Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for giving notice of their intention to oppose the question that Clause 22 stand part of the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, a swift recovery and hope to see him back for the next day of consideration by this Committee.

I will start with Amendment 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. It is vital that the regulator has the appropriate tools to address systemic financial risks that might arise. Indeed, in recent years clubs have faced a number of systemic risks, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, when many clubs faced financial difficulties, some of which are still felt by clubs today.

The ability to restrict clubs’ overall expenditure may be the most appropriate and effective tool in certain circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, asked about limiting expenditure, which is already used within football. Some leagues already have rules limiting expenditure on wages and limits on permissive losses. I reassure him that the regulator is further constrained when taking action here. First, we have made it absolutely clear that the regulator has the ability only to restrict overall expenditure. It cannot place restrictions around specific transactions or types of transactions, to micromanage spending in that way.

Furthermore, the regulatory principles enshrined in the Bill in Clause 8 include the principle that the regulator should act proportionately. We would expect this to be reflected in any discretionary licence condition that the regulator sets. Restricting overall expenditure might be the most proportionate and least interventionist or burdensome response to these risks. Without this tool, it might have to apply a different response that may be more restrictive or less effective.

I turn to Amendment 173A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to which the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Addington, also spoke. While we appreciate the intent, we are confident that clubs and competition organisers would already be captured under the current wording in the Bill, of persons the regulator “considers appropriate”. As I have outlined in previous debates, the Government do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to put an exhaustive list of stakeholders in the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has a different view, but we feel that the regulator will be best placed to determine which persons are appropriate to consult depending on the decision in question. However, I look forward to further discussions with him on this point.

The regulator is required to consult anyone it considers appropriate. Failing to do so would be a breach of its statutory obligations and could result in legal challenge—

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I was not for a minute suggesting that there should be an exhaustive list that should be consulted; I was simply highlighting three very specific groups of people who should be consulted, which I think the Minister agrees with. There should be no doubt in the minds of the Committee that if you simply list clubs and competition organisers and then say “such other persons as the regulator considers appropriate”, you capture everything she has just said and make it very clear that the regulator will approach and consult clubs and competition organisers—which is the whole purpose behind this clause and surely one that has her full support. Why not simply clarify it in a very simple additional nine words?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says and look forward to further discussions with him on that point, but we feel that the regulator will be best placed to determine which persons are appropriate to consult.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry to keep on at the Minister about this, but can she really think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the regulator not to consult the competition organisers and the clubs in this context? If the answer to that is “Of course not”, let us put it in the Bill and make it clear.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I recognise the strength of feeling on this point and look forward to discussing this further as we proceed through the Bill’s progress in this House.

Amendment 173B is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, spoke to it in his absence. Its intention is to place procedural requirements around the regulator’s use of capital buffers as part of a liquidity requirement. First, I reassure noble Lords that the model of financial regulation is about making clubs more financially resilient.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, raised an issue that has been discussed previously in this Committee, where owners tragically die and the issues this can cause clubs, which is that clubs will have to submit detailed financial plans, including contingency plans. This could include what the club would do in the event of a financial shock such as the sudden loss of an owner.

If the regulator has concerns about the level of financial risk exhibited in a range of scenarios, it can place discretionary licence conditions on clubs in limited areas. That does not necessarily mean that owners will have to put funding in up front. If the regulator does reach for liquidity requirements, there are already safeguards. Indeed, the amendment seeks to require the regulator to have regard to a number of considerations, but in each case the Bill already requires this.

When assessing whether to attach the discretionary licence conditions needed to meet the appropriate financial resources threshold condition, the regulator will already be fully informed of the club’s financial position because clubs have to submit a financial plan, which would already include detail of any existing liquidity buffers. Consideration of proportionality and existing financial rules is covered by the regulatory principles in Clause 8(c) and (d). Again, consideration of the impact on competitiveness and investment is covered by the regulator’s duties in Clause 7(2). Therefore, this is all already accounted for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, as well as the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for the amendments in this group. It has been a really thoughtful discussion around issues of note.

I particularly welcomed the opportunity to hear from a number of noble Lords who have not spoken previously on the Bill but who have contributed their expertise, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. Their expertise led to a thoughtful debate. A number of noble Lords had interesting alternative perspectives as well. That included the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is right that we discuss these significant issues as we discuss what the role of the regulator should be.

On Amendments 178, 185 and 193, it is absolutely right that clubs have suitable owners. That is why the new statutory owners’ and directors’ test is a key focus of the regulatory regime. A core part of this is the fitness test, which these amendments seek to expand. The individual ownership fitness test criteria are based on precedents specifically relevant to whether somebody is suitable to be an owner of a football club.

I would like to reassure my noble friend that much of what the amendments seek to achieve is already delivered within the current drafting. If an individual has had legal—whether civil or criminal—regulatory or disciplinary action of any kind brought against them, and that action has a bearing on their honesty or integrity, the regular must take that into account. This could then be used to find them unsuitable under the tests in this legislation.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke specifically on modern slavery in relation to current legislation. I welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, around keeping the regulator focused on issues that it can deal with effectively. Offences under the Modern Slavery Act are included in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act, so the regulator will have to consider them in particular when determining whether an owner meets the fitness criteria.

If there are concerns about what is covered in the Modern Slavery Act, there are more appropriate places to discuss this, perhaps outside the Committee. I would be very happy to talk to noble Lords and the noble and learned Baroness outside the Committee to give them some reassurance on the points they have raised.

Any human rights violations that have given rise to legal, regulatory or disciplinary action against the owner in any forum can be considered, and so are egregious actions committed outside the UK that would have been criminal if carried out here. I assure noble Lords that these are things the regulator would—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

There is a specific issue with the Gulf states. If people are potentially put to death for being gay in a state, would that debar a state entity or an individual in that Government from owning an English club? It is a clear question.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am going to come on to state ownership later in my speech, if the noble Lord would be happy to wait.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

No, I would like an answer to this specific question, because the Minister gave a specific commitment with regard to what is in the Bill. I put a specific question based on what could happen, and on the laws of the land of a Gulf state. I wish to know: if that takes place, would someone who is related to that state through a state entity not be able to own a Premier League club in this country?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would be grateful if the noble Lord allowed me to take away that specific example. I will write to him and to the Committee and place a letter in the Library, so that they have a detailed response on that point.

These are all issues that the regulator will take very seriously. Where the amendments before us today go further than existing drafting, this introduces elements that we do not believe are necessarily relevant to an owner’s suitability. They would require the regulator to make a subjective and potentially speculative judgment on whether the individual has engaged in any activity that would risk bringing the game into disrepute. Where a potential dispute relates to things like criminal history, the regulator will already have to consider these things. But “disrepute” is a vague term; could it arise through an owner’s conduct in their personal life, or their political views? In the Government’s view, it would put the regulator in quite a difficult position, making a value judgment on what constitutes disrepute, which would undermine the principle of a reasoned, evidence-based test.

Turning to Amendment 199 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the test is supported by the regulator’s information-gathering powers to ensure its determination is evidence-based. These powers will help the regulator tackle unco-operative individuals or organisations that do not provide the information. However, let me be clear: if the regulator does not have enough evidence to make its determination, the individual will be found unsuitable.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about restrictions on an owner’s funds. I want to reassure her that the test requires an owner to submit financial plans and demonstrate sufficient financial resources to run the club. As part of this, we expect that the regulator will consider things such as the liquidity of those resources and their availability to actually be used to fund the club. The regulator will also need to be satisfied that the owner does not have wealth connected to illicit finance. To do this, it can conduct enhanced due diligence on the owner’s source of wealth. This would identify any links to criminality, corruption and money-laundering. We believe, therefore, that the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment is delivered in the current drafting of the Bill. I hope she takes reassurance from this, but I am happy to meet her to discuss this if my explanation has not satisfied her.

I turn to amendment 200 from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also spoke to. This Government are not making a judgment on different forms of ownership. We recognise that good ownership can take many forms, and it is investment from responsible owners that has been a driving factor in the success of English football. Banning any one particular kind of ownership would not, in our view, be in keeping with the flexible and proportionate approach to regulation we are proposing. I believe that this approach has broad support across the Committee. Prospective owners with state backing will be assessed against the same set of criteria as any other prospective owner, on a case-by-case basis. I hope that answers the question about Newcastle from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I apologise for intervening on the Minister’s speech, but I did ask a very specific question, which I think she has answered but I would be grateful if she could make it clear to the Committee. Through the higher degree of influence test, which we have debated and understand, and which is unique to this regulatory framework, will the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia be subject to an ownership test—yes or no?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Any owner, with state backing or otherwise, will be assessed against the same set of criteria as any other prospective owner, on a case-by-case basis.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

So the answer is yes.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes. Prospective owners with state backing will be assessed against the same set of criteria and, by requiring new owners to undergo the regulator’s test, we better mitigate against harm to clubs by preventing unsuitable custodians ever becoming owners. Giving the regulator the power to test incumbent owners where there are concerns about their suitability ensures that any unsuitable owners can be removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised a comparison with the legal position on media organisations. Although football clubs up and down the country are vital community assets, they are not the cornerstone of our democracy that free media is. Investment from responsible owners has been a driving factor in the success of English football, which is why we are putting in place a stable regulatory environment that will continue to attract investors with a long-term prudent approach to growing football clubs as important community assets. What is important, in our view, is that owners are suitable, and the approach to testing owners set out in the Bill ensures just that.

This has been a hugely useful debate and, although I will have to come back on a number of points, I hope my response has provided some reassurance. But, for the reasons I have given, I would be grateful if my noble friends and other noble Lords would not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say a word about Amendment 207. It talks about a club that is not a regulated club but bears a very similar resemblance to one that is in things such as the name, the shirt colours and things of that type—almost an imitation of another club in order to get some support, finance or whatever. It may seem that this is highly unlikely, but I have a nightmare scenario where the super leagues that are being proposed do not take off, and therefore people try to create an artificial super league by, for example, having a team called “Manchester Blues” or “Liverpool Reds” getting into competitions with clubs abroad as an imitation of the super league that has been proposed and rejected. I want some assurance that should that nightmare scenario come about, there is some provision for being strict about what can and cannot happen.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to this group, I want to be clear about who the regulator will test and clarify an earlier point I made. I will ensure that all noble Lords who participated in the second group have their attention drawn to this clarification and apologise if I caused any confusion.

Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out details on who meets the definition of an owner. The Secretary of State will also set out guidance on one of the criteria for ownership, “significant influence or control”. An incumbent individual simply meeting the definition, including if they exert significant influence or control, does not mean that the regulator is required or obliged to test them. It may test an incumbent owner if there are grounds for concern about their suitability. The criteria for suitability are clearly set out in the Bill. This applies to any type of owner, be it a state owner or otherwise.

The key point I must stress—it goes for Newcastle United or any other club, although as someone who lived for a number of years in Newcastle I am particularly keen to reassure Geordies—is that the regulator will be operationally independent of government. It is not for the Government to prejudge the regulator’s assessment of who meets the definition of owner, whether there is concern about a particular owner or the outcome if the regulator tests a particular owner.

Finally, I want to reassure your Lordships’ Committee that this Government are unashamedly pro-investment, which will drive our growth mission. We want good, long-term investors into the UK, and foreign investment is key to this. I hope that noble Lords find this clarification helpful.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. I think it is self-evident from her comments that once you remove the foreign and trade policy objective and put in place the significant influence test, you have a massive problem in the Bill. That massive problem is that it is self-evident, as has been discussed many times during the proceedings, that the Crown Prince—as chair of and in control of the PIF, with significant influence over it—would automatically come within the scope of significant influence as defined so far in debate on a number of occasions. I have no problem with that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has any problem with that. If that is the case, so be it, and let us be honest about it. If it is not the case, “significant influence” is meaningless, and we should come back to it on Report and simply delete “significant influence”, which, incidentally, goes far further than any other regulator in Europe.

We have control tests that are applied by UEFA, by the Premier League and across football. We do not have this significant influence test, and that is what is causing the problem. You remove the foreign and trade policy objectives and apply a significant influence test. The Minister was very clear in response to me on Monday that the Crown Prince would be absolutely full and central in any clear interpretation of that test. For the first time, she has put the definition of significant influence into the long grass as she said that it would come back in secondary legislation, that the Government do not actually know what it means and that she cannot give an answer to that in Committee or when we return on Report. But it is critical, because it comes to the very hub of political influence: what is the status of the Crown Prince? What is the status of Abu Dhabi? What would be the status of the Qataris if they wanted to buy a club in the Premier League, or indeed in any other league? My recommendation is that, given the uncertainty in the response that the Minister has just given and the absolute clarity on Monday evening and earlier this afternoon on the yes/no answer, we leave it for the time being and return on Report and analyse this in depth.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I felt I was clear, but I accept that the noble Lord has a different view. I look forward to ongoing discussions with him before and on Report. My comments related to a previous group, so I apologise to noble Lords who were not there to hear the context of my comments.

I will now move on to my remarks on this group, which—

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I shall just say this, as it is so central to our proceedings this evening. Just for the record, on Monday evening the Minister said:

“Finally, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the whole point of the owners’ and directors’ test, which has been carefully designed, is to ensure that club custodians are suitable for assessing an owner’s fitness—this is absolutely crucial. It is right that any owner passes the tests set out in the Bill, so it would not be fair, appropriate or responsible to exempt certain types of owners from testing … This amendment intends that owners with diplomatic status or who are Heads of State, Government Ministers or high-ranking officials of foreign Governments would not be tested”.


That was in response to my probing amendment. She went on:

“I do not need to tell noble Lords about some of the people this could exempt from testing. That means that the regulator could not consider any personal finances or criminal history, no matter how egregious. Instead, it would have to ignore these matters, so the regulator could be letting unsuitable owners in”.—[Official Report, 16/12/24; col. 140.]


In other words, all those people I have just mentioned are subject to the tests set out in the Bill, and that would include anybody who was chair of a sovereign wealth fund that had invested in football in this country. That is what we will return to on Report. I do not think it is appropriate to lengthen the discussion this evening, as it has been well aired, but it is fundamental to removing that clause from the legislation in terms of opening up a can of worms now for the Government in identifying exactly what the suitable ownership test means.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Like other noble Lords, I want to move on, but I shall repeat two sentences that I referred to earlier. Simply because an incumbent individual meets the definition, including if they exert significant influence or control, does not mean that the regulator is required to test them. It may test an incumbent owner if there are grounds for concern about their suitability. Now I think we should move on. I do not feel that is a can of worms, but I appreciate that the noble Lord has an alternative view.

Moving to the group under discussion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for speaking to the amendments. On Amendment 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the aim of the clause, as he knows, is to stop the possibility of clubs leaving to join a closed-shop breakaway competition, as several clubs attempted with the European Super League in 2021. While I appreciate the aim of the noble Lord’s amendment, the clause has been carefully drafted to ensure that there is no possibility of circumvention. That is why the duty also captures formerly regulated clubs, so an owner cannot remove a club from the specified competitions in favour of joining a new break- away competition.

It is unlikely that clubs in the sixth tier of English football or beyond will attempt to join a prohibited competition, so we do not think the risk that the amendment aims to cater for is a material one. What is more, if these clubs sought to join a competition that had been prohibited by the regulator, that would undermine the heritage and history of the club and should also be condemned—so it is no bad thing that the duty would capture them as well.

On Amendment 207, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, which my noble friend Lady Taylor spoke to, I acknowledge the intent to protect the clause from any risk of circumvention. However, we do not believe it is necessary to extend the scope of the clause to the new clubs or entities that are created to take on the identity and players of a formerly regulated club in order to participate in prohibited competitions. We believe this is a remote risk. Even if a club could convince its players to do this, convince its fan base to follow them and work through the legalities, the FA’s existing requirements around the registration of clubs and players would offer sufficient protection. For the reasons I have set out, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her answers to the amendments in this group and for the clarification she gave on the comments on a previous group. I take what she says about breakaway clubs, but the point is for how long the provisions will still apply to clubs that drop out below the bottom level of this regulation through relegation, and why it lasts for so long. She has spoken before, rightly, about making sure that this is a proportionate regime. If you are a club that has been relegated to such a low tier and are unlikely to come back in, it feels like a very long time to have to continue to comply. That is the point that I was probing there. I might take that away and think about it further. If she has anything further to add on reflection, I would be very happy to receive that in a letter or pick it up in the discussions that we will have between now and Report—but that was part of the thinking there.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right: the suggestion of another or an intermediate regulator would not be popular in all parts of this Committee, so I will let that issue rest.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan’s suggestion on the question of influence and foreign ownership is one that is perhaps better for us to talk about in our discussions between Committee and Report. I cannot be the only Geordie who is a bit confused and concerned about the implications for Newcastle United and I look forward to speaking to the Minister about that. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Some 72 miles and a few chains, I am sure.

Even a club such as Bristol Rovers, who were obliged to move to Bath, which is only about 15 miles away, had to play there for 10 years until their new stadium was built—and even then, I think they ended up sharing with a rugby club.

Amendments 227 and 233 are really “the AFC Wimbledon amendments”, because they refer to that club in which I have an interest, which I have stated on a number of occasions in consideration of this Bill. On the figure of five miles, it may not surprise noble Lords to know that, when Wimbledon FC were obliged to move because their ground had been sold from underneath them, they went to Crystal Palace, which is about six and a half miles away. It still was not convenient for a lot of the fans.

It has been said that, when Wimbledon moved to Crystal Palace, the crowds increased. Factually, that is correct—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, nodding—but they increased because there was a far greater ability for visiting fans to go to Crystal Palace. It was not at all unusual for Wimbledon FC to play home games where their own fans were very much in the minority. So that was not a benefit—okay, in financial terms for the club it was, but it is not a system that anybody would advocate.

My final point is to reinforce Amendment 234, about taking reasonable steps to ensure that the club’s fans do not consider arrangements for any change to be unsatisfactory. That should be a very basic consideration. I think it is in the Bill, but it is helpful to have that stated quite clearly and I hope that my noble friend will take that on board and, if she is not able to accept it today, which I would not expect, that we might come back to this to get something more solid on Report.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments regarding home grounds. The noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Goddard, gave powerful examples of why home grounds matter and what they mean to fans, as did my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, particularly in relation to relocation. As somebody who grew up within hearing distance of Oxford United’s Manor Ground, I can empathise with the feelings of fans when grounds move —although inevitably they do sometimes, and often successfully.

I will talk first to Amendments 219 to 223, 227 to 230 and 233 and 234 in the names of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton. Starting with Amendments 219 to 222 and Amendment 230, home grounds are clearly often the most important asset of a club and that is why this legislation has carved out specific protections to safeguard against risky financial decisions or sales of the ground. This does not mean that other assets such as training grounds or office space are not also important to the club, but there is a specific consideration necessary for the home ground. I reassure my noble friends that there are protections in the Bill to safeguard against owners stripping a club of its assets or making reckless mortgage decisions against clubs. They include the enhanced owners’ and directors’ test, which will look to ensure that owners are prepared to be appropriate custodians of their club and its assets.

The regulator will also have oversight of the financial plans and balance sheets of the regulated clubs, ensuring that the club is not putting itself in a risky position unnecessarily. We would expect that this would include what assets remain in the club’s ownership and any plans to dispose of them. If it were to become evident that an owner was looking to asset strip the club or deliberately worsen its financial position, the licensing regime gives the regulator power to place licensing conditions on the club. The regulator could also take enforcement action if those conditions are breached or if the financial plan that the club has submitted has not been followed.

I turn to Amendment 227. I will not repeat the same points made previously as they are both similar to other amendments in this group. However, on the second sub-paragraph proposed by this amendment, with changes to the ownership or use of the home ground as collateral, the potential adverse outcomes are entirely financial. They do not impact the heritage of the club, nor would they necessarily relate to a relocation. If there is reasonable prospect of a change leading to relocation, Clause 48 sets out the parameters for any home ground relocation. The regulator would need to be satisfied that the move does not undermine the financial sustainability of the club or significantly harm the heritage of the club. This means that the regulator will be able to look at things such as location.

However, the Government have deliberately not set a fixed distance or considerations. This is to further allow for a bespoke approach to be taken at all clubs to make sure that the impact of a relocation can be mitigated if one is deemed necessary. Amendment 223 seeks to expand the scope of the duty to gain the regulator’s approval to include all substantial changes to specify properties or the club’s home ground. Given the addition of the specified properties, this amendment could include any significant changes to property, such as a hotel owned by the club. This is a significant expansion of scope and could be onerous and resource intensive on the regulator. In such a case as a hotel, the amendment could feasibly lead to a full consultation and approval process for substantial changes such as building an extension. This would not be an appropriate or efficient use of the regulator’s time or resources.

Instead, such substantial changes to either the home ground or other assets can be addressed via other areas in the Bill. For example, we expect all clubs to consult and have regard to the views of fans on the specified relevant matters. This includes home grounds and business priorities, among other issues. We would also expect any substantial changes to the home ground or other assets to be captured by the club’s financial plans. The regulator will therefore be able to have oversight and react to any concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield. If all football fans were surveyed—more than the 20,000 to 30,000 that responded to Dame Tracey Crouch’s report—this would be one of the issues they cared about most. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mann, will not mind me putting words in his mouth, but if he were here, I think he would say in his Yorkshire tones, “Home should mean home.” The Government must do everything they can to ensure that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield for tabling Amendment 235. Clause 48 has been designed to prevent clubs unilaterally moving their home ground with no regard for the vital role it plays in the club’s history and identity, as well as its financial position. In essence, it is intended to capture instances such as Wimbledon’s move to Milton Keynes and is a really important protection in the legislation. The Government believe that this protection must remain in the Bill to enable the regulator to deliver its key objectives and ensure that home grounds have the appropriate safeguards in place. This amendment, however, seeks to address a slightly different but related issue of competition organisers relocating matches elsewhere. Many of the current instances of this are, for example, play-off matches at Wembley, which have become a key part of English football heritage in and of themselves.

However, I am aware that my noble friend wants this amendment to address situations in which a match could be moved outside England and Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that FIFA is currently reviewing its position on overseas league matches. I do recognise the point the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made—although I would not presume to paraphrase my noble friend Lord Mann—and how significant this would be for supporters. FIFA has committed to looking at how it might impact supporters, as well as players and a number of other valuable considerations. While the industry is still considering its position on this matter, and many clubs have spoken against the proposals, we do not think the regulator should have a specific power to directly address this. However, the regulator will ensure that clubs consult fans on any changes to match days, including moving the location. The Government will remain in conversation with the relevant governing bodies on this developing issue.

I am happy to continue conversations with noble Lords who have a specific interest in this issue before we get to Report. But for the reasons I have laid out, I must ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank her—I did not before—and her officials for the generous way she has spared time not just for me but for lots of other Members of this House over the last few weeks. It is really appreciated.

I understand what the Minister says, and I also understand that FIFA is currently revising its proposals. We have spent a lot of time worrying about provoking FIFA, and I understand why there is sensitivity there. The requirement to consult fans on moving matches assumes that there is already a scheduled match that needs to be moved. My amendment is about two problems that there are in fact technical ways around. So, that issue is still a live one. There will be more discussion about this, and I know the Minister is going to be as generous with her time as she has been already, so with that in mind—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We have interventions on interventions here and we should move on.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, before we have any further interventions, I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, for his contribution on this group, which sparked a lively debate, and for giving notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 53 stand part of the Bill. It is useful to remember why we are here, but my comments will focus on the amendments in this group. It is imperative that the regulator can raise the funds necessary to deliver its regulatory functions, so I thank my noble friends and the noble Lords who have raised this important issue.

Turning first to Amendments 250 and 254 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam, I want to reassure him that the existing drafting in Clause 53(3) is comprehensive, in the Government’s view, and provides the necessary mechanism for raising these funds. Clause 53(3) also acts as an important constraint on what the regulator can charge clubs for. We believe that the amendment would risk bypassing this safeguard. We also want to be clear that, under the existing drafting, any such central fund could not be used as a form of lifeboat fund to prop up clubs in distress. It is the Government’s opinion that a zero-failure regulator, as implied, would create moral hazard and encourage the very risk-taking that the regulator is trying to address.

On Amendment 252 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the Government acknowledge the importance of any charges on clubs being transparent and proportionate, and offering value for money. These values should be at the heart of any public body. This must be achieved while maintaining the regulator’s operational independence and flexibility, which is why it would not be appropriate to prescribe an exact methodology in legislation for charging the levy. Doing so would remove the regulator’s ability to explore other, possibly more effective and proportionate, methods of charging. The Bill already requires the regulator to have regard to clubs’ financial resources and position in the pyramid. I am confident that this will be sufficient to ensure that the levy is fair and proportionate. I hope this will give my noble friends reassurance that these costs will not be burdensome to clubs.

Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would require the regulator to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically, as opposed to the Treasury, when making, amending or replacing levy rules. Consulting with the Treasury on levy rules is standard practice for a regulator, and this approach has been agreed with the department. The Chancellor, as head of the Treasury, will have full oversight of the Treasury’s response to the consultation. The Chancellor is accountable for the decisions of the Treasury and any consultation with the Treasury is likely to have the approval of the Chancellor. Therefore, the Government’s view is that the existing requirement to consult with the Treasury is sufficient to ensure value for money.

Finally, on whether Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill, this clause will allow the regulator to charge a levy to licensed clubs that covers the regulator’s running costs. This follows the precedent of other regulators such as the FCA, the CMA and Ofcom.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I thank the Minister for allowing an intervention. Has there been any further development on the cost of the regulator? I know that we have asked the question on numerous occasions, but we have not had a reply. It would be very good for clubs to know what the Government expect the regulator to cost. The Minister mentioned the FCA; that costs £762 million a year. I hope it will not be that much.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I was going to come on to that. I anticipated that if the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was here, he would ask me that question. If I can carry on through my speech, with the noble Baroness’s permission, I will address that later in my remarks.

We think it only fair that industry should cover the cost, as opposed to taxpayers. Football is a wealthy industry, and the cost of regulation would represent just a tiny fraction of its annual revenue of over £6 billion. However, this legislation puts robust checks and balances on the regulator. It will be limited to raising funds to meet a set of tightly defined costs that are necessary for regulatory activity only. The regulator will not have a blank cheque; it will be subject to numerous safeguards, including annual auditing by the National Audit Office, and its annual accounts will be laid before Parliament. This will provide the necessary transparency and scrutiny to deliver value for money.

Clause 53 also requires the regulator to have regard to a club’s individual financial position and the league it plays in when setting the levy charges that a club must pay. This should ensure a proportionate approach where no club, big or small, is asked to pay more than what is fair and affordable. As noble Lords are aware, the regulator will be the one that decides on the methodology and, ultimately, the cost of the levy.

I understand, however, that there is a clear desire, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and other Members of your Lordships’ Committee, to have a much better understanding of how the costs may be borne at different levels of the game. I will endeavour to provide more clarity on this issue. Therefore, after further discussions with the shadow regulator, I will write to noble Lords to provide further clarity on costs ahead of Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses and would be happy to meet noble Lords or take any questions.

This is a complex issue and we cannot fetter the discretion of the regulator. The letter, when it comes, cannot therefore be considered a definite estimation of costs. It will merely be illustrative, in an attempt to be helpful to this Committee and provide your Lordships’ House—and the clubs that will be regulated—with some clarity and reassurance before we get to Report.

For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press them.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment and grateful to the Minister for the assurances that she has given about the levy. I just say to colleagues on the Opposition Benches: it is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about the regulation of only 116 different football entities. This is a small regulator, at the end of the day, so we should not be overly worried about its eventual costs. I think the costs will be, in relative terms, small—nothing at all by comparison with the FCA. Some of the clubs regulated, such as Gateshead, employ only three staff. If you are an Ebbsfleet staffer, you are one of just six, whereas Arsenal employs more than 500 full-time backroom staff. That is why we need to be certain that the levy raised is proportionate to the size of the club. Proportionality should be at the core of the regulator’s consideration when setting its levy. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.