 is a very simple one, but its impact would be helpful to all clubs facing these new regulations.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, I must regretfully say that I cannot support them on the amendment they have spoken passionately about. As I set out in Committee, we worry about the propensity for mission creep here. They have very wisely chosen to put their initiative behind Amendment 13, which is the more modest of the two and reflects an Act of Parliament that has already been passed with duties under it. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 13, neither will we oppose it if she presses it to a vote.
With renewed thanks to the Minister for the government amendments in this group, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure I have many original thoughts either, although I will try to address the points raised during the debate, starting with Amendments 12 and 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank her for these amendments.
I am really comfortable with her absolute determination—as is her right—to raise environmental issues in every single way at every point of our deliberations in your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness is right that we need to limit our impact. I note that she has support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Gascoigne, demonstrating her incredible ability to forge unlikely—some might say unholy—alliances with very noble aims. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate; I am not referring to him in that sweeping statement.
The Government are absolutely committed to environmental sustainability. One of the Prime Minister’s five national missions is to accelerate the transition towards clean energy and ensure that the UK fulfils its legal obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, that as a huge part of our national psyche, all sports, including football, have an important role to play in this transition.
The Government expect authorities across the sport to be working together to advance environmental sustainability. However, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the regulator’s objectives or general duties. The bar for statutory intervention in any market should be very high. That is why the regulator’s focus should be on the problems that football has clearly shown itself to be unable to properly address through self-regulation.
By contrast, football has demonstrated the ability to take action on the environment. You only have to look at Forest Green Rovers as a brilliant example of a club taking action on environmental issues lower down the pyramid. At the highest level, the Premier League’s new sustainability pledge, involving a new minimum standard of action on environmental issues across both the clubs and the league, is another good example. This is only a starting point upon which future initiatives must build. Football authorities must take more proactive steps to accelerate their environmental initiatives. However, it is within the gift of the leagues, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention.
This Amendment would also constitute scope creep, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—something that I know noble Lords all agree we should be wary of, not least with the additional burdens it would impose on the regulator and the industry. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, seeks to bind the regulator to produce guidance on every aspect of its functions. In our view, this is disproportionate and would be a significant burden on the regulator. We are not aware of a precedent for any regulator being required to publish guidance about every single aspect of its functions. In many cases, it would be unnecessary and not relevant to clubs or competition organisers. This would involve engagement and consultation with clubs, adding significant burdens to them. The regulator will, where necessary, produce guidance in consultation with relevant stake- holders, in line with its duties and principles. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently reassured to not move her amendment.
On Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood, regarding ticket prices, the annual report is clearly a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account. I understand the desire to ensure that this report is comprehensive and covers necessary detail. It was really helpful to have his explanation of the intent of his amendment. I recognise how important ticket prices are to fans and recognise the noble Lord’s determination to raise this important issue on behalf of fans.
Ticket pricing is ultimately a matter for clubs. That is exactly why this Government have made it explicit in the Bill that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. This is the way to ensure that fans can have their voices heard on such an impactful issue; the annual report is not the most effective place to achieve this. The regulator may well choose to look at ticket pricing as part of the “state of the game” report. However, as it is a commercial decision, the regulator will not intervene, aside from ensuring that clubs consult their fans.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, particularly my co-signees: the very holy right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the very brave—and possibly slightly less holy—noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. Their speeches were short, powerful and to the point, which I think the whole House appreciated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that calling my amendment well intentioned was probably the nicest thing he has ever said about a Green Party person, so I am going to bank that. However, he is completely wrong, because acknowledging a commitment—which is what he said various organisations do—is not the same as actually doing it. So I would argue that this amendment is absolutely relevant. Subscribing to statements—which was another phrase the noble Lord used—does not mean doing it; I want clubs to do it. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is totally wrong; this is not otiose or unnecessary. In fact, we added this very provision to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—in Section 10. If it was relevant then, it is relevant now.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was very kind in saying that the Opposition would not oppose this amendment. I am touched by the Opposition’s kindness towards me. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I was told that the Liberal Democrats are abstaining on this, which I found quite shocking. That seems an abnegation of their concern about this issue, and I am very disappointed.
The Minister offered such kind words about my amendment, even though she said no. When she said that this Government have a complete commitment to environmental obligations, I know she was incredibly sincere. However, our views on how the Government are dealing with the environment probably differ slightly. I realise that is partly because I could be called a rabid green—I want green stuff in absolutely everything—but at the same time I think I am right, and the Government are wrong. My amendment would make it easier for clubs to do the right thing for their fans and for wider society. So we need this amendment in the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
What does the noble Baroness wish to do with Amendment 12?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The amendment was moved. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw it?
“(c) is compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008 and secures the long-term environmental sustainability of English football.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the chorus behind me for telling me what to do. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to have regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football.