Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

I would very much appreciate the Government’s detailed response on these matters in writing at their earliest convenience, because they go right to the heart of the success or failure of the Bill, our future in Europe and indeed the World Cup competitions. I very much hope and request that the Minister takes these requests to UEFA and FIFA so that the Committee can be completely comfortable that they are in line with the regulations and, as a result, there can be no conflict in future that will be to the detriment of football and fans.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but the noble Lord has said time and again that the Bill may jeopardise British clubs competing in Europe. Can the Minister clarify that in Italy the legislative decree 9/2008—the Melandri law—and in Spain the royal decree law 5/2015 both deal with the distribution of audio-visual rights, and both insist on a significant amount of distribution to lower clubs? I have not heard that clubs from Italy or Spain have been refused participation in European competitions.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I support in the strongest possible terms my noble friend’s Amendment 67A. After the backstop issue, this is the most important issue in the Bill. For the fans of some teams, the ability to play in Europe and their clubs’ fortunes there are more important than what happens with the national side. We are being asked to consider something so fundamental that we cannot do it with this proposed legislation unless the Government publish the letter and any subsequent conversations that they have had with UEFA. Otherwise, we cannot really take into account the full ramifications of what the Bill may do.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up best when he said that it was the risk of the breakaway league that caused the Bill to come into consideration in the first place. I humbly request that the Minister shares with the Committee everything that UEFA has said in relation to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is proposing to speak to her amendments in this group.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

The amendment in this group that I tabled has been covered by some of the earlier discussions we had and some of the assurances that the Minister gave.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I look forward to her noble friend the Minister’s response to it, if she feels she has anything to add to it in this group.

The debates that we have had on this group, which concerns reporting requirements, cast my mind back to the debates we had during the passage of the Online Safety Bill on testing the duties for Ofcom to report back on how it would operate the new regulatory regime that the Act set up. My noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood talked about future-proofing and emerging technologies, and this is an opportunity, through the reporting, to make sure that the changing technology and new areas of work are not just in the mind of the regulator but brought back before Parliament for some consideration.

My noble friend Lady Brady—I pay tribute to her being here for the consideration of the Bill, particularly this evening—described the first-mover disadvantage. Notwithstanding the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned about the Italian and Spanish legislation—and I will certainly look at the extent to which that has lessons for us—what we are doing here is on a scale not done by any other jurisdiction. We want to make sure, as we are doing it, that it is working and that it is brought back before Parliament for proper consideration.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought amendments in this group and spoken to them. My Amendment 121 in this group is simple and technical. The Bill states that the regulator

“must arrange for a copy of every report under this section to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State”.

The wording of the amendment and the original wording of the Bill may seem very similar, but the substantive difference here is that we think that the duty should fall on the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament, not on the regulator. The Secretary of State is directly answerable to Parliament, whereas the independent football regulator, at least in the way that the Bill currently envisages it, is not. Surely it is therefore the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the actions of the regulator and to present the relevant documents to Parliament for scrutiny.

That would not be interfering with the regulator’s independence. Ministers already do this on behalf of other independent regulators: they are not carrying out the regulation but they bring documents before Parliament on the regulators’ behalf. Indeed, they are often asked about the way that regulation works, in addition to the power of Select Committees to call people who work at the regulators directly before them.

My amendment would also standardise the wording of the Bill. For example, Clause 11(6) states:

“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”,


and Clause 13(6) states:

“The Secretary of State must lay any guidance, or revised guidance, published under this section before Parliament”.


If the Bill envisages elsewhere that the onus is on the Secretary of State to lay documents before Parliament, I do not understand why it does not do so also in Clause 14. I am curious to probe the logic in the drafting to see why there is that discrepancy and whether we ought to change it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

94: Clause 10, page 6, line 35, after “football” insert “, including factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the State of the Game report to include, in its overview of issues affecting English football, factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, there are quite a lot of amendments in this group, so I should say at the outset that I am trying to get assurances from the Minister on two specific points. They relate to the “state of the game” report, on which I know a lot of work has already been done.

The first assurance is that the report will be as comprehensive as possible. My colleagues and I have listed a number of items that should be included. Some are issues that we have already discussed. Some are very significant, such as community, social impact, how well managed clubs are, an assessment of the distribution arrangements, issues around women’s football, multi-club ownership, player welfare, equalities and social inclusion. All those things should be encompassed by the “state of the game” report, and, without going into any one of them at this stage, I hope we can agree that this report should be as comprehensive as possible. It is important that the regulator has independent and substantial information on which to make judgments. That is the first point that I raise with the Minister and on which I seek her assurances.

My second point concerns the timing of the report. As I said, I know that a lot of work has gone on to prepare for the report. The Bill suggests that it should be out as soon as possible, but gives an 18-month deadline. One amendment in this group seeks to reduce that to 12 months. Given the amount of attention on the Bill, that it has been in the pipeline for so long and that people are aware of these issues, a 12-month timescale should be appropriate. I hope the Minister agrees that the report should be published as soon as possible.

There is also the question of how often we should have this report. The Bill suggests five years and my amendment suggests three. It suggests that the report should be presented to Parliament. This is not a controversial area, but some reassurances would be beneficial, so that everybody is clear where we are going forward.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the “state of the game” report is one of those things that has been almost universally welcomed. It will look at this very big and complex industry, with a very successful top and struggling foundations—that is how the industry appears to many people.

My name appears on this amendment alongside that of the noble Baroness because of things such as social impact. We are doing this because it is reckoned to be an important subject that matters a lot to people, and we keep being told that it is a big business—the biggest invisible earner going. If we get a report that is too narrow, we will not be looking at this huge social impact and what goes on.

Many of the things that we are talking about here are out of scope of the main operation of the Bill, but they should be looked at somewhere. The women’s game is one that comes to mind, along with players, which these amendments propose would feature here. If we are not going to look at such things in the Bill, we should look at them in the “state of the game” report.

It is a huge subject that we are talking about here; we have taken on something that is quite brave. If we do not find out how it is functioning and what is going on, we will be missing a trick. I would hope that we would do this as soon as we can—having slightly more frequent reports, at least at the beginning, would not be a bad idea. The “state of the game” report is a huge opportunity for gathering a great deal of very useful information.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have set out, I hope noble Lords and my noble friends will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased there is such agreement about the importance of the “state of the game” report. The Minister has given some elements of reassurance, but on others I wish she could have gone a little further.

Because of the late time, we have not discussed in depth all the elements we were talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned multi-club ownership, which I think we will come unto at a later stage.

The one point I cannot agree with that has been said is that football has benefited from benign neglect. Benign neglect of good governance in football is the reason we are here today.

But there has been progress here. I am glad everybody accepts that this report will be important. On that basis, at this stage, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.