Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is grouped with Amendments 41, 46 and 48. This is a pretty straightforward amendment, simply seeking to change in the Bill the word “may” to “must”.

For context, the Bill as it stands says that a non-executive member of the board “may” be removed from office in certain circumstances. That is clearly appropriate and something that we should expect. Similarly, the Bill says that an executive member “may” be removed in certain circumstances. Again, that is something that we should expect and is totally appropriate.

However, the circumstances in which such a removal can take place are actually rather serious. They are laid out quite clearly as being when the person is

“guilty of serious misconduct … has a conflict of interest … has failed to comply with paragraph 6(4)”,

which is about information on conflicts of interest, and

“is unable, unfit or unwilling to carry out their functions”.

I think we would all agree that, whether we are talking about a non-executive or executive member of the board, we need to take such issues seriously.

That is why I ask the Minister why it is only “may” be removed and not “must” be removed, because these circumstances would seem to justify removal. If anybody falls foul of the items identified here, there really has to be a presumption that they will be removed, and so the word “must” might be more appropriate.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the difference between “may” and “must”—or may and shall—is a pretty old parliamentary debate, but the noble Baroness has something here. I read through the amendments and thought, “It’s pretty clear. How could they stay if they’d done these things?” It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. I know that “may” probably means “must” in certain circumstances, but if we could just have it clarified, we might get through this very quickly. It is very worth while having it clarified in this case.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are making, but I am always hesitant to say that something “must” happen. I speak here as someone who spent many years as a personnel/human resources director, acting as the final stage of appeal in disciplinary matters. As the noble Lord implied, I know that there is a debate in legal fields, because nowadays lawyers generally do not like being bound by something that tells them that they “must” act in a certain way.

It does not seem to be appropriate to insert “must”. The noble Baroness said that there would be a presumption—and I think so too. As the noble Lord said, these are very serious offences, but until one is confronted by a set of circumstances, I hesitate to bind anybody to a certain decision. There may be special circumstances where one is found guilty of only one of the categories and circumstances, so I am not convinced that “must” should be inserted in place of “may”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the three amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson.

On Amendment 45, it is very important that we have Chinese walls around media interests and that we preclude, if possible, any potential conflict of interest. We are not talking about a corner shop; we are talking about very serious big business and huge amounts of money for broadcasting rights. The information that will be contained within this regulator and the expert panel is phenomenally important in terms of its commercial confidentiality. Therefore, it is appropriate to put in the Bill a protocol which precludes the possibility of any interference from those who have a vested interest in media, and particularly in the workings of the expert panel.

We can look at models across the world whereby you have to keep secret from many people confidential information that is market-sensitive and may affect stock and share prices. Some of the information in the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission would fall into that category. This is not quite as lucrative, but it is very big business. Therefore, we need to protect individual clubs that do not have economic heft, and bigger clubs that may be affected by a leak of information or inappropriate use of information from the expert panel.

Amendment 47 strikes a balance on the ability to pay an expert the appropriate amount of money. You want someone who has accumulated knowledge, skills and experience of football on the expert panel, but you do not want to pay them more than, for instance, the Prime Minister is paid. You want to have a set amount, and I think it is appropriate to put it in the Bill, in primary legislation. We know that £91,346 is pretty much two and a half times the average salary. It is a decent amount of money for the services that will be provided by the members of the expert panel.

The amendment I support most strongly is Amendment 49 because, as Judge Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court judge in 1913, said, daylight is the best disinfectant. That was not said by a British historian, as people think, but by a Supreme Court judge. He was absolutely right about this in all the ways government is conducted. This gets the balance right, because there will be Chinese walls between different functions within the independent football regulator. This is light-touch transparency. It would not divulge the intricate proceedings of the expert panel within the IFR, but it would allow people to make a value judgment on how key decisions had been reached and who had made them. There would be accountability and transparency, as you would know not only who was making a case but the reasons why they did not support a decision. It is right that we would not include detailed minutes of the deliberations of the expert panel, because that would not be in the interest of the game and good governance, but it would be important to understand how decisions were made.

If you put that together as a complementary mechanism, with parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the independent football regulator as a whole, it is a very useful amendment for making sure there are key checks and balances. It would make sure that certain clubs are not dominating and certain other clubs are not being pushed out, and that everyone has an opportunity to have empirical evidence, data and proper facts put before the expert panel. Ultimately, the panel will be accountable, first, to the IFR, then to Parliament and then to the wider public, including the fans.

I am not saying that the IFR is exactly the same as the Securities and Exchange Commission, but, for those reasons, I think there is a framework here that can be used to make sure that we deliver a decent and effective IFR—but in a fair and equitable way that is open, transparent and, above all, accountable to the taxpayers and people of this country.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. The middle two of these amendments are effectively a rehash of arguments we have already had—fair enough, so I will not comment on them. But, on the first one —about the numbers on the panel—and Amendment 49, what are the Government’s plans? Do they have any idea what would be a top number, or have they ever given this any consideration? That would be helpful to know—20 would seem to be a reasonable figure.

On the transparency of decision-making, the Government must have some idea, at the very least, about reporting, because it is almost impossible not to have some plan for reporting. If they have a standard or are thinking about one, it would help if we heard it now.

A couple of these amendments are well worth discussing, particularly the one on transparency. But I suspect that the Government have a plan for this—if they do not, they should have—and I look forward to being reassured by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This is another example of the benefit of getting different brains on the committee. I absolutely hope that that would be the case, but it is probably a question for the Minister to answer. It is definitely logical.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will make some brief comments. As I read the Bill, the Secretary of State providing some finance might be necessary, particularly in starting up. One of the things we do not want is an underresourced regulator blundering around making mistakes. A bad regulator is the worst outcome you can have, and that is usually because it lacks resources. When the Minister responds, can she give us some idea about when the power to give extra money would be used? This being done badly would be the worst result.

When the noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about regulation, I am afraid I kept thinking about Fulham and Al Fayed. Are your internal control structures right? Are you doing something wrong? The damage that could be done by bad organisation immediately catches in the back of my throat. The regulation will not be straightforwardly financial; it is also about reporting structures, the care of your workforce, et cetera. Surely that should be covered by the Bill. These are questions about where you draw the line. If we have a regulator, does it regulate the whole thing? I think it has to; it cannot be just financial. If these are socially important structures—this is what we keep coming back to—we have to look at this question.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has a point about the costs involved. I hope that we will get an answer when the Minister responds—at least a rough ballpark figure—because it will clarify what we will do. Those of us who approved the idea of a regulator think that it has to be properly resourced and that it has to cover the whole thing. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more guidance about what will happen and what the Government’s thinking is at this point, because they should have an answer by now.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, my understanding from the Premier League is that the Government’s estimated cost of the regulator is £10 million a year, and the Premier League considers that to be very low. We have heard a lot about how the regulator has been based on banking regulation, but the FCA costs £762 million a year and Ofcom costs £127 million a year.

It is worth noting that there are two critical but unrealistic assumptions in the impact assessment. First, it assumes perfect compliance, and, secondly, it focuses solely on ongoing compliance costs, such as information-gathering and engagement with the regulator and supporters. It does not account for the potential costs associated with, for example, licence conditions enforcement action that may arise through the commitments procedures. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward.

In earlier debates in Committee, I read out what Mark Ives, the general manager of the National League, said:

“We are concerned about the costs … The expectation of how much it is going to cost clubs at a National League level is a huge concern—it may be a small amount of money, but it is a lot to the clubs”.


He went on to say that many clubs in the National League are run by volunteers. We should give the clubs an idea of what it will cost, so they can work that into the budget. Each club should know whether it will be fully funded and fully staffed, so it can do the right job.

We have heard throughout Committee that the powers will be extended. The more that the powers are extended then the more complicated the Bill will be, the more staff they will need and the more costs there will be. Each club has to pay that cost because it has to have a licence. The way that you discharge the cost of the regulator is to add it to the licence. All 116 clubs, even though they are not listed in the Bill, will need to obtain one of those licences to operate.

Cost is a huge concern. It appears from what has been said that the Premier League would be picking up the majority of that cost. There is a big difference in the Premier League between those at the very top and those at the very bottom; they have very different pressures on their finances. I can only endorse what my noble friend Lord Hayward said and urge the Minister to give us an indication.