Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Scriven to this debate and congratulate him on making those points. When it comes to the modern slavery amendments—to take on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—if other people are looking at this, surely the regulator should be able to take their opinion. Surely that would be a reasonable step. If the Bill does not allow that, I am sure we could do that quite easily.

On state ownership, I put my name to Amendment 200 because I thought that at the very least we deserved an answer. The previous Government’s Back-Benchers did not like the Telegraph under control and, let us face it, more people have heard of Newcastle United than they have the Telegraph.

This is an important point. Are we happy with a cultural asset being in the hands of a foreign power, regardless of the fact that we have a reasonably good relationship with it on most things? It is not all things, as we do not like certain things about it. That is a real question, and the Minister is being asked a series of real questions. I hope that at the end of this we will know whether these points are worth pursuing at other stages of the Bill. These questions really should be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we have indeed touched on the matter of foreign ownership elsewhere in the Committee’s discussions. I am very glad we have had the opportunity to have a proper debate on it this afternoon, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that it has been a very good one.

Of course, there are, and have long been, a number of clubs in English football with some element of foreign ownership, whether through individuals or investment vehicles. Many of them have been very generous funders of the sport and in certain cases have turned clubs around for the better, with huge benefits to their communities. But there is a fine line to tread here between maintaining that inward investment and openness to the world, and preventing malign interference.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has been able to join the Committee today. I enjoyed the debate he brought on sportswashing, to which I responded. We touched on some of these matters, and my view when speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite, which I still share, is that there is a distinction to be made between news organisations, which provide information to the populus, and sports organisations. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan has pointed out on previous groups, sport has always succeeded in rising above politics and has often been a forum in which people can raise complicated issues and foster dialogue between countries that may not be able to talk about things directly quite so easily.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, address modern slavery once again. I am conscious that we had Amendment 153 on modern slavery from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in that rather strange miscellaneous group the other day, so I will not repeat what I said about the issue then. But I am interested in and broadly supportive of the issues they are raising and very glad to have heard the contribution of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who has done such important work in this area. I am glad we have been able to return to the issue of modern slavery and let other noble Lords add their voices to what we said when we were debating Amendment 153 on Monday.

As someone from Tyneside, I must add my concern about the implications of Amendment 200 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which, among other things, would prevent clubs being owned by sovereign wealth funds. I think he accepts that if we were to accept his Amendment 200 the way he has worded it—he alluded to the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s investment in Newcastle United—it would have the consequence that Newcastle might not be granted an operating licence and so would have to withdraw from the Premier League. I have to say that he would not be very popular on Tyneside if that were the case.

It would be very helpful to have some clarity from the Minister about how the regulator will deal with clubs that currently have foreign owners or foreign sovereign wealth fund investment, and how it might approach prospective owners from abroad in the future. Like others, I would be very keen to hear her answer to the questions that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised and repeated so powerfully today.

During the course of this Committee, the Prime Minister has visited the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He was there just before it was announced as the host of the 2034 World Cup. He has invited the Crown Prince to come and watch a football match here in the UK when he next has the opportunity to visit. I would be interested to hear whether they discussed football and some of the issues we have discussed today, or indeed the thorny question of whether the Bill would bring the Crown Prince and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia into scope in the way that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

190: Clause 37, page 28, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a determination under section 28 or 34, the IFR must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.”

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 190 I will speak to my further amendments in this group, Amendments 191, 195 and 198. I will also speak to Amendment 204, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, to which I have added my name as well.

The amendments in this group focus on the criteria that the regulator will take into consideration when determining the suitability of a potential owner of a regulated club. My Amendment 190 is intended as a probing amendment, to tease out the reasonings behind the Government’s removal of what was Clause 37(2) in the previous version of the Bill. While the wording of this amendment is exactly the same as that of the subsection that was taken out when the present Government introduced their version, I want to be clear that I am not necessarily arguing that I want to see it reinserted. My intention here is to use this opportunity to understand why the Government took it out, and to ask the Minister a few questions for the sake of the Committee to elaborate on the Government’s position.

The Government have said that the previous requirement for the regulator to have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of the United Kingdom and its Government was one of the main concerns that UEFA had with the previous version of the Bill, and that removing the provision has pacified it. But has it fully pacified UEFA? We have not yet had sight of the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State, which the Committee has heard about a number of times. My noble friend Lady Brady sent her own correspondence to the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, on 2 December, asking her to publish that letter and to place a copy in the Library so that the Committee can see it, but I do not believe my noble friend has yet received a response. It would be very helpful for the whole Committee to be able to see that letter, so we can be reassured about what exactly UEFA has said in that regard.

At present, it is not clear whether this provision was the only part of the previous Bill with which UEFA was not content or whether there are further parts of the Bill currently before us with which it is still unhappy. It would be useful to know how strong UEFA’s opposition was to the old provision on trade policy and so on. Did the Government remove it because UEFA threatened to exclude England from European competitions if, and only if, it remained in the Bill, or was UEFA’s opposition weaker and focused on other aspects of the Bill? I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on that for the Committee, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Brady will receive a response before Report.

My Amendment 191 would insert the word “relevant” to Clause 37(2)(c). This requires the regulator to consider whether a prospective owner or officer has been party to any civil proceedings in a court of law. The intent of including “relevant” here is to give a more precise wording, and indeed a bit of leeway. Our concern is that the current wording permits a wide range of court proceedings to be considered by the regulator—for example, divorce or child custody would surely be a civil proceeding. Making this simple change would focus the scope on civil proceedings which are directly related to somebody’s ability as an officer or owner of a regulated club.

I seek through Amendment 195 to prevent the regulator amending the considerations relevant to owner and officer determinations. This follows the theme that we have carried through this Committee of ensuring maximum clarity for clubs which are going to be regulated, and ensuring that the powers granted to the regulator by Parliament are not expanded in future. To allow that would be to grant the regulator a blank cheque to demand more and more requirements as it wishes.

The last amendment in my name in this group is Amendment 198, which would remove the provision stating that the regulator may not refuse ownership of a regulated club because of a prospective owner’s connection with the Government of a particular territory. I am sure we can all think of particular countries or territories at present which would indeed be grounds for immediate disqualification—this perhaps flows from the debate we had on group 2. For instance, at present, connection with the Government of the Russian Federation would surely be an open-and-shut case—would the Minister not agree? We want to ensure that the regulator is independent of our own Government, of course, but I do not see why the regulator should be prohibited in law from considering factors such as this in the determinations that it makes.

Amendment 204, in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, prevents the regulator prohibiting multi-club ownership models. There are currently a large number of Premier League and English Football League clubs which are owned by individuals or consortia that own other clubs. There has been some controversy in this area, I gather, but we should be alive to the benefits of the model—one of which is a reduction in financial risk. It gives the ultimate owner of a club greater protection from one of their clubs being relegated or suffering a slump in revenue. Because there is a common owner, other clubs in the multi-club model can act as a buffer to absorb losses in one of the other clubs. There is, consequently, less risk of that owner facing difficulties and having to sell the club or, even worse, that club going into administration. Multi-club ownership models can absorb financial risk, thereby aiding the regulator to achieve the goals we want to see it achieve in regard to financial stability Surely the regulator should not prohibit this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 191, which seeks to add the word “relevant” to Clause 37(2)(c). This would be an important adjustment that would bring additional clarity and guidance to the IFR, as it develops its ownership test. The clause currently requires the independent football regulator to consider

“whether the individual is or has been a party to proceedings (other than criminal proceedings) in any court or tribunal”.

This is a strikingly broad provision. It would allow any civil proceedings, regardless of their nature or relevance, to count against someone in an ownership determination; it may even be that the individual in question seeking ownership has brought the civil action or tribunal that, as a result, is likely to disqualify them from owning a football club. It is a very concerning approach. Amendment 191 would provide a much-needed safeguard against unintended and disproportionate outcomes.

Let me take this opportunity to ask the Minister again the question I asked earlier in Committee—it is quite a fundamental question. Is the ownership test provided for in this Bill going to be subjective or objective? That was not made clear by the Minister when I asked the question before, so I would really like clarity—surely it cannot be both. Without this clarity, we risk creating an ownership framework that is open to arbitrary and inconsistent application, which would undermine investor confidence and, ultimately, the credibility of the regulator.

This concern is particularly acute when we consider the clause as it stands. Most successful businesspeople who have lived rich and varied commercial lives will have been involved in civil proceedings at some point, somewhere in the world. These could range from contractual disputes to regulatory disagreements or employment tribunals, and very often instances where they were not at fault whatever but had to defend their interests or bring such cases themselves. Are we seriously suggesting that such proceedings should disqualify them from passing an ownership test?

This is not a hypothetical concern. Civil proceedings can be entirely routine and, in many industries, reflect the complexity of modern business rather than any moral or professional failing. The absence of the word “relevant” means that such cases could be treated as a disqualifying factor, even when they have no bearing whatever on the individual's ability to responsibly own or direct a football club. This is not aligned with practice in any other regulatory sectors and will create an entirely unnecessary barrier to investment.

Clarity on the scope and purpose of the ownership test is essential for not just the regulator but the entire football ecosystem, including investors, leagues and clubs. Noble Lords have already highlighted serious issues with the current drafting, not least the lack of definition of “significant influence”. On the very unclear situation of Newcastle United, the Minister confirmed that the Crown Prince would be subject to the owners’ test, and the issue of significant influence would mean that this is the case. At least that situation was clarified and he knows where he stands.

Amendment 191 provides an opportunity to address at least one aspect of this mixture of problems by narrowing the scope of Clause 37(2) to focus only on what is genuinely relevant. This small change would provide greater clarity, fairness and confidence for all stakeholders in football. I encourage the Minister to reflect on this issue and the broader issues around this element of the Bill. As we move towards Report, it would be helpful to hear how the Government intend to address the now quite numerous concerns about the scope and application of the ownership test in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene so early, but the noble Baroness has said something quite stark. The policy of the United Kingdom is very clear in relation to the Russian Federation at the moment. Roman Abramovich was sanctioned because of the UK’s very clear position and the ownership of Chelsea was changed for a brief period. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport owned it on behalf of the nation and oversaw the sale. I understand the Government’s stated reasons for taking this out of the Bill, but should the regulator not be able to take into account the foreign policy issues of the day on something as important as this?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord has pre-empted the further comments that I was going on to make. I can address this here. Clearly, in the example that is given regarding Russia, anyone connected to a state that is subject to sanctions would not pass the test. That is a straightforward way of picking up some of the concerns that he has raised.

The intention with all this is to ensure that the test can be applied consistently and remain fair, transparent, robust and focused on whether an individual is suitable to own a football club. Furthermore, the Government have been clear that the independence of the regulator is vital. That is the point I want to stress here and that is why the Government have removed the requirement for the regulator to have regard to His Majesty’s Government’s foreign and trade policy objectives when assessing an owner’s suitability, which is the precise requirement this amendment seeks to include.

Turning to Amendment 191, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and assure him that the intent of his amendment is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. The Bill sets out a number of matters the regulator must take into account when considering an owner or officer’s fitness as part of the owners’ and directors’ test. One of these is whether the owner or officer has been party to civil proceedings. As with all public bodies, the regulator must take into account all relevant matters and must disregard irrelevant matters when it comes to making decisions. That means that the things listed in Clause 37(2) will affect the regulator’s decision only if they are relevant in a specific case. That picks up on the issue of relevance.

In other words, the regulator must treat these things as potentially relevant to its decision, but it must consider the specific facts and context in every case. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also picked up on the issue of relevance. For example, the regulator will not be concerned with whether an owner or officer has contested a speeding ticket. However, it will be concerned if a civil court has found that an owner or officer has acted in a seriously dishonest way or if they have a track record of civil cases that cast significant doubt on their integrity. The test is designed to allow the regulator to make a holistic evidence-based assessment of suitability, taking the context into account, as I have mentioned previously.

I turn to Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 201 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. On the latter, I completely agree that an unspent serious criminal conviction is likely to affect whether an individual is suitable to be a club’s custodian. That is why the regulator is already required to take any criminal convictions into account when assessing an owner or officer’s suitability —it does not have a choice: it has to. I reassure my noble friend that we take her comments seriously and are grateful for the way in which she expressed them today.

The Bill does not set out exhaustive details on every element of the fitness test as to what constitutes a pass or fail. Instead, it allows the regulator to make a holistic assessment, which, crucially, is able to take into account any context and relevance. We believe this approach is key. If someone’s criminal history makes them unsuitable, the regulator can fail them on that basis. By comparison, the binary nature of the league’s current tests leads to a less sophisticated assessment of suitability. That is why this test takes a different approach. I reassure noble Lords that the Bill as drafted already requires the regulator to consider any unspent serious criminal convictions, and we fully expect the regulator to treat these as very significant factors in its assessment.

I turn now to Amendments 195 and 198 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We have already covered this point. We are talking about a private letter to the Government. That is my understanding of the situation. I do not feel qualified to comment further at this stage.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is a private letter that has convinced the Government to change the Bill in the way that we are debating here, so I hope the noble Baroness will take that away and hear the repeated request from the Committee to see this letter. It has persuaded them to take out the provision that I am probing with my Amendment 190 and every time we return to this matter, the Committee gets a bit more confused about why the Government have done it and what may or may not be in that letter. I appreciate what she says but I would be grateful if she could let us see it.

I apologise for intervening so early. What the noble Baroness said subsequently was very helpful. Also, the example I gave was not a helpful one because Roman Abramovich was sanctioned and if a person becomes sanctioned, as the noble Baroness went on to say, that individual would indeed be covered. To give her another, necessarily hypothetical example, if an unsanctioned citizen of the Russian Federation, connected to the Russian Government and supportive of their illegal war in Ukraine, wished to become an owner of a football club in this country, the combination of taking out this provision about allowing the regulator to have regard to the foreign policy objectives of the Government of the United Kingdom and the refusal to accept my Amendment 198, which covers links to foreign Governments, means that the regulator would not be able to prevent that person—a Russian citizen connected to the Government of the Russian Federation—becoming an owner of a club? Does she not think that is an unfortunate consequence of the changes the Government have made to the Bill because of this UEFA letter which we have not seen?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With regard to the UEFA letter, I refer noble Lords back to the comments that my noble friend Lady Twycross made previously. To clarify, we did not in fact say that the letter was the reason for changing the Bill; we said that UEFA’s views more generally were the reason for change. With that, I think I can leave that there. I also want to make the point again that anyone subject to sanctions would not pass the test.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But somebody who is not subject to sanctions but who is connected to a Government whom the UK is in dispute with would not be covered because of the removal of this provision from the Bill. I am happy if the noble Baroness wants to write on this, but this is an important matter because this is a change to the Bill. I understand the Government’s stated reasons for changing it—we do not want to see football teams in this country unable to take part in international tournaments and we want to make sure that the regulator is independent of government—but I worry that by making the change in the way that we have and by not adding in the additional safeguard such as the one I am proposing through my Amendment 198, we open ourselves to a situation where somebody connected with a foreign Government cannot be taken into account by the regulator. If she is happy to commit to write on that, we would be grateful.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

We have gone through this several times. If there could at least be some private way in which those people involved in this could see this letter, it would be of assistance, because this is becoming a hardy perennial that is getting in the way of progress.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her helpful comments. I am not able to comment further at this moment. I think the detail is probably beyond this discussion and I recognise the comments about going round and over things again.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness but it would be helpful if we could have something in writing on this. As I say, I gave a poor example in the case of Roman Abramovich, but the hypothetical example is one that I would be grateful for an answer to. That would be appreciated. But I am grateful to her for what she said and the reassurances she gave on some of the other amendments that I have tabled in this group on civil offences and so on. I take on board the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised about multi-club ownership. I recognise that this is a live and lively debate in the sport. What we were trying to test with Amendment 204 was that the regulator should not be restricted on that basis alone. But with gratitude to the noble Baroness and eagerly awaiting the letter that will follow, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 190 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

206: Clause 45, page 37, line 10, at end insert “, unless it has ceased to be a regulated club by virtue of being relegated from competitions specified by the Secretary of State under section 2(3) of this Act.”

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak only briefly to Amendment 206 as it is quite simple. It seeks to prevent clubs which are relegated to a competition which is not regulated by the new independent football regulator being subject to the prohibitions of Clause 45.

Currently, any club that is relegated will have to continue to abide by these rules for a period of 10 years. Clause 45 has a similar provision applying the rules in that clause to relegated clubs for five years. It seems unfair that a club that is relegated to a league or competition below the scope of the new regulatory regime should have to abide by the rules set out in the Bill for such a long period. Surely a fairer approach would be either to shorten the period or, as my amendment suggests, to remove it altogether.

Clubs that no longer operate a team in a regulated league will, by virtue of their relegation, receive lower incomes and potentially lose players. The financial situation they face will not be commensurate with the duties placed on them by the Bill, and retaining these long time periods seems to render the principle of specifying competitions, as the Bill does elsewhere, less meaningful. Why specify certain competitions if clubs playing in leagues that are not specified would still be subject to duties in the Bill? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 206 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, because I have walked this tightrope. When I was leader of Stockport Council, we had to financially advise and support Stockport County on several occasions. In the end, in 2013, we acquired the freehold and leased it back to the new owner of Stockport County, Mark Stott, for 250 years. That enabled him to get investment in and get the football club moving back into the league and climbing the divisions. That is where we start from: the position of the club and its value as a loan against something.

If we can get local authorities and other people to get hold of the freeholds, that will save Toys-R-Us from being built on certain football grounds on the south coast and give the clubs real opportunities to move forward. So we should support the amendments. We should also probably be thinking about how we can strengthen that in future. There is more involvement in the community value and the asset to a town and area of a football club, so we could be a bit more imaginative about how we protect that, rather than just arguing over how we should cover a loan against the ground.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few quick words about my amendment in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and other noble Lords for their amendments in this group. My Amendment 236 would introduce a new duty encouraging clubs to consult the Office for Place before making any decisions regarding their home ground or the construction of a new one.

I know that the Government have proposed to wind up the Office for Place, but I wanted to draw attention to its work, and in particular the excellent work of its interim chairman, Nicholas Boys Smith, and the board and staff who were working in Stoke-on-Trent. I think a lot of us share the disappointment, because we saw the Housing Minister after the election tell the BBC that the Office for Place would be kept. But, following the Budget, I understand that the Government are proposing not to keep it. I did think it could play an important role here, as it has in so many other areas of public policy.

My amendment offers a clear benefit in terms of promoting meaningful engagement and ensuring that football clubs consider the broader social and cultural impacts of their decisions. That is a theme that noble Lords touched on when introducing their amendments in this group. I think we all want to see clubs take a more holistic and responsible approach when planning changes to their home grounds, helping to preserve the heritage of these much-loved sites while ensuring that development is in the best interests of both the club and the community in which it is rooted.

In light of the need for more thoughtful and inclusive decision-making, my amendment tries to strike the right balance between promoting consultation with an expert body, fostering collaboration and ensuring that long-term planning for home grounds is done responsibly. I appreciate the points that noble Lords raised in their amendments and look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to them all.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. They sound very reasonable to me. We need to avoid the situation of groundless clubs. Coventry City come to mind. They had some very awkward years and some equally awkward ground sharing. We want to avoid groundless clubs and ground-sharing clubs. Avoiding stadiums being used as security for loans taken out by owners is incredibly helpful. I very much hope that the Minister will support that.

I also support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I declare that I am a member of Historic Houses and tend to bang the drum a little about heritage and aesthetics. To give a personal example, my local team are Shrewsbury Town. They had this amazing stadium, Gay Meadow, on the banks of the River Severn. They had a chap or chapette in a coracle who would go out into the river when the ball was kicked into it. Like many other clubs during the 1990s and 2000s, they moved to a sort of identikit shopping centre stadium. I guess it has some practical advantages, but it is pretty soulless and is like so many other stadiums. So I hope the Government can listen and take this into account. We have some amazing stadiums in this country. If we are going to get a club to move, let us move them to a better home, not a worse one.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, it is probably important to remember that a lot of this is about making sure that we preserve our football league. If a different Government had not intervened, we would have a European Super League and the Premier League would not be there. That is what happened.

We must remember that the preservation of those top five leagues is intrinsic to the Bill. If we want that to carry on, some money will occasionally have to be raised to support their structure so that it is more stable. The noble Lord’s amendment is reasonable. There may be a reasonable answer about why it does not have to go in, but I agree with the concept.