Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (10 Mar 2025)
21:52 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Lord Moynihan
“(f) its duties under section (Protection against trade disputes).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I shall address Amendments 16 and 26, standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In moving this amendment, let me set out a number of legal issues that have been raised outside this House. To set them in context, what we are talking about tonight is the importance of the Premier League. It is watched by 1.9 billion people across 189 countries. It is the most successful domestic league in the world. Its financial support flows down through the football pyramid. It supports £8 billion in gross value added to the economy. It contributes more than £4 billion annually to the Exchequer and supports more than 90,000 jobs. The Championship, which it strongly supports, is the sixth most successful league in Europe. The issues which are central to this amendment reflect the importance of the Premier League, which generates more revenue internationally than domestically. It has attracted substantial foreign investment over recent years and operates within a complex international regulatory framework governed by UEFA, FIFA and numerous international trade and investment arrangements to which the UK is a party—though the FA will no longer play a part.
The establishment of the IFR introduces unique risks of potential legal dispute with international investors and potential complications regarding the UK’s compliance with international obligations. Two significant issues arise. The first is the impact on foreign investors: many Premier League clubs have significant foreign investment, relying on regulatory stability, property rights protections and non-discriminatory treatment. The second is trade agreement compliance: the UK has international obligations, including investment protections within trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties requiring fair and equitable treatment, transparency and non-discrimination towards foreign investors. Non-compliance could trigger diplomatic repercussions and costly arbitration claims.
The key legal risks which exist, are, I believe, threefold. The first, which we will come to discuss on a future occasion, arises from the assiduous work of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The mechanism of the backstop as it is currently structured—and I will not go into it this evening except in the context of my amendment, to look at its legal implications—allows the regulator to impose financial redistribution without clear or predefined limits, effectively giving it the power to divert private commercial revenues arbitrarily. Such intervention poses a significant risk of constituting what lawyers call indirect expropriation, where regulatory action substantially diminishes the economic value of investments without fair compensation. Foreign investors protected by bilateral investment treaties have reasonable expectations of regulatory stability and fairness. An unlimited or unpredictable redistribution power would likely trigger claims under international investment treaties, arguing violation of their rights to fair and equitable treatment and protection from uncompensated expropriation.
Secondly, as we have discussed earlier this evening, there are risks from new ownership rules retrospectively applied. The Bill proposes potentially retrospective and uncertain changes to the owners’ and directors’ test. These new, undefined ownership criteria could retrospectively affect existing owners, potentially forcing divestment of clubs by foreign investors based on criteria not in place at the time of investment. Such retrospective application could breach fundamental legal principles of fairness, stability and investor protection. It could be interpreted as discriminatory and arbitrary treatment under international investment law, leading to significant litigation risk and investor state arbitration claims, damaging the UK’s international credibility as a reliable investment destination.
Thirdly, there are the risks of discrimination. Linked to the points I have just made, regulatory actions perceived as disproportionately targeting foreign-owned clubs, particularly through retrospective regulatory criteria, risk breaching international obligations of non-discrimination between national treatment and most favoured nation treatment. Investors could legitimately claim discriminatory treatment, triggering significant diplomatic and legal disputes.
If there is validity in law to these concerns, my amendment is carefully designed to seek to mitigate them. It explicitly requires the football regulator to comply fully with the UK’s international trade and investment obligations, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation or trade disputes. It mandates non-discriminatory and proportionate regulatory interventions, ensuring predictability and stability for international investors. Thirdly, in my second amendment before your Lordships this evening, early consultation between the football regulator, HM Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to proactively manage compliance with international obligations will avoid regulatory paralysis.
Embedding these protective measures in this Bill, which I see as being as helpful as possible to the Government on this front, clarifies the regulatory framework up front. It pre-empts costly disputes and ensures that the regulator aligns clearly with the UK’s international economic and diplomatic interests from the outset. It is, therefore, a helpful amendment. It is intended to be pragmatic and is necessary for addressing significant international and domestic risks comprehensively. It respects property rights, ensures regulatory proportionality and maintains international investor confidence, which is critical in the Premier League to ensure growth. It thus safeguards the UK’s attractiveness and reputation as the premier destination for global football capital. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his vital and very sensible amendments in this group. As he has touched on, there could be some serious unintended consequences unless we introduce his amendments to the Bill. The Premier League, as we have said many times, is the most successful football league in the world. One of the major reasons for that is its openness to global investment and its attractiveness for that. Foreign investors have played a transformational role in modernising clubs, developing world-class infrastructure and cementing English football to an elite global brand. They have helped to create the most competitive and commercially successful football league in the world.
Yet without my noble friend’s amendment, the Government will be introducing a regulatory framework that could unfairly target foreign-owned clubs, placing them at a disadvantage compared with those owned by UK investors. That is not fair, not necessary and not in the best interests of English football. I am sure that this is not intended by the regulator, but it could be one of those unintended consequences as to where some of those decisions might fall. The amendment asking for Treasury advice, for want of a better word, ensures that the IFR is not sleepwalking into some of these difficulties, which I hope will be seen as very sensible and helpful in all of this. As my noble friend mentioned, most important is that any investor has a clear set of rules that they can rely on, and which are guaranteed and completely transparent.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was briefer than I had anticipated; I had intended putting this point to him. We have had a lot of discussion about the intervention of UEFA in terms of the regulator not being able to take into account UK government foreign policies and trade policies, following that provision having been withdrawn from the Bill. How does that differ from Amendment 26, which expects international trade agreements to come within the consideration of the regulator? Surely the two are the same. In either case, they are getting into the realms of government policy, which UEFA has made it quite clear it is unhappy about.
Lord Markham (Con)
This amendment is trying to avoid that and do it the other way around. Our trade agreements are in place already and well-known. We are asking the football regulator to do many things, but I would not expect it to know, because of the large levels of foreign ownership, how its decisions might disproportionately affect some segments versus other segments and how that could trip over some of the World Trade Organization agreements or other such bodies. That is what we are trying to protect against. Hopefully, it is not even relevant, but again it is trying to ensure that we do not sleepwalk into something that is thoroughly unintended. This is a simple precautionary amendment to avoid such unintended consequences.
So, as I say, we must all recognise that our existing trade agreements are not just beneficial but vital for our future growth. The Government have repeatedly said, quite rightly, that growth is their number one mission. All we are trying to do with this amendment is make sure that we do not inadvertently trip up on one of those and the regulator has one of those unintended consequences, because clearly none of us wants to see that happen.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his amendments. There is much on which we agree, but, unfortunately, I cannot agree that these amendments in this group are required. Good investment, which comes in many forms, has helped make English football the global success it is today, and this Government are absolutely committed to continuing that. Of course, this regulator will not discriminate against foreign investors or act unfairly against anyone else—nothing in this Bill allows it to do so. This amendment is not needed to prevent that. Not only is it unnecessary but, as noble Lords will appreciate, it would be highly unusual to bring a broad range of treaty obligations directly into our domestic law in such a sweeping way.
This Government take our international obligations very seriously and the Bill complies with our treaty commitments. But, if foreign investors have concerns about the regulator’s decisions, there are mechanisms within our treaties to allow them to raise these concerns at the international level and, if necessary, to bring disputes. That is the appropriate forum, not our domestic courts. Let me be clear once more: we are confident that the Bill complies with our international obligations. Nothing in it requires or even allows the regulator to make discriminatory or unfair decisions.
Finally, I was slightly surprised to see the last part of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have carefully ensured the regulator’s independence from government and ensured that UEFA is content with the Bill as drafted, so I was not clear why the noble Lord wants to require the regulator to consult the Treasury and DBT on a wide range of occasions and risk undermining the regulator’s independence. This would be concerning, especially given how much time the noble Lord has spent discussing UEFA and FIFA throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, and I am sure the risk would be highly concerning for many others in this House. That is why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend from the Front Bench and the Minister for their contributions, and for the intervention, although I regret that I was not in a position to answer it, because I had already attempted to set the scene before the House managed to resume in full.
My amendment was not about UEFA. The purpose of the amendments this evening was about explicit statutory acknowledgement to reinforce clarity, reduce the legal uncertainties and prevent inadvertent breaches, demonstrating transparency, foresight and collaboration between the relevant government departments. It was to simplify what I anticipate will be, potentially, a legal minefield and to make sure that, if we did that in the legislation, we would avoid many of the issues that were going to, potentially, follow as a result of this legislation.
In parentheses, one of the problems that will follow comes from the intervention from the noble Lord: namely, UEFA is now out of this loop. UEFA is only a stepping stone: the running of football in the United Kingdom is through its member, the FA, and the FA, as we have debated and concluded within the House this evening, has no role within the financial regulation of football in this country. That is the first time that has happened anywhere in Europe. In Spain, it is fully at the heart of the financial regulation of that country, and indeed was party to working with government in order to follow a model that the Premier League has instituted here in the United Kingdom.
It is a dangerous path to move away from the autonomy of world sport. I will not go into this again, but I am trying to do a service to the noble Lord who has intervened this evening, because I know he has been an assiduous attender in Committee. It is a dangerous path: if you legislate to run sport and have financial management of sport and you ignore in practice the role of the governing body, which is the FA, you set up potential legal complexities that would otherwise not arise. That is why I have put forward these proposals: simply to give additional protection to those legal challenges that could arise as a result of this legislation and to move the amendments before the House.
Baroness Twycross
“(i) persons on whom it may impose requirements or restrictions, namely clubs, owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs, and competition organisers, and(ii) other persons who may be affected by its decisions, including players and fans;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the regulatory principle in clause 8(b) so that the IFR should co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage, with persons who may be affected by its decisions.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This group contains a number of government amendments to the regulatory principles. I am grateful to noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for the engagement we have had over the past few weeks both in Committee and in meetings. It has been helpful.
First, on Amendment 17, we all know that football without fans is nothing. It has always been the intention that the regulator would engage with fans and any others impacted by the regulator’s decisions, where they are relevant. It is vital to the Government that the essential value of players and fans to English football is demonstrated both in the legislation and the regulator’s engagement. I thank my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lord Watson of Invergowrie for their engagement in ensuring that that value is reflected in the legislation, as well as my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support for this amendment. This amendment will clarify that intent and make it explicit in the Bill. It will both reflect the essential nature of players and fans to English football and ensure that the regulator is directed to engage with both groups.
Turning to Amendments 18 and 19 concerning light- touch regulation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling his amendment and for his extensive discussion of this issue with me and officials. We agree wholeheartedly that light-touch regulation should be the aim of the regulator. It should have a bias—against unnecessary intervention, against excessive burdens on the industry, towards co-operation and engagement before intervention, and towards proportionate interventions that deliver real benefits. That is why I have tabled Amendment 18 to clarify the intention that the regulatory regime should be light-touch.
We carefully considered the best way to deliver this aim, including whether to use the term “light-touch” in the Bill. We believe the regulatory principles should be as clear and specific as possible. Each time the regulator acts, it should be clear whether it has met the Bill’s requirements; that is, whether it has had regard to the principles. That is why our new principle in Amendment 18 centres around a test of necessity and whether the same outcome could be achieved in a less burdensome way. These, like the existing Clause 8(c) test of proportionality, reflect concepts that are well understood in public law and will give clubs, leagues and the regulator appropriate legal certainty.
“Light-touch”, by contrast, is not typical legislative drafting. That could make it difficult for both regulator and regulated to be 100% certain of their legal positions. As debates in Committee made clear, one person’s “light-touch” regulation is another’s “overreach”. Allowing a margin of discretion is a less novel concept, but we none the less have concerns about its legal certainty.
In our view, the wording “necessity”, “consideration of alternatives” and “proportionality” are clear tests that will let both regulator and regulated act with confidence. That is what our regulatory principles and government Amendment 18 deliver. I can assure the House that the principles in Clause 8, including our Amendment 18, enshrine a light-touch approach in law.
Finally, on government Amendment 20, this minor drafting change seeks to clarify the regulator’s responsibility under this regulatory principle. Although it will not materially change the effect of the principle, an obligation for a public body to have “regard to” is well precedented and understood by the industry.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will not move his amendment. I beg to move government Amendment 17.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words on Amendment 17 just moved by my noble friend the Minister. I tabled an amendment in Committee to try to ensure that the players appeared in the Bill, as originally they did not.
I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend has listened to the representations, not just by me and my noble friend Lady O’Grady but by the Professional Footballers’ Association and others, who have made the very reasonable case that, with the insertion of a reference to players as a group in this section, the regulator is expected to,
“so far as reasonably practicable, co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage”
with players. In effect, they become statutory consultees of the IFR, which is only appropriate because there is of course no football without the players. I very much welcome the wording that the Minister has come forward with; it meets my concerns and those of others.
The other part of this is the fans. I also put forward an amendment in Committee proposing that the fans should be defined in some way. I have had discussions with my noble friend the Minister. It was always going to be difficult. I assume that it will soon become the job of the regulator to define what a fan is. I still hold to the belief that you need to have some address for a fan if you are going to consult them. That is why I proposed in Committee that season ticket holders should be the best way of deciding who the fans are for consultation purposes, but I accept that it has not been possible to reach any kind of consensus on that.
I welcome the wording in this amendment. Again, I commend my noble friend and the Government on listening to representations and coming up with wording as a result.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will not add very much to what my noble friend has already said about the importance and value of having players and fans recognised in the consultation process, except to say that it is probably the most important part.
I was worried at the outset of the legislation—with the Bill that the party currently in opposition put in place before the election—that there was absolutely no reference to players or fans. They are an essential part. Without them, where would the game be? We might not be able to define what fans are, but they are many things, in many different ways and places. We sort of know what they are without being able to define them.
My noble friend Lady Taylor and I also signed up to Amendment 18, because I think it is important that there is a clear statement in the legislation to the effect that the best way forward is usually without recourse to excessive bureaucracy and regulation. If the IFR can find a way to do things that does not have to resort to that, then all for the good. For that reason, while I am encouraged by the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and it certainly touches on a rather important point, I think the Government have matched that point with their amendment. I am not sure it is easy to define “light-touch”—no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will tell me that it is—but it is not a term that is commonly used in legislation, certainly not regulatory legislation.
I am pleased that this issue is being properly surfaced, and I am delighted that the Government have responded to it in a really positive way. I hope that both fans and players will be pleased to see that they have been written into this legislation.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister on that point about engagement with fans. As I alluded to before the dinner break, sometimes those fans are in the tens of thousands. Can she share with us how the regulator will engage with those fans? If the regulator will refer to fan representatives, who would those representatives be on a case-by-case basis or club-by-club basis?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 18, because it addresses in a very clear manner one of the main concerns which was expressed across the House in Committee. The concern was that the new regulator should operate with a light touch. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it is not a phrase that is used in legislation, but we all know what it means—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will come back to the noble Lord in a moment.
The concern that was expressed repeatedly in Committee was that the regulator is operating in the context of a highly successful business that brings billions of pounds of revenue into this country every year and provides enormous amounts of pleasure and excitement to billions of people across the world—although the pleasure is not experienced at the Emirates Stadium if you are watching Arsenal on every occasion you attend a home match. Furthermore, in recent months this Government have expressed in other contexts a concern that regulators should not be a barrier to growth. There is, then, a vital need to put in this Bill a clause that requires the regulator to have regard to the need to exercise the very extensive powers that have been conferred only if it is really necessary to do so.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because earlier this afternoon, in an earlier group, he expressed concern about light-touch regulation. He asked whether it really means “being asleep at the wheel”—that was his phrase—or acting only when a disaster occurs. I do not understand light-touch regulation to mean anything of the sort. It means, in the present context of a highly successful industry, being aware of the equal or greater danger of overregulation which could damage this very successful industry. There is—to use a sporting metaphor, which I hope is appropriate—a real danger of own goals by the regulator wherever it comes on to the field of play.
The Minister was sympathetic to this concern in Committee, and she undertook to go away with her officials to consider this important point. I am genuinely grateful to her and the Bill team for the amount of time they have spent discussing this issue with me and other Lords. I am very pleased that she has tabled Amendment 18, which adds this new regulatory principle to Clause 8. Under the amendment, a priority would be given in the Bill so that the regulator must
“have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.
Amendment 18 will make a considerable improvement to the Bill. I am very grateful to the Government for having listened and acted on this important topic.
The Minister today confirmed that the purpose of Amendment 18 is to clarify the intention for this regulatory regime. There are different views about that across the House, but she has clarified that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regime will be implemented and exercised with a light touch. I think that we all understand what that means, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it is not appropriate or necessary to include that phrase in the Bill.
In the light of what the Government have brought forward and what the Minister has said, I do not intend to press my Amendment 19—although I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for adding their support to it.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I too will comment a little on the point about light-touch regulation. Before I do, earlier today—prompted, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—the Minister offered her good wishes to Newcastle in the Carabao Cup final at the weekend. I wondered whether she would also be willing to offer her best wishes to Liverpool at the weekend, with the due impartiality that is merited. We need a little help tonight, because we are 1-0 down at half time to PSG, so she might like to send her immediate good wishes before it is too late for that game.
Needless to say—I have said this before—I truly support the regulation of English football, and I will not repeat what I have said in earlier debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, the Government’s amendment is extremely helpful. He intends not to press his own amendment, but I did not see anything wrong with underlining the point with the addition of “light-touch”.
Throughout my career, I experienced the public benefits of effective regulation in broadcasting. However, we know that not all regulation has proved successful in the UK or in other countries, and we must learn from both the successes and the lack of success. As the Chancellor said just a month ago, our economy has “suffered” due to “stifling and unpredictable regulation”. Overregulation bequeathed us the absurdly expensive and long-delayed HS2. On the other hand, under- regulation brings us sewage flowing freely into Lake Windermere, so we have to get the right kind of regulation.
These amendments should oblige the regulator to practise considered and proportionate regulation, focusing on what really matters—and more than one thing really matters, as has come out again and again in this debate. Above all, effective regulation here means ensuring that English football clubs should be well and prudently managed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment 17, which I signed. It says that players and fans should be regarded. When discussing professional sport, the two key elements are: somebody to play and somebody to watch. Both should be recognised within the structure of this legislation as important.
With the huge amount of appetite for football, players are clearly under pressure of being overplayed. How they should be looked after is an important factor that all sports are dealing with. I encourage the regulator, when it comes out, to take a serious look at this, as well as the rights of fans. We had great fun debating which diverse group should be consulted. Well, let somebody else figure it out—we could not.
When it comes to light touch, I will break a habit of mine and read out something from the EFL which I received, I think, yesterday:
“The EFL does not support the enshrining of ‘light touch’ as a regulatory principle in the Bill … Light touch is an extremely subjective term that the IFR will struggle to meaningfully define as it goes about its activities … It also risks limiting the effectiveness of Regulators once it is operational, which instead should have the ability to determine what is the ‘right touch’”—
dozens of other expressions are available—
“to deal with any situation it is required to address”.
Hiding behind a mantra is never a good idea. What the Government have here is quantifiable at the very least, so I say yes to that. I hope that we can go forward, because the minute you get something like “It has to be light touch”, you will get it wrong. It has to be effective. I hope the Government and the regulator enshrine effectiveness from this point on; it does not matter if it is light or heavy, it matters if it works.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support the Government’s Amendment 18, which introduces a regulatory principle focused on necessity, proportionality and minimising regulatory burden. The Government deserve credit for this amendment. It is an attempt to recognise the concerns, expressed across the House during Committee, that this Bill outlines an overly complex and intrusive regulatory framework for football.
Indeed, I recall that the Government expressly ruled out a light-touch “watchdog” option in their impact assessment, in justifying the need for a more interventionist approach. We should bear in mind that this Bill overall is not easily described as “light touch”, but the Government’s amendment is an attempt to clarify Ministers’ intentions, which I believe are for a light-touch framework. We should note the obvious point that it is not an attempt to change the overall licensing framework, existing regulatory model, extensive range of powers, or broad suite of sanctions. Nevertheless, short of a wholesale change of approach and a much slimmer Bill, the tension this principle introduces is how the regulator exercises those powers, so it is welcome.
But I, for one, would like the Government to go further, both in the Bill and in guidance and their engagement with the shadow regulator. That is why I supported my noble friend Lord Pannick’s additional amendment detailing light touch, which I know he has now not moved. What I would like to suggest today is that Ministers enhance their amendment further by explicitly enabling different types of intervention approaches for different leagues, guiding towards greater reliance on leagues where appropriate.
The football pyramid is diverse, with varying risk profiles and governance capabilities. What is appropriate for Maidenhead United in the National League is very unlikely to be appropriate for Manchester United. The Premier League, for instance, has developed robust governance and regulatory structures over many years. It has built financial monitoring systems that effectively maintain competitive balance while ensuring club sustainability. I have not heard a single Minister or Peer in this House express any concern over the sustainability of Premier League clubs.
Steering the regulator more explicitly to tailor its approach to intervening based on a league’s governance standards, rulebooks and enforcement practices would be a very sensible approach. It would ensure regulatory resources target genuine areas of risk in the pyramid and would really help to bring about what I would describe as a “right-touch” regime—light touch where effective systems already operate, but more interventionist where they do not. I think this could deliver a more efficient model, as well as create positive incentives for leagues to strengthen their own governance frameworks.
Perhaps when the Minister responds, she could commit to working with me, the football authorities and the shadow regulator to encourage this common-sense approach, recognising the practical benefits that would be realised by working more closely with the leagues, by acknowledging the natural differences within our diverse football pyramid, and by steering the regulator to adopt a targeted, risk-based approach.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Brady about the importance of a light-touch approach: not just the light touch in the way we do things today but the light touch in how we might innovate and take our game forward in the future. My wife and I spent Christmas in Oman, when the Gulf states were having their own little world cup. The key point there was how they are innovating, building a nation through football, breaking down barriers and changing the way things are done in football.
More of the same will not be the recipe for success for the English game as we look forward. I want to illustrate this with a story. Earlier this evening, I explained that I was a shareholder of Norwich City Football Club. About 30 years ago, the club auditors told us that a certain Alan Sugar—a Member of your Lordships’ House—had decided to move his players from the profit and loss and on to the balance sheet. It was the first time this had ever happened. At that moment, in the blink of an eye, English football changed.
What our noble friend did was turn a series of cottage industries—clubs that were grounded in local communities—into investable propositions. Whether he appreciated it at the time or not, it was that stroke of the pen that put British football clubs on the path to greatness. Overnight, football became better capitalised, becoming a magnet for investment and success. People say that Sky made the difference, but the truth is that it was our noble friend who made football so investible in the first place.
Can you imagine how an overbearing regulator might have reacted if this astonishingly innovative but unprecedented accounting proposal to move players from the P and L to the balance sheet had been made? We need this light touch. This was a huge innovation. Would it have happened if this regulator had been overbearing? Of course not. I have always found it strange that the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, has not been publicly recognised for what he did. Viewing his innovation through the lens of history has transformed the prospects of English football.
My purpose in telling this story is that the regulator must continue to be flexible and to adapt to the future as it can be—not just as it is today. The principle of the light touch is essential for us to maintain the leadership of English football at the forefront of our industry, being flexible and imaginative. Nobody owes us our place in history. We have to keep moving forward to survive. If we are overly fossilised in the system as it is today, we risk falling behind. So I am very focused on and supportive of a light-touch approach and I am pleased that it is on the amendments in front of us.
Lord Markham (Con)
I start by not thanking the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his update on the score, because I am hoping to catch the highlights at the end. So I hope that, when he speaks further on his amendments, we will have no further updates; that is a small plea.
On a more serious matter, I too add my thanks to the Minister for listening and bringing forward this series of amendments. They cover the sentiment of what I think we all agree the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others were trying to do with their light touch. I must admit that I am particularly taken by the points made by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Fuller around a variable-touch model. We will move on to talk on day two about some of the other things. There was a big consensus around the House on trying to promote independent and non-exec directors on the boards of these clubs. Again, this is something that will come up later.
What we want more than anything is well-run clubs and a system in which, if a club is well run and has independent non-exec directors who are making sure it is run in a good manner, we really do have a light-touch model. At the same time, we should have flexibility. If there are greater concerns, there should be a heavier touch. Again, we have precedent for this. We have so-called special measures in schools and situations such as those.
I thank the Minister for recognising that sentiment about a light touch and bringing it forward. As the Bill goes through the Lords, I would ask her to consider whether we can bring a variable touch so that there is not just a one-size-fits-all approach and that, if clubs show that they are well run and reputable, they will not need the same level of scrutiny and the same burdens placed on them as those that are in more difficulties. With that, I welcome these amendments and I wish to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the idea of a variable-touch model.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this group and the discussion we have had reflect the value of the style of debate that we have in your Lordships’ House. I welcome the opportunity for us to work with noble Lords from across the House to refine the Bill. We thought the Bill was good when the previous Government had it; we thought our version was very slightly better; and we have the possibility of sending an even better version to be considered in the other place.
In starting my response to the comments made during this short debate, and with appropriate and due impartiality, I am very happy to pass on my best wishes to Liverpool FC—I will not comment on the score. Whichever team anyone supports, I think all noble Lords can agree that without players we would have no game. On that basis alone, it is right that they are included. I thank the noble Lords and my noble friends who have signed the Government’s amendment on that, and who took time to talk us through where it should sit within the Bill.
A lot of the discussion relates to definitions—whether about a light touch and what that means, or about fans and who they are. I want to say a little more about fans. The Government do not see themselves as the arbitrator of who counts as a football fan. That is something that fans and clubs themselves are in the best position to understand and discern. The makeup of a fan base differs from club to club; this diversity is part of the reason why the English football pyramid is so special. This is why the Government have introduced this legislation to protect English football by making it more sustainable and to help put fans back at the centre of their clubs, amplifying their voices on the issues that matter to them.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, about how the regulator will engage with fans, it will do so on a case-by-case basis. I would be happy to arrange for the noble Lord to speak to the shadow regulator team to provide him with more information about how it might do that. The regulator, once established, will be able to provide guidance for clubs on how to best consult fans. This will ensure that clubs have an appropriate framework in place that allows them to regularly meet and consult this group on key strategic matters and supporter interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked the key question about whether the regulator will have to ask itself whether intervention will address some substantial mischief, is likely to achieve some substantial benefit and is required because a similar outcome could not be achieved by a less burdensome means. That is our understanding. If that is the noble Lord’s understanding of where we are going with this amendment, that understanding is correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, spoke about the risk of both underregulation and overregulation. This is about balance; we have added a new regulatory principle to achieve this aim, but we still think this will mean that the regulator will be effective. This is key, as both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear. The first part of this new principle of considering
“whether the requirement or restriction is necessary”
directs the regulator towards a light-touch approach to intervention as a whole, acting only where it needs to. I do not think we are a million miles away from where the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, thinks we should be, and I am happy to meet with her again to talk this through a bit further should she find that helpful.
The second part of the new principle ensures that any intervention that is considered necessary is as light-touch as possible by directing the regulator towards the least burdensome mechanism available in the specific circumstances of the outcome sought. Amendment 18 facilitates the regulator to take a different approach to clubs, alongside the proportionality principle, to ensure that each action taken by the regulator is the least burdensome it can be. We have not chosen to call that light-touch in the regulation, but it is intended to be light-touch. With that, I commend Amendment 17 to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
This is where it could go to VAR.
Amendment 18
Baroness Twycross
“(ba) it should, before it imposes any requirement or restriction on a person, have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes a regulatory principle that the IFR should, before it imposes any requirement or restriction on a person, have regard to whether it is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to the regulatory principle in clause 8(d).
Lord Birt
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 21 and 22 are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I strongly support the notion of a “state of the game” report, above all to encourage an evidenced and sophisticated dialogue between the leagues about fund flow, either in direct negotiation or as part of the mediation process if the backstop is triggered. But I will make three points.
First, the Bill currently states that the report should include
“information about any other matters relating to the state of English football”.
One highly critical matter, which has come up more than once today, is the global position of the English game. The Premier League, as was said a moment ago, is the most successful sporting league of any kind in the whole world, its global broadcasting revenues now surpassing those raised domestically. We propose that the “state of the game” report should capture the position of the Premier League in relation to other major European leagues—the purpose of our Amendment 21.
Secondly, producing the first draft of the “state of the game” report should not take, as the Bill suggests, up to 18 months. Football is an incredibly data-rich activity, as I have learned over these last few months, with enormous pools of relevant publicly available information at home and abroad. Six months to produce the report should be quite sufficient.
Thirdly, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I will argue next Monday that a well-evidenced “state of the game” report should be the first step in a redesigned backstop process. But there is a problem. The Bill indicates that, after the first “state of the game” report is complete, future reports will be produced on a five-year cycle. We cannot be certain at what point in the five-year cycle the backstop might be triggered—this is all quite technical. Hence, our Amendment 22 suggests that, if the backstop is triggered and more than two years have passed since the last report, the “state of the game” report should be refreshed and updated before the backstop mediation process begins.
I do not plan to test the opinion of the House, but we tabled these amendments in the hope that the Government will continue to refine the Bill, as they have been doing, as they take their next steps. We hope they will consider these points. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
Given the late hour, I will speak briefly in support of these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, quite rightly said, the value of the global rights is now greater than the value of the domestic rights. Of course, it is the rights money that affords the best players in the world. We have put out this stat before: the Premier League has 44% of the best players in the world, which makes it the most exciting, which creates a virtuous circle and grows the rights. It is entirely proper that the global appeal should be recognised in the “state of the game” report. We wholeheartedly support the amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his amendment. I am grateful for the huge amount of time and effort that the noble Lord has put into considering how we could all further improve this legislation. I also thank him for the amount of time he has given to discussing it with my officials and me over many weeks.
This amendment would see the regulator having to provide an overview of English football’s global appeal in the “state of the game” report. The report is focused on the issues affecting English football so far as relevant to the exercise of the regulator’s functions. The issue that this amendment intends to capture will likely already be captured in the “state of the game” report, as it could impact the regulator’s objectives and duties. We have purposely left the required content of the “state of the game” report broadly to the regulator’s discretion to ensure flexibility and independence. It would not be possible to list every issue worth including, as the list would be too long and doing so would remove the regulator’s ability to prioritise issues and to adjust them over time.
Amendment 22, requiring an updated “state of the game” report if the backstop is triggered, could place a significant burden on the regulator, and might slow the process down significantly. In our view, three months would definitely not be long enough to update a review of English football, given the breadth and depth of relevant issues it must cover. The regulator has to identify the analysis needed, request it from parties, let them respond, analyse it and consult on findings before publishing.
We also have to consider the significant burdens this amendment would place on the regulator, but particularly on smaller clubs. Furthermore, an updated “state of the game” report would be required solely if an application to trigger the backstop was put forward, regardless of whether that application was accepted. Ultimately, a three-month delay in the backstop process, with the burden on both the regulator and the industry to engage with a rushed updated review, would likely be disproportionate to the benefits. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
When the backstop first has to happen, the “state of the game” report is critical as part of the process. Is the noble Baroness now saying that for any future triggering of the backstop, the “state of the game” report is not part of that process? We thought she had said that it was always part of the triggering process. I may have completely misunderstood, so if the noble Baroness could clarify that, it would be really helpful.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The issue is whether there would automatically be a “state of the game” report simply because of a request to trigger the process. Once a “state of the game” report is in existence, it may or may not be necessary for it to be updated if somebody triggers the process. In our view, the automatic triggering of an updating of the “state of the game” report is disproportionate. There would already be a report in place. We absolutely intend for a “state of the game” report to be in place before an initial process is triggered. Clearly, it would have to be written within the relevant timeframe in the legislation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I suggest to the Minister that five years is an awfully long time between “state of the game” reports? That may be the defect here. The game can and does change immeasurably within a period of five years. Perhaps the Bill team and the Minister could consider, when the Bill goes to the other place, whether it might be more appropriate to have a more regular update on the “state of the game” report, perhaps every three years.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will take that point away and return to this issue with noble Lords. My view is that it does not necessarily need to be more frequent, but we can discuss that further.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We on these Benches welcome the government amendment that makes it five years, so that the “state of the game” report is more aligned with the parliamentary timetable. We may touch on this when we speak to the later group from the noble Lord, Lord Birt.
Lord Birt (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank her, as others did earlier, for her extreme generosity with her time and that of her Bill team. We have spent many long hours discussing these things. Given what she has just said, I hope that we may spend some more hours discussing these matters. It is actually rather a technical question: it is not a matter of high principle—it is a practical matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said, imagine that the backstop is triggered four years after the previous “state of the game” report. Everyone will be saying, “This isn’t very relevant any longer; everything has changed”. I hope that the very good dialogue we have had over these last weeks can continue, because I do not really agree with the account the Minister has just given. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“Review of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football(1) Within one year of establishment, the IFR must conduct a review of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football.(2) The review must make recommendations regarding the necessary steps to achieve the elimination of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football within five years of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to conduct a review and make recommendations regarding the steps required to eliminate advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 23, 29, 53 and 54 standing in my name. This is something that we have touched on—gambling and football. Certain sports such as horseracing tend to be dependent on gambling, but we have something of a surfeit of gambling advertising on our televisions: it is everywhere. In these amendments, I am suggesting that football might be one place we could do without it. The revenue might be very useful to the clubs involved, but we have already heard about the huge reach of football as a subject, and the fact that there is a huge demand for it. Can we not get rid of gambling here?
I have proposed four different ways of removing gambling from the football structure. We have removed other forms of gambling. The occasional flutter might not be as damaging as cigarettes, but it is very damaging for some people. It is an international sport. Look at Kenya and its problems with children gambling on the Premier League. Gambling has developed, and football is a lovely thing because you have lots of nice options to have occasional bets on. It has grown out of all recognition, into probably something none of us would even have suspected 20 years ago. I am proposing four ways of getting gambling to exit from professional football.
I could go on at great length about this, but it is fairly late and we had a good go at it in Committee. I hope the Government will say that they are going to do something on gambling in this Bill. I have given four options, and a bit of movement might make me more willing to withdraw the amendment. If I do not hear that at the appropriate time, I will press the amendment to a vote, because we have to draw a line in the sand at some point.
We have to stop it. Football markets itself as the universal game from childhood onwards. It is almost impossible. I had a discussion with the Advertising Association over a very nice dinner provided by it. The people there were talking about AI, and I asked them whether AI would allow them to filter out children. It was a resolute no, or at least they do not think so at the moment.
We have to do something here; it has got ridiculous. Can we please take some steps to stop advertising in football being quite so pervasive? It is not just on television, is on the radio, et cetera. If the Government are prepared to take some steps I will of course back them, because a slice is better than no cake. So, if the Government are prepared to do that, they will have my full support. If not, I will push this to a vote, probably on Amendment 53. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this amendment because I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been saying, although I am not sure that this is the vehicle for what he actually wants to do. There are many concerns about gambling, including in football, but I want to mention what one club has actually done. That club just happens to be Bolton Wanderers, which may not surprise people who have been here on other occasions.
In 2021, Bolton Wanderers closed all the on-site betting facilities that had been there for many years. That was a very big step. It committed the club to a new approach of not allowing gambling anywhere near the actual stadium, which was really important. It included not just direct gambling companies but those who were involved in them. It was a big step forward, because in the north-west, gambling has been quite a significant problem.
That was a big step for a club. There are other clubs that can and should do likewise, but Bolton Wanderers actually went one step further and introduced a system with others in the area, providing courses for fans who had been concerned about their own gambling habits and did not know where to access help. There was an outreach programme which I understand has had some degree of success, including a group called Against the Odds, which was worried about the gambling logo and the number of adverts going round the stadium during a match. It is not a solution to all the problems associated with gambling, but I mention it because it indicates what individual clubs can do, and we should encourage others to follow suit.
I agree with the noble Lord that there are the many wider problems that he has mentioned. I am personally not against gambling, per se, but I am against some of the tactics used by gambling companies to suck people in to becoming addicted and gambling more than they can afford. This is a bigger issue than just football; therefore, I understand if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept that we should be doing this in this Bill. But it is important that we are aware of that problem and that football clubs can help in these situations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments, which is antagonistic to every aspect of gambling being involved in football, seems to me to be the epitome of what I have been warning about in terms of an intrusive and disproportionate regulatory overreach.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I and other Members of the Lib Dem Benches have exchanged views on gambling, both in Committee and previously, so I will aim to avoid repeating that. In some ways, this group of amendments, along with the earlier amendments on the environment, express a worry that the independent football regulator will be used as a Trojan horse for a range of political hobby-horses.
One of the aims of the Bill is that the football regulator will help clubs, particularly smaller clubs, become financially sustainable and avoid financial jeopardy. That has been a compelling and convincing argument for this Bill. So why would we cut off a perfectly legitimate source of funding in the form of lucrative sponsorship, which is what these amendments would do? Gambling companies provide significant revenue through sponsorship for football teams. That money helps clubs not only pay staff salaries, upgrade training facilities and maintain stadiums but invest in youth academies and community projects—they often help fund and fuel those social responsibility projects that the noble Lord seemed so keen on earlier this evening.
Any special discriminatory treatment of the gambling industry as potential sponsors would imply a moralistic and politically charged decision-making about which sponsors are virtuous enough to be allowed. The regulator and this Bill should keep well away from that. I am sure that, in this House, there will be people who will cheer on Dale Vince’s sponsorship of Forest Green and his ownership of Ecotricity—that would pass muster as a particular type of company, as other renewable energy companies are. In all seriousness, your Lordships might not like gambling, but what about the people who do not like airlines? What is going to happen to Emirates in relation to Arsenal, or Etihad Airways at Man City? What about those big financial services companies that also fund football teams? Who will make those kinds of moralistic decisions?
Finally, gambling is a legal activity. It is also a legitimate form of entertainment and a long-standing social activity that many people find exciting, thrilling, gets the adrenaline going and risky. Yes, you can lose and that can be disappointing, but sometimes it is thrilling when you win. One of the reasons why that is attractive is because anyone who follows the football will recognise the pattern, which is “Guess what? I might win, but I rarely do. But I can just about cope”. It is understandable that some football fans will occasionally have the odd bet and enjoy it. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Based on my own family, I am more than aware of problem gambling. Do not get me wrong: it is a vicious, nasty and horrible thing when it happens, but obsessive, compulsive gamblers are a small minority and they should not be used as an excuse to deprive football teams of valuable financial support. The Bill should have absolutely nothing to do with that kind of puritan moralism.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, while I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised, I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this is not the Bill for those concerns. We have got to be cautious in ensuring that the focus of the Bill remains squarely on football governance and not introduce far-reaching regulations on other matters—particularly in relation to gambling, where it risks duplicating or cutting across the work of the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and many other regulators that look into this thorny question and provide useful research and pointers to both the gambling industry and to those who want to tackle the harms that can be associated with it.
At present, there are no prohibitions concerning the types of companies from which clubs may accept advertising or sponsorship in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, in setting out the case for his amendments, showed they were very sweeping. He wants to get rid of it entirely from football, so he has proposed some very sweeping amendments on this issue. It also cuts against the work, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, pointed out, that many individual clubs are already undertaking to ensure that what they do in this regard is done responsibly in the face of their fans.
Therefore, given the broader implications of the noble Lord’s amendments and the fact that this Bill was never intended to address complicated issues such as this, I do not think we should be taking it in this direction. If the noble Lord does divide on his amendments, we will not be supporting them.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendments in this group. As the Minister for Gambling, I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impact of gambling sponsorship in football. Indeed, the noble Lord has raised this with me on a regular basis. I absolutely agree that, where gambling advertising and sponsorship appear in relation to football clubs, they must do so in a socially responsible way. The cumulative impact of gambling advertising, specifically around football, is, as I said, raised with me frequently.
I have already set the gambling industry, relatively recently, a task to raise standards to ensure that gambling advertising more widely is both proportionate and appropriate. This work will be monitored closely. It is fair and reasonable for the Government to challenge the sector to make self-regulatory improvements first. In our view, this can deliver positive change more quickly. The Premier League has already made a decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season, and many clubs, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Taylor, already do not take sponsorship or advertising by gambling firms.
All major sports have also published their gambling sponsorship codes of conduct, which set minimum standards for gambling sponsorships within sport. We will work with sports bodies to undertake a review of the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps. However, we do not believe the regulator should have a specific role in commercial matters such as advertising and sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs.
It is important to recognise the vital revenue that many clubs currently rely on via advertising and sponsorship from gambling firms, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We have to be wary of scope creep that sees the regulator straying into matters that should be reserved for the industry and stepping on the toes of industry authorities such as the FA and other regulators that have a remit over this area of policy.
On Amendment 29, current drafting already requires fan engagement on clubs’ business priorities and strategic approach. Discussion of a club’s overall approach to sponsorship could reasonably play a role in these consultations. We do not, however, think it appropriate for the regulator to require specific fan engagement on gambling advertising and sponsorship specifically, especially as it would not be relevant at all clubs, such as those with no gambling sponsors.
On Amendment 53, what constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, such as players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors. Clearly, this would, or could, have significant unintended consequences for clubs and the sport more widely.
On Amendment 23, a review of gambling advertising and sponsorship in football should not, in our view, be the responsibility of a regulator with a specific remit of the kind intended by this legislation. As I have set out, the Government are already taking action in this space in conjunction with the industry and governing bodies in football and other sports. This will review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. If further action on sponsorship and advertising is needed, we will take it, but for the reasons I have set out I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. However, it seems to be, “Yes, something should be done—at some point in the future, we will definitely do something”. I do not really think that we can carry on like that. We have to try to do something as quickly as possible, because the combination of the smartphone and the universal web means that the temptation to gamble is constantly with us. It is something that we have not addressed properly. Most of our regulation is designed for a day before the smartphone, so I hope that we will do something now.
As I said, a series of amendments was put down to give a series of options for the Government. The Government have decided not to bite. So I give fair notice that I will be pressing Amendment 53 when the time comes, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23, standing in my name.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the minimum frequency of revised football governance statements from every three years to every five years.
Lord Ranger of Northwood
“(aa) a review of the impact of the activity of the IFR on ticket prices, and”
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her consideration of my amendment earlier this evening. I note that she mentioned that the annual report was not the place for the information about the potential cost implications of the independent financial football regulator in terms of its impact on ticket prices. I respectfully disagree. I think that report would be exactly the place that any financial implications that come from the IFR and the impact that they would have on football fans should be.
I also note her letter about cost implications, which also identifies that up to two and a half full-time equivalents could be placed in larger clubs in terms of cost requirements for compliance, and up to 0.5 equivalents for smaller clubs. These are significant figures. They would have an impact on the costs for clubs across our country.
I also noted in the letter that the costs would be borne by those with the broadest shoulders—a term normally used for taxation. I feel that we must be careful about placing a further burden on the shoulders of English football fans. So, with respect, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
Baroness Twycross
“(b) any emblem or crest of a relevant team operated by the club;(ba) the predominant home shirt colours of a relevant team operated by the club;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to a team’s “emblem” alongside “crest”, to avoid confusion with the heraldic use of the term “crest”.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his passion for heraldry and the interesting discussions we have had on this topic in Committee and afterwards. The Government absolutely agree on the importance of this legislation being able accurately to protect club heritage. That is why officials have worked closely with the College of Arms, and I thank it for its engagement. In doing so, we have ensured that the legislation remains in step with both the FA’s heritage guidelines and heraldic terminology. The Government have tabled Amendments 30 and 49 to expand the references from “crest” to “crest or emblem”, and the noble Lord has my commitment that we will add additional clarity in the Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill. We will include language to the effect of the noble Lord’s Amendment 80 in the Explanatory Notes.
Turning to government Amendments 48 and 79, I would like to thank my eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Bassam again for raising awareness of the consistency of drafting in Clause 46. We absolutely agree that it is best for language to be consistent where possible. That is why we are bringing forward this amendment to align drafting. I would like to reassure noble Lords that this change has no impact on the policy; none the less, it is a change we are welcoming. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, for reasons I cannot fathom, our debates on heraldry always seem to come late in the evening. But I am delighted to see that it is commanding such interest from the Government Benches this evening. I take that as great encouragement.
I thank the Minister and her officials, who have taken a number of meetings and had a number of conversations on a subject that might seem recherché but is important not just to me but to the College of Arms and, indeed, to many who have been following the Bill. As I set out in Committee, this point was raised on social media; in a very new medium, an ancient problem was highlighted.
Some might think that the use of correct heraldic terminology is trivial, but it is my firm view that it is not. Not only should we generally aim for precision in the language we use in legislation but where the provisions of the Bill, and indeed the actions of the regulator, may intervene in the activities of a body as venerable as the College of Arms, we need to ensure that we get it right.
I welcome the good will that is reflected in the fact that the Government have brought forward some amendments, but I am afraid we have not quite got there yet, which is why I have risen to speak to my Amendment 80. To briefly summarise what I set out in Committee, the problem in government Amendment 30, which the Minister has just moved, is the term “crest”—which some will take to be the badge part of a coat of arms but is in fact what appears above it. The word “crest” is repeated in the explanatory statement to Amendment 30, where the Minister has said:
“This amendment adds a reference to a team’s ‘emblem’ alongside ‘crest’, to avoid confusion with the … use of the term ‘crest’”.
It is better to avoid that confusion by not using it, hence the amendment I brought in Committee suggesting that we should properly call it a “badge”. We are repeating the incorrect term, which is the problem that I and the College of Arms have been raising with the Government.
During the meetings we have had, we have been trying to land this point with the Government but have not quite been able to get there. I am aware that correspondence was had with the Minister’s department only today, following up the points. I know the college welcomes what she is going to put in the Explanatory Notes, as do I—that is very helpful—but it is looking for a saving clause that simply asserts, or reasserts, the authority of the Kings of Arms over armorial bearings. That is the sticking point that I hope we might yet be able to resolve on this matter.
As I understand from the College of Arms, the department’s argument is that the regulator does not approve the content or substance of a proposed club badge but merely decides whether it went through the required process of consultation under the Bill. The department argues, therefore, that there is never any risk of the regulator straying on to the college’s turf since the regulator is not involved in the question of what a badge consists of or looks like. The Government argue that that is why nothing is needed. Rather perversely, they argue that a saving clause would create the impression that there is a conflict here, but that misses the point. When taken as a whole, the Bill does create approval for a badge, which it incorrectly calls a crest, albeit via consultation with fans and others. The Bill creates a mechanism for the approval, and indeed disapproval, of a badge—mistakenly called a crest—in statute. That cannot fail to create a sense that, at some level, the badge that has gone through the process has achieved some kind of authorised status.
In Committee we discussed the examples of problems that may occur. In lots of local authorities, a football club uses the same or a similar coat of arms as the local authority. If there were to be a conflict between that local authority and that club about the proper use of it, the College of Arms would be asked to step in and adjudicate. So there is a risk that the Bill unwittingly encroaches on the Crown’s prerogative in regard to heraldry. This is not the same as trademarks, but in the case of coats of arms we are talking about the Crown prerogative, which surely limits the extent to which parallel clauses for other parties are required.
What the College of Arms is asking for, and what I am suggesting in my Amendment 80, is not unusual. There are plenty of examples of saving clauses in other legislation; for instance, Section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971. My Amendment 80, which the college hopes to see put on the face of the Bill, not just in the Explanatory Notes, would follow the well-established precedent of protecting with absolute certainty the rights of the Kings of Arms.
All of us who have come into your Lordships’ House have taken our first steps in this Chamber following, slowly and reverently, the footsteps of the Garter Principal King of Arms, an office that has existed since 1415. We went to see him at the College of Arms, to seek agreement for our very names and titles. We have sworn an oath of allegiance to the sovereign that it is his solemn duty to proclaim at the moment of accession. So I hope that we can give him a few moments of our attention, even at this late hour and at this late stage of the Bill.
The saving clause that I have proposed, drafted in general terms, will not create the impression that the regulator will be involved in considering the substance of designs—or anything else, for that matter. I believe it is a simple but important amendment, which I very much hope the Minister will be able to accept. Happily, if there should need to be a Division on my Amendment 80, it would not come tonight but on day 2. I hope that, if she is not able to give that reassurance now, she will be able to take it away, reflect on it further—particularly in the light of the correspondence that I know she and her department have had today—and avoid the need to divide on this.
I am very grateful for the time and attention that the Minister has given, and for the improvements that we have had already. This final insertion really is the matter that would allay the concerns of the College of Arms and, therefore, my concerns as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his engagement on this matter and for his amendment.
We genuinely do not think that this matter is trivial but we do believe that the language in the noble Lord’s amendment would be a redundant addition to the legislation; we do not think that it is required. This is because, aside from the terminology used regarding the club emblems, the regulator’s powers are not expected to interact with the College of Arms and, therefore, the powers of the Kings of Arms.
Indeed, the regulator will ensure that fans have been properly consulted on proposed changes, but it will not be for the regulator to approve designs, only the process of clubs working with fans. This is rightly for other organisations, including the College of Arms, but also the Intellectual Property Office and other bodies.
As the regulator has no role in what the crest or emblem looks like, nor whether it infringes on any trademarks or copyright, it is implicit that the relevant body’s decision will supersede any related action by the regulator. There are many instances where the regime has been designed specifically not to conflict with existing powers and processes, such as law enforcement investigations or HMRC business requirements. However, it is unnecessary and unconventional practice for all parties that may work on parallel issues to the statutory body to be listed.
I hope that, through the changes we have made, and through further explanations in the Explanatory Notes, the noble Lord will be reassured that the sanctity of the College of Arms will be preserved. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further but, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support these government amendments. I beg to move Amendment 30.