Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

178: Clause 26, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
(c) respects and promotes the protection of human rights and prevents modern slavery (as set out in section (Human rights and modern slavery considerations)).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an individual to respect and promote the protection of human rights and prevent modern slavery in order to meet the individual ownership fitness criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, our Benches at the back here have three amendments in this group. They cover modern slavery, human rights and slave ownership. The purpose behind the amendments is to flesh out from my noble friend the Minister how the independent football regulator may approach some of these issues.

As we have heard on a number of occasions during debates on the Bill, football clubs are more than just businesses. They are community institutions; they have values, and they have provided some of the best examples of taking on social issues over the last few decades. We are trying to establish whether there should be a test that mandates having robust human rights due diligence and the ways in which owners can be held to account and prevent harm. State ownership and those two issues are inevitably bound up. We will recall from the ownership debates that circulated around Newcastle United when it was taken over some years ago the considerable concern expressed.

In updating the individual ownership fitness criteria to include reference to human rights and modern slavery, we have taken account of Amnesty International’s proposed amendments to the previous Premier League test. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which the UK was the first country in the world officially to implement through a national action plan, requires all states and businesses to prevent, address and remedy human rights abuses where they occur.

It is our contention in putting these amendments forward that we need to have a view on state ownership but also on the role that the IFR may play in trying to establish thresholds and principles around such issues as modern slavery and human rights, because these things are important. They are important to football fans; they are important to the moral and guiding principles behind our businesses, and, more generally, we should use the opportunity of having a regulator for football that has a view on these issues when it comes to judging the merits—or otherwise—of those who seek to own important institutions such as football clubs. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the amendment means well. It is laudable that we encourage football clubs and the football community to take seriously these important issues around human rights and modern slavery. My concern is about the wording, because I believe that the inclusion of such an amendment in the Bill in respect of the appropriateness of an owner will give rise to unnecessary litigation. Let us remember that the amendment does not distinguish between an individual and a football club. If it were to do so, it would be more sustainable in terms of developing policies around human rights and combating modern slavery. However, it does not do that. It is nebulous in its wording, and I think the drafting would cause grave difficulty because it references individuals—the owner, in essence—meaning that there will be problems down the line in how the amendment is interpreted.

It is a value judgment as to whether an individual respects human rights. What does that actually mean in primary legislation? How do you measure it? What is its objectivity? What does success look like in terms of respect? The wording is very loose and would be very difficult—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Our wording mirrors the wording in Clause 28, which says:

“A person may not become an owner of a particular regulated club unless”,


so I do not think that the wording is the point here.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but I am reading the amendment that he has tabled. The third word is “promotes”. What does that mean in terms of an objective criterion for how an individual would promote human rights, and for how he or she would protect the human rights of those involved in football and the club that they were involved with? The amendment is an example of potential regulatory overreach. Seeking to enforce it would be a straightforward prima facie case of ultra vires actions, because it would be unenforceable.

Having said that, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s Amendment 200 on state ownership of football clubs. We will have a good debate on that. However, on Amendment 178, the noble Lord is gilding the lily. Although he has good intentions, it is not a workable amendment. It would damage the interests of football clubs and be difficult for the regulator properly to enforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will of course happily withdraw the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I have a few points to make in response. Generally, this has been a useful and valuable debate. We have had reassuring clarity from the Minister on the issues of concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked a practical question about how this would work. There is already an issue, in a sense, for the regulator to deal with. Under Clause 28(2)(a)(iv), the regulator will have to look for—and will certainly want to know—the source of funding. I can only assume that that is because we do not want the funding of our football clubs to be in any way under suspicion and/or linked to criminal activity, particularly human rights abuses and modern slavery. In Clause 28(2)(b), there is a fairly wide power for the independent football regulator to require information. Clearly, there are practical questions in carrying out inquiries and investigations into the source of funding that owners will offer up, but this is just one of those issues that will undoubtedly be tested over time.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that putting amendments forward like this is tantamount to regulatory overreach. If we were not concerned about issues such as modern slavery and human rights abuses, we would be selling the world of football short.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Surely the noble Lord will concede something. Proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 185, which he signed, mentions

“whether A has been complicit in … non-crime hate incidents”.

We are talking about the ownership of a football club. What does complicit in a non-crime hate incident even mean in the context of a strategy to deal with human rights and potentially preventing someone, via primary legislation, owning a football club?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I would hope that we would be concerned by things like hate incidents—those are important considerations. I certainly do not want my football club to be associated in any way with that, and I know the club itself does not. I am sure that goes for most clubs up and down the country.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady, Butler-Sloss, and the Lib Dem Front Bench for their support. I take most of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as being broadly positive, in terms of what we were trying to achieve with this little group. The issues are important, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that I have no great desire to become massively unpopular with Newcastle United fans. I am probably a bit unpopular because Brighton seem to beat them regularly anyway.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

But clearly, we should we look at these issues. State ownership is an issue we should keep under careful consideration. The Minister has said that all forms of ownership will be scrutinised in a similarly robust way, and we should be satisfied with that. So, having heard what was said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 178 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam, some of whose amendments I have signed. I also want to pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has just made. He mentioned Coventry, who moved to Northampton, which is about 35 miles away and obviously not at all convenient for fans. My noble friend Lord Bassam’s club, Brighton, moved to Gillingham, which is, what, 70 miles away?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Seventy-two.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I urge the Minister to give this some more thought, because it is a pertinent and powerful core issue, and we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, for raising it. As the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, fans worry about these things; they do not want to see “home” meaning something completely different. That is why we should have something in the Bill on this topic.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, very much. My two teams are Liverpool and Tonbridge Angels of the National League South. One is an internationally competitive team—and the other is Tonbridge Angels; but place is crucial to both teams. If you are a fan of Liverpool from Los Angeles or Singapore, the place of Anfield and the locality and the community relationship are absolutely part of what it is you support. Home and away fixtures are a routine part of how the Premier League competition is conducted. That is why this is essential, not just to large clubs but to small clubs across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

250: Clause 53, page 42, line 22, at end insert—
(f) the amount which the IFR estimates is necessary to fund appropriately for that period the Central Fund established pursuant to Section (Central Fund).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds another factor which must be considered (namely the amount required to fund the Central Fund - see amendment 254) when determining the amount of the levy.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, we can probably dispose of this one relatively quickly. All that we seek is some reassurance, on the record, that the levy raised by the IFR will not overburden smaller clubs. We are trying to get some assurance that the levy will be relative to the income of the clubs and that any other levy that the IFR might want to raise for a central fund of any sort would also closely reflect the ability of the clubs concerned to fund that. It has to be relative to their income, strength and viability. That is the purpose of the amendments in this group, and I am keen to get that on the record.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have some concerns about what the noble Lord advocates in this amendment. He advocates setting up a central fund in one of his other amendments, and the purpose of that is not clear, unless it is to provide a mechanism, in effect, for redistributing the levy funding the operation of the regulator, presumably from bigger and better-off clubs to smaller clubs. That will dilute the incentive that should exist for the regulator to constrain its size, cost and degree of interventionism because of the effect on smaller clubs.

This comes back to the sense that the rich, big or better-off clubs are somehow there to be plucked in terms of the redistribution of funds down through the pyramid—already, 16% of the revenues of the Premier League goes down into clubs through the pyramid. My concern throughout the consideration of the Bill has been that, if the regulator is set up in too large a manner and exercises its powers as regulators have an inbuilt tendency to do—they increase their scope and degree of intervention—that will have a cost.

A primary aim of the Bill and of setting up the regulator is to “improve” the distribution of money down through the pyramid, but the more the regulator does, the larger it is and the greater the extent of its activity, the less there is to distribute. If it is not strictly controlled, it will become self-defeating. If the purpose of the central fund that the noble Lord advocates is, in effect, to increase that degree of redistribution from bigger clubs to smaller clubs, as it seems to be, the effect would be to exacerbate the concerns that a number of us will have about the direction of travel and the inevitable tendency for a regulator of this kind to increase its scope, size, interventionism and, inevitably, cost.

I have given notice of my desire to oppose that Clause 53 stands part of the Bill, on the basis that the power to impose a levy will damage football. If the Government are so concerned to have this regulator, they should raise the money for it themselves and not have the regulator able, in a very uncontrolled way, to impose a levy—potentially very large amounts of money, as the impact assessment makes clear—on the very activity of the sport that we love, inflicting damage on it that would run counter to the intention of the Bill.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to put the noble Lord’s mind at rest. Most regulators are financed by the industries that they regulate, and the noble Lord knows that; he knows a lot about regulation. Given that there may be, from time to time, a need to strengthen the capacity of clubs lower down in the pyramid to operate, comply with regulations and all the rest of it, it is not unreasonable for the IFR to have the ability and capacity to exercise a levy.

The Premier League is generating considerably large sums of money and, although the distribution down the pyramid looks extremely generous in raw number terms, it is worth being reminded that some 92% of the revenue generated ends up being maintained by the Premier League and those five clubs in the Championship that receive parachute payments and the rest. There is a lot of money here, and we need to make sure that the regulator has the capacity to intervene in a way that is entirely fair. Later amendments deal with some of this issue, but we should have that at the front of our minds when we consider this.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the amendments in this group, although I think, as my friend Lord Maude of Horsham pointed out, we are all listening with different hopes and expectations about what she may say.

Briefly, my Amendment 256 in this group specifies that the regulator must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than His Majesty’s Treasury in the abstract. It seeks to ensure a clearer line of accountability and strengthen the governance structure for decisions relating to the levy. The Chancellor might well delegate this responsibility, but she should be accountable in law and the Bill ought to point to her as the Minister at the head of that department and not anyone else at the Treasury. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s responses to the amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 250 withdrawn.