Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The Industry and Regulators Committee, with outside organisations such as the Institute for Government and others, has looked at what might be appropriate going forward. There is a real concern that we do not have a drumbeat of accountability for all regulators, so some new mechanism might be appropriate, potentially even in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, perhaps I could have a clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that he had lots of experience of regulators. He referred to the Online Safety Act and Ofcom and his dealings there. I found it incredibly unhelpful to be constantly told by Ministers at that time that something was not up to them, it was up to Ofcom, even when we were making a decision about what the Ofcom regulator was going to do.

There are times when it feels as though Governments of any political stripe can outsource authority to a regulator. They tell the regulator what to do and then, when you try and hold somebody to account, the Government say, “Oh no, it’s the regulator that makes that decision”. So it actually removes any accountability. I am very keen on a mechanism for accountability and I am very anxious that, when we constantly stress that they are independent, arm’s-length regulators, that can be a way of avoiding any kind of political accountability.

However, I am also sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the kinds of things you can imagine happening if there is accountability at Select Committee level. I want accountability and I can take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said about the forensic way that Select Committees can hold people to account. That sounds very positive. But it depends which one it is and who is on it. I can imagine the political fads of the day. You can imagine a Select Committee saying, “Why aren’t you doing more on”—my favourite topics—“EDI or the environment?” or “Where’s your environmental target? You’re not doing enough on that, are you?”

We have to be quite precise about the principle. On the one hand, there is the very important principle of parliamentary accountability. On the other, we also have to ensure that that does not become political interference, because it could. There could be a kind of pressure from Parliament for the regulator to adopt political priorities rather than football priorities.