Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We on these Benches welcome the government amendment that makes it five years, so that the “state of the game” report is more aligned with the parliamentary timetable. We may touch on this when we speak to the later group from the noble Lord, Lord Birt.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank her, as others did earlier, for her extreme generosity with her time and that of her Bill team. We have spent many long hours discussing these things. Given what she has just said, I hope that we may spend some more hours discussing these matters. It is actually rather a technical question: it is not a matter of high principle—it is a practical matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said, imagine that the backstop is triggered four years after the previous “state of the game” report. Everyone will be saying, “This isn’t very relevant any longer; everything has changed”. I hope that the very good dialogue we have had over these last weeks can continue, because I do not really agree with the account the Minister has just given. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this group of amendments, which is antagonistic to every aspect of gambling being involved in football, seems to me to be the epitome of what I have been warning about in terms of an intrusive and disproportionate regulatory overreach.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I and other Members of the Lib Dem Benches have exchanged views on gambling, both in Committee and previously, so I will aim to avoid repeating that. In some ways, this group of amendments, along with the earlier amendments on the environment, express a worry that the independent football regulator will be used as a Trojan horse for a range of political hobby-horses.

One of the aims of the Bill is that the football regulator will help clubs, particularly smaller clubs, become financially sustainable and avoid financial jeopardy. That has been a compelling and convincing argument for this Bill. So why would we cut off a perfectly legitimate source of funding in the form of lucrative sponsorship, which is what these amendments would do? Gambling companies provide significant revenue through sponsorship for football teams. That money helps clubs not only pay staff salaries, upgrade training facilities and maintain stadiums but invest in youth academies and community projects—they often help fund and fuel those social responsibility projects that the noble Lord seemed so keen on earlier this evening.

Any special discriminatory treatment of the gambling industry as potential sponsors would imply a moralistic and politically charged decision-making about which sponsors are virtuous enough to be allowed. The regulator and this Bill should keep well away from that. I am sure that, in this House, there will be people who will cheer on Dale Vince’s sponsorship of Forest Green and his ownership of Ecotricity—that would pass muster as a particular type of company, as other renewable energy companies are. In all seriousness, your Lordships might not like gambling, but what about the people who do not like airlines? What is going to happen to Emirates in relation to Arsenal, or Etihad Airways at Man City? What about those big financial services companies that also fund football teams? Who will make those kinds of moralistic decisions?

Finally, gambling is a legal activity. It is also a legitimate form of entertainment and a long-standing social activity that many people find exciting, thrilling, gets the adrenaline going and risky. Yes, you can lose and that can be disappointing, but sometimes it is thrilling when you win. One of the reasons why that is attractive is because anyone who follows the football will recognise the pattern, which is “Guess what? I might win, but I rarely do. But I can just about cope”. It is understandable that some football fans will occasionally have the odd bet and enjoy it. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Based on my own family, I am more than aware of problem gambling. Do not get me wrong: it is a vicious, nasty and horrible thing when it happens, but obsessive, compulsive gamblers are a small minority and they should not be used as an excuse to deprive football teams of valuable financial support. The Bill should have absolutely nothing to do with that kind of puritan moralism.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, while I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised, I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this is not the Bill for those concerns. We have got to be cautious in ensuring that the focus of the Bill remains squarely on football governance and not introduce far-reaching regulations on other matters—particularly in relation to gambling, where it risks duplicating or cutting across the work of the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and many other regulators that look into this thorny question and provide useful research and pointers to both the gambling industry and to those who want to tackle the harms that can be associated with it.

At present, there are no prohibitions concerning the types of companies from which clubs may accept advertising or sponsorship in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, in setting out the case for his amendments, showed they were very sweeping. He wants to get rid of it entirely from football, so he has proposed some very sweeping amendments on this issue. It also cuts against the work, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, pointed out, that many individual clubs are already undertaking to ensure that what they do in this regard is done responsibly in the face of their fans.

Therefore, given the broader implications of the noble Lord’s amendments and the fact that this Bill was never intended to address complicated issues such as this, I do not think we should be taking it in this direction. If the noble Lord does divide on his amendments, we will not be supporting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his passion for heraldry and the interesting discussions we have had on this topic in Committee and afterwards. The Government absolutely agree on the importance of this legislation being able accurately to protect club heritage. That is why officials have worked closely with the College of Arms, and I thank it for its engagement. In doing so, we have ensured that the legislation remains in step with both the FA’s heritage guidelines and heraldic terminology. The Government have tabled Amendments 30 and 49 to expand the references from “crest” to “crest or emblem”, and the noble Lord has my commitment that we will add additional clarity in the Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill. We will include language to the effect of the noble Lord’s Amendment 80 in the Explanatory Notes.

Turning to government Amendments 48 and 79, I would like to thank my eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Bassam again for raising awareness of the consistency of drafting in Clause 46. We absolutely agree that it is best for language to be consistent where possible. That is why we are bringing forward this amendment to align drafting. I would like to reassure noble Lords that this change has no impact on the policy; none the less, it is a change we are welcoming. I beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, for reasons I cannot fathom, our debates on heraldry always seem to come late in the evening. But I am delighted to see that it is commanding such interest from the Government Benches this evening. I take that as great encouragement.

I thank the Minister and her officials, who have taken a number of meetings and had a number of conversations on a subject that might seem recherché but is important not just to me but to the College of Arms and, indeed, to many who have been following the Bill. As I set out in Committee, this point was raised on social media; in a very new medium, an ancient problem was highlighted.

Some might think that the use of correct heraldic terminology is trivial, but it is my firm view that it is not. Not only should we generally aim for precision in the language we use in legislation but where the provisions of the Bill, and indeed the actions of the regulator, may intervene in the activities of a body as venerable as the College of Arms, we need to ensure that we get it right.

I welcome the good will that is reflected in the fact that the Government have brought forward some amendments, but I am afraid we have not quite got there yet, which is why I have risen to speak to my Amendment 80. To briefly summarise what I set out in Committee, the problem in government Amendment 30, which the Minister has just moved, is the term “crest”—which some will take to be the badge part of a coat of arms but is in fact what appears above it. The word “crest” is repeated in the explanatory statement to Amendment 30, where the Minister has said:

“This amendment adds a reference to a team’s ‘emblem’ alongside ‘crest’, to avoid confusion with the … use of the term ‘crest’”.


It is better to avoid that confusion by not using it, hence the amendment I brought in Committee suggesting that we should properly call it a “badge”. We are repeating the incorrect term, which is the problem that I and the College of Arms have been raising with the Government.

During the meetings we have had, we have been trying to land this point with the Government but have not quite been able to get there. I am aware that correspondence was had with the Minister’s department only today, following up the points. I know the college welcomes what she is going to put in the Explanatory Notes, as do I—that is very helpful—but it is looking for a saving clause that simply asserts, or reasserts, the authority of the Kings of Arms over armorial bearings. That is the sticking point that I hope we might yet be able to resolve on this matter.

As I understand from the College of Arms, the department’s argument is that the regulator does not approve the content or substance of a proposed club badge but merely decides whether it went through the required process of consultation under the Bill. The department argues, therefore, that there is never any risk of the regulator straying on to the college’s turf since the regulator is not involved in the question of what a badge consists of or looks like. The Government argue that that is why nothing is needed. Rather perversely, they argue that a saving clause would create the impression that there is a conflict here, but that misses the point. When taken as a whole, the Bill does create approval for a badge, which it incorrectly calls a crest, albeit via consultation with fans and others. The Bill creates a mechanism for the approval, and indeed disapproval, of a badge—mistakenly called a crest—in statute. That cannot fail to create a sense that, at some level, the badge that has gone through the process has achieved some kind of authorised status.

In Committee we discussed the examples of problems that may occur. In lots of local authorities, a football club uses the same or a similar coat of arms as the local authority. If there were to be a conflict between that local authority and that club about the proper use of it, the College of Arms would be asked to step in and adjudicate. So there is a risk that the Bill unwittingly encroaches on the Crown’s prerogative in regard to heraldry. This is not the same as trademarks, but in the case of coats of arms we are talking about the Crown prerogative, which surely limits the extent to which parallel clauses for other parties are required.

What the College of Arms is asking for, and what I am suggesting in my Amendment 80, is not unusual. There are plenty of examples of saving clauses in other legislation; for instance, Section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971. My Amendment 80, which the college hopes to see put on the face of the Bill, not just in the Explanatory Notes, would follow the well-established precedent of protecting with absolute certainty the rights of the Kings of Arms.

All of us who have come into your Lordships’ House have taken our first steps in this Chamber following, slowly and reverently, the footsteps of the Garter Principal King of Arms, an office that has existed since 1415. We went to see him at the College of Arms, to seek agreement for our very names and titles. We have sworn an oath of allegiance to the sovereign that it is his solemn duty to proclaim at the moment of accession. So I hope that we can give him a few moments of our attention, even at this late hour and at this late stage of the Bill.

The saving clause that I have proposed, drafted in general terms, will not create the impression that the regulator will be involved in considering the substance of designs—or anything else, for that matter. I believe it is a simple but important amendment, which I very much hope the Minister will be able to accept. Happily, if there should need to be a Division on my Amendment 80, it would not come tonight but on day 2. I hope that, if she is not able to give that reassurance now, she will be able to take it away, reflect on it further—particularly in the light of the correspondence that I know she and her department have had today—and avoid the need to divide on this.

I am very grateful for the time and attention that the Minister has given, and for the improvements that we have had already. This final insertion really is the matter that would allay the concerns of the College of Arms and, therefore, my concerns as well. I beg to move.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his engagement on this matter and for his amendment.

We genuinely do not think that this matter is trivial but we do believe that the language in the noble Lord’s amendment would be a redundant addition to the legislation; we do not think that it is required. This is because, aside from the terminology used regarding the club emblems, the regulator’s powers are not expected to interact with the College of Arms and, therefore, the powers of the Kings of Arms.

Indeed, the regulator will ensure that fans have been properly consulted on proposed changes, but it will not be for the regulator to approve designs, only the process of clubs working with fans. This is rightly for other organisations, including the College of Arms, but also the Intellectual Property Office and other bodies.

As the regulator has no role in what the crest or emblem looks like, nor whether it infringes on any trademarks or copyright, it is implicit that the relevant body’s decision will supersede any related action by the regulator. There are many instances where the regime has been designed specifically not to conflict with existing powers and processes, such as law enforcement investigations or HMRC business requirements. However, it is unnecessary and unconventional practice for all parties that may work on parallel issues to the statutory body to be listed.

I hope that, through the changes we have made, and through further explanations in the Explanatory Notes, the noble Lord will be reassured that the sanctity of the College of Arms will be preserved. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further but, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support these government amendments. I beg to move Amendment 30.