Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict with UEFA and FIFA regulations. They are the governing bodies, despite the lunacy of some of their decisions, most recently the FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend half-time so that there can be a concert while players seek to maintain warmth and fitness. Notwithstanding that, they are the governing bodies, and the structure of English football recognises this.

It does so because both UEFA and FIFA impose in their rules and regulations an obligation on member associations—the FA, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says—to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations, and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations. The FA imposes a similar obligation on member leagues and the Premier League—its rule B14. It imposes a contractual commitment on clubs and the Premier League to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA.

Notwithstanding all this, I am, with great respect, doubtful as to the wisdom of Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State or of the IFR to go to court and say that the decision is a breach of a UEFA or FIFA regulation? It would be welcomed enormously by sports lawyers such as me. The opportunities for litigation are endless because, regrettably, the UEFA and FIFA regulations are not always drafted with the precision and clarity—I put it modestly—that we expect and see from the parliamentary draftsmen in this country.

I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, could address this point when he comes to reply. There will be a further enormous expanse of litigation in football, and we will find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation—to challenge in the courts—if his amendment is accepted.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I almost expected the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw these two amendments following the meeting we had yesterday with the FA. I am absolutely certain that his shoulders dropped when we asked a question of the FA regarding FIFA and UEFA, and the FA confirmed to the people there—I was there, as were the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington —that it had had letters and emails from FIFA and UEFA supporting the regulator. Their only concern was—choose the words you want—state creep, scope creep or mission creep. Providing that those things do not happen, they are content that we have a regulator.

The threat from UEFA and FIFA was discussed time and again in Committee. I think that fox was completely shot yesterday because the FA openly and honestly said, “We have had letters and emails saying they have no problem with the regulator, providing there is no state creep, scope creep or mission creep”, which I believe there will not be.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I chaired the meeting referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I too was very puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, decided to proceed with his amendment today. The FA was very clear that UEFA and FIFA were very happy with where we had got to with the legislation and that they were satisfied. It made clear too that DCMS was right not to want to publish the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made clear and obvious reference.

I agree with the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was somewhat surprised that he—the lawyer and expert in football litigation that he is—made some of them. As he said, only one group of people will benefit from this—those who do sports lawyering.

I invite the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press his amendments—they are not necessary. If we were to be mistaken and accepted them into the Bill, it would slow down the operation of the independent football regulator, and I do not think anybody wants that. It could lead only to a reduction in the effectiveness and speed of the regulator’s operation. I hope that having heard what the FA said about it, as he did yesterday, and the assurance it gave to me and others in the room that it is happy and that UEFA and FIFA are happy, he will in good grace not press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, we are on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the degree. Naturally, the removal of

“a higher degree of influence”

seems to be watering down the regulatory powers of the regulator. That is a very dangerous road to go down. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If Amendment 7 were pushed to a vote, we would not support it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the forensic way he set out the case for his Amendment 7. The example with which he illustrated it—one he has used throughout the passage of this Bill—is certainly one that captured my attention, coming from Whitley Bay. It is causing some concern across Tyneside and among Newcastle United’s many fans across the world. I would be failing in my Geordie duty if I did not take this opportunity to wish the team the best of luck for the Carabao Cup this weekend.

I understand that the Minister cannot speak for a regulator that is to be independent and that does not yet exist, but I hope she will be able to say a bit about the implications of the Bill, such as the one that my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out. It clearly has some very serious consequences, not just for Newcastle in the example he has given but potentially for other teams in the future. I look forward to hearing what she says.

I want to say a little about my two amendments in this group, Amendments 46 and 47. As we said in Committee, among the many changes the Government have made to the Bill, compared with the Bill that the previous Government brought forward in the previous Parliament, was one we understand the case for. In the earlier version of the Bill, there was a provision stating that the regulator must have regard to the Government’s foreign and trade policy when making determinations for the owners’ test. This is an example of a concern that UEFA raised. That has been reported publicly, and the Government were very clear when they made the change to the Bill now before us that it was in response to concerns by UEFA that this undermined the independence of the regulator and that if it was to have regard to the Government’s foreign or trade policy, it would be too close to the Government’s view, in the eyes of UEFA.

I can understand the rationale for making that change, but in Committee I expressed some concerns about the unintended consequences of that and the potential loopholes. I gave the example that if there were to be two potential foreign owners of a club, one from a friendly nation and one from a nation with which this country does not enjoy friendly relations—we can all think of some examples that would spring readily to mind in the troubled world we face today—we would all be clear on which way we would like to see the independent regulator come down, even if the Government are not able to direct it, or if it is not able to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy.

My Amendment 46 would insert a provision highlighting

“whether the individual is reasonably believed to be, or have been, involved in terrorism related activity”.

I am sure that noble Lords would not want such a person to be an owner or director of one of our prominent football teams.

Amendment 47 sets out a number of agencies—the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Serious Fraud Office and others—that the new regulator may consult in carrying out its test. I have watered down my amendment from Committee to say “may consult”, not “must consult”, in the hope that this will find some greater support from the Government. I understand the reasons for the change that they have made to the Bill, but I do hope that the noble Baroness will be able to look at these ways in which we might be able to tighten up the potential for a loophole, so that we can avoid seeing the sorts of people that none of us want to see taking control of English football clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

It was slightly disingenuous of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, when we are talking about pre-scrutiny of approval, to name a proposed candidate when, apparently, there are two proposed candidates. If he knows the other candidate, perhaps it might be helpful if he named him or her as well.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I was merely reporting what had been published on Sky News, and I think thousands of football fans would have considered it. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that no disingenuousness was intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

Only one name was mentioned on Sky?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

Okay.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments. On Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, I understand the desire for the scrutiny of the appointment of the regulator’s chair and I am grateful for the thoughtful speech he made outlining the reasons behind the amendment. Getting the chair right, both now and in the future, will be pivotal for the success of the new regulator. I will not go into names or press speculation. I understand that progress is being made on the appointment. I am not involved in that, so I will not comment further.

The chair, as the public leader of the regulator, must be a competent and strong individual, free from any vested interests. I assure noble Lords from across the House that the existing public appointments process is robust, run in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and one that Parliament can and should have faith in.

As per Cabinet Office guidance, parliamentary Select Committees can already carry out pre-appointment scrutiny hearings and offer their views to the Secretary of State. The chair of the regulator is subject to that scrutiny. The Secretary of State will, of course, weigh any committee’s views carefully, as the Cabinet Office guidance already sets out; this will be the case for the future.

However, the Governance Code on Public Appointments sets out that Ministers have the ultimate responsibility for appointment decisions for which they are accountable to Parliament. It is not common for Parliament to hold a statutory right of veto over such public appointments and we cannot see a reason to set that precedent with this regulator. In response to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, our view is that this amendment would represent a veto.

Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seeks to place a cap on the number of members of the regulator’s expert panel. The regulator’s independent expert panel will play a vital role in making various important decisions across the regulator’s regime, when and where it is appropriate. It is essential that the panel has a range of relevant expertise and experience to reflect the diversity and complexity of decisions that may come before it.

The number of members of the expert panel is to be determined by the chief executive officer in response to the operational need. The Government do not want to fetter the effectiveness of the expert panel by introducing a cap on the maximum number of members of the panel as this amendment seeks to do, however sensible that level may appear to noble Lords. The regulator needs the flexibility to react in the event of high workload for the panel. The regulator will be required to deliver value for money and has a regulatory principle underpinning this. We do not believe that the CEO would appoint and maintain an unnecessarily bloated panel.

Finally, I turn to government Amendments 9 and 11. In Committee, my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton, among others, emphasised the real importance of protecting the regulator from conflicts of interest. The Government are in complete agreement that the independence of the regulator must be protected, including against vested interests. Although the Bill already makes provision for managing such conflicts of interest, we have tabled government amendments to strengthen these protections even further and beyond any doubt.

The amendments require the regulator to establish and maintain a system whereby the members of the regulator’s board and its expert panel must declare their relevant interests, and a record of these interests must be kept and maintained. This will ensure that all board and expert panel members declare relevant interests from the outset of their appointment and on an ongoing basis. This is good practice not only for transparency but to help the regulator manage any conflicts and to insulate its decisions from potential vested or competing interests.

I hope that those reasons have reassured your Lordships’ House and that noble Lords will not press their amendments. I will move government Amendments 9 and 11 in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes a substantial point about why in law it probably will not really help, but in spirit I am with it.

More importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, made an important point about fans not being able to afford to watch football. I have been amazed for a long time, probably about 20 years, that working people in particular, with perhaps two children, might visit two games a week. I do not know how they afford it. It has always been, generally, a working person’s game—it is not a class issue, but I think, generally speaking, it has been—and it has inelastic demand. By that, I mean that it is a tribal thing: we cannot explain the reason that we get excited and depressed about football teams. I am hoping that Sheffield Wednesday will win tonight; I will be depressed, I will be—

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

Amazed.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

Not surprised when that does not happen.

There is something within us that is very hard. The most obvious thing a football fan could do would be to stop going to the games to effect change in a club, but it is very hard for them to do so. Therefore, a regulator asking reasonable questions of a club about why it has increased ticket prices is a very sensible option. If it is there to check on the validity and, I suppose, the due diligence around the ownership, I would have thought that this is the very least it could do in looking around the due diligence and looking after the fans.

No one else really looks after the fans. Outside the Premier League, the quality of looking after the fans is pretty awful. From the toilets to the restaurants—if they ever pass as that—it has traditionally been pretty diabolical. I would have thought that the regulator ought to be looking at such things, as well as whether the money going into the club is straightforward and comes from the sources that are alleged. I will certainly support the ticket price amendment, should it be put.