Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, for the first hour of the debate today, I honestly thought I was in a different Committee. The thoughtful amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the reasoning behind them were more favourably reflected on by the Minister than almost any other amendment I have heard over seven nights. The helpful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about some technical issues, and his offer—probably to be accepted—of redrafting for a further thing, emphasise that we are drawing to a place where I think we can begin to make progress. Even the noble Lord, Lord Markham, was concise in his comments on those amendments in the spirit of trying to move the evening on, while still making the political points that he needed to make.

I was going to comment on the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, but the points have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, far better than I could: the Premier League does not have all the right answers, and it is about the pyramid and the lower clubs. This afternoon I met disability groups, women’s groups and other people concerned about the economics of football, and their real concern is whether they will ever see the benefits of whatever happens with this regulator, so that it does not just stay between the Premier League and the Championship. It is fine to say that the Championship is now one of the six best leagues in the world—that is to be supported—but below that are League One, League Two and the National League teams. We need to keep all those thoughts in our minds as we move forward.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with the Premier League. It is a fantastic thing and I pay my money to watch it if I can—I wish I could have switched the fixtures around from last night to tonight, so that I would not have had to endure City throwing away a two-goal lead at Brentford. I could have missed that, listening to the enjoyment in here, but that is just the way the fixtures are thrown up, unfortunately.

What I am trying to say, clumsily, is that the regulator needs to be given responsibility. We can influence that responsibility by way of amendments in this and the other place, but it is very important that the Minister understands where those amendments are coming from, and for what reasons. I do not think that anybody in this Chamber does not believe that football deserves the very best governance and the very best people running it to keep its status as our national game. It is our national game, from Liverpool at the top right down to Southend and clubs at the bottom. Our group on these Benches just wants to ensure that we keep that focus, because you can lose it in the argument of the to and fro of the money, the percentages and how it is not fair. The fairness is not the point. The point is the 92 football clubs, which should be at the forefront of all our minds.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this group of amendments but, as with all the best Committees, you are sometimes prompted to contribute by the ebb and flow of the debate.

Just to respond very briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Bassam, of course we all want to see the best possible legislation. This is a scrutiny and oversight House, and we want to make sure the Bill is improved as it goes between the two Houses of Parliament. But we also do not want to respond merely to anecdote, whether it is the financial difficulties of a small number of clubs or the issue of the super league evolving as it did in 2021. I have gone on record as saying that the Bill is suboptimal—and that is polite. I would have said the same under a Conservative Government, and it bears repetition tonight. It was terrible then, and it is even more terrible under this Government.

I want to try to explain to noble Lords why, specifically on the issue of whether Clauses 61 to 64 should stand part, some of us have a philosophical issue. At the moment, I believe that although it can be quite robust and in many ways brutal, there is a self-correcting mechanism for the way football clubs are operated. There is a predisposition not to take inordinate risk in the future of small community clubs supported by the local communities in towns and cities across the country.

What slightly worries me is the concept of moral hazard, as we have discussed before, which is obviously quite an arcane economic concept. Incidentally, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I do not see that it is necessarily axiomatic that the Premier League has some moral duty, as businesses and as private entities with shareholders, to necessarily be a pseudo-charitable outfit and to provide for those in other leagues. The noble Lord might want to elucidate why he feels that is the case. Whether we believe it is a good or practicable idea is another issue.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord familiar with the concept of solidarity?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes indeed, comrade.

I suppose the significant point I am making is that not enough credence has been given to the efforts, which were very well enunciated by my noble friend Lady Brady, of the Premier League through very difficult times, economic downturns and, of course, Covid. At the moment we have that self-correcting economic mechanism to prevent smaller clubs making calamitous economic decisions that may end up with them closing, going into administration, et cetera—although of course, as we have seen from the figures, a relatively small number of clubs have been in that position.

Conversely, we are being asked to formalise in primary legislation a situation where we are putting in the hands of the IFR, along with very significant enabling powers, including Henry VIII powers, the right to redistribute wealth. It may be a simplistic argument but, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, it would be an unprecedented situation for a regulator to redistribute capital between entities. In other words, there will be no internal mechanism or sanction to prevent inordinate amounts of risk being taken. It would be a market distortion and there would be no disincentive for those clubs to make those decisions, as there is now.

That is the philosophical underpinning of why we support these clauses not standing part of the Bill. It does not mean that we do not care about community football clubs. We are being asked to vote not on a perfect piece primary legislation but on the Bill with 100 clauses that is in front of us today. For that reason, I support my noble friend’s contention that Clause 61 and others should not stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 302 and 304.

As I said in previous debates on the backstop, I have real concerns about the resolution process, and in particular the binding final offer arbitration model included. The Minister has repeatedly claimed, and said again today, that these powers are to be used only as a last resort, but we have heard from noble Lords across the House that this does not feel like the situation in which we find ourselves today. As has been identified by other noble Lords, the approach being legislated for in the Bill is unduly adversarial and pits two sides against one another rather than encouraging comprise and dialogue. As we have heard, the very existence of the proposed mechanism set out seems to have played a role in the breakdown of the latest round of financial negotiations, which is concerning and does not bode well for the future.

The Government would be unwise to dismiss and ignore this chilling effect, as the current backstop proposal threatens to undermine and damage relations across the football pyramid. The model just does not make sense. In any deal negotiation, if both sides are disappointed at the outcome reached, it is more likely that it has been fair and balances the two sides’ competing proposals. Yet, as we have heard, under the process set out in the Bill, rather than consider each proposal and determine the best approach—which may very well be a compromise between the two—the expert panel formed by the regulator must instead choose one of the proposals.

Amendment 304 gives the expert panel set up by the regulator to oversee the process the ability to combine elements of the proposals

“where it considers that this will result in an order which is most consistent with the principles in subsection (2)”.

This is a far more sensible approach. It does not mean that the regulator or its expert panel would be forcing a proposal on the two leagues involved. Rather, they can play a constructive role in facilitation and mediation to help achieve an outcome that both parties can agree with.

I really hope that the Minister will use the time between the end of Committee and the beginning of Report to discuss further some of the ideas that have been brought forward in this and, as I said in the previous debate, consult with the leagues and individual clubs again. A number of them have expressed concerns publicly about the process. I hope that she will think about tabling amendments that will be supported across the House at our next stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I fear the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has misconstrued my comments. Perhaps it would be apposite to clarify that I was merely pressing him on the intellectual rationale for the assertions he made. That is a completely different issue from whether I agree that, being community minded, the Premier League should indeed disburse its funds generously to lower leagues.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, reminded us of solidarity. Does my noble friend agree that there is a great difference between legislative—which is to say coerced—solidarity, which some would call theft under the law, versus the voluntary and friendly solidarity that is already being shown by the Premier League? Does he agree that there is a fundamental difference between the two and that it is a subversion of the word to call it solidarity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I come on to the question of compliance costs specifically, I return to an answer the Minister gave me in response to a question I asked at the start of the debate this evening. It was on whether the shadow regulator would be present at the meeting with the Chancellor tomorrow. The response that the Minister gave—I hope I have it correct—was that the shadow regulator would not be present because the invitation was to existing regulators. I note that the Minister is nodding to that, so I presume that I have the phraseology broadly correct, and certainly the message correct. To be honest, I find that staggering. We have been told that the shadow regulator body— I was present at the meeting recently with the shadow regulator and his staff—should be up and running so that the regulator can take over a body that is already in full operation. We were told how many staff had already been recruited. We have been told persistently that this is light regulation.

I refer here to the fan-led review by Tracey Crouch. On page 15, paragraph 15 states that there are five important factors that should be pursued, including, in sub-paragraph (d),

“minimising burdens on clubs or an expensive system”.

Surely a shadow regulator that is going to hand over an up-and-running system and is going to operate a light-touch process of regulation should be invited to a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss precisely that issue. I am at a loss, as I think a number of people in this Chamber are, to understand why the shadow regulator has not been invited to that meeting. I am afraid that it indicates to me the attitude of the Government towards the role of the regulator in this process.

I now turn to the question of compliance costs. I do not intend to cover the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has covered so effectively, but I would like to cover a number of other issues. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made reference to the fact that we were talking about all football clubs. The concentration throughout all our days in Committee has been overwhelmingly to do with the Premier League and the Championship. But when one is talking about the sorts of figures that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was referring to—I have pursued persistently the honest assessment of what the actual cost is for a club, whatever it may be—the Minister has said persistently to me and others that the costs would be proportionate.

It is therefore relevant to remind this Committee what the turnovers of the small clubs are. I am quoting from Deloitte’s figures for the season 2022-23, which I understand are the last figures currently available. The average revenue for a club in League One is £9.8 million. The average figure for clubs in League Two is £5.5 million. Therefore, the categories of hoped-for costs identified in the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave earlier fall very heavily on a club.

I will cite a few examples. AFC Wimbledon’s revenue is £7.4 million, Crewe Alexandra’s £4.1 million and Northampton Town’s £5.1 million. I have looked for the figures for Stockport County, but I am sorry: I do not have them. I would give them if I could. If there are to be a series of compliance costs on top of all the other costs faced at the moment—not least national insurance contribution charges and the like—that will make a pretty big hole in the revenue of a club with a turnover of £5 million to £7 million.

The Minister has said that the burden would fall proportionately on the biggest clubs. In an earlier contribution, I said that when I was head of the British Beer & Pub Association I had the responsibility of steering the introduction of substantial changes in licensing legislation, which we did with the full agreement of government. The burdens do not fall proportionately on the biggest companies. They can employ a compliance officer or two but, in a small company or a small football club, you do not have a compliance officer so you have to turn to other people for advice. It therefore takes longer and costs more.

It is like anything in life. If you own a large number of flats as opposed to one home, and you take out insurance and are filling out a form, you know only too well that if you have done it once for one flat, it is just the same the next time. If you are dealing with one property, you do not know because you have never been confronted with the issues before and so you have to turn to other people for advice. The burden is not proportionate. There is a massive imbalance between big clubs with huge turnovers and the smaller clubs living completely hand to mouth.

I have quoted once already from the review. The point I want to raise was triggered by the presentation from the shadow regulator. When he was talking about staff, I believe he said that it had just recruited five people for IT systems. We are told, indicatively, that the regulator is likely to employ some 250 people—that is more than 10% of the total of DCMS’s staff, covering all the range of its departmental remit. Are five people needed for an IT system?

Then I actually looked at the review. There was reference earlier this evening to the question of clubs in terms of a few clubs. In fact, the review says:

“Many clubs are poorly run”.


It goes on to say of the regulator:

“The Review has … concluded that the new financial system should involve real time financial monitoring”.


That is what those IT employees are there to do. They are not there to operate the regulator, because you do not need that many for the day-to-day operations of a business of that size. It is about investigating the processes. When they go to a club and ask it to produce the information, it will say no, because it operates on a completely different system.

When I was first involved with boundary changes, we tried to get figures out of local authorities about the number of voters on an electoral roll. Noble Lords might imagine that the returning officers from different authorities would operate on identical systems. No: they were on four different computer systems. It took several years to get the accurate figures. This is precisely what will happen with the small clubs. They will be operating their own systems, when suddenly along will come the regulator to say that it wants the information, but that it wants it in its own computer system, not the clubs’. Sadly, the likes of Stockport County, Rochdale, or wherever it may happen to be, will be told that they must revise their IT system because they have to give the regulator the answers and the computer says no.

The compliance costs fall very heavily on the smaller organisations. They are not proportionate, and we should be honest about that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I support the amendment that was so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and added to by my noble friend Lord Hayward. The amendment is an easy win for the Government, because I cannot understand the rationale for any Administration not seeking to understand the ramifications of their own legislation in terms of the costs of a regulator and other associated costs within six months. Therefore, if the Minister is so minded, she might look more benignly and favourably on this amendment when we come to Report, because it makes sense.

The kernel of this amendment is a fundamental question. It is not a question of whether we trust the Government, because I think, in good faith, that the Minister no doubt truly and sincerely believes that her Administration will preside over a regulator with a light-touch regime. Unfortunately, for those of us who are more cynical, the history of regulators is that they expand. We go back to our old friend that I referenced some weeks ago, Parkinson’s law. It is not named in honour of my absent friend, who is sunning himself in the warmer climes of the West Indies as we labour in the salt mines of the upper House of our bicameral Parliament. No—not Stephen Parkinson, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, but Parkinson’s law enunciated in 1955, which is that the number of workers in public administration, bureaucracy and officialdom tends to grow irrespective of the amount of work to be done. That is a very important point.

I commend to noble Lords an excellent report by Policy Exchange, The Rise of the Regulators, which looks at the different philosophical underpinnings and reasons for regulators. It makes the point:

“Once in place, regulations create constituencies that benefit from their continued existence, perhaps because they shield them from competition, or help protect their market position. And those coalitions of interest are better placed and have stronger incentives to act in their own interest than the wider community is to act in theirs and”,


to

“secure an optimal group outcome”.

It notes that, in the 1970s, Professor George Stigler developed the concept that

“regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit”.

We know that regulation is costly to British industry. The report says that the Federation of Small Businesses estimates

“the cost of regulation to the SME community in Britain to be £55 billion per year, or £10,080 per business; 88% of its member companies identified some aspect of the regulatory apparatus as a barrier to their operations”.

Furthermore,

“an imbalance of power or an insoluble divergence in interests requires the state to manage the relationship between individuals or groups of individuals by regulating behaviour. But the expanding regulatory bureaucracy is the policy instantiation of a more omnicompetent state—one which plays a larger role in the lives of citizens, and which therefore reduces the scope for freedom and personal initiative”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

As usual, my noble friend makes a sensible and accurate point. There is a big difference between a club such as Arsenal, which has several hundred full-time employees, and a club such as Ebbsfleet, which I think has five. The problem is that one will have a gap between pulling down the Premier League clubs by damaging investment and pulling up other leagues, which are going to aspire to the best in terms of professional support but will not have the resources so to do. That is the difficulty that the Bill imposes on those clubs.

It will be a big question as to whether the clubs in the smaller leagues will be able to afford the new compliance, risk and legal officers who will be, of necessity, required to comply with the responsibilities outlined in the Bill. The Minister has repeated time and again that the aim of the Bill is to improve the financial sustainability of football clubs. Yet, the Government’s solution is to slap these clubs with more costs. The shadow regulator should have been invited to the meeting because if the strategic objective of the Government is to drive growth, this is the wrong way of doing it. I am mindful of the time.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

With respect, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I know we have had a busy and eventful seven weeks and we are almost there, if the noble Baroness will allow me just to finish. The Employment Rights Bill is coming down the line, which will be an extra cost to businesses of perhaps up to £5 billion a year. These are all issues that the Government have not taken into account. It is absolutely right and proper for us to make the reasonable request for the Government to look at the impact in the real world of these compliance costs, and I hope that the Minister is able to come forward with better news when we get to Report.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords have made a powerful presentation of concern, which I understand, about the financial costs of regulation. It is a short point. It really is. The question is whether the amendment is a sensible way in which to address this matter. I suggest that if there is to be a review of the financial impact on regulated clubs of complying with the provisions of the Act, the best people to conduct that review are the clubs themselves and the leagues to which they belong. They can collate the material, assess the costs and provide a report to the Government, which they can publish. Everybody will be able to debate it. It is all transparent. There is absolutely no need, so far as I can see, to have a specific provision in the Bill that addresses this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Speaking as a fully signed-up member of the anorak club, I completely understand the point about business plans, which I have always done in businesses I am involved in. I am talking about the reality of football clubs. There is no way I am going to argue that having a business plan is not sensible, but at the same time, suddenly putting business plan requirements on a club with a turnover of a couple of million and two or three members of staff is an expensive exercise. That is the context in which I am making this point, and it is why I think Amendment 327 is sensible. It would make sure that everything is set out, so that we go into this with our eyes fully open to the burdens and what we are expecting clubs to do.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My noble friend is making a powerful case. Will there not be a displacement activity element to this, in that all the money and resources you are deploying on compliance you are not, for instance, concentrating on women’s and girls’ football or new football academies and other outreach programmes? Because you have this heavy-handed encumbrance of compliance, you are not going to be able to deliver the initiatives in grass-roots football that you would otherwise deliver, particularly in the lower leagues.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Obviously it would be for clubs to decide where they will resource that from, but it will come out of the resources they have. If it is one person for National League clubs—the impact assessment assumes that it will be five people for Premier League clubs—and you put that all together, you are talking about a staff of at least 500 involved in all these compliance activities. It was also said that the regulator will have some 250 members of staff. So, you will have 700 to 800 people working in the compliance domain, and that has to come out of the pot that is football today. That is a very relevant issue. I agree on the needs of the regulator, and I agree that business plans are always a good thing, but there is a certain proportionality here that we need to be mindful of.

I am mindful of the time, so I will move on to Amendment 329, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson. It is consequential to an earlier amendment we tabled, Amendment 19, which sought to put the leagues under scope in the Bill. This amendment would simply ensure that the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State to amend the competitions under scope would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself agreeing with both the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Pannick. It would be good if we could know what has been said and, if there is no big objection, we could move on. It was suggested that we had to comply with UEFA’s rulings in our own law. That is patently absurd. But, if there is no problem, let us know about it. We have not been told that English clubs will be banned if this goes ahead, so presumably it is not that big a deal. Surely, finding out about it now would be sensible.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and express my concern about the non-appearance of this letter. We have been debating whether there is a letter or what the letter says. We have been speculating on what it might or might not say for several weeks and several sessions of this Committee.

I have carefully read the Written Answer that the noble Baroness gave my noble friend Lord Moynihan on 8 January. She does not, interestingly, pray in aid any Cabinet Office guidance or recommendations on the release of so-called private correspondence that forms a part of government policy formation. She just says that

“it would not be appropriate to publish private correspondence with any stakeholders in the Library of the House”.

If it were an individual divulging personal information in the course of their letter to a Minister or a government department, that would be a separate issue. Noble Lords will be aware that, for instance, freedom of information is quite circumscribed as to what can be released in terms of impinging on someone’s privacy, or if it would interfere with an ongoing judicial case. This is not the case. This is not a private letter; this is a letter from a corporate representative body. It may not be a government body or a non-departmental agency in the UK, but it is a representative body of some standing with a rulebook which governs the practice of football in our country.

On that basis, at the very least it is incumbent on the Government to produce that letter. If we have overegged the pudding and, in respect of the backstop, UEFA has no qualms or serious misgivings about this legislation as a whole, and particularly the backstop, I for one am happy to be disabused of my cynicism. In the meantime, we, the media, noble Lords and others in the other place when this goes there will be suspicious unless that letter is produced.

So I respectfully implore the Minister to think again and place that letter in the Library of both Houses so that we can inform a proper debate on specific issues that are germane to this Bill: in other words, the attitude of an important and prestigious organisation such as UEFA.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, an exceptionally important point was made about UEFA not being shy in coming forward. Indeed, we know that, as a result of UEFA representations, the Bill in its original form was changed. If it had such an influence, it is not unreasonable to ask to see a copy of the letter, which is clearly far beyond private correspondence. It is of public interest.

I return to the question that I put on 19 December, when I asked whether it was the Government’s intention

“to seek assurances from UEFA that the introduction of backstop powers to the proposed Football Regulator does not impact on the autonomy and independence of football’s governance as required by UEFA.”

The response was interesting:

“As set out during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on 18 December, UEFA raised no concerns about the backstop in its most recent meetings with DCMS and the Minister for Sport”.


It does not refer to the letter. Therefore, can the Minister kindly confirm to the Committee this evening that there was no reference to the backstop in the UEFA correspondence? This was of such significance that, in its first introduction into the Committee proceedings, the Minister’s response to the Committee was that publishing the debate around the letter would worry the facts. That was the position. It was not the letter: it was the debate we were having around the letter.

I have just one very simple question, and then I will be much relieved if the answer is as I assume it will be, in the light of the answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross: that

“UEFA raised no concerns about the backstop in its most recent meetings with DCMS and the Minister of Sport.”

Can the Minister confirm that it did not raise the backstop in the correspondence it had with the DCMS, or raise any concerns referring to the backstop?