Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I believe that amendment 127 is consequential on the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup’s amendment 124 regarding our changes to the Bill to include parachute payments, which we debated last week—although I think he gave a slightly more wide-ranging speech just now. Amendment 124 would have prevented parachute payments from being considered under the backstop, and it would have prevented the Secretary of State from amending the revenue in scope of the backstop in future. I will state here what I stated last week, and what has been my consistent position, even in opposition: for the regulator to make an informed decision regarding the financial state of football, it must consider all relevant factors, and that includes parachute payments.

As drafted, the “relevant revenue” in scope of the backstop expressly includes broadcast revenue, because that is the predominant source of revenue and distributions for the relevant leagues. However, there is no guarantee that that will always remain the case. As I covered in last week’s debate, the financial landscape of football is ever-changing. No one could have predicted 30 years ago just how much television broadcasting of English football would grow, and who can predict where technology may take us in another 30 years? That is why clause 56 allows the Secretary of State to specify other kinds of revenue to be included as “relevant revenue”. This will simply future-proof the backstop mechanism.

However, as I outlined in the previous debate, there are still clear constraints and safeguards regarding this power. The Secretary State must consult with the regulator, the FA and the relevant leagues before using the power, and can use the power only when there has been

“a material change of circumstances”.

Any use of the power will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

We cannot set something in stone and say, “That’s how it’s going to be forever.” Giving that bit of flexibility is right. I was talking to my friend Richard Caborn, who was a previous sports Minister, and he said to me that, when discussions first began about revenue within football, they were concentrated on the television rights to UK matches in the United Kingdom. It has since become apparent, of course, that it is the international rights that are the real driver of resources. That was not thought about when the first distribution was done.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention; he has put an important point on the record, and it is always nice to be able to pay tribute to Richard Caborn, the former sports Minister and my former south Yorkshire colleague. He has done a lot of work in this area; indeed, I know that he has worked very closely with my hon. Friend.

This process is simply about future-proofing. Given that this Committee has already agreed to clause 56 and disagreed to the shadow Minister’s amendment 124, all that this amendment would achieve is to remove one of the safeguards, making regulations to update the definition of “relevant revenue” negative rather than affirmative. For those reasons, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 91 sets out the parameters and procedure around the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations under the various provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Minor definitions etc

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 92, page 75, line 17, after “functions” insert

“or give rise to the perception that said person’s functions have been prejudicially affected, including (but not limited to) a situation in which a person is—

(a) employed by or engaged as a consultant by any specified competition organiser or any group undertaking of a specified competition organiser;

(b) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from a specified competition organiser;

(c) connected with a group undertaking of an organisation within the scope of part (ii);

(d) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from any of the organisations listed in parts (ii) or (iii); or

(e) connected (as defined in section 252 of the Companies Act 2006) with an individual within the scope of parts (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of section 92(1).”

The amendment gives further detail to the definition of “conflict of interest” within this Bill.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, hopefully for the last time—in this Committee, I mean. The amendment is simply trying to make the Bill a bit more specific about what “conflict of interest” might mean. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the amendment is not quite right in its drafting and wording. Nevertheless, it is at least worth putting on the record that this is an important issue. Maybe we can obtain some clarification about what “conflict of interest” means in practice.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this amendment. I acknowledge its intent to fortify the provisions in the Bill for dealing with conflicts of interest. We will cover “Minor Definitions” in detail when we discuss the next group of clauses, which includes clause 92 stand part. However, I will touch on “Minor Definitions” briefly when responding to this amendment.

As we discussed at length on day one of this Committee, when we debated conflicts of interest, it is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime free from undue influence and vested interests. The Bill already makes it clear that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest and the Government amendments made in the other place strengthen those protections even further—indeed, beyond any doubt.

We believe that the existing definition of a conflict of interest is appropriate and will capture the correct issues. That definition is any interest that

“is likely to affect prejudicially that person’s discharge of functions”.

I reassure my hon. Friend that our definition is well precedented; for example, it can be found in the Pensions Act 2008 and the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

To clarify the point about the lucky gin and orange, I believe that my friends chose that as a pre-match drink because they had already had five pints of real ale and were no longer able to fit in that quantity. Having gin on top of five pints of real ale is clearly not a good idea. There are other opportunities for people to have all kinds of drinks before football. The point is that people force down drinks in pubs because they know that they cannot drink during the game, and that means that they are more likely to be drunk in the football ground. We support the new clause.

[Mr Betts]

This is a difficult issue. None of us wants fan behaviour to get worse, given that it has largely stabilised at most grounds. Such behaviour happens not just before the game but at half-time: fans rush down and get at least two or three pints in during the quarter-of-an-hour break.

I ask the Minister reflect on this proposal; I am not asking her to agree with it. She might talk to colleagues in Europe through UEFA. I have been to a Bundesliga game in Berlin. They serve beer there—in quite large quantities—but it is 2%, so it is weaker. That is one way to do it. It seems to be a regulation, and it seems to work.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should explore what is happening in Europe. Alcohol is sold in lower rates, and only in certain areas of the stadium and only at certain games. I, for one, would be willing to welcome alcohol, but there would have to be a really good review, involving the police, that looks at what is done elsewhere. As a Portsmouth fan, let me say that there is absolutely no way that it should be served at a Portsmouth versus Southampton game.

[Mr Betts]

I would have thought that if my hon. Friend was going to watch Portsmouth play Southampton, she would want to be well inebriated before she had to watch Southampton win—[Interruption.] I am sorry to upset her.

I say to the Minister that we do not have to make the decision now—this is not the Bill to do it—but we should at least reflect on it with the FSA.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the new clause is not asking for the ban to be lifted. It is very much in the spirit of what he is saying. It says that there should be a requirement to consult, which seems to be the process that he is advocating, so I do not think it would be out of place in the Bill.

[Mr Betts]

In the end, the Minister will advise us what the approach is likely to be. I hope she will at least keep a slightly open mind so that if she does not make a decision now, she thinks about the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We believe that the provisions of new clause 20 are missing from the Bill as drafted. We have debated issues involving clubs, fans and leagues, but there has been little on player welfare. In different debates, we have discussed scheduling and the impact on player welfare of the excessive number of games in different competitions. The perfect example is the club world cup taking place in America. There are also other competing demands on player welfare and the welfare of retired players, as we have discussed.

This new clause on player welfare would, within one year of the passing of this Bill, require the Secretary of State to review how to improve the welfare of football players, considering neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs, the number of games footballers have to play each season—in line with my earlier comments—and the impact on current and former professional footballers’ welfare. It is a straightforward amendment, very much in the spirit of the new duties being asked of the regulator and the leagues going forward. We would therefore be interested in the Minister’s response.

[Mr Betts]

Briefly, will the Minister look at something else directly related to the new clause, which is the safety of the grounds that players play at? Three years ago, the PFA approached me about a horrible incident at Bath City, where a young player went headlong into a concrete wall and suffered severe brain damage. I was surprised to find that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 does not cover players, but only spectators. That is a shocking omission, although we can probably understand how it got there.

At the time, I went to see the then Sports Minister with the PFA. He was supportive, and he agreed that he would write, with the PFA and others, to get the leagues and the other football authorities to look seriously at this issue. I think that guidance was given about how they should approach ground safety for players and the dangers they could face, such as running headlong into a concrete wall with no protection between the wall and the pitch.

The Minister probably will not be able to answer me now, but will she investigate how far that guidance changed behaviour and whether it had any impact on making grounds safer for players? It is an issue. One incident caused severe damage to the wellbeing of one young player. It could happen anywhere. That was at Bath City, which is not a regulated club. It is an issue not just of regulation but of player safety, and we ought to be concerned about that.