Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

It therefore appears that EFL clubs do not have the same concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has expressed to us. I simply point out that the corporate governance statement requires no more than that the club explains what action it is taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion. As I understand it—and the Minister will say if I am wrong—it imposes no substantive requirements of any sort. It is a provision purely intended to provide information as to what a club is doing, if anything. I, for one, would be very interested to know—and I am sure many other people would be, particularly the supporters of particular clubs —what they are doing. This amendment is inappropriate, unnecessary and has no basis whatever.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in his amendment and speak to my own in this sphere. These amendments aim to remove the requirement for clubs to submit EDI statements to the independent football regulator detailing their plans to improve, as we have heard, equality, diversity and inclusion policies. This requirement was added to the original Bill by the Government and, in my view, is unnecessary and burdensome and could act as a Trojan horse for politicising clubs in ways that would be divisive.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just explained, it is a duplication of work that is already done by many clubs. The Premier League and the EFL already require their clubs to do work in this space to comply with the EDI standards of those leagues. Can the Minister therefore explain whether the expectation is that they need to more or to do EDI differently and what does “improve” comprise? Perhaps the Minister can elaborate on what she envisages will trigger sanctions for non-compliance. What would non-compliance look like?

This especially matters for all those clubs that this Bill will regulate beyond the Premier League and the EFL—all those National League clubs that operate on the tightest of margins with very small staff and volunteer teams. Think of the sanctions: clubs could face the IFR publication of a censure statement and/or the requirement to appoint an external EDI professional, and they do not come cheap. Clubs could face financial penalties or, ultimately, suspension or revocation of their operating licence, so there is a cost to pay and a lot of pressure to comply that could well generate substantial financial and time burdens on clubs.

All the evidence shows, across a multiple of institutions, that EDI regulatory regimes often divert scarce time, attention and resources away from the core mission and priorities of organisations. They also tend to expand their remit because one of the most obvious ways that regulated organisations prove their EDI credentials is through ever-more elaborate, flashy guidance documents, mandated training programmes, unconscious bias workshops and so on. It is a perfect example of a well-meaning policy that grows and proliferates, an exemplar of self-fulfilling mission creep. It was recently revealed, for instance, that Oxford University now employs 59 staff in EDI roles—a 20% increase since 2022—at a cost of £2.5 million a year before pensions and benefits. This seems baffling, given the dire state of university finances.

However, such concerns about EDI’s bureaucratic and financial burdens are not confined to a few of us here. As we have heard, last week, two regulators made similar points. The Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority announced their decision to abandon plans to impose diversity and inclusion rules on financial firms. Surely this must give the Minister pause for thought. It is surely not too late to consider deferring this section of the Bill to consider such adverse outcomes, and to consult on specifically this issue with stakeholders, fans and so on.

If we listen to the debate within the financial services sector, it is instructive. Wendy Saunders, a partner and head of financial services at Lewis Silkin, said that it was a huge relief that the FCA was no longer proceeding with its diversity and inclusion proposals, which she said

“would have imposed unwarranted costs on firms without delivering clear benefits”.

Instead, the regulators in financial services will limit their role to voluntary industry initiatives—I am not opposed to that. Surely such a voluntary approach is appropriate for football too. Requiring the new football regulator to impose what other regulators admit is too burdensome is not proportionate.

My key question to the Minister is still: what problem is this measure as a solution to? We heard in Committee and since that there is a concern about the lack of diversity at clubs’ senior management level. There is little evidence, however, that EDI—whatever its good intentions as a theory—will resolve this problem in practice. I would be reassured if the Government elaborated on how they envisage that EDI policies will operate in relation to HR and employment in individual clubs, because EDI has a very poor track record of improving workplace culture—the opposite is often true.

Last week, Trevor Phillips wrote an insightful comment piece in the Times entitled:

“There’s a better way than DEI to fix prejudice”.


In it, he warns of the way that EDI policies can stir up resentment and competitive victimhood that will do little but cause conflict in workplaces. He says that DEI programmes

“increasingly appear not to be aimed at making the workplace a better, more productive environment but a modern-day inquisition dedicated to damning white men merely for their existence”.

Meanwhile, at King’s College, members of staff were told that they could not get promoted unless they signed up to the whole of the university’s EDI initiatives, including taking part in activities run by Stonewall, an organisation now considered so controversial that it has been largely ejected from activities in Parliament and Whitehall. EDI training at Imperial College includes:

“How to be a White ally”.


Staff have been asked to agree that they have white privilege. I just want to know whether the Minister envisages that as a productive thing if it happened in clubs. Is that what she thinks EDI in clubs will look like? It certainly looks like that in many organisations. Does the Minister see the dangers of this introducing a contentious and politicised agenda into clubs’ culture? Although EDI is often framed as fostering better decision-making, in reality it often reinforces groupthink in workplaces.

I am just worried that this seemingly small part of the Bill will unintentionally drag football clubs into murky political territory. I note that there is a judicial minefield here. For example, if clubs chose to set quotas to fulfil their EDI requirements based on people’s protected characteristics, would that not open up the gate to biological males who identify as women being able to play in women’s sports? This is such a political and ethical topic, and noble Lords see all the controversies that the FA is involved in here—the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, spoke so passionately about this in Committee.

I am not suggesting that noble Lords have to agree with my sex-realist gender-critical views on this, but I urge the Government at least to wait for the judgment by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, which relates to the definition of a woman and how a trans woman fits in under the Equality Act. Is there a danger that EDI provisions could unintentionally open clubs up to being challenged in the courts and make them subject to spurious litigation in this area?

In fact, over the weekend, we found out that one of the biggest girls’ football leagues in the country, West Riding Girls Football League, is being threatened by the Football Association with being shut down for refusing to allow boys to play in its matches. Last week, an emergency meeting was held by organisers of the league, which has at least 6,000 under-18 girls playing across more than 300 teams by the way—fantastic progress with girls in football.

At that meeting, managers voiced their concerns that allowing boys to play would open the floodgates and was a massive threat to the girls’ game. Parents are looking to take their daughters out of the league, with girls themselves saying that they will give up if boys join, and the FA’s response is that “this is part of our inclusion and diversity strategy”.

Your Lordships do not have to agree with me. The Minister may dismiss these concerns as all a bit culture wars-y, even a bit Trump-ite. Nothing could be further from the truth. So to reassure the Minister, I would like to call on one of her Cabinet colleagues as an ally. Wes Streeting told a Macmillan Cancer Support event: “There are sometimes some really daft things being done in the name of EDI, which undermine the case. For example, there was one member of NHS staff who was merrily tweeting a job ad online, saying that part of her practise was anti-whiteness”. As Wes Streeting said, “What the hell does that say to the bloke up in Wigan who is more likely to die earlier than his more affluent white counterpart in London?” He concluded that the real issue of inequality that affects working-class people is not addressed here, and called for the ideological hobby horse of EDI to go. I agree. I think we should drop it from the Bill, which does not mean that we should not fight tooth and nail for equality and fairness in all walks of life.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is rather an odd one. Apparently, we are in favour of equality but not in favour of doing much about it. A reporting strategy on what we are doing to improve equality and diversity does not strike me as terribly onerous. Indeed, if we are doing something that comes under the “expletive silly” category, we will know if it is reported. I suggest that we are trying to build a little monster here—build it up so as to have something to knock down. There are real battles to fight; let us wait for those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94D and in so doing echo the welcome that the House has given to the Minister on introducing Amendment 90. Amendment 94D focuses on the role of the FA and recognises that when the 2023 White Paper was written and supported by both sides, it expressly backed delegation as a good idea. We understand that the shadow regulator would also welcome the ability to both formally and informally delegate functions to competition organisers, especially around first-line areas such as monitoring and administrative elements of licensing.

My amendment does not require the Government to do more at this stage than recognise that, following the review of the Act, if that report concludes that the regulator’s objectives could be achieved more effectively by delegating an IFR function to the Football Association, at least on the face of the legislation, that would be possible. As I say, it recognises that in the White Paper the Government saw merit in sharing or delegating regulatory responsibilities in certain circumstances. It also begins to address the current complete severance of the umbilical cord between the role of the FA, as the national governing body of football in this country, and the contents of this legislation, and goes at least one step towards addressing the fact that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA, not least in accordance with the FIFA and UEFA statutes. We know that legislation that compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England would be non-compliant with these statutes. This amendment at least opens the door a little to the FA undertaking its role as the sole regulator of football, which has otherwise been stripped bare by the other clauses.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise, rather unusually, to congratulate the Minister. I think this amendment is very important. I am not going to congratulate the shadow Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, only because he has been congratulated all night on Newcastle’s win, and I think, “Do me a favour; it’s not him that did it”. Anyway, I wanted to get that out and about.

We have heard some genuinely fine speeches in Committee and even on Report—some of the best I have heard since I have been in the Lords. Just today, the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his colleagues, by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and by so many others were passionate and reasoned, with oodles of evidence, and so convincing. But sometimes the speeches have felt a bit more desperate, as though we were banging our head against a brick wall, tearing our hair out, with a tone of, “Is anyone listening? Do the Government understand the genuine concerns about this Bill? This is not just people messing around for sectarian reasons”. So I think it is important to acknowledge a couple of glimmers of hope.

Government Amendment 18 from the other day, saying that the IFR needs to have regard before it imposes any restriction and must consider whether it is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means, defangs a lot of the things that worry me about the Bill. It at least gives the regulator pause. Yet some of us, especially after today’s debate, are still very nervous about unintended consequences, anticipate trouble ahead and genuinely worry about what is going to happen to a game that has all the jokes about Newcastle and its fans and what it means to them. Imagine a whole nation being disappointed by this Bill if it does not deliver as they think it will and, not only that, damages the game that they are so passionate about.

Amendment 90 is very important. It is important to assess the extent to which the objectives intended have been achieved. I think, though, that it is important that the Government are not just allowed to mark their own homework there. It is one thing saying that there is a review, but who the reviewers are and the form of that review seem rather key questions.

It really is incredible that in the Bill we have a review that is going to ask whether the objectives remain appropriate after a few years; in other words, the objectives of the regulator can be completely changed. What is more, it asks whether those objectives could be achieved more effectively in another way. My answer now—before a review—is yes, which is why we do not really need the regulator in the first place. At least someone somewhere is asking that question.

This matters, and I think it shows that the Government and the Minister have been listening. I therefore urge the Minister to listen now to the smaller amendments in this group that enhance what the Government are trying to do with a little bit more detail. Will she accept this amendment as we finish Report and say, “Yes, I have listened, and we are not going to be an overbearing, overweening supporter of a regulator that will destroy football. We are going to do our best not to do that and will accept these amendments”?

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I will stick to what I know about, and for that reason I will make no comment on football. I too commend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 90 in response to the debate in Committee. This is a wholly positive development.

As I said then, the House of Lords Constitution Committee in its 2004 report Parliament and the Legislative Process recommended that Bills, once enacted, should be subject to post-legislative scrutiny—a recommendation endorsed by the Law Commission. In 2008, the Government accepted that Acts should normally be reviewed three to five years after enactment, with reviews sent to the relevant departmental Select Committees in the House of Commons.

Since then, not all Acts have been reviewed. Practice in recent years has been somewhat patchy. Some departments have been good at reviewing Acts, others not so. I commend those departments that have undertaken thorough post-legislative reviews and have made Written Ministerial Statements when they have done so.

The Minister said in a recent Answer that some Acts were not reviewed following correspondence with the chairs of the relevant Select Committees. I am not sure how the chairs will know whether or not a review is necessary if they have not carried out a review. This is something I may pursue. However, I am keen to commend those departments that do undertake post-legislative reviews, and I especially welcome this amendment that puts the review on a statutory basis. There are precedents, but not many—as my noble friend Lord Goodman indicated—so I am delighted that we have another.

In essence, the amendment reproduces the normal practice for a review, although it goes a little further in prescribing a draft report and stipulating bodies to be consulted, which constitutes a significant concession. Given that, the amendment is to be welcomed, and I hope it will be emulated by other departments.

I have sympathy with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Goodman; I can see why he wishes to commission a report by an independent body. I suspect the Minister will point out that bodies can carry out reviews if they wish to anyway and doubtless will.

As far as the amendment goes, I think it is to be wholly welcomed. It is a very good development, and it is very positive in showing how the Government have responded to the debate in Committee, which shows the value of this place. I hope the message will go out to other departments to follow suit.