Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who are here for this debate, especially those who have missed football matches to take part in a game for the greater good of football—that is something we all agree on, whether or not we agree with the exact form of the regulator or whether we have amendments on which noble Lords may have a different view from me and the Government.

Before I address the amendments in this group, I would like to make a brief clarification regarding a comment that I made in Committee on 18 December. It pertains to an issue that comes up in the next group, but I felt it important to clarify it at this point of the debate. In response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, regarding whether there was a similar final offer mechanism in use in the UK and how it has delivered the outcomes that this model intends to achieve, I said that the Competition and Markets Authority had used a final offer mechanism. While the CMA does have a similar final offer mechanism, it was incorrect for me to say the process had been used, as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act only received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024, so the new regime has only just come into effect and has not yet been used by the CMA to come to a determination. We are clear, however, as the previous Government were clear, that this is an evidence-based model developed in tandem with leading economists, which has successfully achieved intended outcomes in other jurisdictions. I hope that through this evening’s debate I can reassure noble Lords that this is also the correct model for use in this case. As I mentioned, the model is discussed in considerable depth in the next group.

I note the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I will seek clarity before the end of the debate. If I do not get it, I will come back to him on that particular point. Like him, I noted the request from the Chancellor on that point.

Moving on to the specific group that we have just debated, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his amendments and insightful contributions. I also welcome his broad support for the principle underpinning the Bill around the independent football regulator. His knowledge and expertise are hugely beneficial in supporting the House to scrutinise this legislation. It was also helpful to have a reminder of the movement and the fluidity within and between leagues. That is an important point for your Lordships’ House to note and remember. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, has played an important part in the development of football broadcasting in this country and, as we have heard today, has a number of really valuable thoughts around this issue. That is also apparent in the thorough scrutiny that the noble Lord’s amendments provide on the design of the backstop process. It is important for us to examine why the Government believe that the backstop process remains the model that we should rely on when we come to setting the independent football regulator to work.

To reflect on the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, among others, I first restate that the intent behind this mechanism is not to create a heavy-handed regulatory intervention. There is a mediation process built in and we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this is an important step. To respond to the noble Lord’s specific concerns, the intent is to provide a last-resort process, only to be triggered if the leagues cannot come to an agreement themselves. It is genuinely intended to be a backstop. It cannot take place until mediation has concluded.

A number of noble Lords questioned why government intervention in this space is even necessary. A clear distribution agreement is in the interest of both the public and of football. Indeed, the Premier League recognises that financial redistribution is needed to ensure the vibrancy and sustainability of the football pyramid. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has outlined on a number of occasions during Committee, that is why it already voluntarily distributes its revenues to lower leagues.

The EFL and the National League are important talent pipelines to the Premier League. Similarly, the Premier League is an important financial supporter of various programmes across the lower leagues. The football pyramid is a mutually beneficial structure, but only when a suitable distribution agreement or order is in place. The mechanism would not be necessary if the industry were able to come to a new agreement. I want to reassure noble Lords that, should the leagues choose to come to an independent agreement without the backstop, the regulator will not need to get involved and will not do so. One of the leagues has to apply to trigger the regulator’s process. It has to meet a high threshold, so leagues cannot unilaterally trigger it. This is not regulatory overreach into corporate agreements. If a voluntary corporate agreement is made between the leagues, then there is no role for the regulator. It is an alternative route by which a suitable deal and distribution scheme can be put in place, should the leagues require it. We recognise the value of preserving the competitiveness of English football. This process is designed to ensure its long-term financial sustainability and not to force a regulator-designed agreement on an industry.

Taking the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, sequentially, I want first to address Amendments 295A and 297A. We acknowledge and respect the amendments’ intent to ensure that the mediator has the appropriate legal expertise to mediate successfully a complex financial and legal agreement alongside preventing potential conflicts of interest. I am not going to repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that the mediator should be a relevantly qualified individual. However, we think that adding these specific requirements would disqualify potentially qualified and appropriate candidates and limit both the leagues and the regulator in their selection of potential mediators. As drafted, these principles for hiring may be too prescriptive and could lead to an inability to appoint a mediator if no suitable candidate were found who met all the conditions.

Amendment 297B seeks to add a formal arbitration mechanism to the backstop by providing another forum for negotiation before a final decision is made by the regulator. I must reiterate the point that the leagues have not been able to agree a new deal under an existing agreement since 2019. The addition of another negotiation step after the mediation stage would require not only the hiring of another formally qualified arbitrator but the introduction of a new set of statutory timelines. These new timelines, by which various crucial decisions must be made, would make the backstop process functionally unusable from a timing and resources perspective. It is also unclear what formal arbitration would be likely to achieve after a mandated and guided mediation process. The leagues can already come to an alternative agreement at any stage in the backstop process. This ability is explicitly protected in the Bill, so this added arbitration step would add complexity and would potentially—or even likely—delay the process.

On Amendments 297C and 297D, the introduction of a determination process would fundamentally override the final offer stage of the existing process, representing a significant shift in government policy towards a different type of arbitration process and moving away from the final offer mechanism. The process outlined in the amendment would offer the arbitrator greatly increased discretion regarding the design of the final proposals, requiring them only to consider evidence presented by the parties rather than to accept the design of one of their proposals. While we are sympathetic to the desire for the regulator to be required formally to consider expert analysis, systemic implications and the practicality of the proposals, allowing a third party to propose their own form of determination would remove entirely the incentive which the original process is designed to create. With a third-party decision-maker introduced to the process, it is likely that competition organisers would simply dig in to an inherently adversarial position rather than move closer to a middle ground and allow the third party—the arbitrator—to decide for them. It is our view that this amendment would increase reliance on the regulator and move us further from an industry-led solution.

Amendment 297E seeks to ask the regulator to provide more detailed information about the implementation of their decisions. This would include outlining transitional arrangements and compliance requirements, alongside outlining when orders can take effect. Again, I am sympathetic to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, as minimising adverse unintended impacts on business should be a top priority for the regulator when implementing a decision. The Bill requires distribution orders to include a summary of the questions for resolution, a copy of the final order, information detailing the reasons for those decisions and information on potential consequences of non-compliance. We would also expect the regulator to stay in constant communication with the leagues throughout the implementation process.

Amendment 297F would add to the ability of the leagues to appeal decisions made as part of the backstop process to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Regulatory decisions made as part of the backstop process are already considered “reviewable decisions” open to appeal under the existing appeals process outlined in Part 9 of the Bill. Functionally, therefore, this amendment only makes more explicit a process that could already be triggered under existing clauses.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 297G, which would require the regulator to publish guidance on their decision-making and implementation processes and for them to keep this guidance under review for potential update in future. While we are not opposed in principle to the idea of regulatory guidance and the backstop, there is already provision in the Bill for guidance to be prepared by the regulator at their discretion and in consultation with such persons as they consider appropriate. In addition, the amendment would lock the appointment of a mediator behind the publishing of the guidance. In practical terms, this would significantly affect the timeliness of the process and open a window of opportunity for the process to be stalled by the leagues via extended consultation. We are keen for the leagues’ views on the process to be heard and taken into account by the regulator, but we are also conscious that football has already gone quite long enough without a suitable new arrangement. To reiterate, a timely, satisfactory agreement is in the public interest, as it is vital to the continued sustainability of the game. I repeat that I am always happy to engage with any noble Lords and other stakeholders on this point and to go through how the process might work, as I have already done with the Bill team. For the reasons I have outlined, I must reject the amendments from the noble Lord in this instance and ask him not to press them.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for her long, detailed and considered response. It gives me hope as I hope it gives hope to other noble Lords across the Committee. In going into the detail, the Minster registered how complex these issues are. This must be capable of being improved. Some of the doubts that exist on all sides of the Committee should be further considered to be sure that all these considerations are truly reflected at the next stage of the Bill when we come back to this matter, as we definitely will.

I am also very grateful for the broad support for this approach from right across the Committee, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I did not divine the 40% figure myself—as noble Lords know, there are a lot of data scientists operating in football. I am sure that it is highly arguable, but, intuitively, it rings true for me, not least because the Premier League has far greater resources than any other league, so it would be surprising if that did not result in it having by far the highest proportion of the world’s best players. If there is one key performance measure here about the appeal of British football, it is that we have the best players in the world playing in it. That is something we cannot forget. We cannot afford to reduce that percentage, whatever it is.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has made many excellent contributions to the Bill. Above all, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, retains an open mind about the possibility of improving this important part of the Bill. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to please read the amendment as written, because it is designed to avoid the very situation that they stood up to complain about. It is designed to bring mediation, collaboration and consideration, and, at the end of the day, binding arbitration. It has everybody in the room. It has not worked these last couple of years because the right people have not been in the room in the right circumstances. I want a resolution in the interest of the whole of football and I firmly believe that the approach set out in my amendment is far more likely to deliver it than the potentially divisive process in the Bill as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 302 and 304.

As I said in previous debates on the backstop, I have real concerns about the resolution process, and in particular the binding final offer arbitration model included. The Minister has repeatedly claimed, and said again today, that these powers are to be used only as a last resort, but we have heard from noble Lords across the House that this does not feel like the situation in which we find ourselves today. As has been identified by other noble Lords, the approach being legislated for in the Bill is unduly adversarial and pits two sides against one another rather than encouraging comprise and dialogue. As we have heard, the very existence of the proposed mechanism set out seems to have played a role in the breakdown of the latest round of financial negotiations, which is concerning and does not bode well for the future.

The Government would be unwise to dismiss and ignore this chilling effect, as the current backstop proposal threatens to undermine and damage relations across the football pyramid. The model just does not make sense. In any deal negotiation, if both sides are disappointed at the outcome reached, it is more likely that it has been fair and balances the two sides’ competing proposals. Yet, as we have heard, under the process set out in the Bill, rather than consider each proposal and determine the best approach—which may very well be a compromise between the two—the expert panel formed by the regulator must instead choose one of the proposals.

Amendment 304 gives the expert panel set up by the regulator to oversee the process the ability to combine elements of the proposals

“where it considers that this will result in an order which is most consistent with the principles in subsection (2)”.

This is a far more sensible approach. It does not mean that the regulator or its expert panel would be forcing a proposal on the two leagues involved. Rather, they can play a constructive role in facilitation and mediation to help achieve an outcome that both parties can agree with.

I really hope that the Minister will use the time between the end of Committee and the beginning of Report to discuss further some of the ideas that have been brought forward in this and, as I said in the previous debate, consult with the leagues and individual clubs again. A number of them have expressed concerns publicly about the process. I hope that she will think about tabling amendments that will be supported across the House at our next stage.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their at times passionate discussion on this group of amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that it has been a good debate. All noble Lords who have taken part clearly believe in getting the best governance for our national game, which should be at the heart of discussions.

Let me be clear that the Government’s preference is for an industry-led solution. While we acknowledge that there is an existing agreement in place, if a new updated agreement cannot be reached, an industry-designed proposal, facilitated by the regulator, is the next best option. The model adopted by this Government for a backstop was in the previous Government’s Bill.

One of the dividing lines in your Lordships’ House is clearly on the rights and wrongs of parachute payments and their inclusion or otherwise in the scope of the regulator. This was referred to by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and my noble friends Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Bassam of Brighton. I hope that we can all agree, not least because of the debate on this, that parachute payments are a significant part of football’s financial landscape. They clearly play an important role in supporting the survival of relegated clubs and the Government are clear on that.

However, the regulator needs to be able to consider all relevant revenue sources as part of the backstop process, to arrive at an accurate picture of any proposal’s impact on financial sustainability and the potential for distortion of the parachute payments. This is not to say that they must be included. It is to allow the regulator to include them if, having gone through the process with, for example, the “state of the game” report, it has arrived at the view that they should be included in the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am sure that we can get the absolute reference from the statto—the noble Lord, Lord Birt, will probably calculate it and tell us by the end of the debate. I think the figure is about 9%, but we can check that.

The point I was trying to make is that Tony Bloom, the chair of Brighton, and Paul Barber, its CEO, whom I have spoken to during this process, would say that parachute payments were a very important part of their business planning in giving them the confidence to invest, which allowed Brighton to stay up and thrive in the Premier League. There is a very good argument for them being there.

As much as I would like the regulator not to get involved in redistribution payments, I accept that it is likely that those powers will be granted. If we really narrow it down, the debate on this group and the previous one is all about the negotiation mechanism. That is where I appreciate so much the work that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has done on this, because it is not a political point. I do not think anyone in the outside world would get into the intricacies of and care more broadly about the negotiation mechanisms that we are talking about, but what we are talking about is, as the Minister said, a theory behind binary choices and what will happen in terms of gaming. It is an untried theory that has not been done anywhere else, and it has been put forward. I thought the Minister said that it had not been done by the commission.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It has not been used by the Competition and Markets Authority yet, even though the previous Government gave it the powers to do so. It has been used successfully in other jurisdictions —for example, in Australia and Canada. I have other examples that may be in my speaking notes later in the evening, but I am happy to share them.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That would be very helpful, because the main point here, and what I hope we can achieve between now and Report, is that we know that there is a small group of economists at the DCMS who have put together this mechanism. There are noble Lords here who have been involved in media sports rights deals and these sorts of negotiations who can add real value to this. There is a real opportunity between now and Report to engage with those officials to really get into those negotiation mechanisms, because this is what we have narrowed it down to and that is what this debate has been useful for. I hope we can use that time productively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will be brief because my noble friend Lady Brady made the points extremely well and we have debated parachute payments quite a bit already this evening. The only thing I would say is that they give clubs in the Premiership the incentive or the confidence to invest and in my understanding every European league now has some variation on that, because it is seen as a system that works. It is fundamental to the competitiveness of the Premier League. It underlies its whole audience appeal and broadcasters all round the world will make media sports rights payments to see such an exciting and competitive game.

It is known that we would prefer that parachute payments were not included but, if they are going to be included, the proposal to make a three-year safety net as opposed to a one-year safety net is very sensible. In the conversations that the Minister helpfully set up with her officials, I could tell that it was something they understood and were quite well disposed towards. The fact, as my noble friend Lady Brady, said, that contracts for players are for three years shows the importance of having that. So I hope that this is a sensible amendment that the Minister can speak to.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I committed earlier this evening to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, on whether the shadow regulator would join the Chancellor’s meeting with regulators tomorrow. My understanding is that the Chancellor’s invite has gone only to regulators who are currently operational. Therefore, the shadow football regulator has not been invited to the specific meeting to which the noble Lord referred. I would add, however, that I have heard many good points made on growth during the Committee stage of the Bill and look forward to returning to further discussions around that point on Report.

In relation to the group under discussion, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for bringing her concerns regarding the future financial sustainability of relegated clubs to my attention with this amendment. I note the clarity from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to the Opposition opposing parachute payments being included in the Bill. As I made clear in my response to the previous group, the Government agree—and I hope this gives the noble Baroness some reassurance—that parachute payments play an important role in supporting the survival of relegated clubs. This point was also made by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, even though he had a different perspective from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady.

I highlight first that in the Government’s view it is not inevitable that the backstop would address parachute payments. They will be addressed only if they have been identified as a relevant question for resolution, which will happen only if they are proven to have a substantial impact on the sustainability of the pyramid.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked some pertinent questions, not least relating to the survival of clubs. If parachute payments are deemed relevant for consideration, the Bill currently specifies that they cannot be reduced within a year of the distribution order coming into effect. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. This amendment would extend this period to three years, triggered at the beginning, rather than the end, of a season.

While I genuinely understand the core concern behind this amendment, we must balance the desire to ensure that relegated clubs have as much time to adjust to changes as possible with the need to ensure a new, timely, satisfactory agreement. We would expect the leagues to maintain effective communication with clubs throughout the backstop process which, alongside the existing year-long transitionary period, will mean that clubs have ample time to adjust if parachute payments are deemed in scope. There will be no sudden reduction in payments without warning.

Before I finish, I again urge the leagues to come to an agreement on a new package of financial support under their own steam, which is in the long-term interests of the game. However, for the reasons I have set out, I regret that I cannot accept these amendments and hope the noble Baroness will not press them.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made by noble Lords on this group. To the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I say that, in my experience, if you cut some of the ropes on a parachute it certainly does not provide for soft landing; it results in a crash. That is what I think I am trying to help avoid here.

I thank the Minister for her response and I am sorry that we do not yet seem to agree. I want to emphasise again that, while the Government seem to believe they have prevented parachutes from being abolished under this legislation, they have literally created a Bill that allows the regulator to choose between only two proposals. One of the proposals is going to come from the organisation that called parachute payments “an evil that needs to be eradicated”. The Bill specifically enables the kind of system that the Minister says the Government do not want to see, and that really is an intolerable risk to the Premier League clubs, newly promoted clubs and relegated clubs.

It may be helpful to stand back and remind the House that this Bill principally seeks to address financial sustainability across the game. Yet, the removal or severe restriction of parachute payments would undermine that very goal. Around 50% of football administrations follow a relegation event. Take away parachutes or alter them without proper transition periods and that number will, sadly, undoubtedly rise. For the Premier League clubs at the lower end of the table, a one-year transition period will fundamentally alter all their risk calculus. These clubs invest heavily in players, infrastructure and youth development, knowing that the current system provides some financial security in the event of relegation. Remove that security and I call tell you that the calculation changes. Risk taking diminishes, investment shrinks and competitiveness suffers. That is exactly the same for newly promoted clubs. It is impossible to invest in your squad if you do not have that safety net, if it is not successful for you.

I continue to believe that these amendments are a necessary safeguard. Of course, much greater changes to the backstop are required, but a transition is a vital element to examine. These amendments would provide the time and clarity needed for clubs to adapt responsibly, protect the legitimate expectations of all shareholders and preserve the stability of the football ecosystem.

I urge the Government to give these measures further consideration, please, as part of a fundamental reconsideration of the backstop, just as UEFA has explicitly called for, to ensure that this Bill really can achieve its intended purpose of promoting sustainability across the game. I will withdraw this amendment today, but I say respectfully to the Minister that I really hope that she reflects carefully on my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

320: Clause 64, page 53, line 34, leave out “62(7)(b)” and insert “62(8)(b)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an erroneous cross-reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 84 details the provisions that may be brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, as drafted the Bill does not include any decisions made under Clauses 62 or 63 for appeals that may be heard before the tribunal. Given the implications of these two clauses, relating as they do to the distribution of revenue, it is wholly inadequate that the determinations made under them are not subject to an external appeals process. Therefore, my Amendment 323, and the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Brady, ensure that any decisions made by the committee of the expert panel relating to distribution orders are reviewable under Clause 84.

I do not dispute that the Bill already provides for distribution orders under Clause 62, and for reviewable decisions under Clause 81. The latter clause states that reviewable decisions are any decisions listed in the table in Schedule 10, and Schedule 10 does include decisions made under Clause 62. However, this relates only to internal reviews. Schedule 10 also states that any internal review of distribution orders is to be carried out by a different committee of the expert panel. Therefore, although the composition of the deciding and reviewing committees must be different, the review will still be carried out by the same body.

Therefore, the Bill currently gives competition organisers the right to appeal only to a component of the regulator. This cannot be right. The imposition of a distribution order under Clause 62 is surely the measure that most affects competition; requiring one league to distribute its money to another league will impact its competition ability. Surely, then, any distribution decision should be reviewable by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for tabling these amendments. I recognise that the intent of the amendments in this group is to ensure that decisions related to the distribution backstop are appealable and subject to a merit standard of appeal, rather than being based on judicial review principles. I understand that this comes from a belief that a merit standard of appeal is necessarily preferable because it would allow the Competition Appeal Tribunal to opine on the merits of the case, rather than just on whether the correct procedure was followed, and thereby arguably offers better protections for affected parties. In this instance, I do not believe that this is the right process.

In truth, it means that a tribunal, which most likely has less technical expertise and background knowledge of the specific issues surrounding financial distribution in football than the regulator, will be able to substitute its own decision for that of the regulator’s. For example, if the regulator were to choose one of the two proposals as part of the backstop process, and make an order imposing that distribution arrangement, the Competition Appeal Tribunal could overrule this and choose the other proposal. Indeed, if we consider how this would most likely play out, the aggrieved competition organiser whose proposal is not selected would be very likely to lodge an appeal regardless.

These amendments would be tantamount to making the Competition Appeal Tribunal the ultimate deciding authority on the financial distribution arrangement in football. This would, in effect, mean cutting out the middleman and having the courts decide how much money should flow down the football pyramid. It is unclear to me why noble Lords, or indeed anyone, would think a court making this decision a better option, rather than the expert panel of the independent football regulator, or why this would necessarily lead to a more robust, more favourable or fairer outcome. It is simply the case that there are certain decisions better suited to certain standards of review.

We have engaged with legal experts and senior members of tribunals while developing the Bill. They agreed that the courts are not necessarily well placed to substitute the decisions of expert regulators on matters of technical regulatory judgment, and that a judicial review standard of appeal would be more appropriate for those types of decisions. This is also a common approach taken across other regulators. For example, the majority of decisions made by Ofcom are subject to appeal on judicial review standards.

By contrast, some of the possible enforcement decisions that the regulator can take under the Bill represent highly punitive actions. For these highly punitive, less technical and less market-specific enforcement decisions, a merits appeal is more appropriate. For example, we are of the view that courts are far better placed to opine on whether the severity of a punishment is appropriate to the infringement than on whether a certain distribution of revenue is better for the financial sustainability of English football. Ultimately, an appeals process should provide the appropriate opportunity to challenge whether a regulator is acting fairly and within its statutory remit. It should also be a focused and efficient process that does not excessively delay the final resolution of decisions or hinder the regulator in achieving its objectives.

While providing effective assurance of the regulator’s decision-making process and judgment, the appeals system should not unduly undermine the expert independent regulator. The Bill effectively balances these different considerations, including through the standard of appeal. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, would also make every decision under Clauses 62 and 63 reviewable, subject to the statutory route of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. This includes minor and operational decisions such as the giving of notice or extending the period to submit proposals. For the same reasons I have already outlined—balancing fairness, efficiency and appropriate deference to the regulator—we do not believe this is necessary and it is not the approach we have taken in the Bill.

Amendment 326 would be contrary to Amendments 322, 324 and 325. The Competition Appeal Tribunal could not simultaneously review a decision on judicial review principles and on the merits. On Amendments 333, 334 and 335, as I have set out, we disagree with the intention to make every decision under Clauses 62 and 63 a reviewable decision on the merits. However, if that were the intention, additions to the consequential amendments of other Acts, or the Competition Appeal Tribunal rules, certainly would not be the way to do it. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendments and I hope that noble Lords will not press them.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response, although I confess that I remain far from reassured. The logic of the Government’s position appears to be that procedural correctness matters more than getting the right answer for English football. Consider what we are being asked to accept: a regulator with new, unprecedented powers to reshape our national game, yet its decisions can be challenged only if its ticks the wrong procedural boxes.

The Premier League drives investment throughout the pyramid. It enables clubs such as Brighton, Brentford and Nottingham Forest to climb through the lower leagues without parachutes and compete at the highest level because of the security they provide. It funds grass-roots facilities in every corner of Britain. It projects British soft power globally in a way that no other cultural export can match. Yet under this Bill a single regulatory decision could fundamentally alter the mechanisms that make all that possible.

The Minister suggests that a judicial review provides adequate protection, but what comfort is that to a relegated club facing financial ruin because a regulator chose to abolish parachute payments? What protection does it offer less well-established Premier League clubs forced to abandon investment because the regulator selected a proposal that makes relegation catastrophic?

--- Later in debate ---

We have visited this issue already, so I will not dwell on it any longer. I hope that this amendment gives the Minister the ability to rethink her arguments from earlier in Committee.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for opening the debate on this group and moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham; and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for speaking to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which he signed. I have to say that, at points during the debate, I wished that I was in the Caribbean, but I will endeavour to respond.

The Government recognise the intent behind Amendment 327, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for cutting to the chase on what has been a longer debate on two amendments than I anticipated. They raise reasonable concerns that need to be addressed, but we have debated these concerns at some length previously. However, the exchange on what light-touch regulation might mean was useful.

It is vital that the regulator be transparent about the burden that its regulatory activities may have on clubs, so that it can be held accountable. From the start, we have been very clear that we wish to establish a regulator for football that will take a proportionate approach across all its regulatory activities. My noble friend Lady Taylor spoke about proportionate regulation. I thank her for highlighting the research that she shared with me earlier this week. She made many points better than I could.

We do not wish to bring into being a regulator that will impose unnecessary, onerous and burdensome requirements on clubs, and neither did the previous Government. That is in no one’s interest. Noble Lords have spoken of concerns about smaller clubs in particular. I am concerned that this debate may lead to some of those clubs being unduly alarmed. If clubs have raised concerns with noble Lords, please encourage them to contact the department, where we are very happy to discuss in more detail any concerns that they may have.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked how the Government see scrutiny playing out in practice. We already expect that the impact of the regulator on the market, including on regulated clubs and the leagues, will be reviewed in the regulator’s “state of the game” report and its annual report. The Secretary of State and Parliament will be able to scrutinise these reports. This ongoing accountability is more appropriate than a one-time review by the Secretary of State, six months after the Act is passed, not least because, as was highlighted during the debate, six months would be an unfairly short window in which to appraise the impacts of a brand new, novel regulatory regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a number of points and cited the impact assessment. The costs in the impact assessment have been estimated using evidence gathered through industry engagement and from existing regulators, ONS datasets and other sources of information. The impact assessment has been prepared in the same way as all government assessments, in line with principles in the Green Book. It received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee.

Ultimately, the costs in the impact assessment are indicative. It will be for the regulator to finalise its operating budget, which will be subject to scrutiny from Parliament and government to ensure it represents value for money. The estimated costs have been informed by approaches taken by similar regulators and reflect the complexity of the activities required to oversee a new legislative and regulatory regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, cited a headcount of 250 staff for the regulator, which is not one that we recognise. Indeed, it is well above the level that we would expect. I will have to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards to establish how that figure was arrived at.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

It was the indicative figure given by the previous Secretary of State under our Government.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is a helpful clarification. The figure remains one that I do not recognise. I will go away and cross-reference with officials why I have now been told that it is not one that we recognise and is above the level we expect. I know I have committed to come back to noble Lords with a number of costs, and we can clarify that at the same point before Report.

I understand that Amendment 329 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is a natural consequence of the noble Lord’s Amendment 19 in relation to the specified competitions, and it certainly would have made more sense to debate it then. Nevertheless, as we discussed at length previously, we understand the desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime.

However, as I explained during our previous debates on this issue, the Government believe the approach taken to defining the scope of the regime in the Bill is the right one. It delivers the effect intended, closing any loopholes that would allow avoidance of the regime, while also allowing for agility to respond to any potential changes in the structure of the football pyramid.

On the merits of Amendment 329, we completely agree that the Secretary of State’s power to define the competitions in scope and to amend this scope in the future should be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise this important decision properly. That is why the Bill as currently drafted achieves this already in Clause 91(3)(a)(i). However, as we cannot accept the noble Lord’s Amendment 19, which was withdrawn, we cannot accept this consequential Amendment 329 either.

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am very grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I think it has been one of the best debates we have had in Committee. I particularly highlight the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, which is very relevant to the amendment. There is a huge difference in costs between light-touch regulation that is effective and appropriate and what he has identified in the 125 pages of this overcomplex and bureaucratic legislation —let alone the secondary legislation that will flow from it. If it becomes overcomplex and bureaucratic, it becomes expensive.

To get that balance right, which was an important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we need regulation. But football is regulated. The FA is the core regulator of both professional and amateur football in England. It has been absolutely absent from this debate. It has said nothing, to the detriment of its reputation as the national governing body of football in England. It is very sad that it has had nothing to say and no opinion. It is there to protect the autonomy of football and really should have come to the table and provided us with its thoughts. Indeed, I know that some noble Lords have written to the FA to ask it for a briefing on the Bill, and the FA’s response has been that it does not have a view on the Bill. We have no briefing. That is exceptionally sad.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

330: Clause 91, page 74, line 1, leave out “56(2)(a)(ii)” and insert “56(2)(b)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an erroneous cross-reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

There we go—the biggest cheer of the night.

As this is the last debate of what has been an extensive process, I echo some earlier comments by thanking the Minister for all her time and involvement over all these days in Committee. I thank all noble Lords for what has been an extensive number of days’ debate. I hope that we may have one new convert as a fan, but maybe not. The debate has been so extensive over those days—as mentioned, there have been 380 amendments—and there is such extensive expertise around the Chamber. So many key points have been raised and there is an understanding that the consequences of getting this wrong are pretty extreme.

There seems to be consensus, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that there needs to be some sort of review and some mechanism for that. I must admit that I do not think that is the “state of the game” report, because that is written by the regulator. It is extremely unlikely that the regulator would say in that report, “In all of this, the regulator is pretty rubbish and should be reviewed”. That is probably an unlikely outcome from the “state of the game” report. This post-legislative review needs to be conducted by someone who is not at the regulator, because otherwise it would be marking its own homework.

I thank my noble friend Lord Goodman for raising this. A sunset is one very good way of looking at it, but we have had other suggestions as well. I ask the Minister to spend the time between now and Report thinking about how we are to get some sort of post-legislative review, to make sure that we get this all right. Lastly, I also ask the Minister to spend the time that we have to reflect on all the views expressed over the many hours and days of debate on this. I look forward to discussing her thoughts on them when we have the meeting in February.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for staying the course to debate this group. I am not going to use any footballing metaphors, because I think we have exhausted them during the Committee and clearly this is the final group. I want to stress that I am really happy to continue to meet noble Lords before Report to make sure that we can talk through concerns that they have raised ahead of the next stage in the progress of the legislation through your Lordships’ House.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, for tabling these amendments, which have allowed a debate about what kind of scrutiny we might need for a new regulator of this type. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for waiting so late to contribute, particularly given his complete lack of interest in football. There is a real value in hearing from people who are interested in regulation and what makes good legislation when we look at something where there is a risk that noble Lords—or anyone looking at the legislation—might approach it from the perspective of themselves as a fan, rather than what we need to have, which is good legislation, a good regulator and effective regulation.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for her contribution. Her expertise has been recognised by other noble Lords as well. I am keen to reflect on these contributions and the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Addington, ahead of Report. I will take the points about scrutiny and accountability away for further consideration. I will go through a number of points—unfortunately, I am going to keep noble Lords a little longer—but I want to reflect properly on the points that have been raised.

Going back to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, unfortunately, while we completely agree that the efficacy of the regulator should be monitored and evaluated—and I am happy to discuss this point further with the noble Lord—I cannot stress enough how strongly we disagree with the use of a sunset clause in this context. I agree with my noble friend Lady Taylor that these amendments would create a perverse incentive for the regulated industry to deliberately act in bad faith from the outset in the hope that the regulator fails to achieve its objectives and is therefore scrapped. We do not want, through the design of the legislation, to encourage or risk encouraging any non-compliance or vexatious behaviour by clubs and competition organisers who might be setting out with the intention of frustrating the regulator. We want to create the right conditions so that clubs act in a sustainable way, and we feel that the approach adopted is the right one.

On the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, surely, we want a regime that creates incentives for clubs to comply and improve sustainability. Under the amendment, the panel would make the decision, but there would still be an incentive for industry to show that the regime is not working. I also had concerns about the noble Lord saying that this would not be a problem because the Secretary of State would appoint the panel. If the Secretary of State can appoint a panel, knowing that it is not going to act against what the Secretary of State might have already decided, that is not a good panel. Therefore, with respect, I cannot agree with the noble Lord’s comments.

Giving the regulator a deadline of five years would also create the incentive for it to become more interventionist. Knowing it will be judged on whether it was meeting its objectives within a fixed period, the regulator could feel compelled to pursue more severe short-term solutions; this would be an undesirable unintended consequence. In addition to introducing these perverse incentives on both sides, a sunset clause would create inherent uncertainty in the market, as default expiry of the legislation in five years’ time, unless regulations are made to the contrary, would leave the industry and investors unclear on what basis they should plan for the future. We do not want to leave the Government or Parliament open to persistent lobbying to trigger the sunset clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, raised the important issue of accountability. This is already built in through the “state of the game” report and the annual report. However, I do recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that these are produced by the regulator, albeit that the “state of the game” report will be based on data from the industry. While I understand the noble Lord’s concerns, the Government believe that the current measures already ensure sufficient scrutiny of the regulator and that it can be held to account if necessary—for example, through the DCMS’s role as sponsor and the requirement for an annual report to be laid before Parliament.

Parliament’s Select Committees can also conduct inquiries into any aspect of the work of the regulator once it is established and take evidence on such matters. The Government believe, given the aforementioned risks associated with the sunset clause, that it would not be an effective way to ensure accountability. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this appropriately sober debate, especially to my noble—and non-footballing—friend Lord Norton for coming in and sharing his expertise with us. I suppose it is scarcely surprising that those noble Lords who are sceptical of state regulation favour the sunset clause, and those who are supportive of it are not. The Minister did not fully answer the argument I put to her. I find it hard to see why a panel appointed by her, which could be trusted to be fair-minded rather than biased one way or the other, would deliberately frustrate the regulator if that panel of experts thought the regulator was right. But these are matters to which we may be able to return on Report.

In the interim, I will simply make two points. First, it is very encouraging to see that there is agreement throughout the Committee that there needs to be more effective post-legislative scrutiny. This point was made briefly but very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. My challenge to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is this: if noble Lords do not like the sunset clause as a means of post-legislative scrutiny, let us come up with something else specific, rather than simply issue the general wish that things can somehow be made better.

Finally, a noble Lord said, “Fans want this”. Once again, I say that something like 33 million people watch football. Some of them will be unaware that this is coming down the tracks. I predict that many fans will find themselves in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I suspect that he has sat through more of this Committee than I have—and I have sat through a great deal of it—very quietly assessing what is going on. He is pro the principle of independent regulation, as licensed by the state, whereas I and many of my noble friends are either sceptical or opposed. But he has recognised, as we have dug more deeply into the weeds of this matter, that it is problematic.

I am sure we will return to these problems on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.