Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the aims of this Bill are laudable. It is legitimate to be concerned about issues such as poor financial and operational management, the inequitable distribution of funds, particularly broadcasting fees, and insufficient input from football fans. I concede that, for most people, their local football club is the heart of their community, town or city; it is part of their history, heritage and culture, and the fabric of everyday life. As a communitarian, I understand and applaud that these clubs are cultural icons and often community champions. One of the most memorable occasions I remember as a Member of Parliament in the other place was attending the civic reception for the back-to-back promotion of Posh at Peterborough Town Hall in 2009.

I am not a devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian; I believe that there is a place for government intervention. It is right to intercede in a dysfunctional marketplace where there is unfairness, oligopoly, monopoly, price gouging or barriers to entry, and it is appropriate to protect the consumer in extremis. However, this Bill, while potentially improving the financial sustainability of individual clubs and English men’s professional football, does so at too high a price, with its encroachment by the state in the form of a behemoth regulator and ministerial fiat into the operation of a free market, broadly successful and lucrative business model, and private associations and private enterprise.

The impact assessment tells us that, over a Parliament, compliance and operational burdens will cost upwards of £140 million. Even the non-monetisable and monetisable social benefits in the impact assessment are essentially unquantified. The Bill represents another example of incremental mission creep that, sadly, we have seen over the last number of years, outsourcing governance and policy to reviews and consultations, and specifically to regulators.

Naturally, I do not blame the present Government for bringing the Bill forward; they actually believe in big government, state interference, regulatory overreach and that Whitehall knows best. But this legislative process began under the Conservative Government, despite it being completely at variance, ideologically and philosophically, with our values as a party of localism, free-market dynamism, minimal regulation and entrepreneurial endeavour in order to deliver profit and tax revenues to drive improved public services.

This Bill should be measured simply against the key tests. Is it proportionate? Is it necessary? Is it justified? I would answer no. Football is not unique. Woolworths was at the heart of the high street when it closed in 2009, but we did not immediately legislate to have a sweet shop regulator in the wake of its closure. Football clubs have always gone bust: Aldershot in 1992, Exeter City in 1994, Chester City in 1998, Crystal Palace in 1999, Swindon Town in 2000, and so on. Invariably, the free market corrects where there is a local demand and community support to re-establish and reconstitute clubs previously in administration and insolvent. This bespoke Bill is therefore not necessary or proportionate.

That does not fetter the discretion of Ministers or their ability to improve the English game using other regulatory or statutory levers. Surely it is not an insurmountable challenge to enhance and strengthen the existing owners’ and directors’ standards and the fan engagement standards.

I will now move from the political and ideological background to the details of the Bill, in particular its earlier parts. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, the Bill contains 42 delegated powers and 10 Henry VIII clauses, giving Ministers sweeping powers, notwithstanding the use of the affirmative resolution in respect of statutory instruments.

The creation of a new regulator is for me problematic. Theodore Theodoridis of UEFA is quite right to highlight the dangers of overreach and scope creep:

“While the initial intent of the IFR is to oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets, there is always a risk that, once established, the IFR may expand its mandate beyond these areas”.


He warns, rightly, of “government interference”.

Clause 45 is particularly problematic. It is drafted so very loosely, and the Government’s memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee explicitly references a “strong steer” for the Government in developing regulations on prohibited competitions. Even Dr Jan Zglinski of the LSE, an academic football specialist otherwise supportive of the Bill, believes that the clause will give rise to litigation and disputes due to its opacity.

It is difficult to legislate for something you cannot define. How can you protect and preserve important cultural heritage assets or engage with fans if you cannot define these terms in the Bill? If one consults Schedule 11 and paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Explanatory Memorandum, one finds that neither “fans”, “local community”, nor “heritage of English football” are defined. Perhaps the Minister will consider that issue. Furthermore, Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State powers to define “specified competition”, is unprecedented.

I am concerned by other aspects of the Bill, such as encompassing investigatory powers and data sharing with public authorities, as well as the onerous powers under Clauses 28 and 29 on the suitability of ownership and officers, and the Minister’s powers therein. I am most concerned about the powers conferred in Part 3, and particularly Clause 22, on varying the discretionary licensing conditions. Clause 22 is particularly wide and loosely drafted, and contains Henry VIII powers to enable the most onerous and far-reaching interference by the IFR into individual clubs’ everyday activities. It would allow Ministers unlimited carte blanche to change and amend the licence conditions on a whim and without appropriate notice.

This brings us inevitably to the Trojan horse: the pernicious woke ideology of identity politics inserted into the Bill at paragraph (7)(2)(d) of Schedule 5—the EDI clause. The last thing football needs is primary legislation to embed identarian zealots into the operation of our national game.

I fear that the Bill is the Dangerous Dogs Act de nos jours; driven by anecdote and special interest, it is well-meaning but egregious. After all, in respect of Clause 49, on changing the crest, shirt colours or name, is this really necessary or enforceable, and is it really appropriate for primary legislation? We all want a successful football industry and we all support the aim of economic growth, but we must be careful about killing the proverbial goose with overregulation and legislative overkill, which I believe the Bill represents.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 3, and in so doing will cover a number of other amendments in the group. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that I see this as a Bill that is almost uniquely all-party. Both Front Benches are in favour of it. One introduced it in another place, albeit for another purpose; the Prime Minister at that time talked about dropping a legislative bomb in the path of a possible breakaway super league. It has morphed quite considerably since that time to take into account many other issues.

In a sense, it is a Bill of two parts, and they have not always completely aligned. On the one hand, there is the role of the regulator with regard to the financial success or otherwise of English football. We will come to what that means in a moment, because it is fairly important. On the other hand, there are the many recommendations that came out of the fan-led review. The noble Baroness and I have both been around a long time; it is about 40 years since I started in the other place, and I have rarely seen a Bill with 340 amendments tabled from all sides of the House before we got to Committee. That is because many Members of your Lordships’ House are interested in the fan-led review; equally there are those—I echo the words that she has just said—who are concerned indeed that a regulator should not diminish or damage the success of the football league on which the waterfall payments depend. The more successful that Premier League is, the better for football and the better for everything that we are looking at.

My noble friend in sport—dare I say that?—the noble Lord, Lord Mann, looked just a moment or two ago as if he felt that spending too much time on the Bill was nearly as depressing as three minutes before the end of the Swansea-Leeds game at the weekend, and some noble Lords opposite look as though that is how they feel. However, at the weekend he was awakened by a wonderful goal that led to a 4-3 victory by Leeds, which we both celebrated.

I want to focus first on the important issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because it is important that we recognise and understand clearly what it stated. It said:

“The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ‘protect and promote the sustainability of English football.’ … One must go through a series of definitions only to find that the Bill does not, after all, provide the definition of English football. Ultimately, the meaning of ‘English football’ depends on regulations to be made in due course by the Secretary of State—albeit by the affirmative procedure”.


The report stated:

“‘English football’ means ‘all regulated clubs and specified competitions, taken together’. A regulated club means a club that operates a relevant team. A relevant team means a team that is entered into, is a member of, or participates in a specified competition. A specified competition means a competition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.


That means that the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill that we are debating in this critical Committee. The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of “specified competition”. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear. The report goes on to conclude with a recommendation that

“the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill. Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.

My noble friend who has just spoken from the Back Benches is also aware that, as we have discussed, there is a question of hybridity about the Bill. When the Minister comes to respond to this set of amendments, I would be grateful if she could say, first, what she intends to do to give clarity to the issue of English football and what it means in the context of this legislation and, secondly, answer the question on hybridity. Until we have answers to those two questions, we have a number of challenges. I think there is widespread agreement across both sides of this House that there should not be a whole series of major decisions left to secondary legislation. They should be in the Bill and we should be considering them in detail as we progress.

On the question of sustainability, which is key to this series of amendments and the first part of this legislation on the role of the regulator, I hope that Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude commands widespread agreement across the House. It provides that football needs to continue

“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality … to attract significant domestic and foreign investment …. to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues, domestic and international broadcasting agreements, and asset and enterprise values”

and continue

“to produce industry-led agreements on the distribution of revenues”.

Capital will travel overseas if that is not the case. Fans will benefit from ensuring that they and their clubs see success in English football, and that success is driven by a successful Premier League.

We can debate at length how much money flows through to the rest of English football but, unquestionably, the more successful the Premier League is, the better for the fans and better for the clubs that should benefit from that. The regulator is appointed in part to opine on that relationship, so it is critically important that the regulator takes into account the success of the Premier League and of English football. Indeed, the Prime Minister is very much on that page as well. He has recently pledged to get rid of regulation: his view is that he would

“do everything in my power to galvanise growth including getting rid of regulation that needlessly holds back investment”.

So we need to explore in detail the powers of the regulator and what it is going to do—and immediately, that is a highly complex area of regulation.

The regulator that we are appointing here also has to work alongside the regulations put in place by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and FIFA. We have already seen what happened when UEFA came forward and said, “We don’t like one of the powers that you’re giving to the regulator”. The Government immediately said, “You’ve told us to jump—how high? We’ll remove that from the Bill”. We therefore have a highly complex tapestry of regulation and are adding significant further regulation to that. I am going to look, in further deliberations of this Committee, at how we align the work of the regulator to the UEFA financial fair play regulations.

The point that the Minister made in Committee was really about the number of Premier League clubs that have been in trouble over the years. She kindly referenced and name-checked my comment in her letter, which we have very much appreciated today. She said:

“The Noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referenced there having been ‘only seven liquidations since 1945’. For the fans and communities who bore the brunt of those failures, that is seven too many. There have also been over 60 instances of professional clubs entering administration since 1992”.


Yes, I agree that there have been seven liquidations since 1945 and seven too many, but that is nothing like the number of liquidations and insolvencies we see in society at any given time. The numbers for the country at large are substantially greater and football has been highly successful. Only last year, something like 25,158 companies went into liquidation in the country at large, with 2,827 of those being compulsory liquidations.

So I think that the success of English football has been underestimated by the Minister and by those have been compiling the arguments that, in some sense, we should not on the face of the Bill recognise the importance of growth, financial success and financial sustainability, which are at the core of the amendment that I have tabled.

With those initial comments, I will just add one other very important point for the consideration of the Committee. All the indications are that in France, which has far greater regulation, and in Germany, which has much greater regulation as well, there is no evidence that that regulation has forestalled the insolvency of some of the clubs made insolvent under those two regulatory bodies. On the contrary, it is not the regulation that stops insolvency after all. I am very happy to give way to the Minister on this. If there is a club that seems to be in financial trouble, what will the regulator do about it? At what stage will he or she intervene? At what stage will they therefore state whatever steps they feel should be taken at that point?

That is not on the face of the Bill because, no doubt, it is the Minister’s view that that should be left to regulation and it is up to the regulator. But the reality is that you appoint a regulator only if you really believe there is a serious problem and you know exactly what that regulator would do in any given circumstance. That has not been the case in either France or Germany, which are the two major case studies relevant to us at this stage. So I would echo the points that have been made. We need to make sure on face of the Bill that the regulator recognises that football should be as successful financially as possible, and that nothing the regulator does should inhibit the success and growth of the financial success of football. With those comments, I am supportive of both my noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment and, clearly, my own.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in Committee on the Bill, and obviously at Second Reading as well. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her helpful and comprehensive letter today, which also referenced my reference to Woolworths. I think she might have misunderstood what I was saying, but we will let that pass.

I will focus specifically on Clause 1, which is the centre of this Bill: it is the cause, the purpose and the raison d’être of this Bill. As I mentioned at Second Reading, if you cannot adequately identify what the problem is that you are seeking to solve, you are very unlikely to reach an efficacious solution. This Bill—this Act, assuming it gets Royal Assent at some point—will be a living document. It will be the Government, the state, via a large regulator with unique powers, intervening in what hitherto has been a very successful commercial activity—perhaps one of the most successful commercial and business activities in the whole of our country, and certainly one that is globally very well regarded.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to look seriously at the excellent amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and to take on board some of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward. The odd thing is that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it ignores some of the key points made in the impact assessment. The first page of the impact assessment contains a commitment to “improve financial sustainability”, which is in my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment. However, in the Bill the wording is quite opaque and that wording does not appear.

Equally, focusing narrowly on Clause 1—which is the reason the Bill is coming to this House—I note that it seems odd that the local community is not defined in primary legislation. Ministers will say, “That’s because we need the leeway to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation and statutory instruments for unusual circumstances”. That is not an ignoble or unfair interpretation, but it is a difficult proposition to put to this Committee when we have to judge what is in front of us and not what might happen in the future in a very complex market model. So that omission is still problematic, which is why I repeat it from Second Reading. The other issue is that clubs’ fans are not defined definitively in the Bill, probably for the same reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Yes, I can accept those figures. I accept the noble Lord’s general premise, although I am not sure about Spain. I do not think that more than two clubs have won La Liga; actually, the two Madrid clubs and Barcelona have won it.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about comparing England with France and Germany. I am not sure that is a fair comparison because in Germany the clubs are fan- owned. No club can have more than 49% ownership—51% is owned by the members of those clubs. There is not a direct comparison there. Yet Germany has been disproportionately successful in European competitions over that same period.

I want to move on to something else that my noble friend Lord Mann talked about— the opposition of many on the Opposition Benches. Unless I misinterpreted my namesake, my noble friend Lord Watson seemed to say that he was not in favour of the regulator having the powers that the Bill suggests. On the question of the role of the state, I thought that my noble friend Lord Mann was going to say that the Taylor report, which followed the terrible events of Hillsborough, was driven by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Quite right—I do not think anybody would object to that. There are cases where state intervention is appropriate and the only answer. If it had just been decided that we would hope all clubs produced all-seater stadiums for safety reasons, we would still be waiting for some of them.

That is one of the issues that we will probably come to later. The other one is the question of who is a fan. It is not for today, but it is very important to define what a fan is. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about Peterborough and how Posh fans are spread right across the fen-lands and beyond. If you are defining a fan, it really has to be a season ticket holder, because otherwise you cannot pin them down. Manchester United and all the big clubs have fans across the world. You could not possibly consult them. I am sensitive that noble Lords will not necessarily agree with that. What about somebody who cannot afford a season ticket or who is not physically able to go to a match? I accept that, so we have to try to pin that down, and it will be one of the most difficult aspects of the Bill, because if we are going to take the views of fans into account, we have to have a means of corralling them and then taking those opinions. At this stage, I do not see how we can do that beyond season tickets.

My noble friend Lady Taylor talked about the sustainability and the success of English football, not just the Premier League but right down the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, talked of Stockport County. They sunk right down to level 6 in the National League North after going through some very traumatic periods, but have been able to come back up to level 3. My noble friend Lord Mann talked about AFC Wimbledon; in nine years they came from, basically, parks football to being back in in the Football League. It is natural that we tend to concentrate on the Premier League, but there has to be some understanding that the clubs below them are important. I am being opportunistic, but the Labour Government have talked about fixing the foundations. In any sense, when you look to go forward, you must have strong foundations. The foundations of English football are right down at the grass roots. I am not talking about the amateur level.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord references Amendment 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. Will that amendment not potentially embed in primary legislation an economic concept of moral hazard? It is an economic term: a situation where a party has an incentive to take risks because it does not have to bear the full costs of those risks. That is going to be on the face of the Bill for the new regime, and will be directed by the new regulator. Is that not the case?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

We will have to see how that comes out in debate. I am not quite sure what the import of that amendment is. That is one of the issues about the role of the regulator. Noble Lords, particularly on the other side of the Chamber, are seeking to give him or her greater powers or influence than intended in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said at one point that we do not need a regulator because nothing is wrong. There is something wrong, because the Premier League and the English Football League have been unable to reach agreement on the disbursement of the funds from the top level to levels below. That is one of the problems in the system at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister to follow up on something she said in her wind-up speech at Second Reading. She said that, that week,

“the Minister for Sport had a productive discussion with UEFA and they committed to continuing to work together”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1908.]

Obviously, it was just a reference, but I wonder whether she might be in a position to give more detail about that conversation, whether some issues raised in the letter have now been dealt with, and what continuing conversations might entail. As she mentioned it quite briefly at Second Reading, it would be great to get a bit more information if she can provide it to us. If she cannot do it now, could she perhaps write to all noble Lords to give us the latest on the discussions that have been ongoing?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park. The important thing we are missing is the sweeping enabling powers in the Bill; I think there are 42 powers and a number of Henry VIII powers.

The Prime Minister said on 17 September in response to UEFA:

“I don’t think there’s any problem with the rules, because this is a truly independent regulator. But as you’d expect, we’re talking to UEFA, and I’m sure we’ll find a way through this”.


I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lady Evans and ask for an update from the Minister.

I am not sure if the Prime Minister has actually read the Bill. If he did, he would surely concede that particularly in Clause 11, “Football governance statement”, there are very wide-ranging powers. For instance, Clause 11(3) states:

“The Secretary of State may revise any football governance statement”,


while Clause 11(1) states:

“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”.


In paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes, there are significant powers that are open to future interpretation in a court of law. This is an unprecedented situation, but the notes state that

“guidance is intended to aid the IFR in interpreting the intention of legislation and to inform the detailed development and implementation of its regime. IFR guidance to the industry should give clubs greater information about the specific requirements of the regime, including how the IFR will operate and what is expected of clubs”.

With the best will in the world, that is a very pervasive, far-reaching, enabling power for the Secretary of State and Ministers in the department to exercise. If I can beg the forgiveness of noble Lords, I am slightly sceptical. I am not quite taking the side of FIFA and UEFA, but I have some empathy with the concerns they have about mission creep and a movement from financial issues into the minutiae and technical, granular operation of different football clubs. That is why my noble friends and I are raising this issue. I hope and expect the Minister to address those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I agree, but I was going to appeal to us myself to try to tackle the Bill—which is so important in many ways—with at least a little of the spirit of what is in the best interests of football, rather than what is in the best interests of the political footballs of political parties. That is just an appeal—it might not work—because Henry VIII powers, for example, are anti-democratic and illiberal whoever uses them. I do not therefore want not to be able to criticise them in case somebody thinks that I am on the side of the Tories or that I am anti-Labour. That is not the point, surely.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I take on board the Maude doctrine, which is that, had we had the opportunity to have scrutiny and oversight of the Bill at the appropriate moment, I would have made exactly the same points to my own Government when they were in power. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, he is flogging a dead horse by keeping on saying that this was a Tory Bill. We are today considering a Labour government Bill on its merits and its efficacy, which is why we are debating it.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 6. I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that there is no state regulator in France or Germany—all the regulation there is football-led—so this is something completely different.

I will raise with the Minister the alarming letter that UEFA sent the Secretary of State. In it, the warnings are spelled out very clearly, as are the concerns about “governance interference” in football. It points out that it has very “specific rules” that guard against state interference in order to

“guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition”.

It states:

“If every country established its own regulator with similarly broad powers, this could lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and in essence hinder the ability of UEFA and other bodies to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards across Europe”.


It goes on to say that

“it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA in accordance with UEFA and FIFA statutes”.

It warns against anything that could compromise

“the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”

or the ability of domestic leagues to set

“their own season-to-season financial sustainability rules”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it gives stark warnings about the backstop power and licensing. UEFA expresses significant concerns about the backstop and stresses the importance of preserving collaboration and voluntary agreements in football governance, while cautioning against overreliance on regulatory backstop powers that could disrupt the sport’s balance and stability.

It says that the backstop threatens

“the balance of power within football governance”

and that

“mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us”

and would

“prevent amicable solutions being found”.

UEFA says that the backstop in the current Bill should be “carefully reconsidered”.

However, despite those warnings from UEFA, the Government have made the backstop even wider and broader in scope, to now include parachute payments, which are fundamental to competitive balance. They have removed the incentives for a football-led deal, which goes specifically against the advice of UEFA. So it appears that the Government have ignored that letter and its warnings. UEFA spells out that

“the ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition”.

No matter how small the Minister may say the risk is, the inclusion of this amendment will help to ensure that the IFR does not act in a way that enables such unintended consequences for football fans. That would be a huge relief.

We should be careful not to empower this regulator without fully addressing the concerns of the international governing bodies in advance. If we create even a small but ever-present risk of intervention in the future, that could put the Government, the regulator and our competitions in an invidious position down the track, especially in circumstances where the interests of English football may not align with UEFA or FIFA—for example, in the event of future disagreements on the football calendar. I therefore urge the Minister to give assurances that every single issue raised in the letter has now been dealt with to UEFA’s satisfaction, including its concerns on financial distributions and independence from government. This leverage, once granted, cannot be taken back.

It is imperative that nothing in the Bill gives the regulator powers to interfere with the rules that already govern football—which, by the way, is one of the most governed and regulated industries around. We have to comply with FIFA rules, UEFA rules, Football Association rules, Premier League rules and EFL rules—and now we have the IFR rules. We will be tied up in more red tape than a company applying for a post-Brexit import licence.

So will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to allow a full copy of the letter she received from UEFA to be put in the House of Lords Library and the Commons Library for every single Peer and MP to be able to see it, read it and be aware of its nature and tone and of the consequences it spells out, so that every Peer in this House can take that into account when they consider why this amendment is so important and so necessary?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.

A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.

English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the simple reason that it is very helpful to the Government. We had the good fortune to meet the shadow regulator last week; it was a very informative and interesting meeting and, clearly, it is starting from scratch.

Given that the Bill has many wide-ranging and permissive powers that are given via statutory instrument to Ministers, it is important that on its face—in primary legislation—there are proper framework guidelines for the regulatory and legislative regimes for the regulator to go forward with. Given that last week the Government were quite firm in setting their face against growth parameters, which are pretty important, given that the Premier League is one of the most successful business outfits in the whole world—in fact, the most successful sports league in the world—I cannot really understand why the Government believe that this is mutually exclusive to supporting fans and putting into the Bill a commitment to fans, even though they are, as we learned previously, not defined.

--- Later in debate ---

For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments and ask that they do not press them.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I hear what the Minister says and I am grateful. However, she will have read the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report dated 22 November. We know that sustainability is not explicitly defined. We know that fans are not explicitly defined. As was said on our first day in Committee,

“the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill … The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of ‘specified competition’. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; cols. 720-21.]

Does she not agree that this is why it is important to tighten up that situation—that lacuna—in the Bill, so that the regulator has a firm sense of direction in how it proceeds?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is a matter that I am sure we will discuss at greater length when we come to a longer discussion on secondary legislation, but I am happy to talk to the noble Lord outside this Chamber at further length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, as I sat through the whole of this fascinating debate, I thought I might as well throw my penny’s worth in on the issue of what a fan is. I am a football fan. I do not have a season ticket. I was on a list for a season ticket for many years until Arsenal moved stadium, when they scrapped the waiting list and you had to start again. The only way I show my fandom, really, is to listen or watch matches whenever I can and get into arguments in pubs with people from other teams. Just saying.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s excellent amendment. I think it is unarguable that in the last hour we have demonstrated why we need that amendment, because no one agrees what “local” means. I think that is a very important point. This whole debate reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, when Humpty says:

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.


We do not really know what “local” means. My noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea talks about the importance of international fans. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that I fundamentally disagree with Amendment 17A because I think it is socially regressive and would lock out many people. It would actually go against my noble friend’s Amendment 8 in terms of getting new generations of fans involved: not everyone can afford a season ticket.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I accept that, and I hope I made that clear earlier—but how do you consult the other people? You do not know who they are.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord asks a very reasonable question. I actually pray in aid the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because, for all his frustration with this debate, his Amendment 26 has at least tried to answer the question of what a fan is and what “local” means, and therefore I am quite predisposed toward that amendment. My only problem is that it absolves this House and Ministers from solving the problem, by kicking it into the long grass, so to speak, of the independent football regulator. So I agree with that amendment, but the noble Lord’s amendment is too restrictive.

When I was a child, I used to go to Charlton Athletic, the Valley, which in the good old days had a 66,000 capacity. Because I was a Charlton fan, vicariously, through my father, does that mean I could not be a fan of Millwall, which is in almost the next borough, the London Borough of Southwark? Could I not have been a fan of Crystal Palace, in the London Borough of Croydon? Could I not have been a fan of Leyton Orient, in the London Borough of Waltham Forest? You get into a rabbit hole of really difficult decisions if you do not properly talk about what is “local”.

I will finally finish by reminding your Lordships that, at Second Reading, I mentioned the importance of supply chains, because although fans are important, so is the wider football community. That includes businesses, commerce, supply chains, the people who sell the hot dogs and the prawn sandwiches, the people who provide the footballs, and the people who do the advertising, etcetera. We are dancing on the head of a pin, because—with all due respect to the people in the Box—the Bill is not well drafted. We have a responsibility to point that out. For that reason, I implore the Minister specifically to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 9.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a point on Amendment 17A of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about the complexity of what we mean by “fan” and indeed “season ticket holder”, because there are so many options to be a season ticket holder. You can be a season ticket holder for Premier League clubs, just for those Premier League games. You also have cup games, like the FA Cup and the Carabao Cup. There are also Champions League tickets. If you cannot get a season ticket, as an individual you can apply for those individual cup games. If you wish to become a forwarding member for £20, you are in the position to receive a ticket from a season ticket holder. It spreads up; the number of season tickets available is very complicated indeed for cup games.

Not only that, but you also have corporate tickets. Corporations can buy a whole suite of tickets for their employees and also for their clients. To establish somebody who would go as a guest of a corporate individual or who had been forwarded a ticket further complicates it. The point I am making is that it is not straightforward. It is very complicated—there is not just one season ticket holder at any club.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

16: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) Notwithstanding the purpose of this Act, the IFR must have due regard to the potential economic harms of overregulating English football.(3B) As part of fulfilling its duty under subsection (3A) the IFR must assess the effects of its activities on the financial position of regulated clubs and submit a report to the Secretary of State within six months in the first instance and annually thereafter which must be laid before Parliament within 28 days of their receipt of the report.”

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, on the potential harms of overregulation, goes to the heart of this whole Bill. What we are discussing in this Committee is not just the role of a new regulatory body but the future of English football in its totality. The Bill introduces a complete overhaul of the entire system of English football. It creates an entirely new organ of state apparatus, which will no doubt introduce copious amounts of onerous rules and regulations that clubs and leagues will be forced to comply with—in addition to the already stringent rules that the leagues impose on clubs themselves.

The Premier League has a handbook on its rules and governance procedures that is 768 pages long. Contained within this vast document are reams of rules, regulations and duties relating to matters such as club finances, tests for the prospective owners and directors of clubs, the disclosure of relevant interests by club officers, requirements for directors’ reports, and so on. Under rule E.22, the league has the power to impose financial penalties, and under E.37 it can deduct points from clubs which violate those rules. All the things that the Bill seeks to address are already covered by the Premier League.

It is not just the Premier League that does this. The EFL already has an established financial regulation department, aptly called the club financial reporting unit, which monitors and ensures financial regulations that EFL clubs must abide by. The EFL can and does hand out penalties to clubs that fail to meet its standards. For example, in May 2023 Wigan Athletic FC was deducted four points, beginning the 2023-24 season on minus eight. That was because the club failed to comply with the EFL’s requirements that the club deposit 125% of its forecast monthly wage bill into a designated club account. In fact, in that season there were 15 disciplinary and enforcement proceedings against clubs by the EFL for breaching its rules. That existing self-regulation has clearly been effective. Despite some high-profile cases of failure, the vast majority of the time the current regulations do serve their purpose.

Since 2012, when the financial rules were strengthened, only six Football League clubs have gone into administration and only seven football clubs have been completely liquidated since 1945—these are remarkable numbers. Compare that to the finance industry, whose insolvency figures dwarf that of football. In the 12 months to September 2024, there were approximately 500 insolvencies in the financial services sector alone, according to the Insolvency Service’s official statistics. We talk about breakaway leagues, and yet we must not forget that the European super league was stopped in its tracks by the fury of the fans and the power of the current league regulators of football. Is that not a clear example of the self-regulation of the sport working very effectively?

It is not clear at all that self-regulation has failed. I put it to your Lordships’ House that English football is one of the great success stories of private regulation. The leagues already impose their own rules, which hold clubs to account for their actions. They have robust mechanisms for punishing those clubs that do not act appropriately, and the evidence of the success rate of football clubs proves that that has indeed worked. So I ask the Minister: why strangle the flourishing industry that is professional football?

I also point out that that seems to be the view of the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park noted at Second Reading, the Prime Minister himself said at the recent investment summit that

“the key test for me on regulation is … growth. Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to inhibit or unlock investment?”

He went on to say that

“where it is needlessly holding back the investment we need … we will get rid of it … we will make sure that every regulator in this country, especially our economic and competition regulators, takes growth as seriously as this room does”.

There we have it. The Prime Minister himself understands that regulation and overregulation are fraught with economic danger. If he realises the risks of regulation inhibiting investment in that arena, does he also recognise the risks of regulation and overregulation within football?

It seems we are suffering from, as Harold Demsetz termed it, the Nirvana fallacy. This is where people look at private solutions and seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real. If discrepancies are found, they deduce that the real is inefficient. Their usual yet unfortunate response is that the only possible solution must surely be more regulation, more rules and more state diktats. But when we are considering whether this new regulator will actually improve outcomes for football, we cannot merely have reference to the supposed limitations of self-regulation. We must look at what this independent football regulator will become.

For that, it is particularly instructive to examine the recent report on the Financial Conduct Authority by the All-Party Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. That report has found that the body that regulates the entire financial sector in this country is

“an opaque and unaccountable organisation”

that is

“incompetent at best and dishonest at worst.”

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place, stated that the FCA was “complacent, conflicted and captured”.

Among the litany of failures that the report identified is one that is typical of regulators of all stripes: the culture of the organisation. The APPG found that the entire professional culture of the regulator was defective, and that

“errors and inaction are too common”.

The APPG has lined up a vast array of whistleblowers, who have shed light on the problems that the FCA faces. That report is backed up by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which points out that the FCA has been able to decide its own burden of proof and then levy fines running into billions of pounds, and all without proper accountability.

I will not reiterate the entire report for the Committee, but I was not surprised at all when I read it. The behaviours and the failures as described by the APPG are all too common when it comes to state-run bodies that seek to enforce their rules on to other private entities. They are too often encouraged to go further than necessary—mission creep—and then do not act when they are supposed to.

Why would this regulator be any different? Why would the independent football regulator break the mould and challenge these hitherto proven truths? I see no reason why the IFR would improve football in this country in any way. Previous state-run regulators have clearly failed, and I have no doubt that this regulator would potentially do the same. I therefore feel it is an absolute bare minimum to require the independent football regulator to have due regard to these risks of overregulation, as enunciated in my amendment. That should not be a contentious point.

I hope that the Minister can give me cast-iron assurances that the regulator will be ever watchful of the damage that it could very well inflict on football clubs and leagues. I ask her to guarantee absolutely that the IFR would be a light-touch regulator and not delve into the minutiae of each club’s finances and everyday operations. I want her to reassure the House that not one penny of a club’s income will be wantonly redistributed to another club, which would be tantamount to asking one private business to give its own earned assets to another private business. As I described last week in Committee, that would be a moral hazard. This is a matter of profound principle that I simply cannot disregard.

For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that this is a poorly drafted Bill. It was poorly drafted under the previous Administration, and it is worse now—but at least we have the opportunity to address its worst deficiencies and improve it in Committee. I hope that the Government and this Committee understand the dangers of the path that we are heading down, and that all possible efforts should be taken to shift us away from the constant move towards more regulation and to protect our nation’s proudest cultural export from the ever-encroaching arms and dead hand of the state.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak for the first time today to support my noble friend’s amendment, because it is important to set this Bill in context.

I, for one, am not in favour of the financial regulation in the Bill. I have a degree of support for many of the amendments that came out of the Tracey Crouch review, and the propositions on fan-led change are reasonable for the Premier League to consider. What worries me is that we are introducing—the only country in the western world to do so—the imposition of regulatory control over one of our major sports. Even countries such as Russia and China, which have sports laws, recognise the overall authority of the International Olympic Committee, FIFA and UEFA. They do so in recognition that they would not be able to host or to participate in their sporting events if they did not accept that overall authority.

On the first day in Committee, it was clear that the Government were not prepared to countenance putting the important rider in the legislation that we would do nothing that would threaten the role and playing of our clubs in European competitions and the World Cup—and, if we include women’s football, in the Olympic Games too, but that is a matter for a latter amendment. I am concerned about the imposition of regulatory control, being the only country that does this, because, as was rightly pointed out by my noble friend, this does not in any way generate growth. On the contrary, it proposes a whole series of measures that will restrict the competitiveness of the clubs in the Premier League, which, in turn, will mean that the waterfall of financial support that comes through to all professional football in this country is lessened, not increased.

I speak from the position of somebody who has had the privilege of being involved in sport for 30 or 40 years. When I was interested in becoming a Member of Parliament, I wanted to go to Moscow as an athlete for the Olympic Games. Had we legislated that the athletes could not go, I would not have been permitted to go. As it was, I led a campaign for the athletes to go against the boycott that my then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, strongly supported. I felt that, under the autonomy and independence of sport and the vital principle that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be political pawns, it was right for the competitors, who wanted to go, to compete in Moscow, however much they may have opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as indeed I did. I recognised that to use sportsmen and sportswomen as the only way to demonstrate opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was wrong, when people could buy tickets for Aeroflot in Piccadilly and go to watch the Bolshoi in Leningrad, and while trade and diplomatic relations continued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answer and I thank my noble friends and others for an excellent debate on my amendment. I hesitate to single anyone out, but the contributions of my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady showed their great expertise in different aspects of football, sport and regulation over the years. I make particular reference to the granular and forensic demolition of the impact assessment by my noble friend Lord Hayward, and the issue of the impact on small clubs that was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.

To come back to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I see this amendment as complementary to good governance, because it is a pretty light-touch amendment. It is really a permissive oversight power—we will come back to it, of course, on Report—with timely regulatory audit and a sense check. The Minister may need to think about whether accepting this amendment, perhaps on Report, would detract from the substance of the Bill.

Football is full of amazing stories. I want to finish with a story about my own local team, which goes to the heart of the debate on this amendment, which is the nature of entrepreneurial endeavour in football—risk and reward. Darragh MacAnthony, a property entrepreneur, bought Posh, Peterborough United, at the age of 30, the youngest owner in the league, in 2006. In August 2007, he put a note in the programme at a football match which said, “I will deliver back-to-back promotions from League Two to the Championship by 2009”. He did it, with the help of my friend Barry Fry, who, of course, noble Lords know. The point is that I have to ask, looking at the Bill and at all its onerous implications in terms of regulatory impact, would Darragh MacAnthony have put his business on the line to buy Posh, to keep Peterborough United afloat and make it flourish as it has done for the last 18 years, had the Bill been in place? I very much doubt that he would.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Thank you; I appreciate being kept on my toes by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. With that in mind, and notwithstanding anything I have said, we will ventilate these issues on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is yet another example where, as we understand this Bill further, we see more and more complexities and unintended consequences which will have a profound impact on the sport that we all love. Those points were very well made by my noble friend, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them.

My amendments are trying to be helpful and practical, given the complications set out by my noble friend around how you determine who is an owner or who has influence on it all. At the very least, as proposed in Amendment 30, the regulator must inform who it considers to be counted as an owner. I hope noble Lords would agree that that is a fairly sensible move, given that such a person might not consider it themselves but might be deemed to have influence.

Just as we require a certain competence from officers, Amendment 177 suggests that owners should be subject to a similar assessment.

We are all mindful of the numerous situations we have seen where there is a timeliness to the acquisition of a club, particularly in the context of rescuing a club or where there are certain deadlines, as happened in the case of Abramovich and Chelsea. Amendment 186 states that the regulator must make a decision about an owner or an officer within one month. Officers can be critical to the running of a club as well, so we need timeliness there.

My two further amendments, Amendments 188 and 189, propose that where the regulator is seeking to act retrospectively—as has been pointed out, this gives it the power to reopen the issue of ownership and officers—there needs to be a high bar before it is allowed to go in; otherwise, before we know it, it could be investigating and unpicking the officers and owners of every club. Once again, this is a massive example of just how overbearing we are in danger of setting up this regulator to be.

Amendment 188 says that the regulator can investigate the current owners only if it believes that there is a reason for them not being suitable. It is trying to put an evidential burden or barrier on that. Similarly, Amendment 189 is about trying to determine the fitness of current officers only if it already has information in place suggesting that those current officers are not fit. Otherwise, if we add up all the multiple hundreds of officers of the hundred or so clubs, we would be setting up a whole logjam of investigations, which I would hope that all noble Lords think does not best serve the interests of those clubs or football as a whole.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and I commend him on his comprehensive demolition of the Government’s case. I have fundamental problems with this clause, as it stands, in respect of ownership. As my noble friend rightly says, it goes way beyond the admonitions and existing legislation of, say, the various Companies Acts. It is much more draconian and prescriptive than anything we have seen in company law. It is quite sensible, and not ignoble, for all Governments to take a value judgment on who is a fit and appropriate person to be a company director and to trade and take part in commerce. We all understand and support that, but what we see here is very oddly drafted legislation. It seems to me that it may be a reaction to the trade policy clause that existed in the original Bill, which was withdrawn.

At the same time, the Bill is extremely opaque, permissive and open-ended in the power that is bestowed on the Secretary of State. Looking at the schedule, I am very uncomfortable about giving those sweeping powers, not least because there is a differential between the “significant influence”, as contained in the schedule, that a director or a person involved in a football club may have and what we read in Clause 3, which is just “a degree of influence”. What does a degree of influence mean?

It is not all a case of the Saudi royal family and Newcastle United. We are talking about 116 clubs. Is “influence” popping into the dressing room at half-time and saying, “Great match, guys; here’s a beer”? Is it saying, “If you play better next year, my company might sponsor you more favourably”? It may seem ridiculous to use those examples, but this wording is so unclear—so opaque and permissive—in asking to give Ministers very significant powers that we need to think carefully, again, about whether it is appropriate to let it remain in the Bill.

For that reason, I strongly support the eloquent and comprehensive case made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and, in passing, of course I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Markham. This is a bad clause. It will give rise to very big risks of litigation. Ministers should think carefully about whether it remains in the Bill and we should think again, perhaps on Report.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Norwich City were very fortunate to have Michael Wynn-Jones and Delia Smith as majority shareholders for the past 26 years. They have been fantastic custodians of the club. They joined the board when Norwich were in a perilous financial position and helped steward the club through the highs and lows of six promotions, six relegations, two play-off finals and 15 managers. Of course, Delia was not averse to some direct fan engagement with her “Let’s be ’avin’ you” rallying cry, which we all know and love.

In October, Norfolk Holdings, a group led by the principal owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, assumed majority control of the club, so a new chapter has begun. While Michael and Delia have relinquished control, they remain committed fans, as they always have been. I know that all Canaries are extremely grateful for their unwavering commitment to the club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I read with interest the noble Lord’s Amendment 182. The wording says of the commitment to the home ground

“with said commitment to be codified in such form as the IFR may determine”.

Does he agree that it could undermine any existing contractual relationship and bring uncertainty into the business activities of that club, were this amendment to be adopted?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I do not think that it would. It is designed to stop owners disposing of the assets. I will give the noble Lord the example of Brighton, because what happened there is very instructive. Back in the 1990s, it was taken over by some rogue owners —Bellotti, Stanley and Archer. Apart from becoming local hate figures, they sold the stadium before they had anywhere else to locate the football club. Then they tried to blackmail us politicians in Hove Council and Brighton Council—we were not a unitary at the time—into providing them with a completely unsuitable site for relocation, with no planning permission and no business plan at all. That was wrong, and it destroyed that club for a period of time. It has taken us a long time to recover from that. It has taken the support of fans and the good will of good local politicians to rebuild Brighton into the excellent and well-run club that it is today. Now, I would say that, wouldn’t I? But it is the truth, and that was the situation.

This amendment is quite personal to me. I did not go on marches, protest or do what I could as the leader of the council to see that position undermined. I would hope that the noble Lord opposite, as a supporter of Peterborough, would have a similar passion for his club. That is the reason for this amendment. We want to make sure that we provide fans with that security and knowledge and understanding of the importance of that commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, started speaking, I thought that we were going to have a first. She started off by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on some points that I would agree with him on. Then she went totally against that and said that a Select Committee might be too interfering. I point out to her that the Select Committee that covers DCMS has, for many years, talked about the problems in football such as ticket pricing and the timing of matches. That has not impinged in any way on any international arrangements.

We have to make a clear distinction between Parliament and the Executive, because we are not talking about state control or government control. What we are talking about in this amendment is a proper accountability for any regulator. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I have the privilege of chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee of this House. We had a report about who regulates the regulator, so it is strange that the noble Baroness should use those words. This is not about regulating the regulator; it is actually about holding regulators to account. Both Houses have a very important role to play in making sure that regulators are held to account by Parliament.

I go further: if some of the regulators had been held to account more closely by Parliament in recent years, we would not, for example, have the crisis that we have today in the water industry. There has been a failure of Parliament to hold regulators to account.

My Amendment 89 is not grouped with these amendments but covers very similar points and the same principle. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that Parliament will have a role to play in holding all regulators to account, including the independent football regulator.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. Her words are born of great experience—not just the dark arts of the Whips’ Office, I know, but many years of speaking up for her constituents in the other place. I think she ended up agreeing with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

I support this amendment because of my experience of four years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place. I had the great privilege of serving under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge of Barking, who was a superb chairman. That is not to take away from the work of Meg Hillier, who recently did an excellent job in that role.

My point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned the division between the Executive and Parliament. Our worry on this side, and the reason we put forward this amendment, is that we see too many powers being vested in the Executive and Parliament having too few.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Since my noble friend is referring to a letter that was addressed to me, I assure him that in the debate on another amendment I shall return in far greater detail to this letter, not least because the first heading of the letter refers to “Exact cost”. I never asked for exact costs. I preferred to use the word “probably”.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Your Lordships and I can rely on my noble friend’s forensic interrogation of the letter and the Bill generally. I know that we will come back to this issue.

I mentioned proportionality and a final example is the framework document, which has a strange description on page 2 of the letter. It says:

“DCMS as the sponsor department will agree a ‘framework document’ with the Regulator”.


It will be up to a parliamentary committee to look at what the point of that framework document is and whether its delivery by the regulator is efficacious. We need to know about the accounting officer. We need to know about the role of the National Audit Office and how it will intervene and work with the department, the regulator itself and any parliamentary committee. The levy, the proportionality and the cost are all areas where Parliament has a very important role to play.

I think we have reached the turning point in trusting regulators to discharge their duties without appropriate and close examination by legislators. That is our job and the job of those elected in the other place. Because the weather has changed for regulators, we no longer implicitly trust them to be full of experts and to do their job effectively. As my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said, “In God we trust, everyone else bring data”. I am not just looking at the right reverend Prelate when I say that. The serious point is that we need to see that the regulator is doing its job. We cannot rely on just undertakings and assurances. We need the proper statutory function of a committee to oversee the work of the regulator. On that basis, I warmly support my noble friend’s excellent amendment.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jackson and to support the three amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. I spoke a few days ago about how the Premier League became so successful, so popular and such an enormous contributor to the soft power of this country around the world, as well as to our finances in the many billions of pounds of taxes it pays. I spoke about the very delicate nature of entrepreneurial activity and the danger that comes from overregulation.

As noble Lords will know, I am not keen on the whole idea of this regulator—particularly one that is given so many powers in such an enormous Bill. But there is only one thing worse than a regulator given many powers and that is one given untrammelled and unscrutinised powers. Therefore, if we are to have this regulator, it is absolutely crucial that there is sufficient scrutiny of what it does.

We know that regulators like to regulate. People who are attracted to the idea of supervising other people like to get really involved and talk about what they would like to happen and how they can make that happen. They want to have the powers to make it happen—and preferably without scrutiny. I do not know how many Members of this Committee have had the experience of many years of scrutiny by regulators who decide, “You’re a wrong ’un and we’re going to go after you”. The process becomes the punishment.

And as many noble Lords have asked already this evening and earlier, who is going to come into this game? Who is going to apply their entrepreneurial flair if they believe that an untrammelled and unsupervised regulator is going to be able to second-guess everything they do, consider their fitness and will be able—from what we were told earlier—to reach into their funds and, through the backstop, extract them for whatever purpose, unchallenged, unsupervised and without any scrutiny. I submit to noble Lords that these amendments, if we are to have a regulator, are absolutely crucial for the regulator’s good functioning and for the future success of this wonderful part of our economy.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are making, but I am always hesitant to say that something “must” happen. I speak here as someone who spent many years as a personnel/human resources director, acting as the final stage of appeal in disciplinary matters. As the noble Lord implied, I know that there is a debate in legal fields, because nowadays lawyers generally do not like being bound by something that tells them that they “must” act in a certain way.

It does not seem to be appropriate to insert “must”. The noble Baroness said that there would be a presumption—and I think so too. As the noble Lord said, these are very serious offences, but until one is confronted by a set of circumstances, I hesitate to bind anybody to a certain decision. There may be special circumstances where one is found guilty of only one of the categories and circumstances, so I am not convinced that “must” should be inserted in place of “may”.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I want partly to echo what my noble friend Lord Hayward said. Given that the individuals concerned will be non-executive directors of a de facto non-departmental public body, they would be covered by the existing code of conduct for non-departmental public bodies, which I think dates from June 2019. It may have been updated by the previous Government; I do not think that the current Government have looked at it. Equally, they are governed by the Nolan principles, with which we are all very familiar—I am as familiar as anyone else, having been a special adviser and currently being a non-executive director of two non-departmental public bodies.

My point is about the restrictive nature of this wording. This is quite an unusual situation, where the individuals responsible for bringing disciplinary issues to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the independent football regulator will have no leeway whatever under this legislation. If it passes the threshold of criminal activity in civil law, legal representatives—the judiciary, magistrates and others—would have no leeway on this. Therefore, you would circumscribe the existing internal procedures.

Those of us who have a role in non-departmental public bodies know that there is a proper process. You would have a verbal warning. I also have a master’s degree in human resource management and have been an HR manager in my time—there are almost as many of us in this place as there are lawyers.

[A noble Lord]

No.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Okay, maybe not. My point is that employment lawyers are very wary about something as definitive as this, which involves disciplinary procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a very valid and fair point that, at the very least, we need to know the potential scenarios and circumstances that may arise. That would allow us, without any concern, to accept this in the Bill. At the moment, it is overly restrictive, and it could give rise to unfairness and onerous intervention directly by Ministers. On that basis, at the very least, we need to have more information about this before Report. Like my noble friend Lord Hayward, I feel deeply uncomfortable about having such prescriptive wording in primary legislation.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the thought that noble Lords have given to the amendments in this group and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for tabling them so that we can consider them. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly said, one of the first things that people do when they receive a new government Bill is to go through it and look for the “mays” and the “musts” and consider why they have been put there and what the counterargument would be if the other word were used.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who have brought their professional and personal backgrounds and their qualifications to the scrutiny of this. Like them, I think that we must be careful of being too prescriptive here and of limiting the role of the professionals we are appointing, particularly as this is an independent regulator. We want it to act independently and have a bit of professional discretion. However, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have an important point that motivated them to bring the amendments, which would limit the discretionary ability of both the independent football regulator and its chief executive officer in cases of misconduct or where an individual is not able to perform his or her duties, whether they are a non-executive director, an executive director or a member of the expert panel.

Clearly, if this new regulator is to enjoy the support of fans and the businesses and clubs that it regulates, it must uphold and be seen to be upholding the very highest standards. It is good to pose the question of whether this discretionary power should be written in the Bill as it is. The discretionary power as written would allow the independent regulator the ability to keep an individual in place, even in cases where he or she is guilty of misconduct, has a conflict of interest, has failed to provide appropriate information to the chief executive or is unfit, unwilling or unable to carry out his or her functions. That is quite a serious list of reasons, so I can see why the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have posed this question to the Committee. While I share some of the scepticism that my noble friends have set out, I am more sympathetic than might be expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the three amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson.

On Amendment 45, it is very important that we have Chinese walls around media interests and that we preclude, if possible, any potential conflict of interest. We are not talking about a corner shop; we are talking about very serious big business and huge amounts of money for broadcasting rights. The information that will be contained within this regulator and the expert panel is phenomenally important in terms of its commercial confidentiality. Therefore, it is appropriate to put in the Bill a protocol which precludes the possibility of any interference from those who have a vested interest in media, and particularly in the workings of the expert panel.

We can look at models across the world whereby you have to keep secret from many people confidential information that is market-sensitive and may affect stock and share prices. Some of the information in the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission would fall into that category. This is not quite as lucrative, but it is very big business. Therefore, we need to protect individual clubs that do not have economic heft, and bigger clubs that may be affected by a leak of information or inappropriate use of information from the expert panel.

Amendment 47 strikes a balance on the ability to pay an expert the appropriate amount of money. You want someone who has accumulated knowledge, skills and experience of football on the expert panel, but you do not want to pay them more than, for instance, the Prime Minister is paid. You want to have a set amount, and I think it is appropriate to put it in the Bill, in primary legislation. We know that £91,346 is pretty much two and a half times the average salary. It is a decent amount of money for the services that will be provided by the members of the expert panel.

The amendment I support most strongly is Amendment 49 because, as Judge Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court judge in 1913, said, daylight is the best disinfectant. That was not said by a British historian, as people think, but by a Supreme Court judge. He was absolutely right about this in all the ways government is conducted. This gets the balance right, because there will be Chinese walls between different functions within the independent football regulator. This is light-touch transparency. It would not divulge the intricate proceedings of the expert panel within the IFR, but it would allow people to make a value judgment on how key decisions had been reached and who had made them. There would be accountability and transparency, as you would know not only who was making a case but the reasons why they did not support a decision. It is right that we would not include detailed minutes of the deliberations of the expert panel, because that would not be in the interest of the game and good governance, but it would be important to understand how decisions were made.

If you put that together as a complementary mechanism, with parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the independent football regulator as a whole, it is a very useful amendment for making sure there are key checks and balances. It would make sure that certain clubs are not dominating and certain other clubs are not being pushed out, and that everyone has an opportunity to have empirical evidence, data and proper facts put before the expert panel. Ultimately, the panel will be accountable, first, to the IFR, then to Parliament and then to the wider public, including the fans.

I am not saying that the IFR is exactly the same as the Securities and Exchange Commission, but, for those reasons, I think there is a framework here that can be used to make sure that we deliver a decent and effective IFR—but in a fair and equitable way that is open, transparent and, above all, accountable to the taxpayers and people of this country.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. The middle two of these amendments are effectively a rehash of arguments we have already had—fair enough, so I will not comment on them. But, on the first one —about the numbers on the panel—and Amendment 49, what are the Government’s plans? Do they have any idea what would be a top number, or have they ever given this any consideration? That would be helpful to know—20 would seem to be a reasonable figure.

On the transparency of decision-making, the Government must have some idea, at the very least, about reporting, because it is almost impossible not to have some plan for reporting. If they have a standard or are thinking about one, it would help if we heard it now.

A couple of these amendments are well worth discussing, particularly the one on transparency. But I suspect that the Government have a plan for this—if they do not, they should have—and I look forward to being reassured by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

50: Schedule 2, page 94, line 26, leave out paragraph 36
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to provide the IFR with financial assistance.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, every time I see a new enabling power, I think it cannot get any more egregious, but this is probably the best of the best so far—or the worst of the worst, as my noble friend Lord Hayward says from a sedentary position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Perhaps noble Lords would allow me to continue, as it has been quite a long evening. I am getting close to the end of my response to the debate on this group.

I turn to the issue of litigation costs being passed on to all clubs through the levy, as opposed to being taken from financial penalties of non-compliant clubs. It does not seem fair or proportionate, particularly for those clubs that have complied with regulations, for the costs incurred as a result of those that have not complied to be charged to all clubs. For the reasons I have set out, I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, just to concede the point from my noble friend Lord Hayward, he is absolutely right about the cost being accumulated and passed on to clubs. I did not make it clear that, effectively, the point I was making was that this is an open-ended financial commitment for the IFR, rather than another way of ignoring the cost on the clubs. The point I was making is that it is axiomatic that, if you have a clause that says there is unlimited cash available to a body, it will take advantage of that and there will be carte blanche.

At this late hour, I just leave your Lordships with my observation of Parkinson’s law—not my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay but C Northcote Parkinson. He wrote an essay in 1955 for the Economist, saying that

“work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion”—

or, in public services and government, the number of people grows regardless of the work to be done. The point I am making is that if you give an unlimited blank cheque to this body, you are encouraging mission creep and encouraging that body to move into ultra vires areas, not just regarding transitional costs but on a long-term basis in the Bill. For that reason, we need to come back to this and maybe redraft the Bill.

Incidentally, I found the Minister’s answer quite helpful and informative, for which I thank her. I know that it has been a long evening. We have had an eruption from mount Watson—the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—and all I would say is that it is a constitutional principle that no Parliament can be bound by its predecessor. We are in a new Parliament with a new Government and a new piece of legislation, and we are doing our job of scrutiny and oversight. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

He then has Amendment 52 as well. Under those circumstances, it is relevant, as I have said persistently, to ensure that there is clear identification of the impact on the clubs, more specifically than saying that this will be proportionate. We need to adopt a frame of mind that ensures that the regulator is acting beneficially to football in general and not imposing undue burdens on our clubs that are not faced by other clubs around the world, with whom we will have to compete not only in tournaments, to which I have just referred, but for television rights and international funds. Without that frame of mind, we will not have a Premier League of which we can be rightly proud. With those opening comments, I beg to move my noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 57 in this first group. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in his place and I appreciate his cameo role in this Committee. I had not noticed him here for most of the deliberations of the Committee, but we welcome him anyway.

This is a probing amendment to press the Government on how much intervention they envisage the regulator pursuing in the internal financial affairs of clubs. It is a probing amendment because we on this side seek to solicit from the Minister more precise details, which are not in the Bill, about how much she and the Government envisage the independent football regulator having a part to play in the technical minutiae of the finances of each club.

Because of the nature of the Bill and the wide-ranging powers under its Henry VIII clauses, we simply do not know the degree of interference in those 116 clubs. For instance, will a club be required periodically to enunciate its liquidity requirements on a quarterly, half-yearly or annual basis? What debt cap rules will they have? What player acquisition and sales issues will the regulator become involved in?

Importantly, there are also the decisions taken by the boards of the 116 football clubs around land and property, which are covered elsewhere in the Bill but relate to this amendment—where they play and what contractual arrangements they may have with landowners on a rental, leasehold or freehold basis. Will the regulator be prescriptive about which banking arrangements, and with which organisations, each club is free to enter into?

These are important issues. This Committee’s effective scrutiny requires more insight from the Government into the regulator’s intentions regarding financial regulation, not least because other non-departmental public bodies already have significant powers and the capacity to intervene directly in what are, in effect, small and medium-sized enterprises and significant, big businesses turning over large amounts of money. There are the Financial Conduct Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, and local authorities have widespread powers to intervene in the everyday activities of the clubs contained within their local government areas. There are also various companies Acts, such as the Companies Act 2006 and that of 2016, that are within the bailiwick of the interface between government and football clubs.

As we asked on the sweeping powers over raising finance, and since the Bill does not expand on this, is Parliament not being asked to write a blank cheque to allow the Government to regulate as they wish? Not just the Premier League but clubs in other leagues are most concerned about this because of the nature of this legislation. Will the Minister address the concerns of each of those clubs about the powers of the regulator potentially to interfere in each club’s everyday financial affairs?

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests declared in the register. I support Amendment 71 tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which raises a crucial point regarding the backstop mechanism. We must be clear at the outset about what this mechanism governs and, critically, what it does not.

First, it is vital to understand that the backstop is categorically not about the fair apportionment of collective football revenues. Each party—the Premier League and the EFL—has its own central broadcast revenues. Indeed, the EFL has just secured a landmark five-year domestic broadcasting deal worth nearly £1 billion, increasing its central revenues by 50% from next season. This is testament to the Championship’s growing competitiveness and appeal.

I will not dwell on the fact that many of its recipients are incredibly wealthy—I believe there are nine billionaire owners in the Championship, along with many other extremely well-funded ownership groups—but I will dwell on the fact that, despite its very healthy income, the EFL does not give any money to the National League. It gives no funding to the leagues directly below it. It is the Premier League that supports the National League. Far from some sort of neutral arbitration to allow all parties to share with each other, the backstop is in fact a mechanism for the forcible redirection of billions of pounds of Premier League revenue only. In other words, this is one set of private businesses handing over money to another competing set, even if they do not want to give more than the £1.6 billion they already do and it damages their ability to compete.

The critical point, therefore, is that this backstop mechanism represents a completely unprecedented and untested intervention in what are the private commercial rights of Premier League clubs only. It impacts uniquely on Premier League clubs. The gravity and novelty of such an intervention demands the most careful consideration. Crucially, the backstop introduces a major and radical change in the Bill: the inclusion of parachute payments. This decision was taken without adequate consultation with Premier League clubs.

I mentioned earlier in Committee that just seven out of 20 clubs were invited to a 30-minute meeting on the Bill with the Secretary of State between the Government taking office in July and the decision, which was taken in October. It is no surprise that this lack of consultation has produced such a reckless decision. There simply cannot have been an appropriate understanding by the Government of its potential consequences.

Parachute payments are not a financial convenience; they are a cornerstone of the Premier League’s competitive balance. Without them, clubs cannot plan for long-term investment, or the stability required to maintain the intense competitiveness that is the hallmark of the Premier League and a significant driver of its global appeal. Parachutes are also—this is an often-overlooked point—a key part of the financial incentives for Championship clubs to invest in that league, knowing that if they reach the promised land, it will not all be undone with one bad year.

To fundamentally alter this system risks undermining the very factors that have made the Premier League such a global success and one of the UK’s greatest soft power assets. Potentially harming the magic ingredient of the Premier League’s competitive balance threatens to destabilise long-term commitments, jeopardising investment in lower-league stadiums, academies and community programmes. I believe it would fundamentally undermine the Championship, too.

We should also consider the concerns raised by UEFA. It has warned that the backstop mechanism could disrupt the balance of power in football governance and negatively affect the competitive equilibrium in both domestic and European competitions. UEFA has urged the Government to carefully reconsider their approach, emphasising that mandating redistribution in this way risks deterring amicable solutions and the very investments that underpin the success of English football.

This unprecedented intervention into private commercial rights must be carefully scrutinised. It very obviously has a differential and disproportionate impact on the clubs within the Premier League. It is also clear that the consequences of this seismic and deeply flawed intervention have not been fully understood. We do, as UEFA has said, need to reconsider this critical issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a little bewildered by the direction of the debate. Some of these amendments have been put to tease out the issues. My general commentary would be rather different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who seemed very unkeen on the tremendous work being done across football by the clubs, which I commend. Indeed, I do not just commend it; I can quantify it. I reference my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as the Government’s adviser on anti-Semitism, then and now. I am particularly impressed by the first ever programme of anti-Semitism training in football, which was launched two years ago. There were a few eyebrows at first, with people asking, “What is this?” In two years, two-thirds of English football has volunteered to be trained. Significant numbers are having their academies trained and some are having players, the board and staff trained. It is particularly interesting and valuable that the biggest single piece of training in the city of Leeds—ever—was the training of Leeds United stewards under this programme.

I am delighted that Liverpool Football Club will be one of many clubs starting in the new year. The list of engagements on this in the first quarter of next year is quite formidable—but there is space for more. This is a success in football, because of what it said to the small number of Jewish players, Jewish staff and Jewish fans: you are valued here.

Just last week, I was at Leyton Orient, where the Jewish supporters’ group sponsored the match against Bristol Rovers. Leyton Orient outperformed anything they had done this season as a response. There will be the first-ever Hanukkah events at Fulham Football Club and at Leeds United Football Club. Other new groups are being formed. Other groups have existing events around Hanukkah and Holocaust Memorial Day. This is a positive, and it is not to the exclusion of any other group. Indeed, we find that other small groups of people who perhaps do not see many people like themselves in the stadium, on the pitch or in the club also welcome it. I have seen clubs embrace that as well. If I was running a club, which I have no desire to do—sometimes I would like to influence one or two of the footballing decisions, but would not we all?—then I would want my club to do that and welcome it. I would call it a good business plan.

On the whole question of diversity, one of its weaknesses and the reason why I tabled an amendment, just to tease out what the Government think—not because I think this is a good regulation necessarily but it should be good club business—is that there is a deficit in the number of black players getting into the better coaching and managerial jobs. That is clearly to the detriment of our national game. Their talent is not being used. How that is captured and by whom is, of course, important, but from a business point of view it is a competitive disadvantage if a large group of participants in the game are then not getting into the coaching and managerial side even vaguely relative to the numbers who participate as players. It is clearly a weakness, and whichever clubs are best at addressing that will have a competitive advantage. I am interested in teasing out and listening to the Minister on how we can help football to grab that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the overall picture is that football is full of EDI officers. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them over the last two years —indeed a majority in English football. They are excellent people doing brilliant work. They are out doing work in the community as well, supporting young players from a range of backgrounds. They are a key strength in the clubs and in the clubs’ business plans, as well as in the communities. They should be commended. The more we can encourage that by whatever means, the better we will be doing our job.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He is a man of great good sense and pragmatism. In fact, I could have agreed with most of what he said but, unfortunately, on this occasion I will not agree with his amendment.

First of all, I will go back to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I agree with. It is very sensible, and the Minister would be wise to accept it. But his preamble was simply wrong. It presupposes that external forces are exerting inappropriate pressure on this side to make cases in their favour, which is completely untrue. I say that because we on this side are merely going through the proper process of scrutiny and oversight, which is our job, to test the efficacy or otherwise of the Bill. Remember: we had a general election, and we have a new Administration, a new Bill and a new Opposition. Therefore, we are quite within our rights to challenge the Bill on its face.

I pray in aid figures from the past few years about the number of Committee days given over to various Bills in this House. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had 17 sitting days. We have six. The Children and Families Act 2014 had 12 sitting days, and the Localism Act 2011 had 10. There are a number of examples. Much as I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I respectfully disagree with him.

I move on to the specific issues of, particularly, Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann. These are two quite insidious amendments; I find them quite Orwellian, actually. It is not that we do not trust local football clubs to do the right thing in terms of community outreach, working with their community and improving equality and diversity, but noble Lords are being asked to put those powers into a regulator that will develop a national template. Whether, therefore, you are Bristol Rovers, Brentford, Brighton and Hove Albion or Bradford City—to use some alliteration—you will be told what you have to put in place in terms of your EDI policies, which I do not think is right. It nationalises corporate philanthropy and community outreach. It is also a displacement activity, because it presupposes that that work is not already being done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends’ amendment, for the obvious reason that, from the beginning of our discussions, we have not substantially defined in the Bill what we mean by “English football”, other than by alighting on the word “sustainability”. We also have not defined what we mean by the “heritage of English football”. That was specified in the impact assessment—in fact, it says on the first page that we do not know what the heritage of English football is.

This is a very helpful amendment from my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, because it at least gives us and the regulator an opportunity to have a firm understanding in the Bill, among all stakeholders in all leagues, of what we mean by the heritage of English football. It is important that it means the tangible and intangible elements that define the unique historical identity of English football. I am surprised that the Government, for whatever reasons, have decided not to adopt that in the Bill and have left it to—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I am a bit surprised, because the Benches opposite have, on several occasions, accused us on this side of trying to extend the reach of the regulator. The noble Lord asked: what is English football? In the Bill English football covers the top five levels—that is the definition. Personally, I think it should go to level six, but it is at level five. It is clear what it means by English football.

Under subsection 1(d) of the proposed new clause, Amendment 58 seeks to increase “the number of clubs”. I do not see how you can increase the number of clubs without it taking in other levels beyond those in the Bill. These amendments seek to extend the role of the regulator, which is rather inconsistent from those opposite.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

As usual, the noble Lord makes a very pertinent and astute point. I disagree with it, because what we are seeking to do is further define what is in the Bill. There is a lack of definition—there has been since we discussed the issue in relation to Clause 1 a week or so ago. That is the difficulty.

The general point the noble Lord makes is also pertinent, because we are still deciding whether this is a hybrid Bill. It is important that we define English football, because if we do not properly define it, there will be an issue of hybridity. According to the Minister’s letter, as I understand it, it is still only provisionally being ruled as a hybrid Bill, and there is no definitive position.

The point that I was making was that we need a proper framework. The new clause proposed by the amendment would add that definition to the Bill. It would therefore make it a better and more holistic Bill. At the moment, there are significant concerns about the Bill’s enabling powers and Henry VIII powers, and the new wording would go some way—were it to be adopted by the Minister; I live in hope that it might be on Report—to ameliorate that issue. For that reason, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Markham.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by offering sincere apologies for not being able to contribute at Second Reading. I am afraid that I had to attend a close friend’s funeral. I did, however, manage to be in the Chamber for the latter part of that debate. I have watched the debate back on Parliament TV, updated myself via Hansard and, where able, attended most of the Committee. I also apologise if parts of what I say might have been more appropriate for Second Reading, but I feel that your Lordships may deserve a bit of background on why I feel privileged to offer some reflections to the Committee on this matter. This may, mercifully, be the only substantial contribution that I make on the Bill.

I declare my interests, as set out in the register, specifically having around 12 years of direct experience in sports governance, but also make an admission. First, I have been a lifelong Chelsea supporter and, as an excepted hereditary, I have of course passed that unfortunate affliction down to my sons and even to my nine year-old daughter who, yes, plays football—although she confessed the other day to having considered the unthinkable: supporting Manchester City. Given Chelsea’s recent form, though, I hope that she will now revert to her inherited team.

I support my noble friend’s amendments that try to define the objectives of the regulator, as well as others that have already sought to address the actual purpose of the Bill. Where I hope we will eventually get to is that something can be financially sound, resilient and sustainable, and grow and be successful. We have already discussed that if sustainability is the sole rationale and motivator for this legislation, sustainability could have a far lower bar and be an inhibitor to growth and success. Given the context of being one of this country’s greatest exports, the success of the English Premier League and now the English Football League is not solely dependent on their sustainability. There is much more to it. I suggest that they are successful not simply because of their sustainability, or unsuccessful because of the lack of it. They are deemed successful because of a whole host of factors, be that results on and off the pitch, financial sustainability, fan engagement or community outreach, to name but a few. Are growth and success not things that we should ask clubs, leagues and all stakeholders to strive for? What enables them to be successful and what should we try to support through the Bill?

In my view, and as we have heard from other noble Lords, the UK is globally successful in the game of football, and the Premier League, the EFL and other successful domestic leagues have grown to a position of global prominence because of various factors, including the game’s heritage and the English language—the lingua franca of football, as indeed it is with most global sports. Football is successful in the UK because of the pro-business environment in this country, which encourages foreign investment into our game and, ironically, is potentially threatened by aspects of the Bill.

We must also credit the consistently strong leadership of the Premier League, its global appeal through strong marketing and its willingness to embrace expertise from abroad in players, coaches and support staff. Some of your Lordships might remember that this pursuit of excellence and diversity was strongly criticised in the first few years of the Premier League’s existence. It was seen as a threat to homegrown player development and that talent progressing up the pathway to the national team—an attitude that I think we can all now agree has been shown up by the recent successes of our national teams.

More broadly, football’s success relies on this country’s position in the world and, yes, the crucial part played by our strong domestic marketplace, characterised by the role that a fiercely loyal fan base has in supporting the leagues and their teams. Above all, it is the ability of so many of the clubs in the UK to build brands around themselves—some of them mega-brands—that has led to five of the top 10 best-supported clubs in their global reach being from the UK, with just one from Germany, one from Italy, one from France and two from Spain. The bottom UK-based team in that top 10, Arsenal, has over 40 million followers on Facebook alone, with a fan base that extends far beyond these shores.

All these factors are more complex and, frankly, equally as important as some of the simpler definitions contained in the Bill. Growth and success are what the Bill should seek to preserve, enable and maybe protect, rather than inhibit. To repeat: the Bill should be about preserving and promoting growth and success, not just ensuring, for instance, sustainability.

Do we measure success simply by sustainability or should we seek a broader, more detailed and more accurate set of definitions—a higher bar as a North Star for this Bill, as suggested by my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson in their Amendments 56 and 58? This could be a subtle but fundamental tweak to what this Bill is trying to achieve.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

These amendments provide an important chance to clarify the Bill, reduce the risk of regulatory overreach and ensure that financial licensing is both effective and proportionate. In my view, they would do a huge amount to give comfort to those of us who remain worried about preserving the vibrancy, fairness and competitiveness of the game we love.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to comment on this part of the Bill. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the clause stand part notice of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and to develop some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brady.

I begin with Amendment 128 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I feel that there is no balance in it; that it creates an imbalance in terms of its impact on smaller clubs. While I have problems with the whole clause, I think this is the most difficult and onerous part, in its capacity for gold-plating and regulatory overreach. I also think it cuts across existing primary legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act. What we are potentially seeing in these very loosely worded and wide-ranging powers—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord really saying that it is onerous for the regulator to know from a club who the owner of that club is, what the source of the funds might be or that the owner has funds that enable them to properly operate a football club?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think that is a fair question, but the amendment that the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to support today is what I might call a dangerous dogs amendment. It is basically reacting—legislation by anecdote or by the lowest common denominator. You find one bad apple in a barrel and you smash the barrel up and throw the apples everywhere. This will have a big impact on clubs.

I pray in aid the financial guidelines 17/6 that the Financial Conduct Authority put out in 2017 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That was about stopping people laundering money—fair enough. What it has actually resulted in is dozens of people in prominent positions, such as local councillors, Members of Parliament, judges, chief executives of local authorities—even Members of your Lordships’ House—not being able to open bank accounts, and their sisters, their wives, their husbands and their brothers not being able to open bank accounts, because of onerous, overzealous regulation.

I am not saying that the IFR would necessarily develop in that way, but some of the most innocuous wording in primary legislation can sometimes give rise to that kind of gold-plating. It began, of course, under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism regulations that we all supported. My point is that the sins of some clubs should not be visited on all clubs. My noble friend Lady Brady is absolutely right that if we do not have an objectives-based strategy, if we do not have a focused strategy for dealing with the most egregious issues, we will have a universalist approach of assuming that all clubs will be owned by dodgy owners—drug traffickers, people smugglers; I exaggerate for effect. There is the perception that that is the case and, of course, it is not the case at all. I say to noble Lords: be careful what you wish for.

On Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, I have very serious issues with this clause, because it fails on its own merits, in many respects, because it is not commercially flexible. If we are going to give a power, under Clause 22(5), for the Secretary of State to vary the licence conditions—and I have big problems with “add”—which are already settled, we will want to do that quickly and in an efficacious manner. We will not be able to do that using the affirmative resolution in this House and the other place, because we cannot move quickly or make decisions quickly to respond to commercial change.

I am also very worried about the limited sanctions available in terms of mission creep. Clause 22(6) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (5) only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR”.


Again, mission creep is almost built in there. Then, in Clause 22(7):

“A request under subsection (6) must explain why the IFR considers that the making of regulations under this section is compatible with the purpose of this Act”.


The question is: is a Secretary of State likely to refuse that? Probably not. There is not really a built-in self-policing mechanism in the Bill, and it is because of the wide-ranging powers and the permissive nature of this wording that I have problems.

The provision fails because it is too onerous and too draconian. However, it also fails on the other side, in that it cannot work quickly enough to address the specific club-based issues that the licencing condition variation is needed for. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider Amendment 128 carefully. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it invites the independent football regulator to exercise its powers ultra vires, which is not in the best interests particularly of smaller clubs.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I rise to speak to my Amendment 173, but first I echo the words of many other noble Lords. I support the outcomes-based approach the noble Lord, Lord Wood, is trying to achieve with his amendment, and I think there is broad support for that.

To pick up on the debate between the noble Lords, Lord Maude and Lord Bassam, on strategic business plans, and to give a bit of detail by way of background, the information one needs to provide for an audit is necessarily backward-looking, looking at the last year for which accounts have been provided. A strategic business plan, by its very nature, is forward-looking. I would be very surprised if smaller clubs with, say, a turnover of £500,000, do that as a matter of course. Lots of small businesses and shops have that sort of turnover, and I am sure they are not doing it either. I am not saying it is not desirable, but it could quite quickly turn into a consultant’s paradise if every single club, including the small ones, suddenly had to produce three-year or five-year business plans. They would have to resort to consultants to do that, which would become burdensome.

This brings us to another problem that we have talked about a number of times. Noble Lords have heard me talk about liquidity issues. By trying to solve the sins of one or two clubs, we are in danger of putting a burden on all of them, particularly if we are asking clubs to deposit money as part of a liquidity ratio to ensure they have a safety net. That will inevitably take money out of football. I had a meeting with the Minister and her team last week, and I thank her for that. We had a very good conversation about exactly this point, and what she promised was a proportionate, sensible approach.

That brings me to my Amendment 173. We are having very sensible conversations, in general, based on the desire of all noble Lords to do what is best for football. However, the problem is that whatever happens here, the Secretary of State has the ability quite easily to change everything. So, in response to everything we discuss, such as ensuring that the licences required are proportionate, the Secretary of State can easily say, “Well actually, we want a more muscular approach”. All the debates over the last five days and counting, the meetings and the various consultations could quickly be set aside because a different approach is wanted. That is my concern.

It does not matter where we have got to in the conversations we have had over the past few days: they will suddenly count for nothing if the Secretary of State can completely change the rules, raise the bar and change the discretionary licensing conditions. I would like assurances from the Minister. How do we safeguard against the fact that these—in my opinion, very good—debates could suddenly be set aside because in a few years’ time, a Secretary of State wants to take a completely new approach, which could be entirely disproportionate?

This has been a rigorous and constructive “two plus two equals five” process, as I call it, as we try to agree on an approach to checks and balances. None of us will be totally happy with how it turns out, but we have all had constructive input into to it. However, all of that could be quickly set aside by a future Secretary of State being able to change the approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Mann for tabling the amendments in this group. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will take each of the amendments in turn before responding to the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, and their opposition to the entire licensing regime standing part of the Bill. I will endeavour to get the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, a response to his question in the near future; I do not have the detail he requested today.

Amendment 128, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 129A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to owners. The first seeks to make identifying an owner’s source of funds a prerequisite for a provisional licence. I absolutely agree that it is crucial that the regulator has oversight of an owner’s funding, so it knows how a club expects to fund its activity and the source of this funding. I hope my noble friend will be reassured that this is why a club is already required to provide such detail as part of its application for a provisional operating licence.

When a club submits its application for a provisional operating licence, this must include a strategic business plan. Among other things, this must contain detail about the club’s operating costs, how these costs are to be funded and, crucially, the source of such funding. This will enable the regulator to scrutinise the source of the funds. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, importantly, a club must set out how much it plans to spend and how it will fund that cost. Furthermore, if the regulator has concerns at any time—even before it has received its provisional operating licence—about the source of an owner’s wealth, it can test that owner. Should it find that an owner’s source of wealth is connected to illicit finance, that owner will be found unsuitable.

I also agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider “significant influence” by owners. Of course, what is meant by “significant influence and control” would need to have been set out in guidance before clubs and the regulator can consider who meets this definition. That is why I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time, in order to give this clarity.

Noble Lords should note that the provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 that define “owner” come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation on the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day, whereas the licensing provisions and other provisions which rely on the definition of “owner” will be commenced later, by regulations.

I turn to Amendment 132, from my noble friend Lord Mann. Although the risk of clubs going into administration will be greatly reduced, it may still happen. The regulator revoking a licence would be the ultimate punishment and would be used only in the most extreme of circumstances. I assure my noble friend that the regime is designed to avoid the situation his amendment aims to provide for, and that ensuring that a club has a plan for adverse shocks is at the heart of the regulator’s financial regulation regime. This might include a plan to keep the club going if, for example, an owner can no longer continue to fund it. We have spoken to many football clubs while developing the Bill, and know that the well-run clubs already do this.

Turning to Amendments 167A and 168A to 168C, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his intention that the regulator should identify a clear risk before acting. The amendments are not necessary to achieve the aim in relation to his points on discretionary licence conditions, as was explained to the Premier League when it suggested these exact amendments prior to introduction. The regulator can attach discretionary licence conditions only if the conditions contribute to a club meeting the threshold requirements, or if the conditions advance systemic financial resilience.

The regulator is bound by its general duties, meaning that it must have regard to its regulatory principles and must act reasonably and proportionately. In effect, that means that the regulator can attach a discretionary licence condition only to address a risk it has identified. I assure the noble Lord that the regulator cannot take any action that is meaningless or does not advance its objectives. If a club feels the regulator is doing that, it can appeal any action through the appeals regime.

Ultimately, these four amendments all seek to raise the threshold for intervention and limit when and how the regulator can act. For every discretionary condition, the regulator would have to demonstrate that there was no possible alternative to achieve the aim than to impose that specific condition. This would be an unacceptably high bar, fettering when the regulator can act. In practice, we think the risk of legal challenge could lead to an excessively risk-averse regulator, afraid to act swiftly or at all.

I thank my noble friend Lord Wood for Amendments 168 and 169 and for his genuinely constructive approach to scrutinising the Bill, which I very much appreciate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also expressed concern on the points he raised. My noble friend has met with officials and me regarding these amendments and I hope that those meetings were useful. We believe these amendments would severely limit the regulator’s flexibility to meet its objectives and ensure clubs reach their threshold requirements. The regulator should not take its lead from the competition organisers. Of most concern is the blurred accountability that this approach would introduce. The fan-led review laid bare the significant issues with self-regulation, and that is why we are introducing an independent regulator.

That said, the system is designed so that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are being met. If clubs meet their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s own existing rules—the regulator should not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. The model in this legislation is the right one, with clear accountability, and where discretionary licence conditions are not applied in a one-size-fits-all way but reflect each club’s specific circumstances.

My noble friend Lord Bassam raised the basic requirement for clubs to have a sustainable business plan. I agree with him that that is important. That basic requirement, as well as the requirement for clubs to engage with their fans and ensure that their owners and officers are suitable custodians, are light-touch, appropriate measures that should already have been in place.

On Amendment 169A, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the regulator is already required to publish guidance about how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That will give upfront clarity to clubs and competition organisers. However, the Government do not believe that the level of detail in the noble Lord’s amendment is appropriate for the Bill. He and I would agree that we are not in-depth experts on football finances—had I looked ahead in my speech, I perhaps would not have said that, and I apologise. I am not an in-depth expert on football finances, the inner workings of football clubs or how football clubs operate; I will allow the noble Lord to make his own conclusions on the extent to which he is. The regulator will employ experts in this sector who will have far more knowledge of these areas than we do. They will also have a stronger evidence base on which to base their actions, informed by things such as the “state of the game” study and consultation with the industry itself. That is why we have required the regulator to publish guidance on discretionary licence conditions and why we think it should be left to do this independently. We do not want to unintentionally hamstring the regulator with overly prescriptive requirements for the guidance it must produce.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, if the regulator agrees with him that it should include detail on financial shocks, liquidity and debt management, it will include this.

I turn next to Amendment 173, from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The Bill outlines the specific types of discretionary licence conditions that the regulator may attach to a club’s licence to address its financial or non-financial resources or to improve systemic financial resilience. It is possible that, as the industry evolves, these types of conditions might not remain adequate to address the new or different financial risks faced by clubs, and there might be more effective ways to address them. That is why it is crucial that there is a mechanism in the Bill to enable the types of conditions available to the regulator to be updated. This amendment would deny the regulator this flexibility and potentially make the regime unable to adapt to changing economic circumstances. It is vital that the regulator has appropriate the tools to regulate football effectively, both now and in the future.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that the Bill does not give the regulator or the Secretary of State free rein to make changes. The Secretary of State can amend the types of discretionary licence conditions that can be attached only if requested in writing to do so by the regulator—a point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making a request.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

On that specific point, in Clause 22(8), the language is quite permissive and wide-ranging regarding who the IFR considers it appropriate to consult in respect of wide-ranging powers, particularly those to add or remove an item from primary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance that the Government will publish will tidy that up and make it tighter on who the IFR has to consult before it would write to the Minister seeking to vary the licence conditions?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We discussed in one of the previous groups why the legislation does not currently have specific people that have to be consulted every time. I commit to write to the noble Lord to clarify the specific point he raises. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making such a request. The Bill has not stated every single person the regulator would have to consult every single time, but there are principles at play around how the consultation would need to take place.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister but she will agree that the guidance could, for instance, include groupings of particular types of people who would be key stakeholders and would need to be consulted, because this would obviously be quite a wide-ranging intervention by the IFR.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I hope it will give noble Lords some reassurance that Parliament would also be able to scrutinise any change, as regulations would need to be made by the affirmative procedure.

We do not believe that Amendments 174A and 174B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would be helpful to the regulator, as we explained to the Premier League prior to introduction. The addition of a minimum six-week period would mean a total minimum of eight weeks once you include the minimum period for making representations or giving a commitment in lieu. That would mean an eight-week delay, during which the regulator would not be able to impose a financial condition, which might mean that the regulator would have no choice but to sit idly by while the issue identified at the club gets worse. That would be contrary to the regulator’s objectives and principles and is therefore not considered acceptable by the Government. Slow action has been a common feature of industry self-regulation. We will not allow it to become a feature of the independent regulator’s regime.

The regulator already has a regulatory principle to proactively and constructively engage with the regulated industry, including competition organisers. This means that regulatory intervention at one of their clubs should never come as a shock to a competition organiser. Once the regulator has given notice of its intention to attach a financial discretionary licence condition, the competition organiser will have a minimum of 14 days to propose a commitment in lieu. To be clear, this is a minimum; the regulator may well decide to specify a longer period, but, equally, if the situation was sufficiently serious and urgent, the regulator should not be prevented from acting without delay. The minimum period of 14 days therefore strikes the right balance.

Amendment 174B only adds further burden and confusion to the process of applying financial discretionary licence conditions. The regulator is required to follow the procedure set out in Clause 23, except in very limited circumstances. This includes urgent circumstances where the regulator considers that the issues are so significant and urgent that the condition needs to be imposed immediately. Under those circumstances, burdening the regulator with a requirement to go through the process of commitments in lieu when it has already acted under urgency and has its own regulation in place is not acceptable. This would also leave clubs in an ongoing state of uncertainty, where an existing financial licence condition might be replaced with a different competition organiser requirement. This would be unnecessarily complicated, confusing and burdensome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, there is nothing wrong with supporters’ trusts, but working-class fans have other models as well, historically and currently; that voice also needs to be heard. Supporters’ trusts are one model and should be empowered, but they are only one model for football.

I have eight amendments here more or less doing the same thing. There is an issue here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, alluded to and spoke to, with the fan advisory boards. There is a fundamental choice here, and I would advise the Government to be careful with the politics of this. Some clubs are choosing the fans to go on their fan advisory board; it is not the fans choosing the representation but the clubs. That is one model, but it is many miles away from the Crouch review. It is the total opposite of what fans would hope to see. The fans in this country have not gone for the German model and demanded comparative boards, 50% et cetera, supervisory boards, and that kind of power in relation to the clubs.

I have helped to establish a range of Jewish supporters’ groups. These are Jewish supporters who want no more than to be meeting up with other Jewish supporters of their club—full stop. But they do hope as well to be able to give the occasional bit of advice, sometimes very productively and positively, to their club—if the club does not refuse, as one has, to recognise a large group of Jewish supporters who simply want to be themselves—and, if there are any issues, they want to be listened to. It might be about the provision of kosher food, or ticketing policy, or that there are a lot of fixtures on a Friday night and people are finding it difficult to be religiously observant and still be able to go. It might be to do with giving advice on issues relating to racism within the stadium. On issues like these, this is a group that should be listened to; it is not a group that should have the power to tell a club what to do.

But the idea that fan advisory boards should be chosen by the club is anathema to fans. Fans are perfectly capable of choosing their own representatives. Let us think about what will happen if this Bill goes forward and the regulator has powers, but clubs can still say to fans, “No, we will choose who the fan voices will be. We will pick persons 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. They will be there under our criteria. You, the fans, will have no say”. What will happen is that conflict will emerge, and the Government will not come out of the conflict well. The perception will be that the Government had the chance to ensure this.

Let us think about a supporters’ trust, made up of people giving of their free time to organise. As a member, you elect whoever to be your representatives, and they are then your representative; it is not the club coming in and saying, “No, we will pick Lord Shamash because we love Lord Shamash. If he is elected, that is all well and good because he represents what we would like to see in Manchester United”. That would be an invidious position for anyone to be in. I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that the fan voice on those big issues—moving the ground, changing the colour, changing the name—will actually be a fan voice. If it is not, then government and Parliament will become unpopular at some stage.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I want to respond very briefly to Amendment 224 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He made a wonderful peroration, but I am not sure it bore much relation to the amendment that he has laid down. Of course, none of us wants clubs to hand-pick fans who will be nodding dogs— ersatz fans who will go along with the corporate line of the football club. We do not want that.

I am not sure if this is a probing amendment for Ministers to consider before we get to Report, but it is a lock. It locks in and fetters the discretion of football clubs to make decisions that might be existential for the future of that club; in other words, diversifying activities, and not just in terms of the freehold. Clause 46 specifically mentions—

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If it was proposed that Peterborough was to be moved to King’s Lynn, or to Norwich, should not the Peterborough fans have the right of veto on moving their club out of their town?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Perish the thought. There are many Peterborough fans who do not live in the city of Peterborough but in the Fens; they may not be too displeased at going to King’s Lynn—not that I am in any sense proposing that. He alludes to the Posh. The Posh have been able to develop a number of commercial activities over the last few years. Darragh MacAnthony, the owner, started out in 2007 as a very rich man. Now he is just a rich man, because of his love for Peterborough United.

The point is that that club has been able to stay afloat financially because the board of the club, backed—disproportionately I would say—by the fan base, has supported the diversity of activities. The noble Lord’s amendment and Clause 46 as written would lock out the possibility of many clubs and boards making decisions to protect their long-term financial sustainability.

I respectfully say to the noble Lord, for whom, as he knows, I have huge respect—particularly for the great work he has done on kicking out anti-Semitism in football—that that is a different issue from regulated fans and setting up fan organisations. This amendment would be quite prescriptive for clubs, and it would not be in their long-term interests, particularly those teetering on the edge of financial instability and unsustainability. For that reason, I hope the Minister will consider these issues when she responds to the noble Lord’s amendment and others.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138A on what consultation means. The wording—

“leave out ‘consults’ and insert ‘meets regularly with’”—

is taken from the Explanatory Notes. On page 44, paragraph 271, under the heading “fan consultation”, they say the following:

“This mandatory licence condition … requires clubs to regularly meet with a group which the IFR considers representative of the club’s fans, which could be a group elected by the club’s fans”.


Throughout these debates, many noble Lords have quoted the Fair Game document, which refers to fan engagement as a communication process, and to a range of formal and informal face-to-face processes being part of that. That is what I am trying to get across here. It is important that clubs meet regularly with the fans and do not just consult. To consult could mean anything. It is not exclusive—of course, it could take various forms—but they must meet regularly. I hope that ultimately, the Government will accept that. It remains to be seen, but I will return to this issue on Report because it is very important.

I will comment on some other issues that noble Lords have raised, particularly my noble friend Lord Mann, who I usually agree with. I did not really take to his dismissive comment in response to my noble friend Lord Shamash. My noble friend Lord Mann said that it is all very well having supporters’ trusts, but you need organisations with working-class members. I do not know much about the Manchester United Supporters Trust, but I am sure it has working-class members.

I am a member of two trusts and have been for some 20 years. One is in Scotland—my old club, Dundee United; I pay £15 per year for that. I am also a member of the AFC Wimbledon trust, called the Dons Trust. I pay the princely sum of £10 per year for that. For that reason, I think there are more than a few working-class fans. I think that my noble friend Lord Mann was suggesting that supporters’ trusts price some fans out. I do not know if that is the case, but I would not have thought so. By definition, you would think that would be rather pointless.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 145 seeks to add to Schedule 4 a consideration of a

“club’s political statements and positions”

in the part of the new regime that concerns the fan engagement threshold requirement. I and my noble friend Lord Markham, who has added his name to the amendment, have sought to do this in as neutral a way as possible, reflecting the fact that political statements and positions are rarely one-sided. They are usually complex matters with a number of competing and conflicting views.

We have seen in recent weeks the case of Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi, who twice amended his rainbow-coloured captain’s armband with expressions of his Christian faith. Plenty of people would say that rainbow armbands supporting gay rights and written expressions of Christian faith are not irreconcilable things. The problem in his case is that his expression of his religious faith fell foul of FIFA and FA regulations banning

“any political, religious, or personal slogans, statements or images”

on players’ kit or equipment, while the other was deemed an acceptable form of political expression.

During the last World Cup in Qatar, we saw the great dismay among LGBT+ fans when the FA chose to suspend its advocacy on their behalf while the tournament was taking place in Qatar. I am very proud that my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the former Sports Minister and now the shadow Secretary of State, wore the one love armband—which a number of fans and others were very keen to see worn—when he went to cheer our national teams on in the World Cup. Although, as a Welsh-born man representing an English constituency, I think he found it just as difficult having to reconcile deciding for whom to cheer in the England v Wales match that he saw.

We have seen many other examples of this being a growing area of concern for fans, clubs and those who have to navigate these choppy waters. Whether it is taking the knee, the decision about when to hold a minute’s silence and over what, the singing of certain anthems and songs or the decision to light certain stadia up in yellow and blue in support of Ukraine but not white and blue in support of Israel after 7 October, these are very difficult matters for clubs to decide. They should be able to decide them for themselves, but the amendment my noble friend and I have brought forward asks them to discuss these matters with their fans, to try to take on board their views, to take them with them and indeed to encourage them to think about these matters and perhaps change their mind.

In doing so, the amendment asks the Government to recognise that religious or philosophical belief is itself a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so is worthy of our consideration when we are looking at supporting diversity in football, and that diversity of thought is really important if we are to grapple with these very thorny questions as a society.

The amendment also seeks to ensure that football clubs remain genuinely independent and free from external political pressure that might distort the relationship between them and their supporters. If we are to safeguard the integrity of football as an independent sport, we cannot allow it to be co-opted into political campaigns, whether from the Government or from any other political group. The duty to consult fans on political statements and activities is a safeguard which ensures that clubs will remain true to their roots, focused on the sport and not caught up in advancing political crusades or day-to-day rows.

I hope Minister will look at our amendment with the neutral consideration we have tried to give it in the way we have worded it. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 244 and to support Amendment 145, moved by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. My amendment seeks to formalise a duty which will prevent clubs, players and employees of clubs publishing political statements that bring division and conflict into a game that should be about generating unity.

We have seen over previous years multiple instances of virtue signalling, such as taking the knee before matches after the Black Lives Matter protests, and the wearing of certain armbands—as my noble friend has said—and laces, which are the latest attempt to campaign. I would say that it is a small “p” political campaign. I may differ somewhat from my noble friend Lord Hayward on this, so it is probably a good thing that he is not in his usual place.

Politics is not just about party politics. It is about the pernicious influence of political campaigning affecting—infecting—football, our national game. I remember the dark days of the 1970s, when a number of London clubs were perceived to be involved with the rise of the National Front and its racist politics. That gave rise, of course, to instances of football hooliganism. That was not a party-political issue, but it was a political issue. We do not want to go back to those dark days when, for instance, Millwall was associated with football hooliganism and some elements of racist behaviour.

I am not even sure that these initiatives work. The figures quoted a week or so ago in Committee show that 43% of players in the Premier League are Afro-Caribbean or Black African. They have achieved that through their skills, their abilities, their resilience and their physical fitness, not because they wore multi-coloured boot laces. UEFA already bans political statements such as these, but it has not been successful in implementing and enforcing such rules. The Government could really take a lead on that.

If the Government are so keen to have a regulator to enforce numerous other rules, many of which overlap UEFA’s rules, surely it is only right that the regulator impose rules on political statements and attempts to impose political views. My noble friend is quite right: we have seen recently the unpleasant behaviour of fans cheering on pro-Palestinian extremists; and of course, we have the ongoing debate, discussion and rivalry between Celtic and Rangers in Glasgow. That is very much a political issue.

Article 16 of UEFA’s own regulations, entitled “Order and Security at UEFA Competition Matches,” prohibits

“the use of gestures, words, objects, or any other means to transmit a provocative message that is not fit for a sports event, particularly provocative messages that are of political, ideological, religious or offensive nature.”

My own bugbear is bad language, particularly in front of children and young people. It is terrible, unacceptable, for grown men to be swearing and using really unpleasant language. However, do we really want to add into that mix the poisonous disputes of politics and political issues? I do not think we do.

Why do we not try to replicate, and perhaps enforce, UEFA’s rules in the Bill? We must remember how divisive such actions have been with supporters and fans. No one likes to be told what they should believe or how they should act. Fans themselves are diverse; they do not need to have these views forced down their throats—such as the preachy proselytising of Gary Lineker on any number of fashionable so-called progressive causes, or a pretentious new Jaguar advert which does not actually feature a Jaguar car.

Fans want to watch a football match and support a team; they do not want to be in the middle of a political bunfight. Fans turn up to watch their favourite team play, not to see a session of Parliament. For those reasons, the Minister should give consideration to this amendment. It would save us from further discord and conflict, which we do not need. Fundamentally, we have to trust the clubs themselves to do the right thing by their fans, their players and their boards and deliver good policies organically, rather than enforcing these kinds of initiatives, which have been proven not to work necessarily.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. What he said was exceptionally perceptive and wise. Look at Marcus Rashford, for example, who exploded on to the football scene in the UK in 2016, aged just 18, and scored on his Manchester United and England debuts, before becoming one of the country’s most exciting prospects. He became a household name at the same time and was recognised with an MBE for his work off the field, campaigning on child hunger, which he faced growing up in Wythenshawe in Manchester. He challenged the then Government in 2020, imploring Ministers to offer free meals to needy children in the school holidays.

The position for international sports federations—and, indeed, for clubs in this country—is to recognise that a balance needs to be struck, which is what my noble friend Lord Parkinson was arguing for. The balance to be struck in the Olympic movement is recognising that the IOC Athletes’ Commission opposes using athletes for political propaganda or campaigns, while providing the opportunity for them to exercise their views and opinions in official media settings or on social media accounts, which are so powerful. Surely this is not a subject for the regulator; this is a subject for clubs and the organisers of the competitions in which they play.

--- Later in debate ---

Does the Minister agree? The “What is a woman?” question seems to me to be an obvious signifier of fairness in sport and, if all we have is EDI box-ticking and we cannot be fair to women in sport, what are we doing here in the first place?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I rise to support my noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley, and I was pleased to sign the amendment. Noble Lords should remember that the corporate governance statement is not a voluntary part of Schedule 5; it is a mandatory licence condition and a threshold requirement. A club simply cannot progress in the licensing process unless it abides by this rather pernicious sub-paragraph of Schedule 5.

My noble friend Lady Fox made an excellent case in saying that this should be removed from the Bill; it is disappointing. We have heard many times from the Government Benches—including the Minister and the Chief Whip, who is no longer in his place—that it is hypocritical for us on these Benches to criticise the provisions of the Bill, given that the previous Conservative Government introduced the original Bill. But noble Lords will now know that I refute this suggestion because I personally would have opposed many aspects of the Bill. I think it is a terrible Bill, frankly, and would have opposed it under the previous Administration.

The Benches opposite cannot make that charge on this particular aspect of the Bill, because this is a brand new inclusion by the current Administration. I am not sure why the new Government thought this was an important measure. It is disappointing that there are no Labour Back-Benchers supporting their own Government on one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, although I concede that the hour is late.

There are already a whole host of measures that clubs and leagues take to progress inclusion and diversity. We had debates previously, a week or so ago, which made the point that this is covered, comprehensively, by the Equality Act 2010. It is also covered by a number of employment Acts, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which would prevent direct and indirect discrimination without the heavy-handed nature of this provision. Because it is going to be set down in primary legislation as part of a corporate governance statement, it will very quickly become not just statute law but case law, so it will be a de facto tablet of stone—irrevocable, a settled document.

That worries me, because we know there is a huge amount of bureaucracy—and I can say this as a former human resources specialist. There are, per capita, more HR specialists in the UK than practically anywhere in the European Union and the developed world. That means there will not just be this corporate statement; there will be the bureaucracy of impact equality assessments, people specs, job specs, race action plans, EDI plans, LGBT plans, et cetera. This is what it will become. It will be about a divisive attempt to segment and disaggregate different fan groups. I think that will be deeply regrettable. Therefore, I think it will give rise to anger and resentment—the very opposite of the sense of cohesion, belonging, unity of purpose and community pride, which surely are the raison d’être of football.

As an example, Peterborough United—Posh—posted a single photo on its Facebook page of a Pride flag. I do not have a problem with a Pride flag. I treat gay and lesbian people with respect. They are football fans; they can come and go as they wish. I make no value judgment on that. But it gave rise to an absolute deluge of negative comments on the Facebook page, and it set fans against each other. It was seen, cynically maybe, as virtue signalling by Posh. It was a kind gesture, but it backfired, I am afraid.

The Bill claims to have the interests of the fans at its heart, and the Government claim the same. It strikes me as incredibly bizarre that they have no clue what the fans actually want. Is there any quantitative or qualitative data to back up whether this provision is needed in the Bill? Football fans are not interested in EDI. They want their clubs to be run properly; they want the teams to deliver high-quality football. They actually believe in fairness and decency, not tick-box virtue signalling.

Finally, there is the issue of cost to the clubs. Policy Exchange, the think tank, has highlighted its recent annual report, Politicising Business, the enormous cost that EDI can place on clubs. It has analysed the cost of the new EDI rules that the FCA brought in for firms that it regulates in December 2023. It estimated that the new rules will incur a one-off cost of £561 million, and ongoing costs of up to £317 million a year to businesses—that is over £500 million for firms simply to improve their diversity and equality policies, which are already embedded in existing legislation. Surely this cost will be prohibitive.

Finally, I ask: what are the objectives? What are the key performance indicators? What does success look like? What does a cost-benefit analysis look like? This is about appearing virtuous and will result in conflict and discord. I do not believe that it should be in the Bill. We should trust clubs to do the right thing and to treat people both properly and fairly.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late and I found my brain somewhat pounded into stupefaction by the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I found myself, perhaps disloyally and strangely, in agreement with the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on that matter. In this state of stupefaction, I am concerned about the serried ranks on the Government Benches waiting to jump on any mistake that I might make, so I hope that they, or perhaps their ghosts, will forgive me for any. I shall make just three quick points because the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have said it all. I could perhaps just say what they said, but I shall try to make three very quick points, in view of the lateness of the hour and the evident but brave tiredness of the ranks in front of me.

My first point is that EDI is, believe it or not, for those who desperately believe in it and think it is tremendously important and essential to have in the Bill, a passing fad. It is a fashion. It is not even a fashion that we came up with: it is a fashion that we imported from America. My wife was, for many decades, a fashion designer in New York and she would point out to me how the colour would be decided in New York and the next year it would be copied in London. The line, the cut, the theme of fashion would be decided in New York and a year later would arrive in London. So it is with all these moral panics that, for the last decade we have seen arise, one by one, be taken very seriously and gradually fade away.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about how, even now, American academia having become obsessed with it for many years, everybody is getting bored with it because it actually turns out to be a bit of a disaster. One by one, all these moral panics will disappear and, in coming decades, people will ask, “Why on earth did they think that way? What on earth told them to do that?” There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, no academic evidence. The academic evidence that companies such as McKinsey used to make hundreds of millions or more out of companies for selling these lines has been shown to be disreputable by careful academic analysis. I know; I used to work for McKinsey. There were 800 people around the world when I worked there; there are now 46,000 and the numbers grew on stuff like this, without any really valid academic basis. It is a passing fad and I hope we will not allow it to become implanted into football just at the time that it is beginning to fade.

My second point is that it crowds out useful activity. I spent decades advising chief executives of the largest companies in the world as to what they should do, and the one thing that I and so many others like me advised them on was focus: do not allow yourself to get distracted. But noble Lords who have been here during this Committee will remember that I have frequently described the Bill as a Christmas tree. What we have heard is everybody trying to hang baubles on the Christ1mas tree.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to be clear that the regulator is not going to prescriptively micro-manage each club’s board or set EDI targets and quotas. That is not the role of the regulator, and it would cause significant burden to both the regulator and clubs. The regulator will not be able to become involved in issues relating to freedom of speech, or, as we discussed earlier in Committee, the diversity of fans. This clause relates only to a club’s internal governance and staff. This is not the place for a debate about trans participation in sport. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I ask, given that this is a specific difference from the previous Bill, what specific football-related research was commissioned by the Government that led them to believe that it was imperative to add this provision to the new Bill? If that question is too difficult to answer now, perhaps the Minister will write to me.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, it is getting late and I have just dropped all my notes. This is not actually about football per se; it is about good governance. The regulator will be concerned with sustainability. As a sustainability regulator, its interest in equality, diversity and inclusion is that it contributes to good corporate decision-making, which, in turn, makes clubs more sustainable. This is why the regulator will encourage good EDI in clubs by requiring them to report on what action they are taking to improve EDI. That transparency will only be a good thing. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment for the reasons I have given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 170, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 194, 196 and 197. These all relate to foreign interference in football clubs, a topical issue today, given the debates that have taken place in another place on Chinese espionage and the Government’s tardiness in introducing a foreign influence registration scheme.

Amendment 170 in my name seeks to expand the scope of the regulator’s role in varying a club’s licence conditions. As drafted, the Bill is clear that the regulator may vary a club’s licence conditions to restrict its acceptance of funding which the regulator reasonably suspects to be connected with serious criminal conduct. This is a very significant power and an important one—none of us wants to see funding connected with serious criminal conduct in football. By the same token, I hope the Government would agree that funding that the regulator reasonably suspects to be linked to conduct harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom should have no place in football either.

There is an important point here, as those involved in funding football in this country might be involved in perfectly legal activities internationally, which, while legal elsewhere, may harm our national interest. I hope the Minister can explain why, if the regulator is equipped to make a judgment about criminal conduct, it would not be able to make a judgment on conduct that is harmful to the national interest as well.

Amendment 194 seeks to expand the terms of reference for the regulator’s determination of whether a person has the requisite honesty and integrity to own or run a football club to include whether an individual is a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The principle behind this amendment is that proscribed terrorist organisations have no place in football. I am sure that all noble Lords in the Committee agree with that.

The Government may argue that this amendment is not necessary but, given the number of foreign owners of clubs and the many appointments of international officers in the football sector, it would give the regulator the power it needs to protect football from people who are found to be members of proscribed organisations. Sadly, it is far from inconceivable that somebody resident in the UK might be found to be a member of such a proscribed group. In those circumstances, surely the Government would want the regulator to have the tools to end their involvement in football swiftly. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of people who are members of proscribed terrorist organisations being involved in football clubs in this country? Have the Government looked at this and deemed it unlikely? Have Ministers come to a view about an acceptable level of risk? If the risk is greater than zero, can the Minister explain why the regulator should not have a power such as I have set out?

I accept that proscription is not always of the same utility in relation to different terrorist networks or to the work of lone wolves. I would be happy to discuss a broader criterion, perhaps looking at a reasonable belief that someone is involved in terrorist-related activity, to capture that. I think there is a loophole that we ought to try to close in our scrutiny of these provisions.

Amendments 196 and 197 relate to Clause 37. They seek to ensure that the regulator can carry out its duties effectively, responsibly and in close co-ordination with key public bodies that can assist its work in this area. Amendment 196 would require the regulator to consult a range of bodies, namely the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Serious Fraud Office, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority.

The regulation of football clubs cannot be divorced from our wider national interest. Football is more than a sport. It is a vital part of our national culture, economy and global reputation. We know it is a sector that can attract bad actors, financial mismanagement and, in some cases, criminality. Whether it is safeguarding clubs from fraud, tackling money laundering or ensuring that stadia meet safety standards, the regulator will need the insight and expertise of these key agencies in doing its work. This is about equipping the regulator with the best possible advice. I hope that the Minister will look at that with some care.

Finally, Amendment 197 would replace the mandatory “must” with the discretionary “may” in relation to the regulator’s engagement under Clause 37(3). This minor adjustment carries significant practical implications. Its purpose is to avoid placing an excessive legal burden on the regulator to consult in circumstances where it may not be necessary or proportionate. By providing discretion, we would give the regulator the flexibility it needs to prioritise its resources and respond to situations on a case-by-case basis. This amendment would not weaken the regulator’s responsibilities; rather, it allows for common sense to prevail. It reflects our commitment to safeguarding the integrity of football while ensuring that the regulation is not heavy-handed. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s excellent amendments. They are straightforward, sensible and in keeping with recent developments whereby the previous Administration established in primary legislation quite strict rules about the takeover of British businesses by foreign entities. Soft power and the global kudos and prestige of football cut both ways. They could be used by bad actors, foreign countries and state-owned entities in those countries for nefarious and possibly criminal activities such as money laundering.

Therefore, the Government would be wise to take on board the concerns that some of us on this side of the Committee have. In that respect, Amendment 196 is sensible, because we have a regime which looks at foreign entities’ ownership of UK interests. It would be irresponsible to disregard the intelligence and information provided by the agencies mentioned, particularly the National Crime Agency and the security services, in making a reasonable, fact-based decision about the efficacy or otherwise of ownership.

Given that ownership runs through this Bill quite prescriptively at a micro level, in terms of very small clubs, it is only sensible for the Government to consider how big strategic ownership decisions would be affected by this Bill. In that vein, it would be wise for the Government to consider accepting these amendments.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the amendment means well. It is laudable that we encourage football clubs and the football community to take seriously these important issues around human rights and modern slavery. My concern is about the wording, because I believe that the inclusion of such an amendment in the Bill in respect of the appropriateness of an owner will give rise to unnecessary litigation. Let us remember that the amendment does not distinguish between an individual and a football club. If it were to do so, it would be more sustainable in terms of developing policies around human rights and combating modern slavery. However, it does not do that. It is nebulous in its wording, and I think the drafting would cause grave difficulty because it references individuals—the owner, in essence—meaning that there will be problems down the line in how the amendment is interpreted.

It is a value judgment as to whether an individual respects human rights. What does that actually mean in primary legislation? How do you measure it? What is its objectivity? What does success look like in terms of respect? The wording is very loose and would be very difficult—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Our wording mirrors the wording in Clause 28, which says:

“A person may not become an owner of a particular regulated club unless”,


so I do not think that the wording is the point here.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but I am reading the amendment that he has tabled. The third word is “promotes”. What does that mean in terms of an objective criterion for how an individual would promote human rights, and for how he or she would protect the human rights of those involved in football and the club that they were involved with? The amendment is an example of potential regulatory overreach. Seeking to enforce it would be a straightforward prima facie case of ultra vires actions, because it would be unenforceable.

Having said that, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s Amendment 200 on state ownership of football clubs. We will have a good debate on that. However, on Amendment 178, the noble Lord is gilding the lily. Although he has good intentions, it is not a workable amendment. It would damage the interests of football clubs and be difficult for the regulator properly to enforce.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 178. Indeed, I have come in specifically to speak on the issue of modern slavery and I declare an interest as a co-chair of the modern slavery parliamentary group and vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.

I profoundly disagree with what the previous noble Lord said about individual ownership fitness criteria in relation to modern slavery. Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015—Section 56, I think—it is wrong to have a supply chain that operates on the exploitation of those who provide the goods for a company. So, if you have an individual owning a company who makes his money on the exploitation of people in the supply chain, it should not be all that difficult to discover it. That is absolutely where the regulator should be promoting modern slavery issues when he looks at the individual fitness of a person who wants to take over a club.

I see the point on human rights, although we have the Human Rights Act and it is fairly clear under that Act what the rights are of various people that might be impinged by an individual who did not have appropriate fitness criteria. I can see—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness for most generously giving way. If we have statutory sanctions already in place to deal with this behaviour, whether it is the Human Rights Act or the Modern Slavery Act, surely she is proving my case that this is regulatory overreach. My point is that we do not need further legislation when it is already covered by the existing legislation.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I do not want to deal with human rights. I have come here to deal with modern slavery. I disagree with the noble Lord. The problem is that Section 56 is voluntary and not mandatory. Consequently, companies are not obliged to follow what happens. In a 2019 review led by Lord Field of Birkenhead, of which I was a part, we picked up the fact that it was not mandatory. Consequently, if the regulator does not have to think about modern slavery, he would not have to look to see whether or not an individual taking over a club is making his money in a wholly inappropriate and extremely wicked way. Because it is not mandatory, it is important that someone else looks at it. If it were mandatory, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will of course happily withdraw the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I have a few points to make in response. Generally, this has been a useful and valuable debate. We have had reassuring clarity from the Minister on the issues of concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked a practical question about how this would work. There is already an issue, in a sense, for the regulator to deal with. Under Clause 28(2)(a)(iv), the regulator will have to look for—and will certainly want to know—the source of funding. I can only assume that that is because we do not want the funding of our football clubs to be in any way under suspicion and/or linked to criminal activity, particularly human rights abuses and modern slavery. In Clause 28(2)(b), there is a fairly wide power for the independent football regulator to require information. Clearly, there are practical questions in carrying out inquiries and investigations into the source of funding that owners will offer up, but this is just one of those issues that will undoubtedly be tested over time.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that putting amendments forward like this is tantamount to regulatory overreach. If we were not concerned about issues such as modern slavery and human rights abuses, we would be selling the world of football short.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Surely the noble Lord will concede something. Proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 185, which he signed, mentions

“whether A has been complicit in … non-crime hate incidents”.

We are talking about the ownership of a football club. What does complicit in a non-crime hate incident even mean in the context of a strategy to deal with human rights and potentially preventing someone, via primary legislation, owning a football club?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I would hope that we would be concerned by things like hate incidents—those are important considerations. I certainly do not want my football club to be associated in any way with that, and I know the club itself does not. I am sure that goes for most clubs up and down the country.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady, Butler-Sloss, and the Lib Dem Front Bench for their support. I take most of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as being broadly positive, in terms of what we were trying to achieve with this little group. The issues are important, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that I have no great desire to become massively unpopular with Newcastle United fans. I am probably a bit unpopular because Brighton seem to beat them regularly anyway.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will have to get back to the noble Baroness on the letter she said was sent by the Premier League following that meeting. Officials have not been able to get in touch with the correspondence team given the lateness of the evening, but we will endeavour to chase that up tomorrow.

I am aware that there is a deal in place. One of the issues raised during the debate this evening has been the inability to reach a new deal. I hope that, at some point soon, the various parties will come to an agreement without us having to trigger the backstop. My main point was that simply referring to one meeting maybe gave the wrong impression of the extent of the consultation. I have spoken to officials who themselves have had more than 100 meetings with the Premier League. To me, that sounds like ongoing dialogue rather than consultation. However, we may need to pick that up outside this Committee.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

In the spirit of trying to be helpful, and given that Clause 56 is a Henry VIII clause, would the Minister look favourably, potentially on Report, at bringing forward a government amendment which tightens up the wording of Clause 56(2)? Very strong feelings have been enunciated today by my noble friends around parachute payments. It is incumbent on the Minister to acknowledge that and perhaps come back on Report with government amendments that reflect that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord may not be surprised to know that I am not going to commit to doing that. We believe that the model in the Bill is the correct one. I am happy to meet the noble Lord and others to discuss this before Report, However, on the basis of the arguments I have made this evening, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to withdraw his amendment.