Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Addington and Lord Hayward

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, to follow up on the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will the Minister tell us how the Government seek to enable Parliament, and indeed the Government, to look at how this is working when it comes in? There are provisions and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, sensibly put it, we are looking more at regulators, basically because of a failure of regulation—it has occurred in many fields. When you have a new regulator, you should review it. What is the process of review that the Government have in mind or going on? I hope that it is not a matter of waiting for failure.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I come on to the question of compliance costs specifically, I return to an answer the Minister gave me in response to a question I asked at the start of the debate this evening. It was on whether the shadow regulator would be present at the meeting with the Chancellor tomorrow. The response that the Minister gave—I hope I have it correct—was that the shadow regulator would not be present because the invitation was to existing regulators. I note that the Minister is nodding to that, so I presume that I have the phraseology broadly correct, and certainly the message correct. To be honest, I find that staggering. We have been told that the shadow regulator body— I was present at the meeting recently with the shadow regulator and his staff—should be up and running so that the regulator can take over a body that is already in full operation. We were told how many staff had already been recruited. We have been told persistently that this is light regulation.

I refer here to the fan-led review by Tracey Crouch. On page 15, paragraph 15 states that there are five important factors that should be pursued, including, in sub-paragraph (d),

“minimising burdens on clubs or an expensive system”.

Surely a shadow regulator that is going to hand over an up-and-running system and is going to operate a light-touch process of regulation should be invited to a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss precisely that issue. I am at a loss, as I think a number of people in this Chamber are, to understand why the shadow regulator has not been invited to that meeting. I am afraid that it indicates to me the attitude of the Government towards the role of the regulator in this process.

I now turn to the question of compliance costs. I do not intend to cover the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has covered so effectively, but I would like to cover a number of other issues. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made reference to the fact that we were talking about all football clubs. The concentration throughout all our days in Committee has been overwhelmingly to do with the Premier League and the Championship. But when one is talking about the sorts of figures that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was referring to—I have pursued persistently the honest assessment of what the actual cost is for a club, whatever it may be—the Minister has said persistently to me and others that the costs would be proportionate.

It is therefore relevant to remind this Committee what the turnovers of the small clubs are. I am quoting from Deloitte’s figures for the season 2022-23, which I understand are the last figures currently available. The average revenue for a club in League One is £9.8 million. The average figure for clubs in League Two is £5.5 million. Therefore, the categories of hoped-for costs identified in the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave earlier fall very heavily on a club.

I will cite a few examples. AFC Wimbledon’s revenue is £7.4 million, Crewe Alexandra’s £4.1 million and Northampton Town’s £5.1 million. I have looked for the figures for Stockport County, but I am sorry: I do not have them. I would give them if I could. If there are to be a series of compliance costs on top of all the other costs faced at the moment—not least national insurance contribution charges and the like—that will make a pretty big hole in the revenue of a club with a turnover of £5 million to £7 million.

The Minister has said that the burden would fall proportionately on the biggest clubs. In an earlier contribution, I said that when I was head of the British Beer & Pub Association I had the responsibility of steering the introduction of substantial changes in licensing legislation, which we did with the full agreement of government. The burdens do not fall proportionately on the biggest companies. They can employ a compliance officer or two but, in a small company or a small football club, you do not have a compliance officer so you have to turn to other people for advice. It therefore takes longer and costs more.

It is like anything in life. If you own a large number of flats as opposed to one home, and you take out insurance and are filling out a form, you know only too well that if you have done it once for one flat, it is just the same the next time. If you are dealing with one property, you do not know because you have never been confronted with the issues before and so you have to turn to other people for advice. The burden is not proportionate. There is a massive imbalance between big clubs with huge turnovers and the smaller clubs living completely hand to mouth.

I have quoted once already from the review. The point I want to raise was triggered by the presentation from the shadow regulator. When he was talking about staff, I believe he said that it had just recruited five people for IT systems. We are told, indicatively, that the regulator is likely to employ some 250 people—that is more than 10% of the total of DCMS’s staff, covering all the range of its departmental remit. Are five people needed for an IT system?

Then I actually looked at the review. There was reference earlier this evening to the question of clubs in terms of a few clubs. In fact, the review says:

“Many clubs are poorly run”.


It goes on to say of the regulator:

“The Review has … concluded that the new financial system should involve real time financial monitoring”.


That is what those IT employees are there to do. They are not there to operate the regulator, because you do not need that many for the day-to-day operations of a business of that size. It is about investigating the processes. When they go to a club and ask it to produce the information, it will say no, because it operates on a completely different system.

When I was first involved with boundary changes, we tried to get figures out of local authorities about the number of voters on an electoral roll. Noble Lords might imagine that the returning officers from different authorities would operate on identical systems. No: they were on four different computer systems. It took several years to get the accurate figures. This is precisely what will happen with the small clubs. They will be operating their own systems, when suddenly along will come the regulator to say that it wants the information, but that it wants it in its own computer system, not the clubs’. Sadly, the likes of Stockport County, Rochdale, or wherever it may happen to be, will be told that they must revise their IT system because they have to give the regulator the answers and the computer says no.

The compliance costs fall very heavily on the smaller organisations. They are not proportionate, and we should be honest about that.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Addington and Lord Hayward

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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”.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Addington and Lord Hayward

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just used two words which are of significance: “subjective” and “clear”. The problem with the Bill as drafted, judging from the lengthy debate we had last Wednesday and today’s proposed amendments, is that we are trying to provide clarity in relation to very subjective words, not least of which is “sustainability”, which is used several times. All these amendments are about looking at ways of making things clear, so that the football regulator can operate in some form or another.

The noble Lord was present throughout the debate last week, and during that debate I spoke about the threat to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has referred: that other sports and organisations will overtake our system—the Premier League and the other leagues—unless it is able to modernise and change as time goes on. What worries me genuinely about the Bill as drafted is that it almost implies ossification. It is an immovable process, because “sustainability” is just not clear.

Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league whereby a set of clubs would be in a league of their own, never challenged. Quite rightly, the nation’s fans—not just this nation but a whole series of other nations—rose up and said that that is utterly unacceptable. Despite that, some clubs still believe that that is the right way to go. The Champions League has extended and we have the UEFA Conference League, et cetera. They are involving more and more British football clubs, and I welcome the success.

In referring to the football results of the past few days, I apologise profusely to my noble friend Lady Brady. But the success of the Premiership was identified in the fact that, albeit only briefly, Brighton & Hove Albion were second in the Premier League. That does not imply an unchanging, rigid position; it implies that the Premiership and the league system can develop. I was listening to the commentary on Liverpool v Manchester City—I apologise to any Manchester City fans for referring to yesterday’s game—and it was striking that, before the game, Radio 5 Live observed that there were more foreign correspondents covering that match than were covering the Liverpool v Real Madrid game only four days earlier. That indicates the very success and potential our system has—as long as it is reasonably developed and allowed to progress.

I have doubts, to be honest, about my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, because I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome that of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans, because it gives the Bill a better perspective and tries to provide clarity beyond the merely abstract word “sustainability”, and to develop some other aspects to which the football regulator should refer.

When I spoke last week, I was highly critical of the impact assessment, and I continue to be so. I know that it is largely based on the impact assessment prepared for the previous Bill, so I do not criticise the Minister; I criticise my colleagues in the previous Government just as much. However, I said that the impact assessment was intended to justify the current Bill, and that is made clear in paragraph 17:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.


In other words, it is providing support specifically for this Bill. It does not look at a range of other issues, which my noble friend Lord Goodman identified when he quoted from Tracey Crouch’s original report, relating to the overall success of the football industry in this country.

I believe that we need to provide greater clarity and greater indications of what we are trying to protect, develop and allow to go forward. Although last week I criticised the total lack of reference to “success” in the impact assessment, and I stick by that, I was very pleased, in part, to receive the letter from the Minister, page two of which has a section entitled “Proportionality and promoting success”. That is the attitude I want to see reflected in the Bill, in whatever phraseology we choose.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be an appropriate time for me to make a few comments on the Bill. Amendment 12 suggests that the regulator will be able to have a very positive input into the marketplace. I do not know how it will achieve the aim of attracting significant domestic and foreign investment. Let us face it, our Premiership and our football structure have no divine right to be the most popular show in town, end of story. We all agree on that, but this Bill is about the fans and what they want from their domestic game. They want it to be there, and they do not want it disappearing off to Europe, or the top names disappearing off to Europe and the structure going.

If the Minister can point us to where we will have limits, and to the encouragement of involvement, we will all be able to move on a bit, but the “sustainability” factor is actually making sure that our domestic structure is there. I do not know how much else we can do without massive intervention by the state. Are we going to say, “You are not going to pay any tax on your revenue”, which means the state has no involvement anyway?