Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I know the Committee is delighted to hear me continue my speech.

These amendments are on the key issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Alongside the other amendments we have tabled, we believe that requiring that the chair of the board is not a member of a political party, or a campaigner for a political party, will help to protect the integrity of the football regulator. As the Bill stands, the Government are allowing appointees to the regulator to hide their political activity from fans and from Parliament, which would undermine the regulator from day one. I urge all Members to accept these amendments with good conscience, or to be prepared to explain to their constituents why they are supporting cronies over clubs and favours over fans.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

We are debating a group of amendments that attempt to better the regulator’s independence. The shadow Minister has set out at great length—made even longer by the interruptions —how these amendments would do that.

I think we all agree that the regulator should be independent. It is perfectly open to Labour Members to say, “Hang on a minute, the Bill already does that,” but their interventions and their scoffing from sedentary positions seem to make the counterargument, “Well, when you were in government, you made political appointments to bodies like the BBC and Ofqual.”

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Vicky Foxcroft)]

Yes.

[Joe Robertson]

The Government Whip is agreeing from a sedentary position. “And therefore it is perfectly open to us to make a political appointment to the football regulator.” That is an extraordinary argument.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I do not think it is a case of saying, “Well, you did it, so we’ll do it too.” It was just highlighting the absolute hypocrisy coming from the Opposition Benches.

[Joe Robertson]

I obviously disagree with the word “hypocrisy.” [Laughter.] There is no point laughing when dealing with the very serious issue of taking politics out of football. Fans do not want to see us trading arguments about hypocrisy and the BBC; they want to see us working together to keep politics out of football, and that is what these amendments seek to do.

On the amendment about political donations, of course the shadow Minister spoke about the Government’s preferred candidate—that is the environment in which the Bill is being considered. We learned about the preferred candidate’s political donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister only in a Select Committee hearing, after the Bill had already been considered on Second Reading.

My colleagues and I looked at the preferred candidate’s donations to Labour MPs and prepared a list of those that had been publicly filed. The list did not include his donations to the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I am not saying that there was an improper lack of a declaration of interest, but the donations were not in the public domain. It was only at the very late stage of a Select Committee hearing on his appointment that the donations came out, and they came out because he voluntarily gave that information. I commend him for doing so, but this is the problem we have: we are relying on candidates voluntarily declaring donations they have made to the Government of the day—donations that might not otherwise be publicly declarable. Amendment 117 would force such donations to be publicly declarable in order to keep politics out of football.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman appears to presuppose that such a declaration would result in a person being turned down for the post. In fact, there was a declaration and the Select Committee still decided that the candidate was a fit and proper person. As could happen in future, this person was found to be suitable regardless.

[Joe Robertson]

I am not sure I agree with the hon. Member’s interpretation of why individuals should disclose that they have made political donations. It is not necessarily so that they can be automatically vetoed; it is for transparency, making sure it is in the public domain and making sure the Select Committee has all the information available when it reviews their suitability. This time, the Select Committee relied on a voluntary disclosure. Through amendment 117, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is trying to make that mandatory. It would then be for the Select Committee, other commentators, MPs and the media to draw their own conclusions and give their own opinions on suitability.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way again, for which I am incredibly grateful. Could he explain what questions members of the Select Committee are not permitted to ask candidates when they are making these decisions?

[Joe Robertson]

Amendment 117 would mandate that a candidate for chair of an independent regulator must declare all their political donations. It would not be merely a voluntary process. I back that, and in the absence of any good reason not to, I urge Government Members to do the same.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my hon. Friend remember the case of a referee whose footballing allegiance became public a couple of seasons ago? It caused a huge ruckus because it generated a suspicion that he had been, in some way, partial in the way he had conducted his independent role as a referee, which is not unlike that of the regulator. For football affiliation, read political affiliation. There will be semi-political decisions. Does that not also make the point that the regulator should not be politically aligned?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I have to confess that was not in my mind when I rose to my feet, but my hon. Friend has a good memory. I welcome his sporting analogy, rather than the analogy of Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a job for GB News, which is completely irrelevant to the Bill.

That brings me to another point. I wonder why the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, given that he is chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, tried to widen this debate on the politicisation of organisations. We are talking about football, about sport. It is almost uniquely an apolitical thing, both nationally and internationally. In fact, international sporting bodies are very sensitive to politics. I recall that, in the last 15 years, UEFA—was it UEFA?—tried to ban England players from wearing the poppy on their arms. That was ridiculous, but the organisation saw the poppy as a political symbol.

Football probably stands highest in trying to keep politics out of sport. Associating it with who might have a contract with GB News shows a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of sport.

[Jon Pearce]

If we are dealing with the independence of sport per se, does the hon. Gentleman consider the British Olympic Association to be within the ambit of sport? Its current chair, Sir Hugh Robertson, is a former Conservative MP and Minister for Sport. Does this apply to all sports, or just to football?

[Joe Robertson]

The issue here is that this is a regulator, with regulatory authority and powers. When we legislate, we should do whatever we can to keep politics out of sport. If there are examples going back over time, we can debate them, but doing that in the context of creating a brand-new regulator for football—one that has never existed anywhere else—would probably be a distraction tactic on the Government’s part. It would not deal with fans’ genuine concern that we should not bring politics into sport. We have an opportunity to do something to deliver that by agreeing to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.

Amendment 116 states:

“The Chair of the Board must not…be a member of a political party”.

Why would anyone disagree with that? It is perfectly open to someone who wants to run to be the independent regulator to resign their membership of a political party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about the word “currently”. Well, “currently” means at the point that someone is appointed, so it is perfectly possible for someone to go through the appointment process before resigning their interests at the moment the Government propose to appoint them. I think the word “currently” deals with that issue, which we possibly agree on.

The amendment also says that the chair must do no canvassing

“on behalf of a political party”,

including in council elections. The hon. Member for Newbury might find it weird—as would I—that someone would want to live without canvassing for council candidates, but that is not much of a sacrifice for someone to make if they want to be the national regulator for English football.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions amendment 116, and proposed new paragraph 7A(b) references the fact that the Opposition would not like the chair of the football regulator to canvass for a political party running for the European Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is suggesting some kind of movement to rejoin the EU, or is he suggesting that a Frenchman, a German or someone else from the European Union might become the regulator? In that case, which parties might he like to rule out or rule in?

[Joe Robertson]

The Liberal Democrats are always looking for an opportunity to bring things back to potentially rejoining the EU. No, I would not read the amendment as either an overt or a subtle message about a campaign to rejoin. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a non-British national might campaign in Europe for a candidate standing for the European Parliament, but I will not get distracted by all the possibilities. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. The point is that, while somebody is chair of this independent board, they should not campaign for political candidates or for someone to attain political office.

I urge the Government to take the amendments on board. All they would do is further embed the idea of independence, which the Government say they support.

[Amanda Martin]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

Taking politics out of this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who said this morning that we should have the best person for the job. I believe we do, and it is not just me. The cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, approved the appointment, because it recognised the strength of the candidate. It could have rejected him, or it could have taken more time and asked for more information—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Before speaking directly to these amendments, I want to address the comments made about the chair appointment. I am very aware of the direction that you have given, Sir Jeremy, so I will focus my remarks on the comments made by the shadow Minister and Opposition Members.

David Kogan brings with him a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries. The shadow Minister’s speech had three parts, so I forget when he said this, but he made the point more than once that it is about attracting the right candidate with the right experience, and how that is a challenge. We are confident that David Kogan is the right person. He was found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member who was agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

David Kogan declared his political activity to the DCMS Committee, as the shadow Minister has stated, which endorsed his appointment, adding a further layer of robustness to the appointment process. The donations were declared during the Committee session, as the shadow Minister also stated, and the Committee was sufficiently aware when it published its report endorsing him.

[Joe Robertson]

I know we know this, but the Select Committee is dominated by Labour MPs—I want to make that clear. I did not follow the process within it, but a Committee dominated by Labour MPs approved a Labour donor as the independent regulator.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that it was a unanimous decision by the cross-party Select Committee. There will have been similar instances in the previous Parliament, so I think his point is somewhat unfair, but it may be a reflection of the fact that he is new to this place.

Reference was made to the fact that we have received a letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will of course co-operate fully with his office. No conclusions have been reached at this stage, and we will completely co-operate. Some points were made about what was said on Second Reading and to the Select Committee. The governance code already sets out the requirements for political donations. Donations in scope of the governance code were provided to the Select Committee in advance of the hearing. The leadership campaign donations fall outside the reporting window and the threshold for declaration; however, they were disclosed to the Select Committee in the interests of transparency, which endorsed the appointment on a cross-party basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Whenever I rise to speak on the Bill, I try to keep the fans uppermost in my mind. We have heard discussion about the potential for increasing costs. That is because the Bill will create a bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that some Members support, which is fine, but it is a bureaucracy and has to be paid for. It is being paid for by a levy on clubs. The amendment is not about whether we support a regulator; it is about whether we support the principle of trying to put some parameters around the cost by putting a headcount cap on the regulator and ensuring that this bureaucracy does not grow and grow over time.

In this country we have had a slight tendency, across Governments of different political colours over many decades, to allow bureaucracies to grow. The Bill would be relatively unique but, I think, strengthened if we put in a cap to ensure that this regulator and this bureaucracy cannot grow without restraint. It would therefore ensure that fans will not be overpaying for an organisation that does not need to grow to hundreds, thousands or whatever number anyone wants to suggest.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument. The other point that we are trying to make is that the other established bodies of football are still in place and doing other parts of the job. The regulator is seeking to bring in new responsibilities, but it will not reduce the existing costs on clubs of those other regulatory bodies.

[Joe Robertson]

I take the point, which is well made. We do not want the regulator to grow and start trying to perform the functions of other bodies that exist, just because it has an unrestricted budget. Who knows what the Government of the day will allow to be spent on it? I heard the representations from Government Back Benchers about the methodology to evidence why 50 is the magic number. It is correct to say that it is not the role of MPs to mandate specific headcount, but putting a cap on it would ensure overarching budgetary control. Although it is reasonable to disagree, it is also reasonable to assert that a regulator should be able to function with 50 paid staff members.

[James Naish]

What the hon. Member says is absolutely correct, but the reality is that we do not start with the outcome; we start with the process and the functions. What does the regulator need to do? How is it going to achieve that? How many people are required to deliver those services? Then we get to an outcome. I understand the principle of saying that there should be a cap, but that is just not the way it is done. I have done a lot of advisory work, but I do not know any business that would start with that principle.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member for Cheltenham also referred to the principles of business, but the issue is that this is not a business; it is a regulator. That is why it is entirely proper and fair for Parliament to put a cap on headcount to ensure that the regulator delivers its objectives with some sense of constraint. I suspect that there will always be a justification for taking on more staff to dot every i and cross every t, but that should not be what the regulator is about. I take the point, however.

[Jim Dickson]

If the number is 42 at the moment, as the Minister says, and the regulator is not yet up and running, might 50 not be an entirely inappropriate number for the work that the regulator ultimately has to do, as set out in the Bill?

[Joe Robertson]

I am slightly worried that there are 42 people devoted to setting it up. That sounds like quite a lot to me; it gives me concern and supports my argument for a cap. In response, the Government could come forward and say, “This is the headcount that we expect to deliver the things we want to be delivered,” but I do not think that the Minister is saying that. She will have the opportunity at the end of this exchange—when she resists the amendment, as I am sure she will—to give some assurance that the regulator will not grow beyond a certain size. If she cannot give some indication of headcount, that will ring alarm bells. Those are the alarm bells that the cap seeks to deal with.

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think that that is the responsibility of MPs. All of this is really about scaremongering and about creating the idea that there will be a huge cost. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the size of the regulator will be when it ultimately delivers its functions. It is the responsibility of the regulator to manage itself appropriately. Putting an arbitrary figure from a random conversation into legislation such as this is not good practice.

[Joe Robertson]

The cap is not a mandatory number. We are not saying that the regulator must have 50 people delivering a set of regulatory powers. It is about trying to impose some sort of control on the regulator to stop it growing and growing. The hon. Gentleman says that we will leave it to the regulator, but what happens when the regulator comes back and says, “We need 250 people”? What if, further down the line, it thinks that the job is a bit bigger than it thought, so it argues for 300 or 400? We can name a whole list of bureaucracies that have grown and grown; NHS England is one such, although I am prepared to accept that the IFR would not grow to the size of NHS England, at least within this Parliament.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. My argument, which I believe he is making too, is that hon. Members should have a say in what the regulator looks like, both now and in future. Our overriding point is that once the Bill has passed, there is no power in it that I can see that gives hon. Members any say over what the regulator will look like. We are trying to put a ceiling on it now so that hon. Members can have a say in the size of the regulator.

[Joe Robertson]

The shadow Minister puts it much more succinctly than I have, and I thank him.

The rationale behind the amendment is to keep control over the costs. There will be a levy; it will be football clubs that pay; and ultimately the costs will fall on fans, potentially through higher ticket prices, which we want to avoid. If the Government will not back the amendment, I invite the Minister at least to give some assurances of control over spiralling costs. The headcount of any organisation is one of the key costs.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions ticket prices. Some very simple back-of-a-fag-packet maths tells us that even if the football regulator costs £100 million to run, when we divide that by 92 teams and about 40 games in a season, it comes to a matter of pence per ticket sold: something like 20p, 40p or 50p. I could not even get a Mars bar for 50p in the Tea Room. I do not understand why this argument is being made; it really does not stand up to any kind of challenge. I am not a mathematician or a businessperson, but I can do simple division. I can work out that this body will not cost £100 million, £200 million, £500 million or £1 billion a year to run. It is a fanciful argument and the Opposition should put it to bed.

[Joe Robertson]

It is rather tempting to make a gibe about Liberal Democrats and back-of-a-fag-packet economic comments, but I will not. If it is as simple as the hon. Gentleman says, then let us hear that from the Minister. Let us hear assurances and guarantees that we are talking about pence, because frankly any inflation of ticket prices beyond pence is unacceptable, given the current prices and the legitimate views of fans about them.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe made the very powerful observation that, in identifying a target operating model, form should follow function. The function has been pretty well defined in the Bill, which rather prompts the question why the Government do not have some idea of the form that the regulator should follow. Without any cap whatever, we would simply be inviting untrammelled mission creep and cost growth. Perhaps the hon. Member disagrees with where the cap has been put and with the methodology approaching it, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the principle that he and other hon. Members should have an opportunity for scrutiny if there is a proposal to grow the budget, the wages or the number of people in the regulator.

It is interesting to note the varied approach across the regulatory network. Do we think that the football regulator will be like the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is pretty important—we all drink water—and does its work with 55 people? Coming in next is the Office of Rail and Road, which has up to 370 people. The Information Commissioner’s Office has 500-plus; information is all around us, so that is pretty important. Not quite topping the tree, but coming pretty close, is the Pensions Regulator, with 900 people.

The point is that untrammelled bureaucracies have a tendency simply to grow. There is no limit on the amount of fan consultation that could be done. A member of the football regulator could be sent down to every fan meeting if it really wanted to convince itself that the club was engaging with the fan base. All the amendment seeks is some measure of control, to give Parliament the opportunity once again to stop this thing growing arms and legs and moving way beyond its intended purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is not for us to say. It is an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman outlined how different regulators have wildly different numbers of staff. We do not think that we should set a cap.

[Joe Robertson]

Can the Minister give any indication of the sort of headcount she expects of this regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am not going to be drawn on figures. I will say that we think that the regulator should be as light touch and slim as possible. We do not think that it should be unwieldy and we do not think there should be staff for staff’s sake. It is not for me as the Minister to prescribe a specific number. I do not agree with that. For those reasons, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s interpretation. It is quite commonplace for the chief executive to be the highest paid member of staff in most organisations. In my experience, it would be highly unusual for members of staff underneath the chief executive to be paid more than them.

[Joe Robertson]

I am going to stick my neck out here. I have little confidence in the Government curtailing the expenditure of money, but I do have confidence they would not let a football regulator come into existence where every single employee is paid £173,000. I hope that my trust in them is not misplaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman actually makes the point that I have made already, because we believe that Parliament should have a say on what the regulator looks like in future. We have already made the case that the Bill gives unchecked powers to the Secretary of State. The hypothetical situation that hon. Members have referred to, where we come back with another Act of Parliament, would give Members the opportunity to scrutinise what the regulator has done and scrutinise its costs. It would give Members the opportunity to explain to fans around the country why they are increasing ticket prices and other costs. Members should have the opportunity to keep a sensible check on the regulator in future.

I will get back to my comments, as I appreciate that I am testing your patience again, Sir Jeremy. I am sure that the Minister will understand the serious concerns around not only the cost of the chief executive but, importantly, who determines the pay, which is the second part of the amendment.

I hope that the Minister can also answer my questions about the other issues that my amendment brings to the fore today. On paragraph 8(4), why must a non-executive member of the board of the Government’s regulator notify the Secretary of State when they intend to resign from said board? Why do they not need to inform the chairman, deputy chairman or even the chief executive of the regulator? From my experience, it would be commonplace on most boards for someone to notify the chairman of the board rather than—obviously this is a unique situation—the Secretary of State, so the focus of the Bill seems unusual. Does the Minister understand that, once again, that makes it look like a political regulator? By maintaining the legal ties between the employment of non-executive directors and the Government, it is clear that they are not independent of Government, but reliant on Government. Will she clarify why that is the case?

Paragraph 9(b) states that the Secretary of State can remove a board member if they are satisfied that there is a conflict of interest. Will the Minister tell us what qualifies as a conflict of interest and how the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, will decide what meets those qualifications? Would donating to a political party not in government count—or perhaps donating to a political party that is in government? Would having an interest in related broadcasting companies qualify?

Paragraph 10(1) sets out that the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of non-executive members of the board. That gives the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, extensive powers over patronage. Can the Minister tell us how many board members does she anticipate will be needed and how many will be appointed? What will the remuneration per board member be, and what is the total cost of the board’s operation?

Does the Minister agree with the spirit of my amendment that the Prime Minister should be paid more than whoever is the chairman or the chief executive, whoever that may be? Those already large salaries may encourage the Prime Minister, perhaps on the advice of the current Secretary of State, to appoint somebody to the role to make sure they get a good return on their investment into Labour leadership bids.

[Joe Robertson]

I will not repeat what the shadow Minister has very ably said, but clearly the amendment goes back to the issue of costs spiralling out of control. Let us remember that the concern is about the pay levels for those appointed. The role has already been advertised, as I understand it, on the Government website at £130,000 for a three day part-time role, which means that pro rata they will be paid more than the Prime Minister. I have a serious problem with that, and I suspect that most fans have a serious problem with this so-called slimline light touch regulator being headed up by somebody who is paid more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friend is trying to bring in some level of cap on pay.

We were not successful in bringing in a cap on headcount, but the Minister could not give us any indication of how many people she expects to be employed by the regulator. The Government are prepared to say that 73,000 people should serve in the armed forces, so it is not unprecedented to give an indication of the number of employees in organisations, which is all this amendment is trying to do. If Government Members are happy for the regulator to be paid more pro rata than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so be it—they will have to vote in that way. I am not happy, and that is why I support the amendment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I appreciate the intent to ensure that the regulator offers value for money. That is precisely why the regulator has a regulatory principle encouraging it to be as cost-efficient as possible. There are also countless other safeguards in place to ensure value for money, and we referred to those in earlier debates. For example, the regulator will be required to lay its annual accounts before Parliament, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, for scrutiny.

The regulator will also be subject to pay remit guidance, in the same way as central Government Departments are, to ensure that pay rises are justifiable. That will ensure value for money without sacrificing important operational flexibility for the regulator. On the other hand, a maximum salary for the CEO, fixed in legislation, would leave the regulator unable to adapt to market changes and could leave it unable to recruit and retain the expertise that it needs to effectively regulate.

I understand that the amendment seeks to limit the CEO’s salary to no more than the current salary of the Prime Minister. There would be no way to update that if the salary changed in the future, or even with inflation. It is not a practical constraint to impose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend gives an example that I admit I had not thought of. That is a well-made point about transparency and how that works in the City, and about the important role of the Bank of England.

[Joe Robertson]

I offer the shadow Minister another example: on Select Committees, as mentioned by the Minister. There may be no formal record of how minority votes go in Select Committees—although the Minister did seem to know the outcome of the appointment decision—but, as sittings are held in public, people can see how different members of a Select Committee respond to an issue.

[Mr French]

That is an excellent point. I believe that the people who want to sit on these expert panels and help with the future of football—I assume that is what they will be contributing to—should be able to operate transparently for the ultimate fans. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I will press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

I have a football at home signed by Sir Geoff Hurst, so I know exactly how heavy those old balls were, particularly when they got wet. We have seen coaching improvements so that children no longer head the football. That has come about because of the experiences of footballers who played in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. The Lib Dem spokesman referenced a game at Southampton in the early ’90s, when the football was not too dissimilar to the modern football. I can remember kicking it around at the park myself.

I am not in favour of banning headers in games. I would like to see a fully funded and legally compelled scheme set up to protect footballers who have suffered from playing the beautiful game and to support their families. Footballers of previous generations were not paid anywhere near what current footballers are paid. I would also like more research on preventive measures. Without the players, there is no game. We have to support our former players while protecting our future ones.

[Joe Robertson]

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham for speaking to amendment 1 and new clause 1. He said that this may not be the right place or the right Bill to do so, and I probably agree with him. Nevertheless, this is a helpful opportunity to acknowledge the issue, and it is timely given that there is a debate on dementia care in the Chamber right now. Until I entered this place, I worked for a national dementia care charity that was looking at the possible link between heading footballs and dementia diagnoses.

This debate is also timely because, almost at this hour as I understand it, an APPG is being set up to look at dementia in sport. While this amendment may not be successful, it is nevertheless very timely. I commend the hon. Member for raising the issue.

[The Chair]

I call Max Wilkinson.