Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, although I am mindful of the rules of debate on Report, I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I preface my remarks with a short, two-hour encomium to Newcastle United, congratulating them on their victory in the Carabao Cup, their first domestic trophy in 70 years—that is longer than the living memory of any of my relatives. That is an area on which I know the Minister and I are in full agreement. I am mindful that other noble Lords were present at Wembley yesterday and hoping for a different result, so I shall not go on about it, other than to say that I hope that anyone who had the pleasure of being on the London Underground yesterday was as delighted as I was to see all the lads and lasses there with smiling faces and will join me in sending hearty congratulations to the Newcastle fans, who have waited so very long for this moment.

The Government’s new corporate governance provisions have, I think it is safe to say, received considerable attention during our debates on this Bill. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has just set out the concerns of many on these Benches very powerfully, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has echoed them and added her own concerns.

I have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we on the Opposition Benches are not persuaded by the changes the Government have made to the Bill, compared to the version we put forward in the last Parliament. As I said in Committee, we do not believe that the additions the Government have made in this area are necessary either. The Bill already has strong corporate governance requirements, mandating a corporate governance statement as part of the licensing process, and that is in addition to the rules already enforced by the Football Association and competition organisers.

Regardless of whether one believes that prescribed EDI policies would improve the operation of clubs and football in this country—and as we can see from the short debate we have had again today, that is by no means a settled view—clubs already have to comply with similar rules and, in many cases, voluntarily go further. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, alluded to some of the work they do, and my noble friend Lady Brady mentioned it in more detail in our debate in Committee. Mandating further policies and action to promote equality, diversity and inclusion is, therefore, a clear example—we think—of unduly onerous regulation which has little to do with financial stability. The Minister has been clear throughout our scrutiny that this is intended to be a sustainability regulator.

Our concern is that placing new EDI duties in the Bill and, therefore, tasking the regulator with concocting rules to that end would increase the risk of mission creep, which we have all been very concerned about. We are clear that this will end up meaning more, not less, regulation. At a time when the Prime Minister is promising to clear out the regulatory weeds, and the Chancellor is writing letters to regulators asking them to promote economic growth, we should be aiming for fewer regulatory burdens, not more.

I shall say a few words about Amendment 34, which my noble friend Lord Markham outlined the case for, which relates to independent non-executive directors. We had a strong cross-party exchange on this topic in Committee, when amendments to the same effect were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Blunkett. They were evidently satisfied with the Minister’s response, so they have not brought them back, but I am glad that my noble friend Lord Markham has tabled his. I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to discuss this issue with both of us, as I believe she also did with a number of other noble Lords who raised it in Committee. She kindly copied us in to the letter she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, about it, but I look forward to any further reassurances she is able to give on Amendment 34.

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

I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, in his congratulations to Newcastle United, and I offer commiserations to Liverpool and its supporters. Good football is always a joy to watch, but only one side can win; I feel for those who put in all their effort and did not go away smiley-faced.

I want to address one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in relation to reports in the media this morning. The noble Lord should be mindful of the old adage that you should not believe everything you read in the newspapers. Your Lordships’ House has heard at length during the Bill’s passage that too many football fans have been left with nowhere to turn when faced with reckless owners, financial mismanagement and threats to their club’s very existence. That is why the Government remain absolutely committed to introducing an independent football regulator to put fans back at the heart of the game.

We had extensive discussion on the topic of equality, diversity and inclusion in Committee, when a number of noble Lords opposite aired their considerable concern over what is a very standard addition to almost all corporate governance codes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with them. The Government have not changed our view that equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. Research has shown that diversity on boards and in organisations promotes better governance, decision-making and transparency, all of which in turn contribute to improved financial sustainability.

We heard in Committee about the vital work that the industry is already undertaking in this area. The regulator will look to work co-operatively with other stakeholders, to draw on the expertise of the sector and to add to industry initiatives through the code. As with fan engagement, this will be a statutory baseline.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the Green and Hand report, which was forwarded to me —I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, for that. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, noted the findings of Green and Hand regarding McKinsey studies into the relationship between EDI and corporate performance. I recognise that the assessment refutes the link between ethnic diversity and financial performance. However, it remains my view that the relationship between diversity and improved corporate performance is well established and accepted beyond the studies of McKinsey alone. For example, both the Financial Reporting Council and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants acknowledge this relationship. Clubs that already champion equality, diversity and inclusion will not have an additional burden placed on them, other than having to periodically report on these things.

My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton outlined a number of issues that remain within the game. Under the corporate governance code, clubs will simply be required to explain how they are applying the code and what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion—nothing more. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that does not feel onerous, but it is a helpful and transparent measure, in the Government’s view, and I refer noble Lords to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As I have said previously, the regulator is not going to prescriptively micromanage each club’s board, or set targets and quotas on EDI. That is not the role of the regulator, and would be a significant burden on both the regulator and clubs.

Turning to Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I thank the noble Lord for this amendment and for his engagement on this, along with a number of other noble Lords. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Knight, who has been a strong advocate on this issue and has met me to discuss it. I wrote to him about it, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned, and I would be happy to lay a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

As I outlined in the letter, we are fully in agreement with the principle of independent non-exec directors. We recognise that they can greatly improve decision-making, provide independent scrutiny and drive up corporate governance standards. This supports the regulator’s objective of better financial soundness, stability and decision-making for football clubs. However, while we agree with the principle, we do not feel it is right to include this detail in the Bill. We do not believe that the Government should be writing the corporate governance code, or making detailed recommendations on how a club’s board should operate. Indeed, no corporate governance code is written in primary legislation; this helps ensure flexibility and future-proofing.

We are setting up an independent, specialist football regulator, which will have in-depth knowledge of the unique challenges of football club governance. It will be for the regulator to then develop, consult on and ultimately publish this code. This approach enables consultation with industry, including clubs, which is essential to ensure that it is appropriate for the football industry and that it can be adapted in the future to reflect best practice. However, I again assure noble Lords that we fully expect the regulator’s code to include detail and guidance on independent directors. This is the norm for all corporate governance codes, and we do not expect the regulator’s code to be any different.

I think there is broad agreement on the importance of independent non-exec directors, and I thank noble Lords across the House for the interest shown in this issue. I hope that the reassurance I have provided will satisfy any concerns that INEDs will not be included in the corporate governance code. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments for the reasons I have given.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate, particularly the thoughtful remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I will briefly correct the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I have not tabled an amendment that is against EDI; it is against a compulsory and costly duty enshrined by the corporate governance document in the Bill. That is a separate thing. I am disappointed that no noble Lords, except the Minister, actually engaged with the evidence that both the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I have put forward.

There is one point that I would challenge the Minister on. Once again, despite being challenged in the letter from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and by me today, she has yet to come forward with any alternative to the McKinsey study showing evidence that EDI improves the bottom line in business, let alone the football world. That is a very important issue.

The Minister was right when she said we have had a good and lengthy debate on this issue over many weeks, both before Christmas and this year. Notwithstanding that, I do not think she has answered the specific questions we have raised. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

32: Schedule 5, page 99, line 36, at end insert—
“(ca) how the club contributes to the economic and social well-being of the local community with which it is associated,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community part of its corporate governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I will add just two comments, the first on Amendment 35 on the women’s game. It is plainly at a very sensitive stage of development and we would all wish to encourage that development. My concern is that including Amendment 35 might perversely deter some clubs from investing in women’s football, and that would be most unfortunate indeed.

In relation to Amendment 36, to which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, just spoke, this is an exceptionally vague provision: the idea that the regulator should have power in relation to discretionary licence conditions where there is

“conduct which it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom”.

This would be very difficult to apply and would lead to all sorts of probably legal arguments on what this means. In any event, it is a power that would be given on the basis of reasonable suspicion. That is most unfair to the clubs concerned, because there might be a reasonable suspicion that is not justified. As always, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer, partly in sports law, acting in particular for Manchester City in current disciplinary proceedings.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling amendments, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester for moving, in her unavoidable absence, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I welcome in particular the opportunity to discuss the women’s game and to set out the Government’s position on it, not least in relation to this Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was keen to have a debate on the women’s game and frustrated that we did not have one at earlier stages, so I am sorry that she could not join us. However, I hope that I can give all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the women’s game the assurance that the Government really do want to see women’s football in this country thrive.

Recent years have seen incredible growth in the sport, catalysed by the amazing success of our Lionesses. I know that all noble Lords are hugely proud of their achievements. We understand why there is an interest in ensuring that women’s football is accorded some of the same protections that the Bill would deliver for the men’s game. As someone who was not allowed to play football at school, I am delighted that my nieces take it absolutely for granted that they are, so this is an area that I personally want to see grow and thrive.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester spoke passionately in favour of the women’s game. We agree with the independent review of women’s football that he noted, and which was expertly chaired by Karen Carney. As my noble friend stated, that review recommended that the women’s game should be given the time, space and opportunity to grow and govern itself. So, while there are some shared features, the problems facing women’s football and men’s football are not the same. The Government are in regular contact with the Women’s Professional Leagues Ltd. We are confident that it will be able to implement the structures, processes and regulations to drive the sport forward. Where appropriate, this can involve taking learnings from the men’s game and the regulator.

I reassure my noble friend that, as with all regulation, the scope of the regulator will be kept under review. As it is not intended in the first instance for the regulator to cover the women’s game, the “state of the game” report will consider only matters in scope of the regulator. However, if appropriate in the future and following proper consultation, the regulator’s remit could be extended to include women’s competitions via secondary legislation.

To expand slightly on why we are not at this point intending to regulate the women’s game, it is by its own admission at a different stage from the men’s game. It is still in a start-up phase, needing significant investment and growth to achieve its potential. The men’s game, by virtue of being a more mature commercial product, has no issue with growth or investment. Its issue is that it spends unsustainably, accumulates debt and cannot keep the massive revenues that it raises within the game. Therefore, neither the Government nor the women’s football industry believes that statutory regulation is the correct approach to helping women’s football at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, alluded to issues that might be prevented. I will refer to the specific example of Reading Football Club. I do not want to assume that the noble Lord was referring to it as an example of where the regulator might have helped. Currently, the women’s game is not intended to fall within the regulator’s initial scope, so the regulator could not have directly prevented funding to Reading Football Club Women being cut. However, importantly, it would have been able to address financial problems at the men’s club, which may have averted the issue. So it is an indirect benefit, potentially. It would also have had access to information that it could have shared, only in certain specific circumstances, with the authorities in the women’s game. This might have allowed them to identify and react earlier to an issue and protect the women’s team. So we are confident that the authorities responsible for governing the women’s game will be able to implement the appropriate protections to prevent a future similar scenario to that which happened in Reading.

Amendment 36 would allow the regulator to stop a club accepting funding that it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom. I know that protecting football from wider harms is important to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as it is for us all. I agree with the intent and thank him for his engagement on this. However, it is not for a football regulator to judge what is harmful to the interests of this country; indeed, this is what the UK’s financial sanctions regime is for. If there is an oligarch or bad actor with connections to a hostile state acting against UK interests, they can be sanctioned. That would automatically stop a club receiving funding from the party in question. Sanctions can be imposed for a whole range of reasons, including in the interests of national security.

Beyond this, the Bill already provides protections against wider harms. The owners’ and directors’ test, for example, will look at the fitness of a club’s owners and officers, including sanctions, and whether the individual has been prevented from entering the UK. This seeks to protect English clubs from unsuitable owners or officers. In conjunction with the power to restrict funds suspected to be connected to serious criminal conduct, this will help to ensure that clubs are protected from harm.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his Amendments 38 to 41 and his continued engagement on the Bill. I have written to the noble Lord on some of the points he raised on discretionary licence conditions and the commitments in lieu process, and I am happy to lay a copy of this letter in the House Library for other Members of your Lordships’ House to access as well. As I outlined in that letter, we feel that it is appropriate for competition organisers to have a formal opportunity to intervene on a financial issue if they could achieve the same goal in a more effective and less burdensome way. This commitments in lieu process encodes the light-touch and collaborative approach that we have discussed at great length in your Lordships’ House.

The Bill as drafted allows clubs ample opportunity to make representations about proposed financial discretionary licence conditions. As part of ongoing supervision by the regulator, clubs will be made aware of what potential action the regulator may take to improve the clubs’ standards. However, if a competition organiser proposes a commitment that the regulator believes would solve the issue in a quicker, more effective or more proportionate manner than the regulator’s proposed licence condition, the club should not be able to veto this.

I turn to Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. We understand the intention of this amendment, and we agree that the regulator should avoid any burdens or disruptions that may be associated with mid-season licensing of clubs, including the risk, albeit remote, that licences are refused mid-season. As currently envisaged, once the regulator is set up, it will make rules around how and when clubs need to submit their applications. The noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the entirety of Part 3 being commenced until the period between seasons. For example, if the regulator were ready to start preparing clubs for licensing in September in a given year, it would have to wait until the following May before it could do so. We want clubs to be able to prepare their application and engage with the licensing process early to avoid a rush and high burdens in the relatively short window between seasons. This amendment would prevent that.

By contrast, if commenced properly, there will be a substantial onboarding time for clubs, and the regulator will not have to process 116 applications in a short space of time. The noble Lord’s intention of avoiding mid-season disruption can be achieved through a careful commencement of Part 3. We intend to delay commencing the Clause 15(1) requirement on clubs to have a licence until all clubs have had the necessary opportunity to obtain one.

On Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand that the noble Lord’s view is that the Secretary of State guidance on significant influence and control is integral in providing certainty for the industry, and that it must be produced in a timely manner. That is why, last week on Report, I committed

“that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced before clubs are required to identify their owners who meet the definition of having significant influence or control”.—[Official Report, 11/3/25; cols. 626-27.]

I would like to reiterate this commitment and reassure the noble Lord that it would be superfluous in this instance to make this amendment. Additionally, I remind the noble Lord that the House made its view on the definition very clear when it voted against Amendment 7. I hope he will agree that it would be an inefficient use of the House’s time to discuss this issue any further and will take reassurance from the commitment I have already made.

I turn finally to government Amendment 37. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns regarding consultation requirements and discretionary licence conditions. We are making a change to the consultation requirement that the regulator must satisfy before submitting a request to the Secretary of State, to amend the scope of discretionary licence conditions. We were confident that the previous drafting would have captured clubs and competition organisers, but we have listened to concerns across the House about this not being stated explicitly. Therefore, we have brought forward this amendment to put this beyond all doubt and address those concerns. As a result of this amendment, the regulator will now be required in legislation to consult all regulated clubs and each specified competition organiser in this process.

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

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this little debate on this group of amendments. Although I would have welcomed a little further development from my noble friend, I certainly understand her response. I also understand the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to which I respond merely that if a men’s club does not believe in women’s football, it certainly should not invest in it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

37: Clause 22, page 15, line 14, leave out “such persons as the IFR considers appropriate” and insert “—
(a) all regulated clubs,(b) each specified competition organiser, and(c) such other persons as the IFR considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to consult clubs and competition organisers, in addition to other persons it considers appropriate, before making a request to the Secretary of State to make regulations amending the types of discretionary licence condition set out in clause 22(1), (2) and (3).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

48: Clause 46, page 38, line 39, leave out “carries on an activity” and insert “takes any step”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a drafting inconsistency in clause 46.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

49: Clause 49, page 40, line 27, leave out from “to” to end of line 28 and insert—
“(a) any emblem or crest of a relevant team operated by the club, or(b) the predominant home shirt colours of such a team,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to a team’s “emblem” alongside “crest”, to avoid confusion with the heraldic use of the term “crest”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

51: Clause 53, page 43, line 19, at end insert—
“(8A) If levy rules make the provision mentioned in subsection (8)(b), they must provide—(a) for the rate at which interest is charged not to exceed an annual percentage rate of 5% plus the Bank of England base rate,(b) that the IFR may charge interest at a rate determined by the IFR that is lower than the rate that would otherwise be applicable under the rules, where the IFR considers that appropriate, and(c) that the IFR may disapply a requirement for interest to be charged, where the IFR considers that appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment caps the rate of interest on late levy payments that the IFR may provide for in the levy rules at an annual percentage rate of 5% plus Bank of England base rate and gives the IFR discretion to charge a lower rate of interest or no interest in particular cases.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to a package of government amendments: Amendments 51, 78, 86 and 88. I will speak to other amendments in this group in my closing remarks. The government amendments follow constructive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Markham, who proposed an upper limit on interest that can be charged by the regulator on missed levy payments. Our amendments will impose a limit of the Bank of England base plus 5%. We believe this strikes the right balance between deterring non-payment and preventing undue burden. It also provides greater internal consistency within the Bill; the rate used for this upper limit is the same applied to missed financial penalty payments. With this amendment the regulator will maintain the discretion to set the interest for missed levy payments and could therefore set it lower than this cap or disapply it entirely. I hope this satisfies the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue, and I beg to move.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 52 seeks to reverse one of the more surprising changes to the Bill. The previous Conservative version stated that the regulator must consult on all changes to the levy rules. This seemed fair and proportionate. If the regulator is to change how it charges the levy or how much it wishes to charge, it seems pretty reasonable that those who will bear the burden of that charge are consulted.

The changes introduced by the Government provide that the regulator does not have to consult if it considers those changes to be minor. The issue is that the definition of “minor” is to be determined by the regulator. What would happen if the regulator tries to claim that somehow a change is “minor”, but other interested parties do not agree? Is there not the possibility here for the regulator to skirt around important consultations by simply claiming that the changes it is proposing are not significant enough to warrant discussion? The problem here is that this could create endless discussions about what warrants being termed “minor”. Surely it would be far simpler for the regulator just to consult on all changes, as was the case in the previous Bill.

Separately, it is welcome that the Government have accepted the principle that interest charged by the regulator on unpaid levy charges should be capped by the legislation. This was an amendment that my noble friend Lord Parkinson and I tabled in Committee. At the time, the Minister said that

“setting the rate of interest charged on non-payment of the levy is an operational decision for the regulator, which needs the flexibility to charge interest at a rate that deters non-payment”.—[Official Report, 18/12/24; col. 337.]

We disagreed with this assessment at the time. Although it is right that some flexibility is needed, it is not right that the regulator should be the one that sees fit to charge whatever it thinks is right. I am therefore very pleased that the Minister has changed her mind on that matter and brought a government amendment to this effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Goddard of Stockport, for their amendments.

Amendment 52 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would require the regulator to consult every regulated club, as well as the Secretary of State, the Treasury and others that the regulator considers appropriate, for minor changes to the levy rules. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Bill is currently written so that consultation is not needed for minor changes to levy rules. This is intended to allow the regulator to make immaterial amendments or corrections without excessive bureaucratic burden. In the Government’s view, the amendment would add a layer of unnecessary process.

There is no need—and, I imagine, no great desire—for clubs to be made aware of every typographical or grammatical error that the regulator wishes to correct. I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in his support for the amendment, and I can assure noble Lords that clubs will be properly consulted on matters that affect them. For all changes to the levy rules that constitute material changes, the Bill already requires the regulator to consult, amongst others, every regulated club.

Moving to Amendments 55 and 56 from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I completely understand the intention behind these amendments. A right of approval for the regulator over relevant competition organiser rules would enable the regulator to clearly maintain authority on matters within its remit and to manage any potential duplication or conflicts. However, the Government are firmly of the view that competition organisers should be free to implement their own rules autonomously. As membership organisations, they should be free to set rules on their members in pursuit of their own objectives, which are likely to be broader than the regulator’s.

Overreach by the regulator into the rules of competition organisers risks the kind of scope creep that UEFA has warned against. We are confident that the regulator will be able to work with competition organisers to manage any interactions between their rules and its own regulatory system without the need for an approval or veto power. As a result, we do not think the regulator needs the power to require additional information from competition organisers here either.

On the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, the regulator will put in place the necessary minimum standards for all clubs in scope with statutory powers to enforce and maintain these standards. This would be business regulation of football clubs setting the statutory baseline they must meet to operate as football clubs in this country. Beyond this, competition organisers are free to set membership requirements on their member clubs. If they wish to layer additional requirements or processes on top of the regulated statutory baseline, they will be free to do so, providing that they are consistent with the law. Of course, it would be in no one’s interests to have unnecessary duplication, so we would perhaps expect the competition organisers to focus on other objectives and leave sustainability in this regard to the regulator.

In light of these points, and others, raised, I hope that the noble Lords will recognise the risks associated with their amendments and will be content not to press them as well as to support the government amendments.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I refer her back to the answer that she gave to my noble friend Lord Markham and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. When I was chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, I had notification from the Treasury about a change on tax rules that it considered minor. The Treasury expected it to go through with no contest, but the brewing industry went berserk because the Treasury was unaware of the implications of what it was proposing. That is precisely what appears to be the case regarding the comments from my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: it cannot be for the regulator to judge whether something is minor or major, because it may well be unaware of the implication of what it is doing for one club or another, or for a group of clubs in one form or another. I find the Minister’s answer surprisingly inadequate.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am sorry that the noble Lord finds my answer inadequate. I am happy to give further reassurance to noble Lords by asking the shadow regulator for some examples of what type of change it may see as minor.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her comments, but I think it is the feeling of a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Hayward, that it cannot be right in principle that the regulator gets to be judge and jury on what is or is not consequential, particularly as it does not have the full knowledge that the clubs might have. The regulator might think it is minor, but it might make a real difference to the clubs. Therefore, at this point, we are minded to test the opinion of the House when we come to Amendment 52.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

The noble Baroness cannot speak again on Report.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for speaking to them.

As discussed in Committee, the Government fully acknowledge that parachute payments are a significant part of football’s financial landscape. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, this is part of the current landscape. However, it is precisely because of this importance that the regulator must be able to consider them as relevant revenue for the purposes of the backstop, especially if they are proven to be destabilising. How else could the regulator possibly make a fully informed and effective decision without a complete picture of football’s finances?

Amendments 57, 75, 76 and 84 all attempt to remove parachute payments from consideration under the backstop. They also remove the power for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of relevant revenue, preventing them ever being included in the definition of relevant revenue in the future.

In our view, these amendments are fundamentally short-sighted. I hear the concerns from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, but we heard a very different alternative view from my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. Clearly, it is disputed within your Lordships’ House. If the effects of parachute payments are risking the sustainability of the wider pyramid, the regulator must have a lever to address the issue.

These amendments make the definition of relevant revenue less flexible, less able to address the changing landscape of football’s finances and, overall, less effective. The current power in the Bill allowing the Secretary of State to amend the definition of relevant revenue is balanced, requiring substantial consultation with the relevant leagues. Removing this instead leaves us with a static definition that is likely to become outdated over time. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lords not to press these amendments.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister and all noble Lords for their comments. It has become clear in this heavily truncated debate, but taking on the major points that we spoke about in Committee, that all noble Lords care passionately about what we are trying to do here, and that between us we are all trying to find what we think will be the best solution for football overall.

My concern and the concern of my noble friends and many others is that if you damage the competitiveness of a lot of those Premier League games, it will result in less money being paid in media rights to the Premier League, which will mean less money to all the clubs in the pyramid. That is the real danger that we are talking about here.

To directly address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, around the closed-shop nature of the Premier League, only five clubs have been in the Premier League for the whole of its existence, so that is not a closed shop, and 55% of all the clubs have been in the Premier League at some point.

Although the Minister’s comments were not unexpected, I believe that the previous version of the Bill that was presented by the then Conservative Government was better than the one before us today, and one of the major reasons for that is the changes around parachute payments.

I regret that, although the Minister understands the importance of all the amendments, she is not minded to accept our Amendment 70 as a genuine attempt to reach compromise and consensus on this issue. That means that the regulator can still, if it considers it correct, abolish those parachute payments in their entirety, which I truly believe would have a significant impact on the game and damage all 92 clubs. As a result, I am afraid that I am not satisfied by Minister’s response and, as I indicated earlier, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 57.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling the amendments in this group. It is indeed an impressive team, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, stated. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his considered engagement and persistence, and for the time he spent considering ways in which we could improve the backstop process for the good of football, which is what the Bill is intended to provide.

I am grateful for the contributions from other noble Lords co-sponsoring the amendments and other noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House who have contributed to debates and engaged constructively during discussions and during this debate. We have had a series of productive meetings exploring some of the aspects of the model that were not discussed in detail in Committee.

If I may give a personal view, as someone who has learned a huge amount through the passage of the Bill and been on an incredibly steep learning curve, I think it is unfortunate that the tone and nature of the debate in Committee at times prevented these sensible discussions taking place on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and others, as they have raised a series of important questions that have helped to inform our government amendments in this area. I genuinely appreciate his and other noble Lords’ time and expertise. I particularly appreciated how the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Burns, viewed the draft legislation with the regulator and the regulated in mind, using their considerable relevant experience to provide fascinating and useful insights.

We have heard the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, with his experience in dispute resolution. The IFR needs effective tools and, as the noble and learned Lord said, the tools and the approach should be fair and careful. I add to his point that they also need to be seen to be fair.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked for a specific commitment. While I recognise his concerns, we do not think it would be possible to reach an agreement before the conclusion of Report or Third Reading in the Lords. Our current position is that, while we are sympathetic to the intent of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords and the constructive way in which they have engaged, their approach differs significantly from existing drafting. We therefore do not think there is enough time to conclude discussions on these important differences at this stage or before Third Reading. We kept the model—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the Minister for answering as she has, but implicit in what she said is that the Government might find a way to introduce amendments when the Bill goes to the other place. Can I please seek clarification as to whether that is what she intended to say, or whether that was just something that would take it further down the road?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The only commitment I will give is the one I have in my speech. We do not think it is possible to reach an agreement before the conclusion of Report or Third Reading in the Lords. Our current position is that while we are sympathetic to the intent of the amendments, they differ significantly from the existing drafting.

As I started to say, we kept the model chosen by the previous Government. This model is intended to create the right incentives. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Taylor, spoke of the intention behind the current model. The final offer mechanism is designed specifically to address unequal negotiations between parties with power imbalances such as those that naturally arise in the football industry. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said it was designed for people not to get there. It is actually designed not to be used.

The process as it stands in the existing legislation heavily incentivises reasonable proposals, since an unreasonable proposal has a very high chance of rejection when compared to a more sensible competing offer. We must maintain this incentive—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

If I may, I will get through the points and finish; I am happy to give way if I do not answer the noble Lord’s point.

Our objective is to ensure that the backstop effectively pushes leagues to co-operate—the point that I think my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton was driving at. This was, and remains, the rationale for the existing drafting and model adapted by the previous Government, and in the Bill brought back by this Government to your Lordships’ House.

Alongside this, we want to ensure that the model is light touch—to echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—low cost, flexible and has a clear process. In considering strengthening the model, we must also ensure due consideration, and that appropriate engagement with the relevant stakeholders takes place.

We recognise the intent of the proposed amendments in supporting these objectives, including how the process is triggered, how mediation is conducted and how a final decision is made, including the criteria for a decision. I know that the noble Lords’ proposals have the best interests of football at heart and are based on the huge amount of experience of all those who have signed the amendments. The department will continue working to ensure that the backstop delivers the right balance and the right result for football. This is our shared goal.

I understand that the noble Lord may still wish to divide the House, given that I cannot give a firm commitment at this stage or commit to bringing something back before Third Reading. But throughout the Bill’s passage and consideration of amendments in the Commons, we are very happy to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and noble Lords who have signed up to his amendments, as well as with other noble Lords with an interest in this area, with the hope of reaching a more amenable compromise before Royal Assent. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

If I may, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. The Minister mentioned the lack of time ahead of Third Reading. It is my understanding that it is within the Government’s power to delay Third Reading in order to give sufficient time for this. Given that one of the previous amendments said that we would not put forward measures that would have an impact during a season, and given that we all accept that this legislation will not be passed before the beginning of the new season, there is no practical difference in terms of timing and what that will mean. We have a real opportunity here, which will not have any timing impact on football but will give us the opportunity to seek the better way mentioned before.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are currently no plans to move the timing of Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, but I commit to ongoing discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and others, who have been extremely considerate in the time they spent discussing their concerns about the current model with me, the Bill team and others. We wish to continue those discussions in the spirit I described previously.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

St Paul, Messi—the compliments have been flying around. For the avoidance of any doubt, despite having two of the leading lawyers in the country on the team, no fees were paid during the preparation of these amendments.

I have to say that if was not a party to this debate, I would have been sitting listening with my jaw dropping open at the quality of the contributions from right across the House. I am genuinely grateful to everybody who spoke—without exception. Forgive me if I particularly mention my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas. If I had been the Minister, I would have said, “I am going to give up straight away”, because his arguments were so completely devastating and convincing.

I am surprised and disappointed by the Minister’s response, which I had not expected. As she knows, I had no desire to divide the House. I had hoped, given the strength of the arguments she has heard, that she would adopt a more conciliatory and supportive line. I ask her, if she does not mind, recognising that time is not on our side and the Bill is going to go to another place: is she willing to accept my colleagues and I and others from around this House having a meaningful debate about the re-engineering of the backstop, in line with the arguments heard from all over the House today? It is possible that I am not clear on what it is that she is saying.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord if I was not clear. I am very keen to continue to have ongoing debate and dialogue with the noble Lord and his co-sponsors of the amendment, in a similar vein to the conversations we have had up until now. I apologise if I did not make that clear in my speech. That is absolutely the intention, but unfortunately, I cannot commit to bringing something back before Third Reading.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to commit, but she has always been very generous in the past at inviting people in for talks. Let us be honest, there have been some changes to the Bill, although not many. Does she think there is a reasonable chance that we can fundamentally re-engineer the backstop process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am really sorry but I cannot commit to that, but I can commit to the ongoing discussions.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

I am afraid that I do not think the Minister gives me any choice. I will test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Taken together, these amendments would create a backstop that respects fundamental property rights while ensuring football’s sustainability. They will provide certainty that when the funder fully meets regulatory objectives, their rights and interests are respected. They would ensure that any redistribution of funds serves its intended purpose through proper accountability mechanisms. I believe that they would deliver fair, effective and sustainable outcomes for the entire football pyramid.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for speaking to this group.

On Amendments 60 and 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the five-year timeframe is critical to the effective functioning of the backstop. A set timeframe gives the industry certainty that the regulator can intervene to end the deadlock between the leagues if they cannot agree for an extended period. In addition to this, due to the imbalance in bargaining power between the parties in this case, we do not want to allow a situation in which a league could be coerced into a much longer agreement that essentially renders the backstop unusable.

On Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, Clause 61(5) is intended to function as a protection for the interests of relegated clubs, ensuring that final proposals take into account the disproportionate impact that removing or reducing parachute payments will have on them. The amendment would broaden the provision out so that final proposals consider the financial sustainability of all effective clubs, not only relegated clubs, but that change is unnecessary. Final proposals must already address the financial soundness of clubs and the financial resilience of English football as a whole. To be chosen, a proposal must advance the regulator’s objective. Of course, parachute payments may affect the overall balance of leagues, but relegated clubs are the most directly affected. That is why they need the specific protection that the current clause offers.

On Amendment 71, as the House will know from our debates over the past months, the sustainability of English football is at the heart of the Bill. I understand the noble Baroness’s intent, but the sustainability of English football and advancing the regulator’s objective are already explicitly at the heart of the backstop. Clause 7 already requires that, as far as reasonably practicable, the regulator must exercise all its statutory functions in a way that is compatible with the purpose of the Bill. Of course that includes the backstop, and it would not be appropriate to require leagues to set out how their clubs would spend the disputed funds, nor to implicitly require the regulator to approve exactly how clubs spend funds. That would be overly prescriptive and disproportionate.

As I have set out before, concerns surrounding potentially reckless spending by clubs are already addressed in the financial regulation provisions in the Bill. These measures will ensure that clubs have appropriate resources and controls in place to manage their financial risk. For example, clubs will be required to provide up-to-date financial plans, backed by appropriate financial resources, which will be stress tested. This is the most appropriate way to address how clubs spend their money.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 73 would require the funder’s proposal to be chosen by default, as long as it met a minimum level of consistency with the principles in Clause 62. However, the fundamental aim of the backstop process is to bring balance to a negotiation between two parties where one has significantly more bargaining power than the other. That means impartiality is key and no party can, or should, be favoured.

On Amendment 74, we understand the concerns regarding property rights, and I take this opportunity to reassure the House. The provisions relating to distributions allow for interference with property rights, but that interference is lawful; it is proportionate and in accordance with the law. Most importantly, any interference would also be in the public interest. The backstop can be used only in limited circumstances where a clear issue has been identified. For a proposal to be chosen, it has to be in line with the regulator’s objectives; there is, therefore, no situation where the proposal chosen is not in the public interest. This is set out in more detail in the ECHR memorandum that accompanies the Bill. We are confident that the current drafting of the Bill, as well as the requirements of the Human Rights Act, ensure that property rights must be respected.

I move on to the government amendments in this group, Amendments 68 and 89. We have listened to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and fellow Peers that it is imperative that financial sustainability of relegated clubs is protected under the backstop. We argued in Committee that this protection was already implicit in the Bill, but these amendments put it beyond doubt. If the backstop is used to resolve questions relating to parachute payments, the leagues must address the sustainability of relegated clubs’ finances in their final proposals. We hope that that clarity will ease the concerns of clubs that face relegation.

With regard to Amendment 62, we want to ensure that our policy intention is clear. The backstop is intended to be a last-resort power, only to be used if another regulatory intervention would not achieve the same result. We have therefore tabled an amendment adding a requirement to the list outlined in Clause 59(2) covering the considerations that the regulator must take into account before triggering the backstop process. This new requirement ensures that the regulator must consider whether any of its other functions would achieve a similar result before approving an application to trigger the backstop process. This change demonstrates clearly that the backstop will be used only if other regulatory interventions would not solve the problem.

Amendment 63 requires the regulator to outline any findings in its most recent “state of the game” report that it considers relevant to the question or questions for resolution. The regulator must outline this in its notice to trigger the backstop process. We have always been clear that we expect that the “state of the game” report will play a crucial role in the decision-making process for the backstop. However, by tabling this amendment we have made this commitment explicit in legislation. This will give clarity to the leagues as to how the findings of the report could shape the backstop process. It will also provide reassurance in the Bill that the “state of the game” report will be published before the backstop process can be triggered. The findings of the “state of the game” report will be crucial evidence to inform the regulator’s decisions, including those made as part of the backstop process.

Finally, on Amendment 66, we acknowledge the concerns raised by Peers, most notably the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Burns, both in your Lordships’ House and in meetings since Committee, that the current drafting of the Bill has a hard deadline that puts an automatic end to the mediation phase. While it is important that the backstop process comes to a timely conclusion, we understand the concern that parties may be timed out due to the statutory deadline for the mediation phase being triggered. To be clear, we do not want the mediation phase to come to an arbitrary conclusion if further useful discussion could take place. The Government would strongly prefer an industry-led solution, and we hope the mediation phase will facilitate this, so we have tabled an amendment to allow the mediator to request a single extension of the mediation process, up to 28 more days. This will allow for productive discussion without extending the process unreasonably.

For these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I ask for your Lordships’ House’s support on the government amendments in this group.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

First, I thank the Minister for the points that she has made, and particularly the government amendments, which show in a number of places that the Government have been listening to the points raised in Committee. We are grateful, as all those things help to progress and make it a better Bill.

At the same time, it is a shame that the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 60. It still seems strange to me that, when the Premier League and the English Football League have mutually reached an agreement, we are saying that they are not allowed to do it—because the word “backstop” implies that a backstop should come in force only when the Premier League and the English Football League have not agreed. Here we are saying that we are going to set preconditions on what the EFL and the Premier League are able to agree. That all remains strange to me, and a mystery as to why the Government should not be supportive of allowing the Premier League and the English Football League to come to an agreement.

I turn to Amendments 69 and 71, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Brady. It seems entirely reasonable to ask clubs to put down what they plan to spend the money on. Again, it seems entirely reasonable that, when we are talking about wanting to ensure sustainability, the clubs receiving or making the bids for large amounts of money as part of redistribution should need to make a case that the things that they intend to spend the money on are towards a long-term sustainable model in terms of investment in the club and the infrastructure of the facilities there. Again, it seems strange to me that it is not something that the Government or the Minister would say was entirely in keeping with the intention of what we want to try to do on this. As a result, I believe that the Bill would be better off for the inclusion of these amendments, but I regrettably withdraw my amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

62: Clause 59, page 48, line 34, at end insert “, and
(c) considers that the question or questions for resolution could not be resolved within a reasonable period of time by the IFR exercising any of its other functions under this Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to consider whether the question or questions for resolution could be resolved by the IFR exercising any of its other functions before deciding to trigger the resolution process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

66: Clause 60, page 50, line 6, at end insert—
“(6A) The IFR must extend the period in subsection (6)(b)—(a) if requested in writing to do so by the mediator, and(b) by such period as is set out in the request, which may be up to a further 28 days.(6B) The period in subsection (6)(b) may only be extended once.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to extend the mediation period by up to a further 28 days if requested to do so by the mediator.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

68: Clause 61, page 50, line 27, leave out from beginning to “require” in line 28 and insert “Where a notice under subsection (3) sets out a question for resolution that relates to relegation revenue (within the meaning given by section 62(3)), the notice must”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires specified competition organisers to include in their final proposal the explanation described in clause 61(5) where there is a question for resolution that relates to relegation revenue.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

78: Schedule 9, page 116, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the definition of “Bank of England base rate” in order for it to be moved to the definitions clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

79: Schedule 10, page 117, line 36, column 1, leave out from “the” to “mentioned” in line 37 and insert “taking of any step”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 46 at line 39.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 80, which relates to my favourite topic of heraldry, has already been debated. At the end of that debate on the first day on Report, the Minister very kindly agreed to a further meeting with me and with the College of Arms, which took place this morning. I am going to move my amendment in order to allow the Minister to say what she took from that meeting. On the basis of what I expect her to say, I will not be pressing this to a Division, but I look forward to hearing her.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for sharing his expertise and enthusiasm on this topic in your Lordships’ House, and for the opportunity to respond on this point. I thank him and the College of Arms for their time earlier today. Before he confirms whether he is going to divide the House, I reiterate that it is the Government’s intention that nothing in the Bill is to be read as superseding or impairing any prerogative powers of the Crown in relation to coats of arms, whether exercised directly by the King or on his behalf by the Kings of Arms. I guarantee that something to this effect will be added to the Explanatory Notes to this clause.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, particularly for all the time that she has spent on this niche but important issue. I am also grateful to the Bill team for their meetings, including the one we had today with Norroy and Ulster King of Arms. With gratitude, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right that the congratulations that have been coming my way for Newcastle are entirely misplaced. However, I am sure that the cross-party support the noble Baroness and I gave them on the first day of Report buoyed the team and their success, but it had nothing to do with me. But I can reassure noble Lords that my uncle Barry was probably the person cheering the most loudly at Wembley last night.

I also agree with all those who have welcomed the Government tabling Amendment 90. In Committee, there was cross-party support for looking at how this will all work in practice, from those who are keen to see the regulator up and running swiftly to those who are more sceptical. We had support from the chairman of the Hansard Society and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who watches legislation very carefully. I join the welcome expressed to the Government for bringing forward Amendment 90.

My noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe has argued throughout the passage of the Bill, from Second Reading onwards, that greater oversight and post-legislative scrutiny would be needed. I therefore hope that the Minister will look at the further helpful amendments that the noble Lord has tabled today, arguing that it would be better for an independent body to conduct the review of this independent regulator. Again, my noble friend has been very constructive in the points that he has raised.

Amendment 81, tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, which leads this group, covers the same area that my noble friend Lord Hayward has just touched on in his contribution: the cost of compliance with the new regulatory regime. Clearly, since the Bill that was brought forward in the last Parliament, we have seen new things such as increased employer national insurance contributions, the increase in the minimum wage and the further costs to business that will be coming through the Employment Rights Bill. The financial position of smaller clubs takes place in an even more difficult economic environment. We on this side of the House remain concerned that imposing a levy and further regulatory costs on top of these will likely make clubs less financially sustainable, not more.

My noble friend Lord Hayward points once again to the impact assessment, which does not account for the increased costs of hiring. It says that clubs will have to hire more staff to comply with the extra regulation but does not consider that those extra employees will cost more now than they would have done even when we first looked at the Bill. This is particularly severe when it comes to the smallest clubs in the National League. The general manager of the National League, Mark Ives, and the chief executive of Dagenham and Redbridge, Stephen Thompson, have both warned of the potential for the Bill to create onerous consequences for National League clubs which are not only financial but bureaucratic. Mr Ives said:

“We are concerned about the costs … The expectation of how much it is going to cost clubs at a National League level is a huge concern—it may be a small amount of money, but it is a lot to the clubs”.


National League clubs operate with a very small number of staff, with many in Mr Thompson’s words working on only

“two or three people and some volunteers”.

There is a real risk that some of these smallest clubs will struggle with the further burdens that are placed upon them, so I hope the Minister will look at these amendments.

My Amendment 94, which is in this final group, seeks to ensure that the review takes into account the effect of the regulator’s activity on ticket prices. We had a good debate on this during our first day on Report and indeed a Division which was very conclusive, so I will not say anything further about that issue other than to thank the Minister for all the engagement that she has given during and since Committee, ahead of Report and during our two days on Report. We are all very grateful.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for his amendments and for speaking to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and other noble Lords who have spoken during this short debate.

In Committee, Peers across the House raised the topic of evaluating the impacts, efficacy and success of the regulator. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in particular, for his expertise and time in discussing the topic despite his complete lack of interest in football. I have sometimes found that those noble Lords who have an interest in the details relating to legislation or a regulator come at this topic with a slightly different perspective, which is really helpful, and I welcome his contribution tonight. I am keen to continue discussions on this and other topics with noble Lords across your Lordships’ House—although I must admit that I am quite pleased to be reaching the end of Report.

We agree that it is good practice for the impact of regulation to be monitored and evaluated post-implementation. I am grateful to noble Lords across the House for welcoming government Amendment 90, which will require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the operation of the Act and its impact on the industry. This must be completed no later than five years after the full commencement of the licensing regime. Among other things, the review will look into whether the regulator has been effectively achieving its objectives or whether they might be better achieved in a different way. This includes explicitly considering whether delegation might be appropriate, for example, to an independent industry body.

As part of looking into the impacts of the regulator on the market, the review will also consider interactions with industry rules and any resulting burdens. It will also be a set opportunity for the Secretary of State to formally consider and set out whether the competitions in scope of the regulation remain appropriate. The report will be laid before Parliament and will lay long-term scrutiny of this regime by this House and the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has been a champion of clubs in relation to costs throughout. In relation to compliance costs and the statutory review proposed, a separate review of compliance costs alone might be unnecessary, duplicating the work of the post-implementation review and creating additional costs. The statutory review will offer an opportunity for a more complete and detailed view of the regulator’s performance, per se, and will therefore be more useful in understanding the costs and benefits of regulation to clubs. It will also capture compliance costs that are more reflective of ongoing costs instead of the initial costs of the first year of familiarisation, although we expect that, in its annual report, the independent football regulator will have due regard to these issues.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, for tabling his amendments. I completely understand their intent—namely to introduce more independent scrutiny of the legislation and its effects—but, unfortunately, we do not think it is appropriate for an external third party to carry out this review of the Act. As is common practice, it should be carried out by the Government, particularly because the review may inform future government policy and because its conclusions may include recommendations to add, amend or repeal primary legislation. The Government introduced this legislation, and, in our view, it should be the Government which review whether it has achieved what it intended. However, we completely agree that there should be additional scrutiny, and the intention is that this review will facilitate that scrutiny, for example, by a relevant committee of Parliament. However, it is not for this Act or the Government to direct Parliament to undertake that scrutiny.

On Amendment 92, we have not taken the approach anywhere in the Bill of prescribing specifically where publication must be done. Clearly, the norm these days is for publication online. However, there is no need to mandate where online, as to do so would risk the legislation becoming outdated.

I appreciate the intention of Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham: to ensure the regulator is offering value for money and not unduly burdening clubs financially. Ensuring efficiency and avoiding unnecessary costs have been at the heart of the Bill’s development, but the proposed amendment would duplicate the Government’s statutory review amendment and would therefore impose unnecessary additional costs and burdens on the regulator.

On Amendment 94, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we are acutely aware that ticket prices are a key issue for fans. That is why the Bill explicitly requires clubs to consult their fans on this point. It may well be that the regulator also chooses to look at ticket pricing as part of the “state of the game” report. However, as it is a commercial decision, the regulator will not intervene beyond this. I again reassure the House: we do not believe that an increase in ticket prices would be a proportionate reaction to the cost of the regulator. The levy will be distributed proportionately, and no club will be asked to pay more than is fair and affordable.

An industry that earns over £6 billion a year in revenue and spends hundreds of millions of pounds on player transfers every year cannot legitimately say that it has no choice but to pass the cost of regulation on to fans, particularly since the cost faced by any one club will be relatively low and proportionate to their financial resources. However, if the regulator were to lead to higher ticket prices, this in our view would be captured within the review, which must look at the impacts of the regulator on football in England and Wales.

I turn finally to Amendment 94D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. As I have set out, one aspect of the statutory review will be to consider whether delegation might be beneficial. However, we do not believe that the power to delegate should be provided for in the legislation at this stage. We should not pre-empt the findings of the review, particularly as there is no way of predicting what delegation might need to look like or to whom that delegation might be. We have been clear, as the previous Government were clear, that independent regulation is needed in English football because the industry has shown itself to be incapable. Any decision to delegate back to the industry is not a decision that should be taken lightly, nor should powers established by an Act of Parliament be transferred to private third parties without proper parliamentary process. I am surprised that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment, given the concerns that he has raised repeatedly on delegated powers.

For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments, and will accept government Amendment 90 when we come to it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

86: Clause 92, page 74, line 19, at end insert—
““Bank of England base rate” means— (a) the percentage rate announced from time to time by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England as the official dealing rate, being the rate at which the Bank is willing to enter into transactions for providing short term liquidity in the money markets, or(b) where an order under section 19 of the Bank of England Act 1998 is in force, any equivalent percentage rate determined by the Treasury under that section;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with an amendment to paragraph 13 of Schedule 9, moves the definition of “Bank of England base rate” into the overarching definitions clause from Schedule 9.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

88: Schedule 11, page 119, line 8, at end insert—

“Bank of England base rate

Section 92(1)”

Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a cross-reference to the definition of “Bank of England base rate” into the table in Schedule 11 of defined terms used in more than one place.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

90: After Clause 95, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which section 15 comes fully into force.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved,(b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way (for example if the IFR could delegate its functions to persons other than those listed in paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 2), (c) assess the impact of this Act and the IFR’s actions on football in England and Wales,(d) assess the interaction between this Act and the rules, requirements and restrictions imposed by competition organisers and whether that interaction is appropriate, and(e) assess whether the appropriate competitions are specified under section 2(3), including whether a competition that is not specified should be specified.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the purpose of the Act (see section 1);(b) the IFR’s objectives (see section 6);(c) the IFR’s general duties (see section 7);(d) the IFR’s regulatory principles (see section 8);(e) any state of the game report published by the IFR (see section 10);(f) any annual report submitted to the Secretary of State by the IFR (see section 14).(5) Before publishing the report, the Secretary of State must prepare a draft report and consult the following about the draft report—(a) the IFR,(b) the Football Association,(c) each specified competition organiser, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the Act and publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of that review.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendments 91 to 94D (to Amendment 90) not moved.