Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to address gambling sponsorship in football, and include proposals to ban sponsorship entirely. This is a significant issue. I acknowledge the genuine concerns that many have, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of gambling in sport. However, I would like to provide some context and explain why I believe that further interventions in this area are not required at this time.

The Gambling Act review has recently and comprehensively considered the role of gambling sponsorship across all sports, including football. The Government’s response reflects the extensive engagement and evidence gathered during that process. As part of this, the Premier League has already taken significant, proactive, voluntary steps to address concerns, demonstrating its commitment to act responsibly.

Most recently, the Premier League and its clubs have led the way, not just within football but across all sports, by taking the voluntary step to move away from gambling sponsorship on the front of shirts. This was a key ask made of us by the DCMS, and we agreed. This is a significant decision, and one that I do not believe any other major sports organisations have taken.

The impact of this step on clubs is, frankly, quite painful. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, most clubs cannot afford to do it, but they have done it anyway because they have been asked to. The typical difference between gambling and non-gambling shirt sponsorships is around 40%. For some Premier League clubs, this decision will mean a reduction of around 20% of their total commercial revenues. For clubs in the bottom half of the Premier League table or those newly promoted, the financial hit will be especially pronounced in the short term, and comes on top of the £250 million hit to Premier League clubs over the Parliament, as I have already mentioned in this Committee, following the Budget’s rise in employer national insurance contributions. The pressures are acute, but the Premier League clubs took this decision, fully aware of the difficult commercial consequences, because it was the right thing to do and was aligned with what the Government asked of us.

Furthermore, the Premier League has led the way in driving forward the development of an all-sports code of conduct, published earlier this year. This sets out standards on gambling partnerships, including the critical issue of awareness and responsible gambling messages, that all clubs and sports organisations will adhere to. The code reflects the seriousness with which football in particular is addressing this issue, and provides a strengthened framework for responsible engagement with the gambling sector.

It is important to acknowledge the vital role that gambling sponsorship plays in supporting clubs across the football pyramid. For many clubs, particularly those outside the Premier League, gambling sponsorship represents a significant source of revenue. That is the reality we all need to be conscious of, especially in the context of the Bill, which focuses on financial sustainability. Noble Lords may be aware that the EFL has a much greater reliance on gambling sponsorship, including its title sponsorship deal with Sky Bet. The Premier League itself has never had a gambling sponsor. This demonstrates that the issue is not uniform across football and that heavy-handed interventions may well risk disproportionately affecting clubs lower down the pyramid.

The Premier League’s voluntary decision to phase out gambling on front-of-shirt sponsorship is just one major step, but it is proof that football is taking this issue seriously. It shows that football can lead the way on responsible change, even when it causes difficulties for clubs, without the need for heavy-handed interventions. We must properly address concerns about problem gambling and the need for responsible behaviour and stringent regulations. Football must clearly be part of the solution, as it wants to be, just as all sport needs to act responsibly. However, I argue that the Premier League in particular has already shown important leadership here, taking proactive and voluntary steps that, as far as I am aware, no comparable organisation has yet replicated.

In the light of the progress already made, I respectfully suggest that football does not require further statutory intervention in this area. We have shown—but of course we must collectively continue to show—that we can be relied upon to make progress on this vital issue.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his vigilance on this topic, as he always showed when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. I know he will be particularly vigilant as the Minister holds the responsibility for gambling. I am sure that she will be glad to have the chance to talk about something directly in her portfolio, in addition to the work that she has been doing on the Bill.

I am pleased to hear that the hip operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, went well, and even more pleased that she missed my disobliging comments about Arsenal this evening. That is the team she supports, so it is probably just as well that she was not here to hear them.

Of the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am more taken with Amendment 143, which seeks to require football clubs to consult their fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. I am mindful of the example of Wonga, a payday loan company rather than a gambling firm, and Newcastle United. It was an important reminder of the discomfort that fans feel when they are forced to wear the logo of companies and others of which they might not approve when they buy the football strips of the team they support.

Engaging fans on sponsorship is worth while, particularly where the companies are ones about which clubs know that fans have views. The noble Lord set out the growing concerns about the prevalence of gambling in sport and its potential to influence fans, particularly younger and more vulnerable groups. If we can strike a better balance between the immediate commercial needs of clubs and the long-term interests of the fans who support them then that is worthy of our consideration.

I am struck too by the points that my noble friends and others have raised about the importance of sponsorship deals on the finances of football clubs—particularly those in the lower leagues—to maintain their financial stability, which is such an important point underlying the Bill. Although Amendment 143 has much to commend it, the consultation must be a genuine and two-way conversation between clubs and fans to address the importance of investment in the sport and the good work that many are doing.

The second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, Amendment 255, seeks to prevent regulated clubs and competitions promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship altogether. In doing so, it rather overrides the open-minded consultation of his first amendment. I think this goes too far: an outright ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship would, in my view, be too blunt an instrument for addressing the complex issue of gambling and the broader questions of sponsorship in football.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling both amendments and the fact that we can consider them side by side in this group. I look forward to hearing what the Gambling Minister has to say about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by my noble friends which seeks to remove equality, diversity and inclusion requirements from the corporate governance code outlined in the Bill.

First, I acknowledge a concern that I believe underpins this amendment: the sense that EDI has, in some cases, become a compliance-driven exercise, where box-ticking and slogans replace meaningful action and real change. I recognise the frustration with the rise of what some see as the EDI industry, where jargon-laden initiatives create more paperwork than progress and risk alienating those they seek to engage. I share those concerns.

I know from my experience in football and the wider business arena that real change does not come from bureaucratic edicts or tokenistic gestures. In the end, change comes from understanding people and the barriers they face, the biases they encounter and, above all, the opportunities they need to succeed. For me, EDI must be about more than processes; it must be about outcomes.

This is where football, and particularly the Premier League and its clubs, is showing how it can be done and done well. The Premier League’s equality, diversity and inclusion standard, or PLEDIS, is a good example of an enabling framework that empowers clubs to embed EDI in their operations while avoiding the pitfalls of bureaucracy. I am very proud to say that West Ham United have been awarded the highest level of PLEDIS you can get.

PLEDIS is not a blunt tool; it does not impose rigid, one-size-fits-all rules. Instead, it provides clubs with expert guidance and a structured framework to identify their own unique challenges and set meaningful goals. For example, clubs are supported to collect and analyse data so that they can understand where underrepresentation exists, whether in senior leadership, academy coaching staff or community programmes. Clubs are helped to develop tailored plans based on their specific circumstances, whether that means increasing female representation in the boardrooms or improving accessibility for disabled fans. PLEDIS helps to bring about a genuine culture of learning and development. We have held some really good educational sessions about unconscious bias, cultural awareness and inclusive leadership.

I am not saying that everything the Premier League does is perfect, but we have tried collectively to develop a system that avoids the pitfalls of bureaucracy and instead empowers clubs to take ownership of their EDI journey. You need some outside help and challenge for it to work effectively. You need external expert support to ensure that clubs are not left to navigate this work alone and to help clubs turn principles into action, with practical advice rather than burdensome mandates. The key to success in EDI is not just to measure compliance but to drive cultural change. That is what the Premier League approach aims to achieve. I believe that PLEDIS almost always continues to be used when clubs are relegated to the Football League, because clubs find it so valuable.

Consider too the impact of initiatives such as the Premier League’s No Room For Racism campaign. Although public facing, this work is backed by systemic efforts within clubs to tackle discrimination, create pathways for underrepresented groups and hold those in power accountable for progress. The Premier League has developed great programmes to develop more black coaches, bring more South Asian players through the talent pipeline and help black players on the path to becoming club executives.

All this matters, and I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Fox that it cannot be about box-ticking. It is about ensuring that every player, coach, staff member and fan feels that football is for them. When implemented correctly, EDI does not create diversion or resentment; it fosters unity by ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate and succeed.

I have a lot of sympathy for my noble friends who worry about the potential for overreach or missteps in EDI, and my noble friend Lady Fox is right that poorly conceived and implemented EDI policies will be burdensome and ineffective. But now that EDI has been put into the Bill, my approach will be to work with the football regulator to ensure that it is done thoughtfully, innovatively and with that laser focus on outcomes. Football clubs will have nothing to fear from embracing this work. EDI done well is not a threat; it can strengthen clubs by ensuring they reflect the communities they serve and are able to attract diverse talent, and will fundamentally make their clubs better places for everyone to work.

This does not have to be a binary choice between rigid mandates and doing nothing. The best path forward is an enabling framework supported by expert guidance and underpinned by meaningful accountability. Clubs should be encouraged, not coerced, to embrace this work; it can and it should be aspirational. I urge the Government and the regulator to consider how these requirements can be implemented with that spirit in mind.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing this amendment and for giving us opportunity to look at the new additions that the Government have put in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough reminds us, this is one of the areas in which the Bill has changed from the Bill that was before the previous Parliament. He did not like the other one either, but I think that it is clear that he likes these provisions even less.

While I am highly supportive of efforts to improve equality of access for people in football and indeed in all sports—when we last looked at these issues, I spoke about the progress we have made in tackling the horrendous racism and homophobia that blighted football for a long time—I share some of the concerns that my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, have raised about enshrining in law what are clearly shifting sands. As the ever-changing acronyms and the ever-expanding rainbow of colours on flags and lanyards show, this is an area that continues to change, and we must not allow the noble aim of opening up access for people and treating everybody with equal respect to be pegged to a certain moment in time in the way that it is done. I am mindful too, as my noble friend Lady Brady has just reminded us, of the enormous strides that clubs have taken to drive improvement in this area, and we congratulate West Ham on the recognition that they have won for their work on that.

We must be very wary of what is a mandatory requirement in the Bill, in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment focuses on, and the clear cost and burden that will impose on the clubs that have to comply with it. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough spoke about those costs and burdens, and he was right as well to worry that, with the work that is done in this area, we sometimes inadvertently bring about division rather than diversity as we pit various groups of people against one another in what sometimes feel like informal hierarchies of grievance.

I share some of the concerns that my noble friends have raised, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for honing in on this further requirement that the Government seek to impose on clubs. I hope the Minister will respond to the points that they have raised.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 91 and 92 because they try to make the regulator a consultee on listed events and would place a duty on it to have regard to the desirability of making more domestic games free to air. I have huge respect for the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard, and their colleagues, and I know that these amendments relate to a manifesto commitment made by their party, but I hope it is helpful to talk a little about how football’s broadcast economy works in practice.

The Premier League’s domestic broadcasting rights are contracted through to 2029. Of course, they represent far more than a simple commercial arrangement: they form the foundation of English football’s entire economic model, and their thoughtful and innovative packaging is a hugely important part of the Premier League’s success. The substantial revenues they generate enable the Premier League to provide £1.6 billion of support to the wider pyramid, representing 16% of central revenues, of which—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, may like to know—£25 million goes to funding the PFA. That is why it keeps its joining fee at £20 and its subs at £150.

The sophistication and complexity of broadcasting arrangements is enormous and a huge source of competitive advantage for English football. Each broadcasting slot and each package of rights exists within an intricate ecosystem where values are fundamentally interdependent. These are not discrete assets that can be easily separated; they form a carefully balanced whole that has taken decades to develop to create value and appeal. Forcing certain matches to be free to air would not just affect those specific fixtures; it would fundamentally undermine the value proposition of every broadcasting package.

Premium broadcasters invest based on exclusive content that attracts subscribers. Remove that exclusivity—even partially—and decouple certain packages from each other and the entire model becomes unsustainable. The consequences that would cascade throughout football are significant. A significant reduction in broadcast values would not just affect Premier League clubs but immediately impact the entire pyramid through reduced solidarity payments, youth development funding and grass-roots investment. The damage to football’s economic ecosystem would be profound and potentially irreversible.

Of course, this sort of intervention would create exactly the kind of seismic instability the regulator is meant to prevent. In an attempt to increase access to certain matches, it would risk destabilising the very mechanism that funds football’s broader development and sustainability. The Premier League’s success in maintaining the growing broadcast revenues, which benefit the entire game, comes through very careful and innovative management of these arrangements. While I respect my noble friend’s motivations and good intentions here, I must strongly oppose the expansion of the scope of the IFR in the way proposed.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 265 falls in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who has tabled it with me. I know he shares my gratitude to the public service broadcasters with which we have discussed this matter.

Our amendment and the two in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke, all attempt to bring protections for the listed events regime into the scope of the Bill, or at least to give us the opportunity to have the debate that my noble friend Lord Moynihan rightly says is needed and perhaps even overdue. In saying that, I am very mindful that we were likely to have had that debate in the exchanges on the now Media Act earlier this year, had the general election not intervened and had the then Bill not gone through the abbreviated processes in wash-up. I think my noble friend is right and that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have agreed, had he been here, that these issues deserve some consideration.

The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I have brought forward is intended to probe the Government about how they plan to protect digital on-demand rights for the listed events regime. While live television viewing of events is currently included in the regime, there is nothing to stop clipped videos of digital on-demand rights from going behind a paywall. My noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere would certainly have enthusiastically taken part and would have made some very interesting points in the debate we could have had on the listed events regime. This is in the context of public service broadcasters that are broadcasting things that have been deemed particularly important for the public to see in a way that is different from the commercial suppliers, which can provide so many other things to people in the differing ways that they do.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been worth while having it again, painful and irritating though it may be. I am sorry if that upset the Minister—it certainly was not my intention to do so. I did it because this issue matters.

By the Minister’s own admission on Monday, she did not know about the issue of hybridity until it was raised with her on Monday. Does she think that a few hours’ consideration, along with all the other matters we gave attention to in Committee on Monday, and a few minutes’ debate in Committee late on Monday evening, is sufficient to dispose of an issue as fundamental as this?

As I said in my opening remarks, the Government Chief Whip knew about this issue at the same time I was alerted by the clerks, on 26 November, almost a week earlier. I am grateful that he stayed to listen to our debate on this group. Maybe he, if not the noble Baroness, can tell us what discussions he had in light of that issue being raised with the usual channels on 26 November. This is about engagement with the people, organisations and businesses that this new law will profoundly affect. I was shocked to hear what my noble friend Lady Brady said about only seven hand-picked clubs being given just half an hour of—

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

As requested, I will clarify who the seven invited clubs were: West Ham, Crystal Palace, Brighton, Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and Brentford.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for providing that information to the Committee. As I am not the world’s greatest aficionado of football, I will leave it to others judge whether that is a representative spread of the beautiful game, but I am interested to hear from the Minister the rationale by which those clubs were selected. I would like to know whether she was present at the half-hour meeting with those clubs and, if she was not, how much time she has given to engaging with clubs before bringing this legislation before your Lordships’ House and asking us to pass it.

As my noble friend Lord Markham set out, the changes the Government have made to the Bill since the last Parliament—on backstops and parachute payments—make this a substantively different Bill. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton: this is not a virtually identical Bill; there are some substantial differences in policy terms, to do with parachute payments and so on. I think she would agree that those affect certain leagues and clubs more than others, and engage the question of hybridity and to what extent this Bill is targeting certain groups differently from others.

As with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, my Amendment 19 was a probing one to see whether we could provide clarity in the Bill for those whom it will regulate, so they know from the outset what they must do and that they must comply with it. Like the noble Baroness, the first I knew was when we received the advice from the Clerk of Legislation explaining that this would make the Bill a hybrid one.

It is worth saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that the previous Bill, when it was in Committee in another place, was not a hybrid Bill and it was right to conclude that. The question is, if we give that explicit information to the English Football League, the Premier League and the National League, so they know that they are going to be covered by this law—which the Government, in their Explanatory Notes, say they will: something they are happy to say outside the House but are not happy to say in the Bill, because that would afford them the right to come and speak directly to Parliament—then it is a question well worth pausing on, and I make no apology for returning to it today.

I am proud of the way your Lordships’ House scrutinises legislation; we go through things sometimes slowly, more slowly than Governments would wish— I have stood on the other side of these Dispatch Boxes and share the pain the Government Chief Whip and the noble Baroness are feeling today. This is a shining example of the importance of your Lordships’ House and the excellent advice we receive from its clerks. Thanks to that advice, two successive Lords’ Ministers for this Bill have been alerted to the fact that it could become a hybrid Bill if it is said in it what it is trying to do. That is an important point to have returned to in Committee, and I would like to understand from the Minister why, when we pass this law, we should not tell the people it is going to affect that it is going to affect them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 37, I will speak to my further amendments in this group, Amendments 38 and 123. In the letter which she kindly sent to the Committee earlier today, the Minister displayed her familiarity with and affinity for Erskine May and, even if I did not have unbridled delight as to the contents of the letter, I was pleased to see this reference to one of our great constitutional experts and authorities on legislative procedure.

In that spirit, I would like to quote another revered expert on constitution matters, the great AV Dicey, who expounded that:

“The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.


In more recent times, the Constitution Unit at University College London has set out particularly relevant arguments for the importance of parliamentary accountability. In its 2023 briefing Parliamentary Scrutiny: What is it and why does it matter? the unit rightly said that:

“Government accountability to parliament is central to our democratic system”.


I think this all demonstrates that the right of Parliament to oversee and hold public bodies to account must be upheld dearly as well.

This new regulator, which we are bringing about through this Bill, will at the start of its existence have recourse to public funds. It is crucial that any body which has funding streams derived from the taxpayer at any point should be accountable to and scrutinised by Parliament. That is what Amendment 123 requires.

Amendment 37 seeks to ensure that any person who is appointed to the board of the regulator must be approved by a parliamentary committee, and Amendment 38 requires the chief executive to appear before a parliamentary committee at least once a year if they have been so invited. This ensures that anyone who is going to be holding any formal position in this new regulator can be scrutinised by parliamentarians before they can be appointed.

Following on from the debates in the two groups that we have just had about conflicts of interest, it may be that rather than setting it out in the Bill, as the probing amendments sought to do, the parliamentary oversight that we could bring about this way might be able to give us the reassurances we seek that the people who are given these awesome new responsibilities are doing so without conflicts of interest or the pressures on them that we wish to resist. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, which I think are very helpful because they will help to tease out one of the real challenges at the heart of this Bill—how to achieve the right balance of proper oversight with the absolute necessity of delivering regulatory independence. We should, of course, acknowledge the natural instinct to ensure democratic accountability of any new regulator. Given the cultural and economic importance of football to our nation, Parliament should rightly maintain some oversight of how this new body exercises its considerable powers.

The question “Who regulates the regulator?” is beginning to be asked more and more often, not least in relation to the many clear failings of UK regulators, and rightly so. However, I believe we must also tread with real care here. Football’s international governing bodies, UEFA and FIFA, have clear provisions against state interference in the game. While their primary concern has historically been direct government control of national associations, they could well choose to interpret these provisions more broadly. We have already seen their willingness to act even in response to the mere creation of this regulator, and we have seen the Government’s instant removal of a clause in this Bill relating to foreign and trade policy. This tension means we must achieve a delicate balancing act: too little accountability and we clearly risk regulatory overreach; too much involvement of the state and our democratic institutions and we risk creating leverage that could be used against English football’s interest.

I have already spoken about some of the risks here. If Select Committee oversight and IFR responsibility to both bodies was seen as political interference, it could feasibly create that leverage we have warned about whereby clubs participating in European competition, or even England’s tournament participation, is put in jeopardy. We have already seen concerning signs of how these tensions might play out. In just a short time since this Bill’s introduction, we have witnessed numerous attempts to expand the regulator’s scope from environmental sustainability to ticketing prices and kick-off times to corporate responsibility requirements. I am concerned about how this pressure might intensify with direct parliamentary oversight.

Members of the other place, responding quite correctly to constituents’ concerns, might press the regulator to intervene in broadcast arrangements or ticket allocations, or elements that go to the heart of competition tools that should be reserved for the leagues. Select Committees could demand action on issues far beyond the regulator’s core financial sustainability purpose. Each intervention, however well intentioned, risks creating exactly the kind of state interference that could threaten English football’s international position.

We have seen this pattern in other sectors: regulatory mission creep that is driven by political pressure and external events. Football’s unique international framework makes this dynamic particularly dangerous. Every expansion of scope and political intervention creates new vulnerability to UEFA and FIFA leverage. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she responds, could explain how the Government intend to manage these competing demands. How will they maintain appropriate accountability while preventing political pressure from expanding the regulator’s remit? How will they ensure that parliamentary oversight does not become a backdoor for state intervention in football’s affairs? What safeguards will protect against the regulator being drawn into issues that should remain matters for the football authorities only?

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this issue has been directly discussed with UEFA and, if so, what its view is on how the IFR’s independence should be preserved in this respect. It seems clear that without comprehensive assurances on every single aspect of the IFR and how it will operate, we risk inadvertently subjecting English football to permanent external control. The irony of creating this leverage will be quite incredible. In seeking to protect our game through regulation, we must not end up permanently compromising its independence and losing control of English football for ever.