Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as declared in the register. I begin by welcoming the positive engagement that many of us have had with Ministers and the department since Committee. It is clear that the Government have been listening and are responding thoughtfully to a number of concerns raised by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I thank the Minister and the Bill team sincerely for their collaborative approach. Most importantly, I believe the ongoing dialogue we have established will result in a more effective Bill, which of course is our job here in this place.

I rise to strongly welcome Amendment 14, the Government’s proposed inclusion of a new duty on the IFR to avoid the adverse impacts on growth. This reflects the balanced and proportionate approach many noble Lords have advocated throughout this process, and which I know the Government genuinely intend. This is a very positive development. The new duty should help to ensure the regulator does take such a balanced approach in practice. Its inclusion is an acknowledgement that, to ensure that English football remains financially sustainable, we must not inadvertently constrain the game’s ability to continue to grow and succeed.

This is an important way to frame the approach of the regulator from the very beginning, but I hope it will also have specific practical benefits. For example, the new duty should help to prevent the IFR adopting an overly risk-averse or restrictive approach to financial regulation which could otherwise limit football clubs’ ability to invest and innovate. It should also serve as a significant check on any regulatory decision around the flow of Premier League funding, ensuring that determinations on financial distributions remain balanced and proportionate, and avoiding unintended harm to the commercial strength and international competitiveness of the league.

In short, this growth duty does offer some meaningful reassurances to football clubs that the regulator will approach its task constructively, supporting the long-term success and dynamism of the whole game and helping us to navigate the challenges of the future, not just fix the issues of the past. I am very grateful to the Minister. There is more to do, and we will talk about a number of further proposals throughout Report, but I am happy to offer my support for this amendment. I believe a growth duty is a meaningful and substantial step forward in this legislation.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has said. I too have greatly benefited from the constructive engagement of the Minister and the Bill team, and I am very grateful to them for the time they have taken and the listening they have done to the concerns that were raised during Committee. I should declare my interests for today. One of my areas of practice is as a barrister of sports law; I represent Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings —and I am a supporter of Arsenal Football Club.

I have one lawyer’s point on Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. His proposed new Clause 1(1A) and (1B) would put on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State and the IFR, in exercising their functions, must have regard to the purpose of what will be the Act. That is entirely unnecessary because one of the basic principles of modern administrative law is that powers conferred under an Act may lawfully be used only to advance the objectives of the Act. That has been the law since the statement of Lord Reid in the Padfield case of 1968. It would be unfortunate if this Bill included something that is otherwise implicit in all legislation; it would cast doubt on Bills that do not include such provisions.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise merely to add my support to what has been said, and to commend the Government for having been on a journey to recognise some of the points made in Committee, which, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson said from the Front Bench, was some two months ago. I hope I will not be thought ungracious if I simply comment that it was mildly irritating for us to be criticised for submitting this Bill to the scrutiny that we did in Committee, and to be accused of filibustering, when the Government were all the time listening to what we were saying and moving in the direction we were advocating.

I would merely comment that a number of us across the House advocated in Committee that an obligation to pursue growth in English football should be a key part of the purposes of the Bill. That was rejected by the Government at the time—almost contemporaneously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer using her bully pulpit to advocate that all the other regulators should be doing precisely what we were proposing.

We welcome the conversion and the journey, and we hope that more concessions will be made towards making the activities of this regulator less damaging than seemed to be the danger in the way the Bill was originally constructed. There will be more for us to discuss on that subject later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have spent some seven days discussing the detail of the Bill, and I think this is probably the first time I can rise and say that I actually agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. It is true that football has the power to do an awful lot of good. Many clubs—not just West Ham —actually do an awful lot of good in their community. The Minister has tabled Amendment 32, and my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have added our names to it, because this is one of the issues that we have discussed with the Minister and have mentioned in this House.

I will resist the temptation to talk about the good work that Bolton Wanderers does in the community. Suffice it to say that it is one of the few clubs that has actually got a chair who not only talks about helping the community but actually involves herself in the overnight sleep-outs for charity and other such activities. It is a mark of the level of commitment that many of the people who run football clubs have towards their communities and it is something that we should appreciate.

There is sometimes an accusation of sportswashing when clubs make big gestures, but an awful lot of direct involvement with communities can make a difference. In this context, it is particularly important in terms of men’s mental health, because many football groups are reaching people who would not be reached in any other way.

Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has taken to talk to all of us about these issues, and for the amendment she has tabled, which I am very happy to support.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I commend Bolton Wanderers and West Ham on what they do in and for their local communities. There are many other clubs which do likewise—I know about Arsenal and Manchester City.

I too very much welcome government Amendment 32. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says what he says. I respectfully suggest that his amendments are overregulation, which we all wish to avoid in this Bill. Government Amendment 32 suffices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 4, I shall speak to Amendment 5, which is consequential. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for her much-appreciated constant support for all Members of your Lordships’ House, not least me, regarding meetings, letters and her engagement on the numerous issues that are relevant to the Bill, which already this afternoon has been improved.

My amendment recognises that English football operates successfully in an intensely competitive global market. In Europe, UEFA runs the Champions League. This summer, FIFA hosts the first Club World Cup competition, with $1 billion in prize money available. Chelsea and Manchester City will compete for the trophy in the States. They do so for one reason: FIFA and UEFA recognise the Football Association as the sole governing body for all rules and regulations governing football in England. That is why the FA has a veto over any rule change in the constitution of the Premier League. The FA is the sole member of UEFA and FIFA. The FA is the sole footballing member of the British Olympic Association, meaning that the FA has control over the men’s and women’s Great Britain Olympic football teams. All England’s professional football teams are members of the FA. The English Football League, made up of the three fully professional divisions below the Premier League is self-governing, subject to the FA’s sanctions. In another place, David Newton, giving evidence to the committee, stated that

“the FA is responsible for 16 million or 17 million players and all the money flows within football”.—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 14/5/24; col. 63.]

Like every other league in England, the FA Premier League comes under the jurisdiction of the FA and must submit its rules each year for approval and sanction. However, this fundamental duty of the governing body is not reflected in this Bill, which is why my amendment seeks to protect our football clubs, to avoid jeopardising their growth in international competition and the authority of the FA. Sadly, as drafted the Bill removes the FA from the face of football regulation in England. Its 13 mentions in the 124 pages are mostly definitional: the company number is there in one reference; the FA is referred to as the Football Association in a couple of others; it is not there as a voting board member of the IFR. Otherwise, it is purely an organisation that is consulted without any authority, without any need for the IFR to take into account what the Football Association, the one recognised governing body of football in this country, feels. The FA is given one power, on page 40, in Clause 49(2), which is its one power in the whole Bill:

“A regulated club must not change the name of a relevant team operated by the club unless the change has been approved by the Football Association”.


That is the one name-changing power in the Bill.

UEFA has never hesitated in making clear that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the Football Association as the sole governing body for football in England, in accordance with the UEFA and FIFA statutes. UEFA stated that legislation that

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

would be non-compliant with these statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. UEFA warned last year that there should be

“no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding”

the national governing body

“from Uefa and teams from competition”.

UEFA’s statutes do not permit it to recognise the primacy of a state-licensed regulator. The autonomy of the FA cannot be challenged. It has no right to hand its core powers to a government-appointed regulator which conflicts with UEFA’s regulation. This was well covered in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said:

“I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. 761.]


She referred to the letter, which she said was a private letter from UEFA, and there was no intention for it to be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out during the debate, the letter

“is obviously relevant to the Bill … Transparency demands, in my respectful submission, that we be allowed to see it—unless UEFA will not allow that”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. 1236.]

We heard in January that UEFA did not want it published, but only a couple of weeks ago we had a different answer from DCMS. A request was made to the DCMS freedom of information team, and the reply to James Wild MP reads as follows: “We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act. We regret that we were unable to respond to your request because it exceeds the cost limit set out by the Act. Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information when the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information. We consider your request would be over the statutory limit, because this would take considerable resources, involving many staff across the department. UEFA is a key stakeholder across sport and is engaged with the department on a regular basis”.

It would take some imagination to work that into a script of “Yes Minister”. Consider if every country established its own regulator without the national governing body being at the centre. This would lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and, in essence, challenge and hinder the ability of UEFA, FIFA and the IOC to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards.

This amendment, recognising that the FA is in no way part of the proposed legislation that your Lordships are considering, would protect English football and our clubs. In many ways, it is a growth amendment. If the Minister is right and there is no threat of scope creep, the amendment lies comfortably in the Bill. If I and my colleagues are right, its place in the Bill provides a protection against mission creep, which none of us wants to see. I therefore hope that the House will support us, and I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I had been slightly unnerved by the tone of the debate up to this group. I now feel myself in much more comfortable territory—under attack and revisiting the issue of international competitions.

I understand the intent of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes. I would like to thank him for his time, both in writing and in meeting myself and officials. However, I would like once again to reassure your Lordships’ House that these amendments are not necessary. At the very least, they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist; at worst, they attempt to create an issue that does not exist.

I would be a brave and foolish Minister if I proposed legislation that risked us being banned from international competitions. UEFA has again confirmed in writing with the Secretary of State, just last month—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam highlighted, the FA confirmed directly to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just yesterday—that the Bill, as drafted, does not breach UEFA statutes.

The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. I know that there have been requests to see the letter that UEFA has sent to the Government that was leaked to the media last year. I wrote to UEFA, following the conclusion of Committee, asking whether they would be content for me to release the letter, but they replied that they would rather that communications be kept private. It is important that I respect this request to ensure that the Government can continue to have honest and constructive conversations with our stakeholders.

I turn to the issue of the FOI. This is—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on what a freedom of information request should state.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As if I planned this seamlessly, I was just coming on to the FoI request. In my view—this is not what I got from the Box note—this is a lesson on how to get an FoI request rejected, unless rejection was actually the intent. I hope the Benches opposite will bear with me as I explain. The FoI request referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson, was an extremely broad request for all correspondence ever to the department from UEFA. In the response, the requester was advised to narrow his request to a particular timeframe for the department to be able to respond. In my humble view, that sounds perfectly reasonable. I understand that such a letter has not yet been sent in, but, clearly, the responder may choose to accept the advice from officials.

Turning to the specifics of the amendments themselves, much as I do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, lose the opportunity for future litigation, I am afraid that, rather than protecting English football, his amendments would have serious unintended consequences. The amendments would see a regulator established by an Act of Parliament in this country take a position of deference to a private international organisation. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament but leave English football in a very weak position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised concerns, both today and on the fourth day in Committee, that the Bill compounds the problem of UEFA’s and FIFA’s ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable. While I do not accept that that is currently the case for the Bill, amending current drafting, to fix in statute that the regulator must fall in line with whatever rules those organisations set, would surely create such an issue. The result of these amendments would be a concerning loss of autonomy and independence for the regulator and, in turn, for English football as a whole. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting one: hybridisation being caused, in effect, by naming some clubs, or rather the structures. The main thing here is that we want the Bill to progress. Any danger of hybridisation is something that we want to avoid. Thus I shall be resisting these amendments.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the defect of imprecision is unfortunate, but it can be cured by secondary legislation, which is far preferable to the serious risk that the Bill would be hybrid.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the group. It is an issue that we have discussed at length throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. I for one thank noble Lords who suggested that it would be helpful if we could progress the legislation so that we get the regulator in place.

On Amendments 6 and 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, again, the noble Lord may be trying to solve a problem that potentially does not exist. There is no doubt as to which competitions are in scope of the regulator’s regime at this point, and which will not be. By delegating this to secondary legislation, we are following the precedent established by other similar sport-related legislation. Without wanting to seem ungracious, this includes the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be very familiar with, as he was the Bill Minister in the other place during its passage.

The approach that the Government are taking is both reasonable and the result of extensive, evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future- proofs for future innovations and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new domestic competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.

The Government’s intended scope for the regulator is well known; it has been a subject of policy development process over many years, both by this Government and the previous Government, which has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes to the scope in future would be based on clear evidence and proper consultation as part of a published Secretary of State assessment. The requirement to consult before future uses of the power is set out on in the Bill. Any changes would be subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

On Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, this is a standard provision in many Bills, including the Media Bill, which I note he was the Minister for. To future-proof this legislation, regulations have to be able to be made in a timely way; getting bogged down in lengthy parliamentary proceedings could undermine the Government’s ability to keep the regulatory framework up to date and ensure that it remains effective. This is of no benefit to anyone, including the industry. This comes back to the perceived issue of hybridity that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today.

As I set out in Committee and in our memorandum, the policy intent being the top five tiers of men’s English football has never been in doubt. Throughout the development of the policy over the past three years, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on this scope. This amendment would serve no purpose other than to delay the implementation and effect of the regulator. It would be set up, incurring a cost, but unable to act while crucial regulations establishing its scope were bogged down in years of process.

I have set out very clear reasons for the approach taken on defining the scope of the regime and will not take up your Lordships’ time further relitigating this issue. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my substantial Amendment 45, together with the consequential Amendments 42, 43 and 44. I have followed the Bill closely from the stand—it has been televised on every occasion it has been debated.

My amendment seeks to delete the unnecessary and counterproductive Clause 27, which is prematurely engaged at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement between the seller of a football club and perhaps a number of purchasers. By deleting Clause 27, notification will be engaged only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and heads of terms and a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that point, Clause 28 would be engaged as in the Bill.

Football is a game of dreams, and some dream so hard that they want to own their own club. In a small way, I am one of those people. Back in 1932, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete, and he was known as Flying Fuller. Back then, he answered a small advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press and acquired 250 shares in the Norwich City Football Club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending the annual general meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates ever since.

From that 40-year perspective, I can tell noble Lords how clubs change hands, and it is not how the Bill contemplates. The Bill anticipates that, at some point, someone dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR so that an army of Rachels can measure them up for the sheepskin coat, which is the particular uniform that owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they might be subject to an HMRC winding-up order or that there might be other cash flow issues; even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by a civil servant.

How have we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are opened, how could the purchaser even know whether the deal was feasible? Then, unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books for fear that person was a charlatan. Noble Lords can see the jeopardy here.

Quite simply, the new law, and Clause 27 in particular, would prevent buyer and seller being put together. This Bill purports to stop clubs going bust, but the actions of the Bill would ensure that they did.

As I look back and reflect on the ownership of our club in Norwich, during my small slice of ownership, I recall how Norwich City Football Club was owned by Robert Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out of his sails, it needed somebody with deeper pockets to take over, but nobody came forward. By and by, a man called Geoffrey Watling, who owned a local taxi firm, came forward to act as midwife, and he held that club while he hawked it around. Here was a modest man with a deep interest in the community. He understood what the role of the football club can and should be, and he put himself in harm’s way when nobody else would step up to the plate. All Norwich fans thank him for what he did. The main stand, even today, is named for him. Eventually, Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, together with her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, acquired the shares of the club in a story that was beautifully told in the Times about three weeks ago. It must have been a very expensive taxi ride for them both, and no two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club.

Last week the club entered a new phase with a new owner, Mark Attanasio, taking a leading role. We hope he can bring us to past glories. By all accounts, he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have Delia’s blessing than Rachel’s.

The purpose of telling these tales is that had there been a regulator operating under Clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel long before he did. Kind-hearted Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed Clause 37(4). He only owned a taxi company; he had no qualifications. You would have to question why a husband and wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harm’s way to own Norwich City Football Club in Norfolk, similarly failing Clause 37(4), because being a cook is not necessarily the requisite qualification for club ownership. Put simply, as a result of Clause 27, our club would have folded; it would have prevented these deals before they even started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop for clubs in trouble—a vortex from which few will be able to escape. The consequence of Clause 27 is to condemn a club in trouble to extinction.

My amendments would not prevent the IFR eventually certifying someone under Clause 28, but it would stop the snuffing out of hope at Clause 27. Of course, it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat in the first place. In my view, the regulator should not be allowed at this early stage to prevent clubs doing different and taking those calculated risks—the rolling of the dice.

Football is not just embellished by the great players—the Beckhams and the Ronaldos. It is decorated by the local characters, people like the Roberts, the Geoffreys, the Delias and the Michaels. We should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the dull men’s club—a system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities, and big business and remote shareholders with fat lawyers are preferred. This is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes set out in Clause 1, where the economic and social well-being of local communities are key objectives.

I was with Delia on that infamous “Let’s be ‘avin’ you” rant 20 years and two weeks ago. It passed into our legend and our lexicon. It is part of the colour of the game and our nation, yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost if we do not attract and cherish the community-minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line. Let us abandon Clause 27 and just rely on Clause 28, at which point the deal’s certainty is greater.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I return to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeking to leave out “influence or”. There are in fact two references to “influence” in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b)—the one that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, focuses on—mentions

“a higher degree of influence”,

and Clause 3(2)(c) mentions “a degree of influence”. Is there any assistance in the Bill as to what is meant by either of those concepts? They seem very vague indeed to me.

In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, on page 83, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this—to

“prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence”,

but that is a different matter. Significant influence is plainly distinct from

“a higher degree of influence”

or “a degree of influence”. I am not suggesting that the Minister provides guidance now, but it may be a matter that can be addressed when the Bill goes to the other place. There really needs to be some assistance provided to the regulator and others as to what these vague concepts mean.

--- Later in debate ---

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood, when you talk to fans about this Bill—and I am rather sceptical of many elements of it—they say, “I really want this Bill because I am determined that we are going to have ticket prices brought down”. That is the main thing they say. They say that they do not want any of this “nonsense”—maybe not the word used—around EDI or net zero and all that sort of stuff. As one of them said, “I want ticket price cuts, not bloody carbon cuts”. I thought that they had a point. As the Minister is very keen that we should be led by the fans on this, I suggest that we reject these amendments, because I can assure noble Lords that, in the fans’ priorities, it is not top; in fact, it is not relevant at all.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, many clubs do what they can to promote the environment, and that is all well and good and I totally support it; what I do not support is Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. What the noble Baroness is seeking to do is to impose on the IFR a duty to exercise its functions in a way that is compatible with the Climate Change Act. If the Climate Change Act already imposes duties on everybody including the IFR, this is otiose and unnecessary; if the Climate Change Act does not impose duties in any event on the IFR, I am very doubtful indeed that it is appropriate to use this legislation, which is concerned with many other topics, to impose such a duty. In my view, it is not necessary to put this in the Bill.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

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

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