Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the opportunity to rise early on this group to establish the Government’s position on an issue the Committee clearly cares about. The Committee debated Amendment 19 at length on Monday evening and asked me to write on the points raised. I was not confused, and I do not feel that the Committee was sitting unusually late for discussions on important legislation. I also do not think that the leagues are confused about which leagues this legislation will apply to. I have since written to the noble Lords, and a copy of that letter has been placed in the House Library.

I also want to put this rationale on record and reassure noble Lords that this power is both reasonable and the result of extensive evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. This power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner, and it ensures that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future-proofs for future innovations and protects against circumvention.

On the noble Lord’s point, I note that the previous Government included an equivalent provision in the Media Act 2024—the noble Lord himself brought that provision before your Lordships’ House. I hope this provides the explanation that he was after. We have now debated the amendment at length, and I have clearly outlined the Government’s rationale for the power. I hope the noble Lord opposite is now able to withdraw the amendment so that we can continue progress on the Bill past Clause 2, and I look forward to continuing discussions on this matter ahead of Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I have already outlined the Government’s position on an issue that the Committee clearly cares about. I can confirm to the noble Lord opposite that I am clear that this position is correct and, if the noble Lord is concerned that I am upset, then I am slightly surprised. I am more concerned that the noble Lord thinks we should still be confused about matters on which I have written an extensive letter to noble Lords earlier today. The House debated Amendment 19 at length on Monday evening and asked me to write on the points raised. I have done so, and a copy of the letter has been placed in the House Library. I do not really want to repeat my explanation of when a Minister might have to nod; however, I will do so if that is raised again.

I hope we can work through any residual concerns swiftly so that your Lordships’ House might be able to lend its scrutiny, which I agree is important, to the other very important parts of the Bill. I understand the noble Lord’s desire to have in the Bill upfront clarity as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, as I explained on Monday night, and in my letter, there is a sound policy rationale for the approach taken in Clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that my Amendment 19 seeks to allow that to happen? In its second part, it keeps the provision for the Secretary of State to make, by regulation, amendments if the name changes. I take on board the point she made on Monday and that she repeated in her letter about the policy intent here, but my amendment, if she accepted it, would allow that to continue to happen. It would also give the clarity from the outset to the leagues that are going to be regulated.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I previously explained, I do not think that the leagues that are likely to be regulated by this legislation in the first instance are in any doubt, but I will answer the noble Lord’s point about why we are not going to put the top five leagues in the Bill and take a power to amend it. I believe I have set out very clear reasons for the approach taken on defining the scope of the regime. The Bill delivers the effect intended, closing any loopholes that would allow avoidance of the regime, while allowing for agility in responding to any potential changes in the structure of the football pyramid. This is a clear, simple procedure that can be consistently applied to the competitions initially designated as being in scope, as it can to any future competitions.

We have heard from numerous noble Lords opposite about their concerns over the number of delegated powers in the Bill, and I hear those. I have set out why specifying the leagues in scope in the Bill is a potentially flawed approach and open to avoidance. At best, this approach leads to superfluous or unnecessary provisions in drafting. At worst, it could undermine the entire regulatory regime. That is why the approach in the Bill that the Government have taken, and that the previous Government took, is the right one. For that reason, I am unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendment and hope he withdraws it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to hear that from the Minister; it does not give us much more than we had in the debate on Monday. I thank her for restating it, but I do not think it has engaged with the point that my amendment seeks to provide, which is allowing that flexibility to answer all the policy questions that she has set out, but also giving the clarity in law to the leagues that will be regulated by the Bill. As far I can see, the only material difference between accepting my Amendment 19 and proceeding in the way she wants to is that it would allow those leagues to petition Parliament and make their voices heard more clearly. That would be a good way of hearing from those who will be affected by this law.

I was struck by the sage advice from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who is acting as referee on this matter. This is something we will have to return to, and I am grateful to the clerks who alerted me to it. We will have to think about the question of hybridity and the right of football clubs and leagues to make their views known on this legislation, as the Minister and I have both just come to understand. The Committee has, through the course of this and Monday night’s debate, been able to begin considering it, and we should continue to consider it between—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their support for this group and apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. “Littered” was probably not a well-chosen word. I meant it in the sense of an adorable litter of puppies that enhance the joy of all of us. I am grateful too to my noble friend for giving another example in the shape of TNS. They seem to be the football league equivalent of him—both a Shropshire lad and a man of Harlech. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for setting out his Amendment 23 and hope that the Minister can allay the concerns that have been raised on behalf of all these clubs and others in similar situations.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Beith, for their amendments to Clause 2 and the opportunity they present for me to clarify this matter.

Amendments 20 and 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would allow the Secretary of State to include in the regulator’s scope competitions that are not exclusively or predominantly made up of English teams. This would mean the loss of an important protection that, as currently drafted, ensures Welsh football competitions could never be brought into scope. The noble Lord will be aware that sport is a devolved matter for Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, if intervention of this nature was deemed necessary within Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish football, it would be for their respective legislatures to take forward.

While I am on the subject of Welsh football, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Welsh national team, who qualified for the Women’s Euros last night. It is the first time in their history they have qualified for a major tournament. This is a fantastic achievement and one I am sure your Lordships will want to join me in celebrating.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On Amendment 23, I understand the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to ensure clubs are not inadvertently captured by the regulator’s regime or left out—for example, where they are based in England but compete in the Scottish league system. I reassure him that the Bill already sufficiently protects against this risk. Only clubs competing in competitions specified by the Secretary of State will be subject to regulation, and the Secretary of State can specify only English competitions. Therefore, clubs such as Berwick Rangers, which is part of the Scottish pyramid, cannot be subject to the scope of the regulator as long as they do not play in English competitions. Conversely, clubs playing in those specified English competitions, including Welsh clubs, will be regulated.

I am happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this further if that would be helpful but, for the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments. I hope that they will not press them.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As she could hear from the cheer, I think we all associate ourselves with the congratulations that she offered to the Welsh women’s team. It is marvellous news. I thank her for the reassurances. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are some of the quirks of our history that we celebrate through football, which we play across these islands. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the clarification she has set out and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the importance of friendly relations with our partners across the Gulf and the diplomatic power of football, does the Minister still believe that was the right approach for the leader of her party to take? And if England was playing a match in Qatar tomorrow, would she go?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham, in her absence the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton for the amendments in this group. It is absolutely right that clubs have suitable owners, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, among others. That is why a new statutory owners’ and directors’ test is a key element of the regulatory regime.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the current tests have proven ineffective. They result in a drawn-out process that still allows unsuitable owners into the system. We have seen numerous instances of unsuitable owners and officers causing harm to clubs and detriment to their fans—that stops now. The definitions ensure that those who are responsible for clubs can be identified and tested. They cannot hide behind complex ownership structures to avoid this, as existing tests currently allow. My noble friend Lord Mann made a strong case for strong tests, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie added his own experience of Wimbledon.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, asked a number of questions around the owners’ and directors’ tests. In response, I will say that football authorities can still conduct their owners’ and directors’ tests if they choose to do so, but the regulator’s test is set in statute. Any owner who fails the regulator’s tests will be removed and any prospective owner must pass the regulator’s tests before taking ownership, no matter the results of the league’s tests.

Given the importance of this issue, I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position further. I start with Amendments 27, 28, and 29 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The definition of an ultimate owner is an important part of the Bill, and we are confident that we have the right definition that achieves the Bill’s aim. The current drafting takes its lead from the precedent of other Acts that use “influence or control” together, including the Companies Act “persons with significant control” regime and the economic crime Act “beneficial owners” regime. This ensures that an individual who exerts significant influence over a club, more than that of any other owner, can still be identified as the ultimate owner, even if they do not have formal legal control.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

That is an exceptionally helpful and clear answer; now she has given us the Government’s view on what “significant influence” means. Why, then, do the Government not put that in the Bill, rather than simply say that at some stage in the future it will come forward under secondary legislation?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government’s view is that we do not need to put it in the Bill.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

It is absolutely critical to achieve the clarity that the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Watson, have been talking about, and I agree with them completely. What is needed is clarity for investors. It is absolutely essential that it goes in the Bill; it is critical to the definition of ownership and to the whole regulatory framework that is being placed in a hugely lengthy enabling Bill. The clubs and owners at the EFL and the Premier League need clarity. The Minister has very kindly given the Committee clarity on the definition, as she sees it, of significant influence, so what is there to resist in terms of placing it in the legislation so football clubs can consider it in detail?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to meet with the noble Lord and discuss this further, but in our view this is not required in the Bill but will become clear from the work of the regulator. We think this will be clear in practice.

This is also a term and a part of the Bill that was within the iteration of the Bill laid before Parliament by the previous Government, notwithstanding the noble Lord’s right to object to the Bill that his Government may have laid before Parliament.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene again on that, but that is actually not correct. The one area of the Bill that is actually different from the previous Bill is the requirement on the regulator to have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government, which is why we used the example of Newcastle. The Minister has not answered the very clear question: as chairman of the PIF, does the Crown Prince, who exercises control over the PIF, now exercise control over Newcastle, and as a result would be captured by the regulatory requirements of the Bill and not by the Premier League requirements?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, earlier, I said that I was not confused. I am now slightly confused, because noble Lords were very clear earlier in Committee that any issue with the legislation that might lead to UEFA objecting to it was problematic; now, the Government have removed a part of the Bill that was problematic and objected to by UEFA, that risked us being able to compete as a country in leagues within overseas competitions. So, I am slightly confused on that point, but as I said, I am happy to meet the noble Lord.

The other point is that the Companies Act guidance on this is long and complicated. In our view, it has more detail than is appropriate for the Bill, and I assume that the previous Government took the same view.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Can I clarify this point once and for all? Anything—not just the clause on the Government’s foreign and trade policy objectives—that could put a stop to our entry into European competition or World Cup competition should not appear in the Bill. I have argued consistently that anything that would cause the independent bodies regulating international football—UEFA and FIFA—to stop our clubs competing in international tournaments should be resisted at all cost. UEFA intervened and said that the clause to which we were just referring was a political clause and should be removed from the Bill, and the Prime Minister immediately removed it—but the moment you remove it from the Bill, there are unintended consequences.

This is nothing to do with what I just said, but removing it from the Bill has the unintended consequence of not giving guidance to the regulator that it has to have due regard to foreign and trade policy objectives—that is now removed from the Bill—but allowing it to focus exclusively on the significant issue of influence. I simply put the point that the regulator therefore has no protection. Given that the regulator has to deem on influence, does the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who has influence as chair of the PIF, which owns Newcastle, fall within the context of the regulation that this Government are putting before the House without the clause that was previously in the Bill? The answer is yes.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We cannot pre-empt or direct the regulator, which will make objective decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, I repeat that I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord to discuss and go through the unintended consequences that he appears to be concerned about. I will move on.

I turn to Amendment 30 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. When a club applies for a provisional licence, it has to submit a personnel statement setting out its owners, ultimate owners, officers and senior managers. The regulator will then approve the personnel statement, subject to any modifications, once it is satisfied that it is accurate. The club must then publish it, and this must be updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that it stays accurate. This, therefore, already provides clarity to the club, owners and fans as to who the owners, ultimate owners, officers and senior managers are.

A core part of ensuring that clubs have suitable owners and directors is the fitness test, which Amendment 177 seeks to expand. Let me be clear: the individual fitness test criteria for owners—honesty and integrity, and financial soundness—have been carefully designed. They are based on precedent and are specifically relevant to whether someone is suitable to be an owner of a football club. This amendment seeks for an owner’s competence to be assessed too. We do not believe that this would be relevant in the regulator’s assessment of someone’s fitness to be solely an owner. Some owners are hands off, and so their competence is not strictly relevant. If an owner also meets the definition of an officer, the regulator will be able to test them as both an officer and an owner. Therefore, as an officer, their competence would be assessed. However, an owner simply having a financial interest in the club does not mean that they make decisions that an officer would about how it is run on a day-to-day basis.

I turn to Amendments 181 and 183 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on the information that must be provided as part of a prospective owner’s application. I agree with the intention of the amendments —that the regulator will need information about an individual’s fitness in order to make an assessment—which is why Clause 28(2) already does that. It gives the regulator the ability to require information from an individual about their fitness. In fact, the Bill goes even further: it recognises that information about an individual’s fitness may come from, or be corroborated by, another source. That is why the Bill establishes information-sharing gateways with organisations such as the National Crime Agency. Specifically on Amendment 183, there is a risk that this amendment incentivises applicants to submit large volumes of unrequested information to the regulator, which could make it more difficult for the regulator to process applications efficiently.

The Government recognise and support the intent behind Amendments 182 and 184 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton: to ensure that football continues to be played in a club’s home ground and that owners are committed to this. However, in many instances, neither clubs nor club owners own their home grounds. This amendment would therefore place a requirement on prospective owners to commit to something that may not be in their control. The Bill already has a number of comprehensive home ground protections to safeguard against inappropriate sales or ill thought-out relocations, including duties on the club itself about selling the club’s home ground or relocating from it—an issue that my noble friend highlighted effectively today. Under the current proposals in the Bill, the regulator can hold senior managers to account if they are responsible for breaching these duties.

Amendment 186 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and Amendment 187 from my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton concern the timelines and deadlines for testing prospective owners and officers. I absolutely agree and understand that timely decision-making about the suitability of new owners and officers is highly important. Without deadlines, we have seen league determinations drag on, unable to reach a decision and leaving clubs in limbo. We believe it is important that the regulator has the time to conduct tests with an appropriate level of scrutiny, but it also needs to make decisions in an appropriate time- frame to ensure that clubs are not unnecessarily impacted in what is a fast-paced industry—I think all noble Lords can agree on that. That is why the regulator will be bound by a statutory timeframe, as well as by its objectives, general duties and regulatory principles.

We are confident that, with these existing provisions, the regulator will already conduct tests as quickly as reasonably practicable. However, putting a specific deadline in the Bill would restrict the flexibility for this deadline to be amended in future. That is why we have proposed that the determination period, including the maximum amount of time by which it can be extended, will be set by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. This will ensure that the regulator is bound by it but that there is still flexibility for the deadline to be amended in future. I hope noble Lords agree that future-proofing is a key consideration for this and any other legislation.

In the spirit of the debate, although the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not in her place, I will speak briefly to Amendments 187A and 187B in her name. They concern whistleblowing on the suitability of an owner or officer, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that concerned parties can blow the whistle on unsuitable owners or officers. However, I assure noble Lords that there is no need to amend the Bill to allow this. It is already open to anyone, including all those listed in Amendment 187A, to share relevant information with the regulator. Therefore, we do not see the need to create a separate obligation in the Bill for individuals to report information to the regulator.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, raised a number of pertinent issues covered by the subjects raised in Amendments 188 and 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. They seek to ensure that the regulator can test an incumbent owner or officer on their fitness only if it is in possession of information that gives it concern about whether the individual would meet the applicable fitness criteria. The Government very much agree with the intent behind these amendments, so I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the intent of these amendments is already delivered in the current drafting of the Bill. Clauses 34(1) and 35(1) give the regulator the powers to test incumbent owners or officers on their fitness if the regulator

“is in possession of information that gives it grounds for concern about whether the individual meets those criteria”.

If the regulator is not in possession of such information, it will not be able to test an incumbent owner or officer. The definition of an incumbent is clearly set out in Clauses 34(3) and 35(2). For the reasons I have set out, I will be grateful if the noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am very grateful for the Minister’s very clear answer on the Premier League and the regulator’s suitability test clashing. She said that the regulator is statutory and therefore would override the Premier League saying that it wanted someone the IFR did not. It may be a very unusual situation, but does it therefore follow that, if the Premier League decides through its test that an owner is unsuitable but the IFR decides that they are, the IFR can, in effect, impose an owner on a club? The Minister answered half of my question, and I am very interested to hear about the other half. If she cannot answer now, can she write to me?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

No, it cannot.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I could make a comment. The Minister has been very helpful in offering meetings to discuss a whole range of issues that arise, which we greatly appreciate, and to write beforehand. On one thing which she touched on—I will obviously have to read Hansard very carefully to check, because she moved on fairly quickly—was why companies legislation was not acceptable for the Bill. I just register that I would like when we meet to discuss this more fully. She referred to Companies Act legislation being very lengthy, but I am not clear on why, if it is acceptable in general Companies Act legislation, it is not acceptable here. We can discuss that, but I just wanted to register it at this point so that when we meet, it is a subject for conversation.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to go into more detail on that point when I meet the noble Lord and I will ask my officials to contact him to set up a meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This looks at the tests around the officers and I start by saying that we are all united in the Chamber in wanting good management in place, so the officer tests involved here, I think we would all agree, are well intentioned, because it all comes down to good managers. However, at the same time, I think we are quite aware that a lot of the things we are talking about here are beyond the directors and Companies Act tests that are in place. We are extending to a new category of officer, or senior manager, and we are putting new responsibilities on them. The amendment tries to be quite simple. First, the Bill is not clear who an officer is. It talks about having one or more club affairs that they are responsible for. So, first, we are trying to get clarity by letting those people know who they are.

That is important because we are talking about having some pretty serious and quite intrusive checks on them. Again, those are well intentioned—there are amendments coming up later in Committee where we will go into what those checks should be—but they are quite intrusive; they are looking at your criminal record and whether you have been involved in any court or tribunal. Maybe they are all very good tests, but I think people should be aware of them, because they might not be certain that they are actually an officer of a club. So, again, this is making sure that they are aware of it before they take something on.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, not only are we giving them director-style responsibilities but we are potentially putting even wider-reaching penalties on them, of 10% of club revenue or £75,000, which many people would say is quite a deterrent. I am not talking about the big clubs. A lot of this refers to clubs that are pretty small, maybe run by a handful of people and for which a £75,000 penalty is pretty big. At the very least, they need to be aware that they are taking on those sorts of responsibilities and that should be outlined. That is what Amendment 31 tries to do.

Regarding Amendment 179, again, we talk about one of the tests being financial soundness. I think that we would all agree that, around an owner, that is right in terms of their financial soundness. I would like an officer or senior manager of a club to be financially sound too, just for their own good sake, but that does not necessarily make them a good or bad manager. They are not personally putting money into that club. Therefore, whether or not they have run up a lot of debts is not relevant to their ability to carry out the duties that we would want them to undertake.

Many of the 116 clubs are quite a bit smaller and often depend on people working on a voluntary basis. Those people suddenly having all their finances investigated and it being determined whether they are deemed sound or not, when we are not asking them necessarily to contribute any money to those clubs, is not proportionate. It might deter people who could probably be very helpful in the running of that club. I beg to move.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for these amendments. I agree that it is important for transparency and accountability to fans and officers that it is clear who a club’s officers and senior managers are. That is why this is already an integral part of the Bill. When a club applies for a provisional licence, it must submit a personnel statement. In that personnel statement, the club must set out its officers and senior managers, which the regulator will approve once it is satisfied that it is accurate. The club must then publish it and keep it updated. Therefore, this already provides clarity to clubs, officers and fans as to who has a role in the running of their club.

On Amendment 179, it is essential that clubs have suitable officers. The regulator has a key role to play in this. It is officers who exercise a significant level of direct control over the day-to-day operations of the club. These can include financial decision-making. That is why it is vital that the regulator ensures that these decision-makers are financially sound. It includes assessing the personal finances of anybody where they have held a position of responsibility. This will help to identify any concerns or irregularities that would impact on their ability to act as a suitable custodian of a football club. For example, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that if a club’s chief financial officer has bankrupted companies in the past, that is a relevant fact for the regulator to consider. Ultimately, these tests should help to prevent fans suffering the consequences of poor leadership and financial mismanagement, as has often been the case to date.

I hope that such clarity gives reassurance to noble Lords on these points. For the reasons I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Lord did not press his amendments.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her replies. While we understand financial soundness in the context of a chief financial officer, in terms of the senior managers, as referred to in the Bill, we are talking about non-financial duties. I think that most people who run a club would say that the chief operating officer or the person responsible for the actual operations of the ground on the day is a key person. I am sure that they would be drawn into this definition and so would have all their finances investigated. Do not get me wrong: we want people as far as possible to be in a financially good position but, as I mentioned before, their personal finances are not necessarily relevant to whether they can be a good operating officer who can run the club very well on match days, with all the decisions involved with that. My fear is that we will deter people who are sometimes the backbone of the running of a lot of the smaller clubs from wanting to take on that sort of role because they know such intrusion will take place.

Those are the things that I am talking about. I absolutely get it when it is a financial director—the Companies Act and directors’ responsibilities cover that for finance directors. People who are not finance directors but who may be very involved in the operations are where the concern lies. I hope that we can cover this in more detail later on, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think anyone in Committee anyone can move an amendment, so I am very happy to move Amendment 33. I am curious as to why the noble Baroness has not moved it and perhaps she can set out why, as it is a sensible one and I was intending to speak in support of it.

Amendments 32 and 33 sought to ensure that the chief executive of the new independent football regulator could be appointed by the whole board and not just by the chairman of the board. That would seem a sensible improvement in terms of collective decision-making and an additional safety valve to ensure that the appointment of the chief executive was not a politicised move. I know that a number of noble Lords have significant board experience and may have views on the merits of this.

I was also keen to come in because the amendment allows us to ask the Minister for an update on the appointments, because we are scrutinising this Bill not knowing who the chairman of the new regulator will be or the board. I understand that the deciding panel met to sift applications for the non-executive roles on Monday—I do not know whether she can confirm that—and that people who have applied have been asked to hold the 17, 19 and 20 December for interviews. Can she say now or in writing whether that is still the timetable on which the Government are operating? That would be helpful, because when we took the Online Safety Bill through, we knew who held the regulatory roles at Ofcom and could have some dialogue with them. Anything more that the Minister can say, now or in writing, about the timetable by which these important figures are appointed might aid the discussions that we are able to have in parallel to the scrutiny of the Bill about the people who will be taking forward these important roles.

I beg to move Amendment 33, so that the noble Baroness can have time to respond. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, wanted to say why she was no longer in favour.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for the opportunity to respond to the amendment. The Government recognise the intent behind it, which is to ensure that the decision on the appointment of the chief executive of the regulator has the appropriate input and scrutiny. I reassure my noble friends and others that the Bill already suitably achieves this.

As per paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, the chair must consult the other non-executive members of the board, as well as the Secretary of State, before appointing the chief executive. The chief executive will have the responsibility of appointing a portion of the board—namely, the executive members. For this reason, I am sure noble Lords can see that it would be circular and impractical for the entire board to collectively appoint the chief executive.

I am happy to discuss this at greater length but I hope this reassures the noble Lord. I would therefore be grateful if he could withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Is the Minister able to say any more on the timing of appointments? If not, I would be very happy for her to write. The processes to appoint the chairman and the board members began before the election. As I understand it, that process has continued but the Government extended the window of applications for people applying to be the chairman. That closed. I believe the sift took place on Monday, and people are being asked to hold dates next week and beyond for interview. Is the intention to try to make an announcement while the Bill is before your Lordships? Might we know who the new chairman and board members are, or has the timeline slipped?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Whether we get the result while your Lordships are debating the Bill is a moot point, given the length of time we are taking to get through Committee. The noble Lord is correct, though: the timetable for the interviews is the same, and they are intended to take place on 17, 19 and 20 December.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

In which case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, again, there is good sense behind the amendments that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have tabled in this group. They address a critical issue about ensuring transparency and fairness in the governance of our beloved game.

Amendment 34 seeks to introduce an objective test to determine whether a proposed director of the new independent football regulator has a conflict of interest. Under the previous framework, the decision was left in the hands of the appointing party, leaving the process vulnerable to subjective interpretations and, potentially, political interference or favouritism, which I am sure we all want to strive to avoid. By introducing an objective test, the amendment would remove that ambiguity and ensure that potential directors are rigorously vetted before they take office. That is an important suggestion that would uphold the values of fairness and accountability in football.

Amendment 35 would take that further by requiring all directors of the independent football regulator to not only undergo this rigorous vetting but publicly declare any potential conflicts of interest. This would be a vital step in increasing transparency and holding accountable those who wield the new powers the Bill brings about. We on these Benches all agree that the integrity of the sport must be upheld through adherence to ethical standards and think that the amendments are an important step in that direction. The chief executive officer of the independent football regulator will be given the task of maintaining a register of these declared interests, ensuring full transparency and accountability in football governance.

Similarly, Amendments 43 and 44 would extend this principle to members of the expert panel, ensuring that they too declare their interests. Again, the independent football regulator’s chief executive will be responsible for maintaining a register of interest for the expert panel, providing an additional layer of transparency. By implementing these measures, we would reinforce the importance of ethical conduct and accountability across the regulator’s board and its expert panel, both of which will be key to the fair and transparent governance of football under the new regulatory regime.

Finally, Amendment 331, which would expand the nature and definition of a conflict to include a situation where the perception of a conflict may arise, also has some merit. Perception is often just as important as reality in maintaining trust. By introducing non-exhaustive examples, the amendment would ensure that we address conflicts of interest in a comprehensive and forward-thinking manner.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for tabling the amendments, which represent a robust and progressive framework for managing conflicts of interest in the governance of the sport. They would introduce clear, objective tests, require declarations of interest and ensure transparency through the form of the public registers, all of which are important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton for tabling these amendments. The Government acknowledge the intent behind them, which is to fortify the Bill’s provisions for dealing with conflicts of interest. It is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime, free from undue influence and vested interests.

I reassure my noble friends that the Bill already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest. This is supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures that are already in place. As with all public bodies, members of the regulator’s board will be subject to the Cabinet Office’s code of conduct for board members of public bodies, which sets out clear requirements regarding the appropriate disclosure and management of conflicts of interest. It includes a responsibility on board members to openly and honestly declare any interests that could give rise to actual or perceived conflicts. Any breach of these requirements would be a breach of the member’s terms of appointment.

The Bill also places an additional onus on the appointer to check for conflicts that have not otherwise been declared, both at the point of making the appointment and on an ongoing basis from time to time. In addition, paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters which fall for consideration by the board, and for this declaration to be recorded.

On Amendment 331 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam, the Government are confident that the existing definition of conflict of interest is appropriate and will capture the correct issues. The expansion of the definition proposed by my noble friend would also see perceived conflicts explicitly forbidden. We believe this is disproportionate and goes beyond the normal interpretation of conflict of interest. For example, almost all noble Lords here support a football club. In an extreme interpretation, that alone could be a perceived conflict. All in all, we are confident that the Bill, supplemented by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, provides comprehensive safeguards to identify and manage conflicts of interest appropriately. For these reasons, I am unable to accept my noble friends’ amendments and ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising that the potential for a conflict of interest is there and potentially quite significant. I accept that we all have an interest. If an interest in football was a perceived conflict then we would all be in great difficulty, but I think it is important to emphasise that we are talking about potential financial conflicts of interest. I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling these amendments and thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what I thought was a very thoughtful discussion. As with the previous discussion on this matter, the Government would like to reassure noble Lords that the Bill already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest, irrespective of sector. This is supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place. As I said previously, the Bill requires members of the board to declare their interests, and this declaration is to be recorded.

Taking Amendment 36 first, we are confident that there are comprehensive safeguards to root out and manage conflicts of interest appropriately. For example, a board member would not be permitted to take part in any discussion relating to a matter if they had a significant direct or indirect interest in it. Failure to declare an interest would also be a breach of the board member’s terms of appointment. In response to noble Lords who asked me for a definitive view, my view is that beyond these comprehensive existing provisions we do not think it is necessary or appropriate arbitrarily to rule out specific sectors or sector interests such as television, broadcast or media.

On Amendment 40, we acknowledge the importance of the regulator offering value for money. It will be required to lay its annual accounts before Parliament and the Comptroller and Auditor-General for scrutiny. The regulator will also be subject to pay remit guidance in the same way central government departments are to ensure pay rises are justifiable. This will ensure value for money for taxpayers. However, having a maximum salary in legislation risks the regulator being unable to attract the right talent, potentially leaving it without the skills and expertise it needs to deliver its objectives—a point the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, made very succinctly. We agree with the point around the need to control costs. A fixed salary in legislation is also inflexible to inflation and market changes, and it could become rapidly outdated, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, pointed out. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendments and ask that he withdraw or not press them.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that response and to noble Lords who took part in the debate. This is a strength of the Committee stage—I can see the furrowed brows with the opinions being weighed up and I am grateful to noble Lords who have engaged with the probing amendment I tabled in this way. I hope, if nothing else, it has been useful to the Secretary of State who, as we know from the Minister’s responses in the previous group, is soon to make her decision about who ought to chair this new regulator and who should be on the board. I hope that the points that noble Lords across the Committee have made will be taken back and inform her deliberations.

I take on board what the noble Baroness said and indeed the point that the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, raised about the need to make sure we are paying enough to attract the calibre of person that is going to rise to the task ahead of them. On pay and salary, I am grateful as well to the Minister for what she said and was struck particularly by what she said about pay restraint. I know from my ministerial experience that, when public bodies want to push for pay rises above what would be normal in the private sector or across the economy more generally, then that comes to Ministers. If there is that sort of oversight and check and balance in the system to ensure that the regulator’s salary costs are not spiralling as quickly as we feared, then that would be a good thing. With gratitude to the Minister and to all who took part, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will briefly encapsulate some of what we have heard and respond to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. She is right: it was a chastening experience to stand at the Dispatch Box as a Minister and repeatedly have to say that something was a matter for the independent Ofcom, the independent Arts Council, the independent board of the BBC, or the Betting and Gaming Council. There are good reasons why many of those organisations are independent of government, and that independence should be carefully guarded. However, given the additional role that Ministers in this House have, and in providing parliamentary scrutiny, the distinction that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, makes between the Executive and the legislature comes to the heart of it.

I am grateful to my noble friends on these Benches for expressing some of the concerns that they would raise if they were on a parliamentary committee overseeing the work of this regulator. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reminded us, the concerns could go in all directions, and that is the beauty and importance of parliamentary accountability. This is an important regulator doing hotly anticipated and important work, and I am grateful for the consensus, which my noble friend Lord Markham points out, on the need to find a way to make sure that it can continue to be accountable to both Houses of Parliament.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, which relate to the transparency and accountability of the regulator. The discussion was interesting, and I found my noble friend Lady Taylor’s expertise on this matter particularly helpful to our debate. I look forward to discussing this further with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, raised some interesting points. I stress that the Government recognise that it is vital that the regulator is transparent and able to be held accountable by Parliament and others. A number of provisions in the Bill already ensure this. The exercise of the regulator’s functions will be reviewed in the regulator’s annual report. The Secretary of State and Parliament will be able to scrutinise these reports, which will be laid before Parliament. The regulator’s chair and non-executive directors will be required to go through the public appointments process, as is appropriate given the weight of the role and responsibility for other appointments to the regulator. The chair of the regulator will already be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny with the relevant parliamentary Select Committee. However, as far as I am aware, there is no precedent for board members to be expected to go through such an extensive process as the chair is expected to, and neither has the relevant parliamentary Select Committee sought this. We therefore do not think that such a requirement is proportionate or necessary.

The regulator will be expected to work alongside the parliamentary process, which already allows committees to compel witnesses to attend. If a committee wished to invite a relevant member or the chief executive to appear before it, the Government would certainly expect them to fulfil this. These amendments would set an unprecedented and rigid approach to committee invitations that we do not feel is appropriate to place on the regulator. It would also not be appropriate for the Government to dictate to parliamentary committees who should appear before them—that is surely a matter for committee members themselves to determine.

Almost all of Amendment 123 dictates various actions in relation to parliamentary committees: who should appear before them, what they should scrutinise and when they should do so. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that parliamentary committees are quite able to take these decisions themselves and do not need the help of any legislation to do so. On the expert panel, the legislation already sets out a number of requirements to publish decisions and reasons for them. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendments and ask that he withdraws Amendment 37.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I recognise many of the lines she uttered; I have uttered those and similar on previous Bills. For me, the most important contribution was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who has given greater thought to this over a long time.

The Minister is right: it is not for the Government to tell parliamentary committees whom to call as a witness and how to do it. But there is a growing concern that there are so many ways in which the Government have devolved power to powerful regulators that can accrue—in the way that the Bill achieves—new powers or go in new directions through secondary legislation that does not get the sort of scrutiny that we are giving the Bill at the moment. Perhaps some broader mechanism needs to be found for looking at the work of not just this regulator but regulators in general. As I say, that was a feeling that gnawed at me when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. We will probably not crack the answer as we look forward to a well-earned dinner break, so, with gratitude to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.