Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, I look forward to exploring in detail what powers Ministers seek to arrogate to themselves under the terms of the Bill, following the splendid series of points made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I point out to noble Lords in passing that if they look at Section 92(3)(b), they will find that Ministers propose by regulation to redefine what is and is not “serious criminal conduct”, which is a proposal I find startling.

None the less, rather than risk being lost in this forest of detail, I wish instead to pan the camera back, look at this Bill as a whole and ask a question that I think has haunted this debate, namely: who owns a football club—Wycombe Wanderers, say, where I have been a season ticket holder for the best part of 10 years? Noble Lords might think the natural answer is that a football club is owned by its owners. Not so fast if you read this Bill, whatever Part 1 or Schedule 1 may say. According to the Bill, an owner is really more like a custodian than an owner and the fans are more like shareholders or co-owners than consumers, because football is judged under the Bill’s terms to be simply too important to fail. There is a heritage objective written into the Bill because it is held, I think quite rightly, that a football club is part of the very life of its community—particularly, say, in an old former industrial town where some of that industry has gone. It is essential to the coherence and well-being of the place.

As a Tory, I have no objection at all to the argument that institutions trump markets, but I cannot help following the arguments of my noble friend Lord Maude—from not quite the Front Bench but the Bench where former Ministers sit—and wondering whether this end might be better and more naturally achieved in a more evolutionary way were football to devise its rules and regulations itself, backed up, if necessary, by statute in a system of co-regulation. But we all know that this is not to be.

The Bill proposes a state licensed regulator, so in addition to Ofwat, Ofgas and the Care Quality Commission we are to have Ofball, Ofgoal, Ofside or whatever the new regulator will be called. But those regulators that I named and all the rest of them are not uncontroversial. They are sometimes accused of mission creep, of regulatory overreach, or sometimes of simply getting it wrong, often in reports composed by distinguished committees of this House. I cannot help looking at this Bill and thinking: on the one hand, a new state regulator, on the other, millions of engaged football fans; what could possibly go wrong?

In fairness and in balance, I have to acknowledge, as someone who is sceptical about the Bill, that it has the Premier League, the Football League and other interested parties more or less lined up in the same place. It is the product of years of work, and aspects of it have been widely welcomed—for example, Part 4, which seeks to deal with rogue owners. Who could possibly quarrel with that?

I must say, however, that the attentions of the Premier League and the Football League are more engaged with Part 6 on the distribution of revenue. If you want to find out what really engages most of those who take an interest in this Bill, follow the old rule of follow the money. I have to say myself, as the fan of a League One team that is currently top of the table, I have no objection whatever to money flowing down the pyramid and I can see why the Bill is widely welcomed. There you have it.

None the less, I have to say to the Government Front Bench that it is of course widely said, and it is true, that fans are angry when the market fails, and I warn the Government that, if the fans are angry when the market fails, they will also be angry if the state regulator fails or is seen to fail. What will fans say if they support an ambitious Championship club and the regulator reproves it for running up debt? What will the fans say if they believe that the fee that the regulator is charging the clubs for its services is too high? What will the fans say if they do not like where the club has got to on ticket prices? And there are myriad similar examples. I will be told that these fears are exaggerated or mistaken. I would reply, “Let’s put that to the test”. Let’s have a review of this regulator after it comes into existence in, say, five years. Let’s even consider writing a sunset clause into the Bill whereby we can review where this Bill is going”.

In conclusion, we are told that the football pyramid is the envy of the world, one of Britain’s great sporting successes—and so it is. But we are simultaneously told that the whole system is so fragile that it needs a state regulator to support it. I find these claims very difficult to reconcile—or, if they can be reconciled, could it be that it is the very fragility of the system, the sense of risk, adventure, innovation and dynamism, that has made the pyramid the success that it is? And could it be that the regulator is putting all that at risk? Let us find that out, have a review and consider putting a sunset clause in the Bill so we can find out in due course whether the fears I have expressed are mistaken and whether the hopes that the supporters of the Bill vest in it have come to pass.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

We need to protect the business that is the Football League in all its different forms. We should be looking forward at how the football leagues can compete, not only with other football leagues but with other sports. If we do not, our football leagues will suffer and decline into irrelevance.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and those spoken to by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward. I will also offer some expression of sympathy to the Government, because it is not altogether clear what the origins of this word “sustainability” may be. I suggest that they go back to the original so-called fan-led review produced by Tracey Crouch, which I have here and which noble Lords will have read. The Bill is drawn expressly from the so-called fan-led review.

I say in parenthesis that “fan-led review” seems a strange title for it, since Dame Tracey emphasises in the report that its conclusions are hers alone. Although I pay tribute to the work she did and the consultation she undertook, she received 20,000 responses and there are some 33 million football fans, but we will leave that for a moment.

I will read the very opening of Dame Tracey’s foreword as it sets the tone for the Bill as a whole and for an element that is missing from it. She wrote in her introduction:

“For those who say that English football is world leading at club level and there is no need to change I would argue that it is possible simultaneously to celebrate the current global success of the Premier League at the same time as having deep concerns about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.


So Dame Tracey made two points. One was about the success of the game and the other its fragility and the potential failures, but the oddity of the way the Bill is presented—my noble friends all picked this up and elucidated it in their speeches—is that the first part of the Bill refers only to the fragility of the system by using this word “sustainability”. There is nothing about success in it. I suggest to Ministers and to noble Lords that some reference to success would be a better reflection of what was originally in Tracey Crouch’s report and the balance that she gave between the fragility and the success of the game—for the two, after all, may be bound up together.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing Second Reading. I feel like I am coming on at half-time into this debate, but sometimes if you come on at half-time you have a little bit more energy.

I want to address the sustainability issue, because it is fundamental to what we are trying to do. I am not sure whether any other Member of this House has been in the unenviable position I was in as a leader of a borough, when the local football club came to me and said, “We’re going to go bankrupt and go bust unless you financially support us”, which I had to do at Stockport. We offered all our support, and we did it for a reason. It is more than just a football club, as other speakers have said; they are part of the fabric of society and of communities. They are economic drivers for towns. Most of these football clubs were built in town centres. They kick off at 3 pm on a Saturday because men, predominantly, used to work Saturday morning and they would go to the football in the afternoon. As we watch global football now, we see football matches at 5.30 pm, 8 pm and 10 pm. No one cares about the supporters. When Newcastle played West Ham the other night, the last train home from Newcastle left before the final whistle.

There is a bigger picture at stake here about how you regulate and control football, so my opening comment is that the sustainability bit—the bit that says a football club must be able to sustain itself—must be core to what we are trying to do. On all this saying, “The Premier League will look after itself”, I wish people would not keep bringing the Premier League in as the golden egg. It is the Championship, League One, League Two and the non-league teams—that is your pyramid. That is part of the regulator’s job: to secure their sustainability.

I say to all Members when they go through the Bill —some things in it are quite laudable and supportable—that the aim is not to get into the situation we have got into before, where the six that were going to join the European league could have collapsed the pyramid. That needs to be stopped again. Owners buy a football club like somebody buys a yacht or a hotel. That has to be stopped, as does changing the colours a team plays in and changing the ethos of a club. That is regulation, but at the heart of it is sustainability. That needs to be woven into the Bill somewhere, if not on the face of it: sustainability absolutely must be included in the regulator’s remit.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

They have made a financial commitment or signed a pledge—I do not know, but they have made a commitment. They have said that they are a part of this and there is no compulsion; they have made a decision. That is why I felt we should have this in the Bill.

Apart from anything else, this is British law we are talking about, and the English leagues. I do not know why we are bothering discussing what people in South Korea or San Francisco are doing, because we can only deal with what is in our own legal framework. If they join a group over here and make a financial or long-term commitment, maybe then they are consulted. But it is here in the UK that you have to make a commitment; it is about the local base. These people are committing to something which is located in a place. That is why I tabled this amendment. My noble friend got to the guts of it when he said that it is an emotional commitment.

We need some guidance on what the Government are going to say. You are not going to keep everybody happy, clearly, but let us at least know why we are unhappy, and we will see what we can do about it at another stage if that is appropriate. That is what my amendment is for, and I hope we can reach that point with all rapidity.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest of a kind as a season ticket holder at Wycombe Wanderers, who are still top of League One, as they were when I spoke at Second Reading. Therefore, I would count as a fan under the definition in Amendment 17A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. However, I want to describe a group of people who would not count, as I think it casts some light on our proceedings as to what the regulator might say and the Government’s view.

Last year, a Spanish-language YouTube channel, La Media Inglesa—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly; it is apparently the largest football YouTube channel—wrote to every single EFL club asking why Spaniards should support their club. Wycombe Wanderers were the only club to reply in Spanish. As a consequence, 100 Spanish supporters turned up to see Wycombe play Derby County at Adams Park, then again for a game against Sheffield Wednesday, and then again to Fratton Park for a game against Portsmouth—and so on, and so forth. They greatly enlivened the proceedings by waving their scarves, chanting loudly and showing commitment—to pick up the word just used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—to their team.

The point we are trying to get to the heart of is not exactly who we think is a fan, but what the regulator’s view will be and what the Government believe the regulator’s view might be, given that “fan” is not defined in the Bill. There is obviously common sense in the approach just taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, among others. He suggested that, logically and intuitively, there must be some sort of difference, in respect of interest in the ownership of the ground and the prices of tickets, between fans who live in the broad locality and fans—however committed—who travel to the ground from a great distance away.

That is precisely what we need to hear a view about from the Government Front Bench. What I suspect the Minister will say—knocking the issue back across the Benches—is that these are matters for clubs to decide for themselves. If that is the Government’s view, then the Minister in due course should tell us.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 17. What we have seen today, and I am glad that the Chief Whip has been here to witness it, is a passionate and informed debate. Perhaps it will give him an understanding of why the debate may be lengthier than one might have hoped. Not surprisingly, 15 or 20 noble Lords have spoken and we have probably had 21 or 22 different definitions of what a fan is—so none of us underestimates what a complicated area this is, but what we are all united in is that it is vitally important and, as such, it should be in the Bill. That is what we are asking the Minister to reply on.

I am probably biased, but I happen to think my Amendment 17 tries to take those different aspects into account, saying that fans are

“individuals who … identify with the club, engage with the service the club provides, and have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.

Bringing in the service that the club provides is trying to take into account that wider commitment and interest in it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the most dedicated version of that is the season ticket, but we also know that there are massively long waiting lists for season tickets. Does that mean that people who are on a waiting list or people who cannot afford a season ticket somehow count less? That is why my wider definition talks about people who engage with the services of that club to try to take that into account.

I think we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in his amendment that giving the independent regulator a definition to work to is vital, because this is at the core of what a club is. In any consultation that a club has to undertake, it needs to be clear who it is consulting with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, in the slightly unexpected but spirited exchange between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have to say that I incline more to the view of my noble friend Lord Deben on the merits of the case about around climate change. I am not remotely sceptical about climate change, the threat that it poses or the need to take urgent action to combat it. I am, however, sceptical about its place in this Bill and for it to be a strong consideration in the role of the to-be-established regulator of English football.

The reality, exactly as my noble friend Lord Evans just outlined, is that some football clubs are already more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others. All football clubs will have to invest in adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change, because there will be malign effects whatever is done. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, they are already being experienced.

I also take the view, and have done for a long time, that businesses which value their brand and reputation have a commercial interest in ensuring that they get ahead of the curve on issues of this kind, because their customers—who, for these purposes, are the fans and supporters—care about these matters. People identify very strongly with their football clubs and with the values that they embody and represent. They want to see these institutions being successful, as obviously all football clubs intend, but they are very aware of the need for them to be responsible and to move towards their own zero-carbon position. I do not want this regulator to spend time and money—not their money but the football clubs’ and therefore the fans’ money—doing things that are not necessary, because all football clubs want to be successful, so they will be addressing this already.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords this series of amendments raises an issue that will come back again and again during Committee, which is a clash of priorities. I will introduce it by again reading out a section from Tracey Crouch’s original report, in which she refers to

“the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.

In other words, we are being told, on the one hand, that football is so financially troubled that we need a state regulator to guide it and, on the other hand—in this series of amendments and others to come—that we must load the regulator with additional responsibilities.

As my noble friend Lady Brady said, these amendments relate to climate change, but we will have more on fan safety, the regulation of women’s football, the expansion of the regulator to other leagues and others on environmental sustainability. On and on they will come. There is a fundamental tension between loading the regulator with these responsibilities and the state of football as the Crouch report described it and as the Bill attempts to address.

There may be other ways of meeting these environmental objectives. I will avoid being drawn into the adverse exchanges between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. There may be other ways in which clubs that lead on environmental action can help clubs that do not. As matters stand, the regulator, were these amendments to come into force, would be imposing on clubs that have, for better or worse, not thought about these matters at all, requirements that would affect how fans come to the games, how they treat their pitches and how they deal with litter—all matters for which they are completely unprepared.

If the Government are correct in stressing—as they have done throughout in talking to Peers; the Minister has been generous in doing this before and during the Bill—that they do not want the regulator to have a heavy touch, I look forward to the Minister explaining the other ways there might be to encourage clubs to take responsible environmental action besides accepting these amendments to the Bill, which might have effects we do not expect or want on clubs that are in financial difficulties—the very basis, after all, on which the Bill has been brought forward.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I join in with the sentiments expressed by many other noble Lords. I made the point at Second Reading that, however well intentioned, noble Lords came up with seven new commitments they wanted the regulator to be involved in. This all starts from the premise that we believe it should be a light-touch regulator and the unintended consequence is that each one, however well intentioned, can add another burden, as so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Brady. I, like others, am fearful of adding something new to the Bill.

I would like to explain a slight difference. In her response to the first group, the Minister talked about mission creep regarding how we were trying to expand the sustainability argument to other objectives of the regulator; for example, to some of the income-generating TV advertising. The key difference here is that we were trying to talk about the action the regulator takes—the measures the regulator might take to force clubs to put down a deposit to cover their sustainability requirements, and whether the regulator should have wider criteria beyond financial sustainability regarding the wider benefits of the game. Those sorts of things are appropriate because they look at what the regulator is responsible for and its objectives. Thing that put new burdens on the clubs come into a different category. They come into the mission-creep category, so to speak, which I, like other noble Lords, are reluctant to add in.

So, although I support the points made by other noble Lords, I would make that distinction. When talking about things the regulator might do that might impact clubs we should make sure that the regulator looks at the wider benefits of the game but we should not look to add extra burdens on clubs, however well intentioned.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. I will concentrate particularly on both the impact assessment and what my noble friend Lord Maude was referring to: the impact on small businesses. Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, when I made my comments at Second Reading, I emphasised that my concerns are not that there are no problems; the question is how we actually tackle the problems that exist in the industry while not damaging the success.

I have made a number of references to the impact assessment, and I quoted from it earlier today. On page 8, paragraph 17, it states:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.

I am concerned after reading the impact assessment that, as my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Maude identified, the impact is not on the big companies. Anybody who has sat on the side of an industry, as I did when changes were made to licensing law, for example, knows that it is not the big companies that are affected by such changes. They have the resources. It is the small companies that are confused, concerned and lost. They do not have a specialist to deal with the minutiae of a clause. I was the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association at the time, and it was an enormous task to guide smaller companies through the issues they faced. For me, the impact assessment dramatically underestimates the impact that small companies face in these circumstances.

I will come back to other elements later, but I am particularly concerned—and am referring to page 53 onwards—about the identified benefits that are supposed to accrue to the industry. The costs are dealt with, but I must admit that I am not convinced. On the indirect benefits, paragraph 225 comes up with a wonderful sentence:

“These indirect benefits are extremely difficult to quantify, given the range of variables that will affect the profitability of individual football clubs. Therefore, these are not quantified in the appraisal”.


Paragraph 227 says:

“These benefits are extremely difficult and speculative to quantify and therefore are not quantified in the appraisal”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will no doubt be relieved that I have not entered into any word counts on this occasion.

On accruing benefits for the community, paragraph 233, on page 54, states:

“The model states that the results of this contingent valuation survey of football users and non-users shows that people positively value the club they support/their local club and would be willing to pay an annual subscription to support it”.


I find myself at a loss to believe that my noble friend went round the streets of Wycombe or any other community and asked, “Would you be willing to pay X sum to support the club?” The suggestion that large parts of any population are

“willing to pay … to support”

their local club is really stretching credibility far.

This comment was made as a result of some work undertaken by Ipsos, an organisation for which I have high regard and with which I deal on polling. But the next paragraph, 235, refers to the following:

“DCMS guidance states that a lower bound”—


I am not sure whether the authors intend “bound” or “band”—

“95% confidence interval of willingness to pay (WTP)”.

That is rather like talking about turnout at a general election by asking people whether they are going to vote. I checked with a pollster this morning, and the mean answer given is 80%. The turnout at the last election was 60%, so there was an error of a quarter or a third, depending on whether you go upwards or downwards. To suggest that you can quantify the willingness of a community and people in the street to pay to support their local club stretches the bounds of credibility.

But on page 56 we have a breakdown, in detail, of the willingness of each region of the country to pay a sum to support its local club. There has been infinite reference to the fact that the support for clubs crosses from one place to another. Therefore, if you are contributing in the north-east or in London you may not be willing to pay to support a specific club. It is not surprising that London is identified as the place where people are most willing to supply most money, but it does not say whether the sums involved include a season ticket. Many of the people who answered the question will have thought, “Well, I actually pay in the form of a season ticket already and therefore I am contributing”.

What is depressing about the impact assessment is that it goes into such detail in relation to the benefits that will be gained from this legislation, but there is no attempt to identify what the clubs will have to pay. I am not talking here about the Premier League clubs; I am talking about the small clubs. In her response to the points that I and others raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the costs would be proportionate. But no figures are given. I find it barely credible that such detail can be provided to identify how much people from each different area of the country are willing to pay, but there is no calculation of the cost for a small club.

That is where the important issue—the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson—arises. People can concentrate on Premier League clubs, but we are talking here about regulating over 100 clubs. People do not realise that the impact will be on the small clubs. The Government need to be honest before this legislation passes, and to identify the probable burden for each of the small clubs, because without that information it is not appropriate to pass into law a football regulation Bill.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jackson and to speak further to the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward about large clubs, small clubs and financial burdens.

We are presumably all agreed that large clubs are better able to bear the cost of regulation than smaller ones. My noble friend Lord Hayward referred a moment ago to 100 clubs, but if some noble Lords have their way, it will be more than 100 clubs. We have already heard today, as we will hear as the Bill develops, proposals to tack on to the Bill corporate social responsibility, net-zero obligations and so on. There are amendments tabled to tack on to the Bill specifically the National League North and National League South. I am sure that the Minister would resist any such amendments, in the same way that the Government will resist most of the amendments that come forward. But as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out at Second Reading—if he did not, I am sure other noble Lords did—the Bill is shy about saying which leagues will be covered by the regulator.

The Government have made it very clear that it will be the pyramid—the top five leagues—but the point is that at any future date the Government might change or, heaven help us, the Minister might move on and be replaced by someone else. At that point, the Government could bring forward by regulation changes to the scope covered by the regulator in order to bring in the National Leagues North and South, or other leagues. Even more small clubs would then be covered by the regulator and have to bear the costs. My noble friend’s amendment is a wise, precautionary one, not only in dealing with the measures the Government are proposing to bring within the scope of the Bill, but as a hedge against other leagues being brought within the scope of the regulator in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment about the inclusion of the National Leagues North and South. I accept that my amendment is defective; I think the Committee on Statutory Instruments has declared it as such. However, I will use this opportunity to raise the question of where down the pyramid the regulatory process should stop.

Some of the teams in the National League North and National League South are quite substantial. Scunthorpe United is quite a big club and has a turnover somewhere in the region of £5 million to £6 million a year. Torquay United has a turnover of probably £2 million or £3 million a year. Even Maidstone, another former league club, has a turnover of between £2 million and £3 million a year. These are small but substantial businesses. They probably employ no more than 10 or a dozen staff—Scunthorpe probably employs more than that, looking at its accounts—but we expect other parts of the business world to be regulated by health and safety or environmental legislation, by financial conduct rules and regulations, and so on.

It is not smart to leave those two leagues out of consideration, because one of the things we should worry about is predatory ownership. We have seen some of that in the past, to the detriment of clubs in the lower leagues. The Bill is about making sure that the clubs in the lower leagues are properly protected. We have heard a lot from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches about the Premier League and how they believe that the regulatory regime may be damaging to the Premier League, but it is the plight of clubs lower down the pyramid that has sparked the most concern over the years and has been the motor for both major political parties to seek a football regulator.

I make that point because at some stage, we will need to have the National League North and National League South clubs in the regulatory framework. It seems odd to regulate one of the National League’s divisions, but not the other two. I wonder about the cliff-edge effect of having clubs coming up from both those leagues into a system of regulation. That does not necessarily seem to be the right way to do things; it would be better if they were all captured by the same framework.

The Minister made the point at Second Reading that regulation would be appropriate at each level of the pyramid—that has to be right—and that teams in the National League do not require the same degree of regulation as teams in the upper leagues. That is a sensible and proportionate way of looking at things. These clubs are already used to regulation; they are regulated by other regulators.

There is a case that we need at an early stage in the life of the regulator—I accept it may not be now—to have a report, or perhaps a section in the “state of the game” report, that looks at this issue. There may well be some unintended consequences and some cliff-edge issues, and if we do not get regulation right for these clubs, which could be vulnerable to predatory takeovers, some of them may well suffer as a consequence. None of us in the Committee wants to see that happen—I certainly do not, based on my experience as a Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club fan in the 1990s, when we were nearly destroyed by a predatory takeover. We very nearly went out of the league and out of business, and it took us a decade to recover our position.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham in their references to the Delegated Legislation Committee.

I hesitate to disagree with anything my noble friend Lord Moynihan says in any way, but he described me as a senior member of the committee, and I am afraid that this is not accurate. I am, in fact, the most junior member of the committee, having arrived only very recently, but certainly in time to consider this Bill. When I joined the committee, I found that it was very worked up about the rise in secondary legislation, as it set out in its key document, Democracy Denied?, published in 2021—I will come to the significance of that date in a moment. It criticised the use of Henry VIII powers, disguised legislation and skeleton legislation, saying:

“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy, and this report will, we hope, be a prompt to strengthen Parliament in the coming years”.


I find myself in an awkward position here with my own Front Bench, because in 2021 a Conservative Government were in office. The committee clearly feels that this tendency for skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers and so on has carried on from 2021 to the present.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan will remember that at Second Reading, he drew attention, as I did, to Clause 92(3), which states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend …the definition of ‘football season’”


and

“the definition of ‘serious criminal conduct’”.

Such is the exquisite moderation of the committee that we did not follow that matter up in the report, but we did concentrate on the issue, raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, of the leagues not named in the Bill. He has read out the relevant sections of the report, and I have no intention of reading them out again.

However, I reinforce the closing point made by my noble friend Lord Markham and put it to the Minister in the form of a question. Can she confirm or deny that if the leagues in the pyramid were to be named in the Bill, the Bill would therefore become hybrid? She is nodding, and she will doubtless amplify on that nod when she responds to the debate, but that is a very important point. If that is the case, did the Government refer to that in their discussions with the committee clerks when they were drawing up the report?

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, nobody faint, but on this issue I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I bear the scars of Democracy Denied? It was an excellent report that it took us quite a long time to bring through. The Government cannot have it both ways. We say that the purpose of the Bill

“is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”,

yet it does not explain what English football is.

That is the nub of this. We spent hours on the first part of that, but the second part we seem to want to leave to the Government, because it is seemingly easier to amend delegated powers than primary legislation powers. That is not the point. What is in the tin should be on the front of the tin. It should name what it is doing, which is the Premier League and the Championship. It could go down the tiers and include leagues north and south. You would then have a full list of what this legislation is covering. It is probably just bad drafting, and no more than that. This could be done very simply. Everybody would then understand what the Bill is about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will address the issue of why the regulatory regime is currently intended to be limited to the top five tiers of football and not to include the National League North and the National League South. The issues we are concerned with arise most typically and markedly in the professional game where the financialisation of clubs is greatest. We recognise that the top five tiers is not necessarily a perfect proxy for the professional game, since some semi-professional and professional clubs can move between these leagues. However, we consider it the most appropriate and proportionate place to draw the line and the place where it would not result in some clubs in the league being subject to regulation and others not. We do not currently believe that extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be proportionate to the burden on smaller clubs below the National League.

On Amendment 19—and apologies if I am repeating parts of my speech, because it is some time ago that I was actually on my script—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity on the face of the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 21, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for putting forward this amendment. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the Secretary of State would have the ability to specify competitions that are in scope of the regulator and we believe that the top five tiers is a sensible and proportionate place to draw the line.

In relation to the points on hybridity, questions of hybridity are for the examiners, not for the Government. If the amendment is made, there will be a process to be followed that will decide whether the Bill is hybrid and needs to go through the hybrid procedures. Initial advice is that the Bill would be thought to be hybrid and I understand that, following the tabling of Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and Amendment 21 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor, issues have been raised about their hybridity.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, asked whether we had discussed with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee ahead of the process. We would not discuss committee reports with clerks before they draw them up.

I know that noble Lords want to continue to work constructively on the Bill—

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I think my question was, in advance of the committee considering the Bill and the Government giving their reasons to the clerks for objecting to the Bill, why did they not then raise the matter of hybridity? Is it the Government’s position that raising the matter of hybridity just is not their business? If it is their business, why did they not raise it?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is for the examiners, not the Government, to decide whether or not there is hybridity.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

The amendment we put down was just to probe what the intention might be in future—it was a mechanism for debate, not to make this Bill hybrid. I am not sure of the intentions of those opposite, but certainly we were not intending to make it hybrid. It is not hybrid now and I do not think we should look to make it so in future. I suspect that any suggestion about referring this elsewhere is part of the delaying tactics that we have seen so much of these last few days.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

To follow that point directly, I raised the original question of hybridity following an intervention by my noble friend Lord Markham, at which the Minister nodded. The Minister has since written to us, and I am grateful for her letter setting the situation out. I want to respond to what has been said in the following way. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who is in his place, has at various times produced a copy of the Bill as it was under the last Conservative Government and pointed out, as the noble Baroness just said, that the two Bills are, in certain respects, almost identical.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The Bills are 95% identical. That is why we are somewhat surprised that noble Lords opposite are so opposed to its content. There is only one fundamental policy difference in it.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening, because it buttresses the point I want to make. The Minister made it very clear on Monday that she was not aware of the hybridity issue that would arise were the leagues to be named in the Bill until that afternoon. It is evident, therefore, that someone in the department, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench, was aware of the hybridity issue under the last Government and under this one. I raise this as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee; when we received the view of the Government about why the leagues were not named in the Bill, the hybridity issue was not mentioned. It seems to me intuitively quite wrong that so important and real an issue should not have been named when the communication was made between the Government and the committee.

I am told that, procedurally, the people who speak on the Government’s behalf to those who brief us on the committee about the Bill are not obliged to tell the committee about the hybridity issue. If there is something as important as the hybridity issue, should the committee not be made aware of it somehow? I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite for raising the point about the Bill being much the same under the two Governments, as it is germane to the point I want to make.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, in one of the quaint ways that the Commons has of occasionally putting people, for whatever reason, on obscure committees, I found myself for 15 years on the hybrid Bill committee —one of the more obscure joys of life. I should just say that it was not the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who put me on it.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

When Dame Tracey completed her review, she talked about the backstop as being a genuine last-resort backstop. We have already seen how the prospect of a much more interventionist approach has enabled parts of the pyramid to start to game the process in a way, hoping that, as a result of a deadlock, the 7th cavalry will ride over the hill to change the outcome. I hope that the Government will take this away. This is at the heart of so many of the concerns around what the Bill is about. To be frank, my dread is that we are doing something that will make less of this amazing thing—English football—instead of what should be the outcome, which is making more of it.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is relatively late in the evening and we have debated a lot of clauses and amendments, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Maude that this debate is at the heart of the Bill, at least as far as the Premier League, the Football League and the clubs themselves are concerned, I suspect. What will really get them going in relation to the Bill is not, for better or worse, net zero, diversity or any of those things but the money; it is what happens to the money and the success or failure of their clubs.

When the Minister responds, she will make the best case she can for what is in the Bill—for the backstop—and I understand that. However, when we finish Committee and go on to Report, and when eventually the Bill passes, the debate will not be over; it is just beginning. Once the Bill is passed, as I assume it will be, my noble friend Lady Brady will continue to make her case broadly for the present arrangements and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be back to make his case for what my noble friend Lord Markham called the front-stop, while the Government will defend the backstop—and so the debate will go on.

One of the lobby groups that has an interest in the Bill said of it that the debate is over. I found that a remarkable statement, given that this House presumably has a duty to scrutinise legislation and the Bill has not even been down to the other place yet. My point at this stage is that the debate is not over. It will not be over in Committee, on Report or after Third Reading; it will just be beginning. I ask noble Lords to bear this in mind when we come back, later in Committee, to consider clauses that seek to review the Bill as a whole.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton for their amendments on this important topic. I thank my noble friend for outlining why distributions are so important to the football pyramid. I will aim to take the amendments in a sensible order, with logical grouping where possible. In appreciating comments on the size of the group, I note that there is a logic to this, as outlined by my noble friend, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that I do not think we have skimped on debate during Committee—though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, both that the hour is getting late and that it does not feel like the debate has finished or will finish any time soon.

I acknowledge the probing intent of the amendments and it is really helpful to have this debate. I know that subsequent groups will go into this a bit more as well. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is important that we do our absolute best to work through the issues that noble Lords have raised and to get the regulator right, which was the point that he made.

I reassure my noble friends that we agree on the importance of regulatory intervention on distributions— I appreciate that not all noble Lords have exactly the same view of this. Amendments 260, 269, 270, 293, 295 and 288 would broaden the powers that the regulator has to intervene by allowing it to trigger the back- stop process. I understand the intention behind the amendments, but we must maintain the backstop process as a last resort, to be triggered by the leagues only if they cannot come to an agreement themselves.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

341: After Clause 99, insert the following new Clause—
“Duration and review(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which section 5 comes into force (“the initial period”), subject to the provisions of this section and section (Renewal and dissolution provisions).(2) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 15 months before the end of the initial period.(3) The Panel must—(a) carry out a review of—(i) the effectiveness of this Act, (ii) whether the IFR has remained within its statutory purposes, and(iii) whether the objectives of the Act could be achieved through less interventionist means,(b) prepare a report of the review, and(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months before the end of the initial period.(4) The Panel must consist of—(a) at least one person with expertise in competition law,(b) at least one person with expertise in regulatory policy,(c) at least one person with expertise in football administration, and(d) at least one person with expertise in business regulation.(5) Where there is a change in the person holding the office of Secretary of State after the establishment of the Panel but before the report is laid before Parliament—(a) the new Secretary of State may by written notice dissolve the existing Panel,(b) where the Panel is dissolved under paragraph (a), the new Secretary of State must—(i) establish a new Panel within 28 days,(ii) ensure the new Panel meets the requirements of subsection (4), and(iii) extend the period for the laying of the report by up to three months if necessary to allow the new Panel to complete its work,(c) the new Panel may—(i) consider any work undertaken by the previous Panel,(ii) adopt any findings of the previous Panel that it considers appropriate, or(iii) conduct an entirely new review.(6) The new Secretary of State may only exercise the power under subsection (5) once in relation to the review required by subsection (3).(7) The report under subsection (3) must include—(a) an assessment of whether the IFR has—(i) achieved its objectives under section 6,(ii) remained within the scope of its original purposes as set out in section 1,(iii) avoided expanding its regulatory reach beyond its core functions,(iv) maintained proportionate intervention in the football industry,(b) an assessment of—(i) the regulatory burden imposed by the Act,(ii) the costs of compliance for regulated entities,(iii) whether the objectives could be achieved through less intrusive means,(c) an analysis of any instance where the IFR has—(i) exceeded its statutory powers,(ii) created additional regulatory requirements beyond those explicitly authorised by the Act,(iii) expanded its interpretation of its objectives beyond their original scope,(d) a specific assessment of whether market conditions still justify statutory regulation, and(e) a recommendation as to whether the Act should be—(i) allowed to expire,(ii) renewed for a further period with specific restrictions, or(iii) renewed without modification.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 341 and 342 have sunset provisions. I declare my interest as set out in the register as a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. I am mindful, of course, that this is the final debate on amendments this evening on this very substantial Bill of 100 clauses and 12 schedules, and we are near the end of seven sessions in Committee. I note what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said at the very start of these proceedings: it is rare for a Bill to have 340 amendments tabled even before it has commenced. I make the point in the presence of the Government Chief Whip that many of those amendments were tabled by the other side.

In that spirit of agreement, we can all agree that this is a very significant Bill. I am going to try to further that spirit and seek some consensus as I discuss these sunset provisions. We will see how I get on, mindful that in Committee it is unusual to push amendments to the vote but very usual to try to explore issues.

I begin by restating another view on which we surely all agree: as my noble friend Lady Brady has said many times, football is its own ecosystem with its own rules, governing bodies, leagues and codes of practice, into which the Government are about to appoint—as the previous Conservative Government wished to create before them—a new state-licensed regulator, without a licence from which teams in the pyramid will be unable to play in specified competitions. It is an arrangement of great interest to UEFA and FIFA; I will put it no higher than that at this point, following some of the debates we have had this evening.

I hope that it is also a statement of the obvious and not at all controversial to point out that regulators are in themselves controversial. On this side of the House, we tend to hear—as I have heard from my noble friends, and I am of course much of the same mind—that regulators are subject to mission creep and lobby capture. My noble friend Lord Jackson said earlier this evening that they are subject to Parkinson’s law.

I am not going to repeat those arguments because they have been exhausted at length, but I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I pray in aid someone who has recently made them quite forcefully. I am quoting from a BBC report. This person said that

“the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats”

are part of “an alliance of naysayers”, which means that

“we can’t get things done in our country”.

The person who intervened in this way was of course no one less than the Prime Minister. I follow my noble friend Lord Hayward, who pointed out that it is disappointing to hear that the shadow regulator will not be included in the meeting with the Chancellor tomorrow. None the less, I was encouraged by what the Minister said about growth in her responses to an earlier debate. She will of course be aware that many of my noble friends have moved amendments seeking to put a growth objective in the Bill.

Regulators are also controversial, not only because in the view of some people they do too much and in the view of others they do too little. It is a frequent theme of noble Lords and of people in the other place that regulators do things in the wrong way. I defy any Member of this House to look at reports of committees of this House or the Public Accounts Committee into Ofwat, Ofgem, Ofcom and all these other regulators and assert that those committees are never critical of what those regulators do—they are often very critical indeed.

Consider the range and depth of the issues that the new regulator will be asked to consider. I will list 10 points that fans may possibly say after the regulator has come into existence and has bedded down for a while. Is it possible to imagine and believe that fans would say the following?

First, my club says it cannot buy the players it wants, or may have to sell players, because of the financial constraints the regulator has put in place.

Secondly, my club claims it cannot afford the levy and will have to sell players or raise ticket prices.

Thirdly, my club says it cannot afford the interest on unpaid levies and, again, it will have to sell players or raise ticket prices.

Fourthly—this is a theme that has come up a lot in these debates—the regulator will not let my club spend to get promoted as so many clubs have before.

Fifthly, the regulator has taken my club’s parachute payments into account in its calculations, but not the parachute payments of our local derby rivals. If that circumstance arises, I cannot imagine that it will go down very well.

Sixthly, my club, which plays in the Football League, says it is not getting enough money from the Premier League.

Seventhly, my club, which is a Premier League club, says it is now being forced to distribute too much down the pyramid and this is financially unsustainable.

Eighthly, the regulator is doing far too much on DEI. Alternatively—do you know what?—the regulator is doing far too little on DEI; it should enforce these provisions more rigidly.

Ninthly, the regulator should push my club much harder on ticket price consultation.

Tenthly, and most obviously, the regulator is not consulting sufficiently on any of these provisions.

Those are just 10 points; I could go on, but I will not. I have not even mentioned the words “significant influence”, which have been such a feature of these debates. There is a whole series of questions that fans might raise.

The regulator might sometimes be right and might sometimes be wrong, but one of the questions that we have to ask—it has been circulated in today’s debate and was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his Front Bench—is about parliamentary scrutiny. How will the regulator sufficiently be scrutinised? How can he be held to account by Parliament? The question is especially pertinent because we do not know what the remit of the regulator will look like in a few years.

In these debates, it has been suggested that the remit of the regulator should be increased and widened to include: the two top leagues in women’s football, National Leagues North and South, bodies that negotiate TV rights, player welfare, fan safety, net zero, climate change, modern slavery—we had a very interesting debate about that—DEI more broadly, and corporate governance and practice. I put it to noble Lords that it is not impossible that, in the other place, the remit of the regulator may be extended—or it may be extended soon in future years—which makes these scrutiny concerns even more pressing.

Let us ask ourselves what scrutiny Parliament will be able to undertake on the regulator. There will be an annual report. There will be the “state of the game” report, which we have debated at considerable length. I suppose that the DCMS Committee in another place can haul the regulator in. None the less, there is what has been described as a “lacuna in scrutiny” in relation to regulators. That is a direct quote from a report called Who Watches the Watchdogs?, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will recognise because it was produced by her Industry and Regulators Select Committee, which weighed the merits and demerits of setting up a new structure.

I mentioned Policy Exchange earlier because of the report alluded to by my noble friend Lord Jackson, The Rise of the Regulators, written by my colleagues James Vitali and Zachary Marsh. It focuses on what it calls the “democratic deficit”. Although finding an answer to this problem of the democratic deficit is a bit beyond my pay grade, I put it to the Committee that the sunset clause that I am proposing would have the effect, as well as being a sunset clause, of increasing scrutiny in a way that would be helpful. The amendment proposes an independent panel that would, within 15 months of the regulator being established, review how the regulator is getting on. This independent panel would contain at least one person with experience of competition law, at least one person with experience in regulatory policy, at least one person with expertise in football administration and at least one person with expertise in business regulation. The panel would review the regulator and ask whether the regulator had acted, within the scope of the original provisions, proportionately and reasonably in relation to cases of compliance and the regulatory burden, and would examine whether its objectives could be achieved by less intrusive means. The panel would then recommend whether the regulator expires, works further for a period with restrictions, or simply goes ahead as it is doing when the panel meets, without any further restrictions.

I make no apology for pressing the merits of sunset clauses. It would be a good thing for all new regulations to be subject to them. I have to confess to the Committee that it is very unlikely that the panel I am suggesting would recommend that the regulator expire. I will tell you why. It is because the panel would be selected by the Secretary of State, who I am addressing through the person of the Minister on the Front Bench. It is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would appoint a panel that would abolish the regulator. Frankly, this is not a perfect provision, but I am seeking consensus and trying to find a proposal that the Government might not consider automatically repugnant.

One should note, in relation to this new panel and any recommendation that it would make, that Parliament would take the final decision. If the panel decided in its view that the regulator should continue, Parliament would have a say in the final decision. If the panel recommended that the regulator be scrapped altogether, it could not do that without the consent of Parliament. There is an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to Peers on this side of the House about a sunset clause last year. However, I say very briefly that her arguments against it were somewhat misconceived, because they were basically predicated on arguing that, for some reason, the leagues would have reason for acting in bad faith and frustrating the regulator.

I reject that for a number of reasons, not least because it would be the independent panel, with members appointed by the Secretary of State, that would make the final decision. If the panel thought that the clubs or the leagues were being unreasonable, it would side with the regulator, not the leagues. It is perhaps also worth pointing out in parentheses that the clubs, the leagues and so on are going to be under considerable legal obligation as a result of this Bill and would not want to chance their arm lightly.

The Minister also argues in her letter that the sunset clause would incentivise the regulator to look for short-term solutions to long-term problems. Again, I find that hard to see, because the panel making the judgment would want to find the solutions that were best for football. If the regulator were suddenly making short-term decisions at the expense of long-term ones, I should expect the panel to be very critical of that.

Finally, before I take my seat, I say that this is Committee and these are probing amendments. There is a good case for a sunset clause, but it may be that other Members of the House will have other ideas of how parliamentary scrutiny might be strengthened other than by a clause. If they have those ideas, it would be useful to hear them. With that thought in mind, I beg to move.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I must begin by correcting my noble friend earlier who said we are all football fans. I have no interest in football, but I do have an interest in the legislative process.

In 2004, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House published its report on Parliament and the Legislative Process. I was chair of the committee and indeed the drafter of the report. We recommended changes to the legislative process, including the introduction of post-legislative review. We proposed that Acts be reviewed within three years of their commencement or six years following enactment, whichever was the sooner. In 2008, the Government accepted the case for post-legislative review, committing to Acts being reviewed by departments three to five years after enactment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Amendment 341 withdrawn.