Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I would like to return to the substance of the Bill. English football is the envy of the world. It is one of our greatest exports, watched by billions globally with some of the most exciting players, clubs and stories in any league. The premier league, the EFL and the national league contribute billions to our economy, support thousands of jobs and provide the infrastructure that supports the next generation of sporting talent.

Despite the global success of English football, nothing can disguise the underlying fragilities of the game. Too many fans have watched on as their club sells their stadiums, changes colours or collapses under malicious ownership. Since 1992, over 60 clubs have gone into administration, and expert analysis suggests the financial picture across the pyramid is worsening, not improving. For each club that fails, there is a devastating knock-on impact for local communities. Indeed, these clubs are more than just businesses; they lay at the heart of communities up and down the country, steeped in history and providing sources of identity and pride across our towns, cities and villages. I have seen that at first hand when visiting clubs across the country—from Southend United to Everton, from Barnsley to Brighton. Those fans deserve to focus on what is happening on the pitch rather than off it.

Of course, it was the previous Government that launched a fan-led review into football governance. That review, led by the former Conservative Sports Minister Dame Tracey Crouch—I pay tribute to her for her tireless work on this topic—identified the need for an independent football regulator. Of course, it was the previous Government that published their Bill to do just that. It fell due to the election, when Members on both sides of this House stood on election manifestos that committed to bringing forward a regulator again.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Bill is simple: it introduces a new light-touch regulator for the game intended to cover the top five levels of men’s football. At a basic level, the regulator will require just three things of clubs: be a fit and proper owner, have a sensible business plan and consult the fans. It will of course be applied proportionately.

Several Members across the House have highlighted the experience of their local clubs with rogue owners, including my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for High Peak (Jon Pearce), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I know that many other Members would have liked to contribute to the debate.

I turn to financial distribution. I want to be clear that a football-led solution is the preferred outcome. The regulator’s primary focus will be ensuring that clubs have a suitable custodian and are run sustainably. Distribution should primarily be a matter for leagues themselves, but if a football-led solution cannot be reached, the regulator will be ready to step up if required. As a last resort, it can facilitate a solution. This backstop mechanism will only be used if football needs it, and it will be underpinned by the “State of the game” report, which will inform the regulator’s work for a comprehensive review of the financial health of football.

I turn to some of the other issues raised in the debate. A number of Members rightly paid tribute to their own grassroots clubs, and I have seen the contribution in my constituency of Barnsley South. Grassroots football is the foundation on which the football pyramid is built. It is not in scope of the Bill, but a few weeks ago we announced further investment. I was of course pleased to visit Basingstoke, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) also raised that point specifically. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) also mentioned it.

A number of Members mentioned concussion. That issue is not covered by the Bill, but the Secretary of State and I will meet families shortly. I have heard the points that they have made.

The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), rightly highlighted how some of the changes that we have made reflect the previous Committee’s report, whether with regard to fans or foreign policy. She also pointed out that we could ask 10 different people about parachute payments and get 10 different answers, but we believe it is right that they are not ruled out. She also spoke about how the chair of the regulator will need to demonstrate an understanding of the complex football ecosystem. I very much heard her comments about the appointment of the chair. We welcome the scrutiny that her Committee will provide—I know that she will be fair and robust. She asked for a cast-iron guarantee on clubs in trouble. We believe that the regulator would be able to prevent or mitigate similar situations, because regulation can be proactive. Real-time financial monitoring will allow early intervention if a club shows signs of distress. We heard so many examples in the debate, including Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Blackpool.

I appreciate the support and contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who raised a number of issues. I am happy to meet him to discuss them further. He asked specifically about commercial issues. The regulator will not intervene on commercial matters such as sponsorship. The Government will continue to follow the best available evidence on the impact of gambling sponsorship in sport to inform future decisions.

Let me be very clear: UEFA has confirmed in writing to the Secretary of State, and the FA confirmed directly to Members of the other place, that the Bill as drafted does not breach UEFA statutes. [Interruption.] The regulator will be operationally independent of Government and will not exert 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. Conservative Members call for private correspondence to be published. How many letters from FIFA and UEFA were published by their Government? None.

Let me address the reasoned amendment. It is disappointing but not surprising that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment to kill the Bill. I will take some of those points in turn during the short time I have left. The Secretary of State has selected David Kogan as her preferred candidate for the role of chair of the independent football regulator. That follows a fair and open recruitment process that was run in line with the Government’s code for public appointments. David brings a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries, making him an outstanding candidate for the role.

Let me make a few things clear on the increased costs and regulatory burden for all English football clubs, particularly in the lower leagues. First, these are exactly the same levy provisions used in the previous Bill, which the Conservatives introduced. As they will know, the Government are not setting the levy charge. Given the requirements in the Bill, we expect any charges to be distributed proportionately. Those with the broadest shoulders will pay the most.

I challenge the suggestion that the proportionate costs of the levy should lead directly to increased ticket prices. Some clubs have spent more on the transfer fee for one player than the regulator is estimated to cost over several years. When the levy is distributed across clubs, no club big or small will be charged more than is fair or affordable, so passing the costs on to fans would not be proportionate. It is quite amazing that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), spoke about own goals. When I was in opposition, I heard him question the then Sports Minister—now the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—about how the Bill could go further. Indeed, I have spent hours with the right hon. Member, whom I like and respect. I know that he has had a difficult day.

Each Member here from across the House will have a football club in their constituency, whether in the grassroots or up in the premier league. All of our communities have a stake in this game and in the pyramid. I believe this Bill will protect and promote the sustainability of the game. I thank everyone who has contributed to the Bill, from the clubs and the leagues to the fans, and of course to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that the sport we all love can be enjoyed for years to come by local fans and communities. It is the Labour party that is on the side of football fans. We are making good on our manifesto promise. Tonight we will deliver that change. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I sold my shares in Manchester United to the phoenix fund, which exists to buy the club if it ever comes back on the market.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

For clarity, my interests are declared in the ministerial register.

[The Chair]

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first, while the Minister will be called first for clause stand part debates. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote —including a new clause in a group—they will need to let the Chair know. My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Purpose and overview

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is very helpful.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I begin by welcoming the Committee; it is a real pleasure to be here. It is just over a year since I was sitting on the other side of the room debating the Bill’s previous iteration. I look forward to working with Members from all parties. The Bill was in both the Labour and Conservative party manifestos. It is an important piece of legislation and we will spend a lot of time on line-by-line scrutiny.

I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for tabling amendments 95 and 96. I will also respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.

Amendment 95 was debated at length in the other place. Unsurprisingly, the Government’s position on it remains the same. We do not agree with its intent to narrow the purpose of the entire Bill specifically to financial sustainability, or to add to its purpose the vague and undefined words “success of English football”. I was a little confused by the contribution from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He said he was concerned about “narrow financial metrics”, but the amendment in the shadow Minister’s name actually would narrow the purpose simply to financial sustainability. I will outline why we do not agree with that.

The Bill’s purpose is sustainability, as defined in clause 1. It is about the continuation of service. I draw Members’ attention to subsections (3) and (4), which say that sustainability means continuing to serve the interests of fans and to contribute to the wellbeing of the local communities that regulated clubs serve. Of course, financial sustainability is an important part of that. If a club suffers financial collapse, it cannot continue to serve its fans and the community. However, we believe there is more to it. If a club’s balance sheet remains healthy, but it ups sticks and moves 60 miles away, or changes its name, badge and shirt colours, that is not continuity of service. That is precisely why the Bill covers aspects such as fan engagement and heritage, as well as financial issues, and why the Bill’s purpose needs to be overall sustainability, not just financial sustainability.

I understand the desire to ensure the continued success of English football as one of this country’s greatest exports—Members from throughout the House have outlined the huge contribution that it makes globally —but that is already achieved in the Bill. As part of its secondary duties, the regulator must have regard to avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football. That includes domestic sporting competitions, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, financial growth, and investment in football. Rather than the undefined concept of “success”, those specific elements represent the building blocks on which English football’s success has been built. Actively pursuing those outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry, rather than the regulator, but the regulator will avoid unduly harming them while it strives for sustainability.

If, as part of the Bill’s purpose, the regulator were required to protect the success of English football as well as its sustainability, there would be a significant widening of its scope. The regulator would need to be actively involved in anything that relates to the success of English football, such as the commercial and sporting sides of the game. Government Members have been clear that we do not want scope creep, which brings me to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about the National League’s three up, three down campaign. I have met representatives of the National League a number of times and I am completely sympathetic to their aims, but that does not fall within the Bill’s scope. I think we can all agree that it is not something that we, or organisations such as the Football Association, UEFA and FIFA, want the regulator to interfere in.

Amendment 96 seeks to add further detail to the definition of “sustainability” for the purposes of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for largely copying and pasting the Government’s explanatory notes to clause 1; however, the purpose of the explanatory notes is to provide that sort of additional, illustrative detail about the intention behind the legislation that is not appropriate for the face of the Bill.

The amendment also seeks to add criteria on TV viewership, match-day attendance and international competitiveness to the definition of “sustainability”. We have significant concerns that that would expand the scope of the regulator and put in place a much more interventionist regime than this Government propose and, indeed, than the previous Government proposed. The regulator would be required to concern itself with issues such as match-day attendance and TV viewership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned. It would not be able to have a direct impact on those issues without actively intervening on issues such as ticket prices and broadcasting. At best, we would have a regulator without the powers to achieve its purpose, and at worst, we would have mission creep into areas that do not warrant statutory regulation. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendments.

[Mr French]

I wish to press the amendments to Divisions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The clause sets out the Bill’s purpose, which is to promote and protect the sustainability of English football, as well as summarising what each of its parts provides for. It explains that English football is sustainable if it continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs and continues to contribute to the economic or social wellbeing of local communities with which regulated clubs are associated. The Bill’s purpose is crucial as the regulator will be obliged to act in accordance with it at all times, so far as is reasonably practical.

The fan-led review made clear that the pre-eminence of failure in the market is unsustainable, with football clubs unable to continue to provide their service. It is unacceptable that fans and local communities could witness their clubs no longer operating. We know the huge impact and contribution that clubs make to communities up and down the country, which is why we are making good on our manifesto commitment and have introduced the Bill.

The clause defines “sustainability” for the purpose of this legislation as the continuation of service in the interests of fans and for the wellbeing of local communities. We will debate and explore the Bill’s purpose in detail over the course of the Committee. At a basic level, the Bill asks clubs to consult their fans, to be a fit and proper owner and to have a business plan. In essence, clubs should continue to belong to their fans and communities now and in future, which means there should not be financial collapse, relocation of stadiums or new breakaway competitions.

[Mr French]

It is an honour to speak again under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I promise the Committee that I will not say that every time.

The Opposition do not disagree with much of the sentiment as we are all passionate about football and understand the role of clubs in our communities, as I acknowledged earlier. Our concern, which is why we tabled the amendments, is that the opaque definition of sustainability could have significant unintended consequences for the regulator’s direction of travel.

The Minister said of our amendments that the considerations we were trying to put in the Bill were secondary—or words to that effect; I apologise if I have slightly misquoted her—but my concern is that those considerations are primary in their focus. It will take many months to get the new regulator up and running, but if it does not understand the message that the House is sending it—that it should be focused on trying to improve football—it could be a lost cause before it has even got started.

Our concerns are clearly articulated in our amendments. We accept that we have lost the vote—the Government have a massive majority, so that is not surprising—but we urge Ministers, in their work going forward, to be clear with the regulator and the people who work for it that the ambition of this House is not to limit the scope of the regulator to just the clauses before us today.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, but I simply do not recognise their premise in terms of the definition of sustainability being vague. In the Bill’s previous iteration, the Government did not make the amendment that the hon. Gentleman proposed. I will not repeat my previous speech. We think that sustainability is much broader than simply finances. There is a procedural issue around not necessarily secondary considerations; the explanatory notes provide additional illustrative detail, and obviously what we say in Committee will give a clear indication to the regulator, and indeed to clubs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Key definitions

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this Act a ‘specified competition’ includes—

(a) the Premier League,

(b) the English Football League, and

(c) the National League.

(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament amend the competitions specified in section (3).”

This amendment would specify the leagues that are to be classed as “specified competitions” under Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is disappointing to see the return of amendments 132 and 74 after the extensive debate in the other place, where it was made very clear that they would likely make the Bill hybrid. I will respond to some of the points that Committee members have made but will outline the Government’s position first. Throughout the development of the policy, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on scope. These wrecking amendments would serve no purpose other than to kick the legislation into the long grass.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, a new Member, said that amendment 132 would be a simple addition. He should know that the addition of those competitions would indeed make the Bill hybrid. As I said, the issue was debated extensively in the House of Lords. The amendment would unnecessarily delay a Bill that was in both parties’ manifestos. This time last year, I spent many hours in a room on this corridor debating the previous Government’s version of the Bill; the hon. Gentleman, of course, stood on a manifesto that committed to it.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I regret that I have not spent as long as the Minister has in considering this issue. Could she point me to the clauses that make it absolutely clear that the English national team could not be taken within the scope of the regulator and that “a club” could not apply to the Football Association?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; I will come to debate some of the points that he has made later in the Bill. We are very clear that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill and that the England national team do not fall foul in any way of this legislation.

I move on to the amendments. I understand the desire for up-front clarity in the Bill about which competitions will initially be in scope. There is a sound policy rationale for the approach that we have taken in clause 2. By delegating to secondary legislation, we are merely following the precedent established by other, similar, sport-related legislation, including the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future-proofs for future innovation and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.

As mentioned, the intended scope of the regulator is well known and has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes in the future would again require consultation and would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

[Mr French]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments about why she believes we should not specify the leagues, but what is unclear in her language is whether she believes that the Committee should have the opportunity for scrutiny; these measures have been scrutinised in the other House and by a previous Parliament. I believe passionately that when it comes to future-proofing the Bill it is the role of elected Members on the Committee to scrutinise and have a proper debate. I appreciate that the issue has been debated elsewhere, but we need to have a proper debate here, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying not to be too political in my comments.

My other point is about the consultation exercise with clubs. From the feedback we have had from clubs, it is unclear why they were not invited to give evidence to the Committee. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not want clubs to give evidence to the Committee?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points. I very much welcome parliamentary scrutiny, and hon. Members will know that we intend to make some changes to the Bill following the debate in the House of Lords. Of course, it is the role of the Committee to scrutinise the legislation, but we must recognise that calls for change date back to 2011 in this place, with the cross-party Select Committee report and the fan-led review. We had extensive evidence sessions a year ago where we heard from clubs, fans and lots of different stakeholders, and indeed over the last year as the sport Minister I have done extensive consultations. The Bill remains largely the same as the one we previously debated. We believe that we have made some changes to strengthen it, and that is what we are here to debate.

[Mr French]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

No, I will make some progress and then take another intervention in a moment.

On the point about consultation and it being appropriate for parliamentary scrutiny—this comes to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—currently, National League North and South are not in scope, but clearly it would not be feasible for the regulator to oversee the entire pyramid and place requirements on clubs all the way down to grassroots.

On the basis of extensive consultation, we believe that the top tiers are the most sensible and proportionate place to draw the line; below that, the regulatory burden would outweigh the potential benefits. However, if circumstances change and the Secretary of State feels that the National League North and South might benefit from being within scope of the regulator, the Secretary of State could conduct an assessment and make regulations to include them.

[Mr French]

I might have jumped the gun, particularly given what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, but I want to understand the Government’s thinking about that exact classification and the difference between the National Football League and the National Leagues South and North. What are the Government fundamentally looking at in defining what leagues should be in scope of the regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a fair question, but there was exactly the same cut-off under the previous Bill.

[Mr French]

I am asking for your opinion.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am going to answer the question. It is largely—not exclusively—about where teams tend to be full time. It is not a perfect cut-off, and the Liberal Democrats have made a perfectly clear argument, but there has to be a cut-off somewhere and we believe, as the shadow Minister’s Government did, that the top five tiers is the best cut-off.

I want to respond to the shadow Minister’s points about the women’s game and how it could be brought into scope. Karen Carney’s review of women’s football recommended that it be given the opportunity to grow and self-govern rather than move immediately to statutory independent regulation. We are not saying in any way that it should be brought into regulation; we are simply giving that option so that we would not have to return to primary legislation. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr French]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but in the feedback we are receiving there seems to be inconsistency not only about what leagues should be under the powers of the regulator to ensure certainty and clarity, but about the powers of the Secretary of State. As I said, there is a massive issue about the role and power of Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account, which we all should believe in regardless of what party we represent.

I note to Labour Members that their party will likely not be in power for ever—I am not making a point beyond that—but this legislation will be in place until another Parliament seeks to change it. Whatever the colours of the Government of the day, Members should have an opportunity to scrutinise what they bring forward. Our amendment 132 seeks to ensure that that happens, by giving hon. Members a clear ability to have a vote whenever the Secretary of State wishes to expand powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

No, we accept the numbers in the room.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

This clause, as is standard procedure, sets out the key definitions used throughout the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State power to make a statutory instrument to specify competitions, as we have just debated. Those specified competitions can then define the regulated population.

Defining the scope in this way is an important part of future-proofing the Bill, as was seen when the old First Division became the Premier League in 1992. Before making any changes to the specified competitions, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment on whether it would be appropriate to do so. In carrying out that assessment, the Secretary of State must consult the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders who the Secretary of State considers relevant. A report of that assessment must also be laid before Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr French]

I will pick up on a couple of my previous comments that have not been answered by the Minister, as we will shortly conclude debate of this clause. Why have the Government decided to specify the FA in the clause but not the other leagues? That point has been raised with me by those other leagues. Why are the Government not specifying the other regulatory bodies involved in football? I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and will happily give way if she would like to give it.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the FA is the national governing body of the English Football League, and that is why it is specified.

[Mr French]

I welcome that comment, but the FA has a quite different role than the leagues themselves, which are currently responsible for various regulatory aspects of English football—whether in the Premier League, the EFL or the National Football League. The FA’s role is alongside those bodies. That is why—these are not my words—there is uncertainty about why the Government have decided to only specify the FA, given that there are clearly other governing bodies involved in English football. That is currently a bit of a mystery.

On the Minister’s other comments, the Government are unclear on the direction of travel of English football and on what the Bill will and will not do. It has been suggested that the regulator will be able to solve all problems, but we have to be honest with the public and say that that is not going to be the case. If a club is badly managed—and I know we are about to discuss ownership—there is little that the regulator will be able to do to stop a club from going bankrupt, as an extreme example. We all have to acknowledge that that is a real risk for football, regardless of what the regulator looks like. I will end my comments there.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I said in my intervention, the FA is the national governing body: there is only one governing body, and that is why it is specified. We expect the regulator—this provision is in the Bill—to consult all relevant parties, including leagues and fans. In the previous debate, we were clear that the leagues will be specified by statutory instrument.

The shadow Minister just said that it has been claimed that the regulator will solve all problems, but that absolutely has not been claimed, either by this Government or the previous one. We are debating the purposes of the Bill this morning; it is about the sustainability of the football game, having not been able to do that itself over the last decade. There have been calls for change in this place dating back to 2011—the ill-fated super league, the fan-led review and his Government’s previous Bill. This Bill will not solve all problems, but we hope it will put football on a sustainable footing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Meaning of “owner” etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 1.

Clause 4 stand part.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 3 is about the owners of football clubs, who play a pivotal role in the sport. Without their efforts and investment, English football would not be the success it is today. Owners have an immense responsibility to not just their club, but fans, local communities and businesses in the surrounding area. Although current league rules outline a requirement to declare who controls a club, there are concerns with their application. That applies particularly when clubs are owned or controlled by offshore entities or complex company structures.

Fans have also expressed concerns about the opaque nature of who owns their clubs. They deserve to know who has ultimate responsibility for the club they support, and the clause ensures just that. The clause signposts to schedule 1, which defines when a person is an owner of the club. The clause also defines a club’s ultimate owner or owners. The ultimate owners of a club are those who have the highest degree of influence or control over the activities of the club. When a club applies for a provisional operating licence, it has to identify its owners and ultimate owners to the regulator in a personal statement. Defining the ultimate owners of a club and requiring clubs to declare them will be a crucial step to improving transparency and accountability in the game.

Schedule 1 defines owners for the purpose of the Bill and equips the regulator to apply that definition in different real-life circumstances. It is crucial that owners are suitable so that the sport is placed on a more sustainable footing. An ownership chain may be long and complex, with many links; to ensure clubs have sustainable custodians, the regulator needs to identify the human being with actual control at the very end of the chain—rather than the holding companies or other legal structures, which are just links along the way. That is why, under the Bill, the definition of an owner focuses on identifying individuals, except where clubs are owned by registered societies.

Registered societies are specific legal structures defined in clause 91; they must be run as co-operatives or for the benefit of the community. When used for ownership of football clubs, they are typically one-fan-one-vote organisations where control is split equally among hundreds or thousands of members. That is why ownership chains can end with registered societies, without needing to identify named individuals behind them.

The Bill’s definition of an owner draws heavily on precedent from other legal regimes where ownership can be complicated or opaque, including the “persons with significant control” regime in the Companies Act 2006. The Bill’s definition is designed to capture those who have significant shares or rights, or other forms of significant influence or control over the club. It also includes owners who meet one of these conditions at arm’s length, such as via a trust or a similar body. That approach means that owners cannot simply evade regulation by creating ever more complicated ownership structures. Having a clear definition of an owner means that owners can be identified, tested and held to account as custodians of the club.

Clause 4 is about officers and senior managers. The Bill will introduce two key things: transparency for fans and accountability for decision makers at clubs. The clause defines an officer and a senior manager of a club for the purpose of the Bill. Those definitions have been drafted in recognition of the existing legislative precedent, including the Companies Act 2006 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as well as the definitions currently used in the football industry. The clause’s purpose is to appropriately define the people who run, or have a significant level of direct influence, over the day-to-day running of a club.

Officers of a club are subject to legislative requirements, including the owners and directors test. The regulator may take enforcement action against a senior manager— a subset of officers who carry out specific management functions at the club. If a club commits a relevant infringement connected to a senior management function carried out by that individual, the individual can be held liable. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr French]

I will start with clause 3, which deals with the broad definitions of an “owner” within the context of this legislation, as the Minister has just set out. While it may appear technical on the surface, this clause lays the groundwork for the regulator’s ability to properly identify and engage with those who hold real power and influence within our football clubs. Getting these definitions right is absolutely essential. For too long, fans have felt that football governance has been undermined by opaque ownership structurers, shadowy investment vehicles and individuals who exercise effective control without proper scrutiny or accountability.

The clause also ensures that the regulator is not hamstrung by narrow or outdated definitions of ownership. It gives clarity on who can be held responsible, whether through legal ownership, executive authority or de facto control. That clarity is vital if we are serious about improving transparency and strengthening the fit and proper person test regime. At the same time, it is right that this is done in a proportionate and legally precise manner. We must avoid unintended consequences that could dissuade responsible investment or penalise legitimate business structures. Definitions must be robust but not overly broad.

On that point, I will pause for a second. As Members, we have to recognise the international nature of club ownership, both in the EFL and the Premier League. We are talking about English football, but there are only four or five clubs in the Premier League that have an English majority owner these days. We have to be very clear in our work, and in our discussions on the Bill, that we do not want to deter inward investment in the game. We need to understand that there is increasing international competition for these owners to effectively move their assets into other countries. In particular, there is the rise of the Saudi league, which is growing in competition versus the more traditional heavyweights of the European sector.

In seeking to strengthen the ownership test, which I support, we have to be mindful of not deterring investment. Could much of this work on ownership structures and tests have been done appropriately through the current governance structures of English football? Yes, I think it could have been done better already, and I personally would have preferred that to be the direction of travel, rather than through the Bill. However, we are where we are, and I will not oppose clause 3 for the sake of it.

Clause 4 defines the roles of an “officer” and “senior manager” within football clubs, and again seeks to improve transparency on accountability, roles and responsibility. This provision, as outlined by both the Minister and the Premier League in some of its comments, seems to mirror banking regulations, which I was familiar with before coming to Parliament nearly four years ago—time flies when you’re having fun.

The language used in this provision is similar to that used by the Financial Conduct Authority. When the Minister speaks again, I would be quite interested to understand why the Government have chosen banking regulations as the model for football, because I want to understand their thinking on the future of the regulator and football. We are talking about both a business and a sport that differs in many ways to financial services and in the positive impact that it has on this country. While football creates many jobs, it also has an impact on communities around the country and grassroots clubs, where we like to see young boys and girls participating in football.

Schedule 1, like clause 3, is foundational to the Bill and thus to the future of English football in providing a detailed meaning of an “owner”. Where the clause provides the broader meaning of an “owner”, this schedule details the conditions for being an “owner” and rightly looks beyond just legal shareholders. It captures those who influence clubs through formal or informal control, whether that is through a boardroom presence, financial influence or complex ownership structures.

The inclusion of the 25% ownership threshold is rooted in established legal standards, but equally important is the provision to capture those who may fall below that line but wield significant power. We have seen far too many clubs come to harm because of murky ownership arrangements and a lack of transparency. I am confident that other hon. Members will speak to the goings-on at Reading in recent months and years, if previous debates are anything to go by. I know more about Reading than I ever thought I would, as a football fan, but a lot of hon. Members have mentioned the example already.

That said, I must also raise the example of Charlton Athletic, a proud and historic club just outside my own constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup. It operates in the Greenwich borough next door to mine, with the training ground literally on my constituency boundary and the home ground, the Valley in Charlton, a bit further away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a Pompey fan and season ticket holder, and as an elected member of Portsmouth supporters trust board, ownership is a very painful subject in my city, because bad ownership has almost cost us our club on more than one occasion. I welcome the definitions in schedule 1, because there has been a series of owners—some have been the subject of international arrest warrants, some have had their assets frozen by the Government, some have been imprisoned, and no one could prove that one of them even existed, as I have said before in the House. That string of horrendous owners had a devastating impact not just on the football club, but on the community. Assets were sold off to areas of the owners’ other companies, and local businesses and employees lost thousands of pounds. The Bill and the regulator, and clause 1 and schedule 1, can protect clubs from poor ownership and will therefore mean that football clubs up and down England will never have to experience what Pompey fans had to experience.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will attempt to respond to the various questions from the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North and for High Peak, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The Opposition spokesperson broadly welcomed the provisions, but he asked some specific questions. He made points on financial regulation, and I think he used the word “banking-style”. The Bill draws on precedent from a range of previous regulation. Some elements are from financial regulation. A previous amendment of his dealt with financial sustainability, and the Bill, as drafted, is all about that. We would not term it as “banking-style”, but it does draw on previous legislation and existing regulation.

The hon. Gentleman broadly welcomed the provisions on owners and directors. He mentioned that it has been four years since he was elected to this place, and in 2023, he asked the then Sport Minister to strengthen the ownership test, so I am really pleased that he welcomed the changes that we have made. He also said that he would prefer this to have been implemented without legislation. Of course, we all would, but we are where we are, and that is why both parties stood on a manifesto to introduce a football regulator Bill.

The Opposition spokesperson made some broad points on the owners and directors test, and we will have a further debate on that when we come to part 4. ODTs have to be applied clearly and consistently. If the owner has appropriate financial resources and meets other aspects of the test, our ODT would not prevent multi-club ownership. Concerns around multi-club ownership are to do with conflicts of interest and competition, which is why the leagues and UEFA have rules around multi-club ownership. Clubs competing in those competitions will be required to abide by any applicable rules, but we can come back to that point on part 4 when we will debate this issue at length.

[Mr French]

I want to flesh out the point that I tried to make, although I appreciate what the Minister said about coming to this later. Why this is not defined at this point is key, because, as I am sure all Members will agree, we do not want to accidentally create an open goal for wealthy clubs to get around the Bill. There is a real risk coming through from the football community that, if we do not tackle the issue of multi-club ownership up front, the Bill will create just that open goal.

In the comments from across the Committee today, there has been a consensus about what we hope the future of football will look like and around fairness; I think that that is all we can seek to achieve as a House. However, I am concerned that we are not putting the multi-club issue in the Bill. It is difficult to understand the reason why, because it is so pertinent to the ownership test. I accept that the Minister has said that she does not want to block it—that would not be wise, given that a number of clubs have that structure already—but I urge her to address the point about the risks to football. There are major risks, as we have seen already. The Minister’s reference to leagues and competitions was pertinent; we saw the press story yesterday about Crystal Palace and its European future. How will the Minister define the multi-club issue and how will it interact with the Bill?

[The Chair]

Before the Minister responds, I remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief. There are plenty of opportunities to make longer speeches.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who makes some valid points. We will talk about owners and directors when we come to part 4. Competition and conflict of interest are not in scope of the Bill and are for UEFA, but I am happy to debate this with him further down the line.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made an extensive and technical speech. For transparency purposes, the ultimate owner or owners will be publicly identified in clubs’ personal statements, and this will help fans to hold the most powerful owners to account, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said. Anyone who exercises significant influence or control will be defined as an owner and can be subject to an ODT, but I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on some of the technical points that he made, as he asked.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that. She has already given some better words by talking about “significant” control. That is not the wording in clause 3, but I prefer it, to be honest. Will she go away and look at that? It is probably a drafting issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for welcoming my comments. I will take that away, but I hope to have provided him with some clarity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Establishment of the IFR

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

This clause formally establishes the regulator as an independent corporate body and refers to schedule 2, which contains further details on the structure, set-up and governance of the regulator. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr French]

The clause formally establishes the Independent Football Regulator as a statutory body, providing the legal foundation for the IFR’s existence and marking a significant moment in English football governance and our constitution. The clause gives the Independent Football Regulator its own legal personality, allowing it to operate independently of Government and the football authorities.

We will come to the issue of independence, so I will not hold up the Committee too much on the point. I will not make this personal to the Government’s proposed choice of chair. It is rather about the structural integrity of independence, which is crucial to what we do as a House and how sport operates across this country, as it has done successfully for a number of years. The last thing that sport fans want is politicians involved in the regulation of football. We all welcome being supporters—a number of Members are supporters of clubs—but we must be clear that there should not be political interference in the running of the game.

The clause ensures that the regulator can exercise powers conferred elsewhere in the Bill, including around licensing, enforcement and oversight functions. We have a number of concerns about how the details in schedule 2 will work in practice, and the rules around making the independence of anyone involved in football regulation clear as we move forward.

More broadly, I seek clarity from the Minister on a few matters. Does she believe that clause 5 provides sufficient clarity and authority for the IFR to act decisively and independently when enforcing breaches of licensing conditions or financial rules? What safeguards are in place to ensure the Independent Football Regulator’s independence from political or industry pressure when taking enforcement action against powerful clubs or owners?

Will the IFR have the necessary investigatory powers from the outset to underpin robust enforcement, or are those powers dependent on secondary legislation or guidance? How will the IFR balance its role as a regulator with the need to maintain constructive relationships with clubs, especially when initiating enforcement proceedings?

On that point, I again highlight the importance of independence—not just independence from this place, but independence from other leagues and experiences that might bring into question any judgment that the IFR makes. That is a concern I have around the choice of chair, which I know we will come on to. I have concerns about leagues and any bias—known or unknown—in decision making, and the questioning of that. Going forward, that would generally be very unhelpful for the game.

Lastly, to what extent will the IFR be held accountable for the consistency, transparency and proportionality of its enforcement decisions under the powers established in the clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Thank you for that guidance, Sir Jeremy. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do, and I have sympathy with his general point about the independence of chairs of bodies, but I will stick to this Bill and this independent regulator for two reasons. The first is that we are in this Bill Committee today to talk about football governance. Secondly, the point I was making is that because this is a new departure—to have a regulator in a sport that does not have a regulator—particular regard needs to be paid to political independence. We have a candidate who has made a political donation to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Government have an unexpected relationship with the preferred chair of the regulator.

I urge the Minister to address at some point today how the independence of the football regulator will be protected. Even putting to one side the preferred candidate, the fact is that the appointment will always be made by a Secretary of State, so how will we avoid the criticism that the hon. Member for Cheltenham identified? If it is a political appointment, there are always going to be accusations—in this case, fair—around an elected politician appointing a regulator over English football. I know that that is inherently unattractive to fans, who should be our priority.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will deal with the comments specifically on the chair in the next group—I am not avoiding the question, but I think we are going to have a more substantial debate on the next group. Let me answer some of the other specific points that Members have made. The shadow Minister asked about finance, and the levy will be proportionate to the size and level of the club. We absolutely value the independence of the regulator. That means all sorts of different things in terms of leagues, Governments, clubs and so on.

On how the independent regulator operates and what will guide them, I draw Members’ attention to clause 8 in part 2 on the regulatory principles. We will go through those later so I will not go into any detail now, but they are a useful guide to help the independent regulator in their functions and in carrying them out. I will pause there, because I think we will have a more substantial debate in a moment.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Schedule 2

The Independent Football Regulator

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 117, schedule 2, page 87, line 12, at end insert—

“3A Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”

This amendment would ensure that the political interests of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the Chair are made public before the appointment is confirmed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a very well-respected Member of this House and of the football APPG. Obviously I was not a Minister in the previous Government, so it would not be possible for me to publish correspondence. I can speak only on my own behalf, and I do not have any UEFA correspondence. Again, I understand the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but, on the question of what I have urged the Minister to do, I am happy for that to be done on a private basis, so that we can have those reassurances as Members of this House.

This situation is clearly pertinent to the Bill, because, as Members of this House, and as football fans—a number of people have outlined their local clubs and who they support—we surely have to have confidence that what we are putting into law through this House does not conflict with the ability of English clubs to participate. This is not me trying to scaremonger; I just need to know the information.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am interested about the shadow Minister’s idea of “publishing” something privately; that is a new concept to me. I have said in this House more than once—in this Committee, on Second Reading and in Westminster Hall—that the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State makes it very clear that there are no concerns with this Bill. I am obviously confidently saying that in Parliament; I am very much not going to mislead Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East pointed out, the shadow Minister’s Government did not publish any correspondence. I sat in a room like this with the right hon. Member for Daventry, and he did not publish it, so why is the shadow Minister asking us to when he knows that Governments do not publish private correspondence?

[Mr French]

I recognise what the Minister is saying, and I understand the comparison she is making, but my understanding is that, if a Minister refers to a letter between the Government of the day and an international body that has important structures, there are rules within “Erskine May” that would allow—and sometimes force—the Minister to table that letter in the House of Commons Library for all Members to see, so I would urge the Government to do that.

Sir Jeremy, because this is very important, I seek your advice on whether, now that the Minister has referred to that letter, it should now be published under the rules of “Erskine May”. Can the Clerks clarify that, because the Minister has referred to it in her comments? It is in “Erskine May”—I checked on Second Reading—but I just want the guidance of the Clerks on whether that letter should now be published so that Members of this House can have an informed discussion about the risks to English football linked with the independence of the football regulator, because that is critical to all the work that we are going to do today.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I appreciate your work and that of the Clerks to get some further information on the point. Just so that all Members are aware of the part of “Erskine May” to which I was referring, it says that

“a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.”

I appreciate your comments, but I think that the spirit of the House is quite clearly outlined there. I would like the Minister to publish the document so that Members can have a view.

I would also argue strongly on your last point, although I appreciate that this is a point of debate rather than one of fact, because I believe that the document in question is not a private letter but a piece of correspondence from a key international regulator to His Majesty’s Government. I believe that Members of this House deserve to have all the information available to make informed decisions about a regulator that will be of the utmost importance to football, as well as to this House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I know that there have been requests to see the letters that UEFA has sent to the Government. As a matter of course, the Government do not share private correspondence, as it would undermine the ability to have open, honest and frank discussions with key partners. It is worth stating that we wrote to UEFA asking whether it would be content for it to be published, but it confirmed that it would rather communications were kept private.

Paragraph 21.26 of “Erskine May” states:

“A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table. The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters”.

“Erskine May” is fairly clear that the Government are not bound to publish the letter, as I have not quoted from it. I refer the House to my earlier comments on the letter.

[Mr French]

I thank the Minister for her confirmation of her position. I appreciate her clarification of her perspective, although obviously I disagree with it; that is why I raised the point. I am concerned about this, and I will pick up the point with Mr Speaker afterwards, because there is a general theme here. This is not aimed at the Minister—I have a good relationship with her, and I respect her—but there is an ongoing issue, which has been expressed in this House in recent days, about the Government not being open and transparent with the House in other announcements that have been made.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I say gently to the hon. Member—this is a point that has been made by my hon. Friends behind me—that his Government did not publish any private correspondence from UEFA. There will be letters in existence similar to the one to which he refers. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), whom I like a great deal—indeed, I respect both gentlemen—did not publish those, so I am a bit confused about why the hon. Gentleman is making this very well-rehearsed argument, which is contrary to what his Government did.

[Mr French]

It is not well rehearsed—it is not in my speaking notes at all. It is just a general point of principle that this House should be able to hold the Government to account with full information. I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy, so I will get back to the amendments. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have lots of support from Government Members.

Schedule 2 sets out the constitution of the Independent Football Regulator for an initial period when it is first being established, and for subsequent periods thereafter. It contains detailed provisions about the appointment of the chairman, deputy chairmen and non-executive members of the board, and the rules by which somebody may be appointed to the board in relation to conflicts of interest. On conflicts of interest in particular, the Government have left much to be desired, so we seek to correct some serious omissions.

As we have seen in recent weeks, the Labour Government have politicised what was supposed to be an independent football regulator by appointing a crony. That is nothing short of a disgrace—such a disgrace, in fact, that the Secretary of State has been forced to recuse herself from any further part in the appointment of the chair. As I said this morning, that is now a point of independent inquiry, so it is not just my opinion. There is clearly a concern, which is why the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be looking very closely at it.

That is why I tabled amendment 117. As we know, although only because of his revelations at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Government’s appointee donated to the Secretary of State’s leadership campaign. We believe that she did not declare that in line with the ministerial code. We also believe that it was not disclosed earlier. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Secretary of State concealed that information from Parliament? We believe that there was no reference to that donation on Second Reading. Did the Minister know that the proposed chairman had donated to both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? Will she confirm whether she or any other member of this Committee has received any donations from the chairman of the regulator? Is she concerned about what the independent inquiry that was announced yesterday might mean for the future of the regulator, if it is found that the process has been breached?

Those are really fundamental points, because a breach of the process will have direct consequences for a lot of what we are discussing today. It will throw English football up in the air and bring it into disrepute if the first chairman of the regulator is found to have been appointed without the Government following due process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

If people appointed to regulators and quangos have fully declared what they have done, ab initio, that does a lot to dampen down concern about partiality. It would be nice to see the Government select someone for one of these appointments who was not a donor at the last election.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Before speaking directly to these amendments, I want to address the comments made about the chair appointment. I am very aware of the direction that you have given, Sir Jeremy, so I will focus my remarks on the comments made by the shadow Minister and Opposition Members.

David Kogan brings with him a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries. The shadow Minister’s speech had three parts, so I forget when he said this, but he made the point more than once that it is about attracting the right candidate with the right experience, and how that is a challenge. We are confident that David Kogan is the right person. He was found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member who was agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

David Kogan declared his political activity to the DCMS Committee, as the shadow Minister has stated, which endorsed his appointment, adding a further layer of robustness to the appointment process. The donations were declared during the Committee session, as the shadow Minister also stated, and the Committee was sufficiently aware when it published its report endorsing him.

[Joe Robertson]

I know we know this, but the Select Committee is dominated by Labour MPs—I want to make that clear. I did not follow the process within it, but a Committee dominated by Labour MPs approved a Labour donor as the independent regulator.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that it was a unanimous decision by the cross-party Select Committee. There will have been similar instances in the previous Parliament, so I think his point is somewhat unfair, but it may be a reflection of the fact that he is new to this place.

Reference was made to the fact that we have received a letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will of course co-operate fully with his office. No conclusions have been reached at this stage, and we will completely co-operate. Some points were made about what was said on Second Reading and to the Select Committee. The governance code already sets out the requirements for political donations. Donations in scope of the governance code were provided to the Select Committee in advance of the hearing. The leadership campaign donations fall outside the reporting window and the threshold for declaration; however, they were disclosed to the Select Committee in the interests of transparency, which endorsed the appointment on a cross-party basis.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I completely take the Minister’s point about the unanimity of the Select Committee. In that same spirit, it is worth quoting the Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who said:

“While Mr Kogan’s background and experience make him well-suited for the role, his past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount.

We want to see the new Independent Football Regulator succeed, so it’s crucial that nothing undermines the regulator as it gets up and running. Mr Kogan must give 110% when it comes to reassuring everyone in the game that he is his own man. The Committee looks forward to working with him constructively and holding him to account.”

Imagine how much simpler life would be if someone who did not have that perceived conflict of interest—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. First, that intervention is too long. Secondly, I will let the Minister respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am afraid we will then have no more debate about this individual. We have covered the subject; both sides have had a go. A yellow card is now being shown and we will move on. Minister, please give the last thought on this subject.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I do not have the quote in front of me, so I will paraphrase, but I believe that the Select Committee also praised, or acknowledged, Mr Kogan’s candour and transparency—the fact that he was open with them—and of course the Committee did endorse him. I will heed your yellow card, Sir Jeremy.

[Mr French]

The amendment is quite clear that it is not about the individual but the process going forward for transparency on donations. I will not mention the gentleman, but the other question that the Minister was answering before the intervention related to the rules and duties on Ministers and Members of this House. She made the point about disclosure thresholds within the code, but the spirit of the rules makes it quite clear that any perceived conflicts of interest must be disclosed. It is my understanding that that had not happened, which is the point that I was trying to make.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman gets ahead of himself; he is somewhat excited this afternoon. That was my second point—I have numbered my points one and two, and I have a third to make. He asked about members of the Committee. It is for hon. Members to declare relevant interests, and when we began the sitting this morning hon. Members did indeed refer to their entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not want to be drawn any further on the details of the process as that would not be appropriate. I have made all the comments I can within the confines of the topic and the yellow card you very kindly gave, Sir Jeremy. I will therefore move on to talk briefly about the amendments.

I will explicitly state that the independence of the regulator is paramount. The Bill is, as the hon. Gentleman said, designed to create an independent football regulator free from any undue political or industry influence. That has always been and continues to be our aim. In the service of that, we have already strengthened the Bill further, now requiring the regulator to establish and maintain a register of relevant interests of members of the board. That already includes the chair, so any further amendment is not necessary.

The definition of relevant interests in the Bill is already broad enough to include political donations if they are relevant to the regulator’s functions. The appointment of the chair is subject to the governance code on public appointments, which clearly sets out that any political activity

“should not…be a bar to appointment”,

as well as the requirements in relation to the declaration of political activity. That point has been well rehearsed; indeed, the Liberal Democrat spokesman made it earlier, as have other hon. Members.

The chair of the regulator is already required to undergo a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing, which we have debated at length. Pre-appointment scrutiny is reserved for the most significant roles, including those where demonstrable independence from the Government is required. The chair and other non-executive members of the board would also be bound by the code of conduct for members of public body boards, which sets clear expectations around political impartiality once in a role. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is robust in ensuring the independence of both the chair and board members more widely. The amendments would not in any substantive manner increase the level of protection in the Bill against undue political influence over the chair.

I turn to the amendments 118 and 119 about conflicts of interest for the board and the expert panel. I reassure the Committee that the Bill, supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest, irrespective of sector. It is also important that the widest possible range of people are encouraged to apply to contribute their skills and experience so long as any and all conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.

Government amendments made in the other place have strengthened those protections even further, and beyond doubt. Paragraph 17 of schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters that fall for consideration by the board, and for that declaration to be recorded. The board member would not be permitted to take part in any discussions related to a matter if they have a significant direct or indirect interest in it.

With specific regard to the expert panel in amendment 119, the Bill already places an onus on the chief executive officer to check for conflicts of interest at the point of making an appointment to the expert panel and on an ongoing basis from time to time. The Bill sets out that the chief executive officer must ensure that the expert panel has all the relevant range of skills, knowledge and experience. The amendment might limit the ability of the chief executive officer to do that, as it would restrict the pool of potential members of the expert panel. It may well be appropriate for the expert panel to have expertise in media or broadcasting, but the amendment would outright preclude that, and so might hinder the regulator’s ability to fulfil its objectives.

All in all, the Bill contains comprehensive safeguards to examine and manage genuine conflicts of interest appropriately. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr French]

I have heard the Minister’s comments clearly and I am afraid that I am not filled with confidence, not necessarily because I doubt what she says or her intentions but because of the proven experience of the situation in which we find ourselves. I appreciate the yellow card, so I will not go fully back into that, but it does bring into question the judgment of Ministers and individuals and whether we can have certainty in these steps and measures. The Opposition think these amendments are not party political at all. We want to ensure that we have transparency and absolute security that whoever is appointed to these positions will act with complete neutrality and independence, and avoid any perception of bias. I will not repeat the arguments of why that is so important for sport and the independence of sport. We will press our amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 138, in schedule 2, page 88, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.”

As always, you are keeping me on my toes today, Sir Jeremy; I thought we were about to vote on amendment 119. We always learn something new in Bill Committees. Amendment 138 raises a serious and growing concern, so I will be very clear about what the amendment would do. We seek to limit the number of employees of the Independent Football Regulator to a maximum of 50. We think that is quite fair. I could have proposed 20, 10 or some other number, but I thought 50 was fair, based on the conversations that we have had with the football world.

Our serious and growing concern is about not just what the legislation says, but the consequences of the way this Government have chosen to structure the regulator. The amendment uncovers and seeks to prevent the key problem with the Government’s regulator, which we believe is purely that it will ultimately put up prices for fans. This morning, the Minister said that her Government have not claimed that the regulator will solve all the problems, and while that may be true, we believe that her regulator will actively create more problems for clubs and for fans. I will come on to the problems that we believe it will cause for clubs later in the Bill, but, to be clear, we put fans first and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

The creation and operation of the Government’s regulator and the burdens it generates will impose a very real cost on clubs. I suspect that will not have a massive impact on the billionaire owners of the big clubs, or the executives, consultants and lawyers employed in the football industry, but it will significantly affect clubs that are already subject to serious financial constraints and those lower down the pyramid.

Let us begin with the principle. I do not believe that anyone here disputes the need to protect the long-term sustainability of English football and the need for English football to be sustainable, even if definitions of “sustainable” differ. However, if the Government genuinely intend to safeguard the game for future generations, creating a vast and costly bureaucracy is not the way to do that—yet that is what this regulator will do. It will increase the costs on clubs, which will ultimately have no choice but to pass them on to fans. That view is accepted by those in the industry that I have discussed this with. This Government have chosen bureaucracy over the beautiful game and its fans. It is the ever-present home and away supporters who will end up bearing the brunt of the costs of this regulator.

Turning to the specifics of amendment 138, last week I submitted a written question to the Secretary of State to ask how many appointments had been made to the shadow football regulator already and how many of those appointed were previously employed in her Department. I know from conversations I have had with the EFL, the National League, the Premier League and the FA that the shadow regulator has already begun to scale up. When my noble Friend Lord Moynihan asked the Lords Minister a similar question in the other place in December, the answer, which was received in January, stated that the number of IFR employees already stood at 38. As it happens, the answer to my written question is due today. Can the Minister save me the trouble of waiting for that response to come through online and tell us here and now how many full-time equivalent staff are currently working on the shadow regulator and how many of those were previously employed in her Department as employees, advisers or appointees?

[Stephanie Peacock]

There were 42 employees as of 1 June; 11 joined having previously been employed by DCMS and two joined having formerly advised DCMS. The answer is due by 6 o’clock today and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives it in writing by then.

[Mr French]

I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

We do not know yet what the target operating model will be. I think the Government can do that work, as they have a pretty clear picture of the functions of the regulator that are envisaged in the Bill. The shadow Minister asked the Minister to give some indication of the limits on money and structure, because we have the powers and the functions. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to hear the Minister’s answers.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. I note the irony of him saying he does not want to oppose the Bill for the sake of it, given our discussion today and the fact that the Bill began its life under his Government. I completely understand the intent to ensure that we do not end up with an overstaffed regulator that is not delivering value for money. That is exactly why there are appropriate controls over the regulator’s expenditure.

Proportionality is key to the point about costs. We will have a further debate today or on Thursday about the regulatory principles, which are really important, but the operational cost estimate is between £77.4 million and £106.8 million over 10 years. That was based on the impact assessment signed off by the previous sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry. Those costs have not changed—with the caveat, of course, that that is an estimate.

[Mr French]

The Minister referred to an impact assessment based on the previous Bill. Given that there are changes in this Bill, will a new assessment with estimated costs be published for hon. Members to understand?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We do not believe that the changes are significant enough to lead to a significant increase in costs.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Quoting those figures is very helpful. Can the Minister tell us what personnel assumptions those figures were based on?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am happy to provide the Committee with a copy of the impact assessment. I will address the point on staffing in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

On that principle, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence, who said yesterday that the number of people in the Army would be 73,000?

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is not for us to say. It is an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman outlined how different regulators have wildly different numbers of staff. We do not think that we should set a cap.

[Joe Robertson]

Can the Minister give any indication of the sort of headcount she expects of this regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am not going to be drawn on figures. I will say that we think that the regulator should be as light touch and slim as possible. We do not think that it should be unwieldy and we do not think there should be staff for staff’s sake. It is not for me as the Minister to prescribe a specific number. I do not agree with that. For those reasons, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and to the answers provided by the Minister. I am concerned that the Government will not publish a refreshed impact assessment because, as I have highlighted, the costs to businesses and football clubs around the country have increased since the impact assessment was published. The regulator designed by the current Government also differs from the previous Government’s. We believe that it is bad practice for Members not to have all the information to hand for a live discussion about the expected costs of the regulator or concise information about what the size of the regulator may be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I will not repeat what the shadow Minister has very ably said, but clearly the amendment goes back to the issue of costs spiralling out of control. Let us remember that the concern is about the pay levels for those appointed. The role has already been advertised, as I understand it, on the Government website at £130,000 for a three day part-time role, which means that pro rata they will be paid more than the Prime Minister. I have a serious problem with that, and I suspect that most fans have a serious problem with this so-called slimline light touch regulator being headed up by somebody who is paid more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friend is trying to bring in some level of cap on pay.

We were not successful in bringing in a cap on headcount, but the Minister could not give us any indication of how many people she expects to be employed by the regulator. The Government are prepared to say that 73,000 people should serve in the armed forces, so it is not unprecedented to give an indication of the number of employees in organisations, which is all this amendment is trying to do. If Government Members are happy for the regulator to be paid more pro rata than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so be it—they will have to vote in that way. I am not happy, and that is why I support the amendment.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I appreciate the intent to ensure that the regulator offers value for money. That is precisely why the regulator has a regulatory principle encouraging it to be as cost-efficient as possible. There are also countless other safeguards in place to ensure value for money, and we referred to those in earlier debates. For example, the regulator will be required to lay its annual accounts before Parliament, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, for scrutiny.

The regulator will also be subject to pay remit guidance, in the same way as central Government Departments are, to ensure that pay rises are justifiable. That will ensure value for money without sacrificing important operational flexibility for the regulator. On the other hand, a maximum salary for the CEO, fixed in legislation, would leave the regulator unable to adapt to market changes and could leave it unable to recruit and retain the expertise that it needs to effectively regulate.

I understand that the amendment seeks to limit the CEO’s salary to no more than the current salary of the Prime Minister. There would be no way to update that if the salary changed in the future, or even with inflation. It is not a practical constraint to impose.

[Max Wilkinson]

Does the Minister find it strange that, in this room, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson and a Labour Minister are arguing with the Conservatives about letting the market decide someone’s salary?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I absolutely agree, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson puts an important point on the record.

We expect a significant benchmarking exercise to be undertaken in determining the appropriate level of remuneration for the CEO of the regulator. That should be consistent with other regulators of a similar size and regulatory remit. We believe that an arbitrary constraint would be problematic. Safeguards are also in place already requiring approval for any public sector salary that exceeds £150,000, as per the senior pay controls process.

[Mr French]

I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am listening carefully. On the point about markets, we are not talking about the market dictating the level, but Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in for a rude awakening if he believes that this is what the market looks like, if he goes down to the City of London. But on the argument that the Minister is making about the size of the regulator, what is that comparable size? We have tried to get an answer on what size the Government are looking at. So on the point that she just made about the salary being appropriate and reflective of other representative regulators, what is the size of the regulator? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the point about the salary that has been advertised only being a part-time salary, so what are the expectations in relation to that compared with the size of the regulator? That is fundamental to the Minister’s point.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I have outlined, a benchmarking exercise will be done thoroughly on that. I am intrigued by the mock outrage from the Conservative party, who did not in any way put in a staffing cap or a salary cap when we were in this room previously. To take some examples of other salaries, they are much higher: at the Financial Conduct Authority, the salary is £400,000, at the Competition and Markets Authority, it is £200,000, and at Ofcom, it is £350,000. This is the current salary now but it was not wildly different under the last Government. I did not see them making these amendments to their Bill.

[Mr French]

Again, there is this deliberate conflation regarding what I am asking. The Government are arguing that this regulator is light-touch and different from those other regulators, and that the salary has been benchmarked against those at other regulators of a similar size and nature. This is the question I am asking the Minister: what is that other regulator, and how big is it? That determines what is an appropriate level of salary. This is about not only the Government’s arguments and our understanding, but the cronyism argument. I will not go into this but the reality is that a Labour donor is in the process of being appointed to a part-time job on a six-figure salary. Members of the public have a right to know what analysis the Government have done to determine that level of salary on a part-time basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not know if the hon. Member is wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying or not. I have made it very clear that there will be a benchmarking exercise. I have given a number of examples of other regulators whose salaries are much higher and were so under the previous Government.

Senior pay controls allow the Government to ensure that senior pay is set at an appropriate level to enable the public sector to recruit, retain and motivate the best people, while also ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. That means that if the regulator sought to set the CEO’s salary above £150,000, it would need approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I think they were more confusing than they were an answer to the questions. We have tried to be clear, and I do not mean this disrespectfully. I am not wilfully misunderstanding; I am asking a really clear question about the comparison the Government are making. What does the benchmark look like? That is not a theoretical question; we already know that someone has been appointed, and they used a benchmarking exercise to make that appointment. That is the point I am trying to make: a benchmarking exercise must have already been carried out, if the Government have done their due diligence in making that appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 10

Ayes: 3

---

Conservative: 3

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 11

[Stephanie Peacock]

I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 89, line 29, leave out “sections 61 and 82” and insert “section 82”.

This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC3.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 62 and 63.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Government amendments 61 to 63 are technical amendments to schedule 2 that support our proposed changes to the distribution models put forward in other Government amendments. We will get into more detail on our changes to the distribution mechanisms later in the Committee’s proceedings, as they should be discussed in the context of the part of the Bill to which they relate. However, these are amendments to schedule 2, which we are currently discussing.

The primary goal of our changes is to move from a binary, winner-takes-all model to a staged regulator determination, where the regulator will be empowered to design its own solution, drawing from proposals submitted and extensive evidence. I will not elaborate further now; I have met the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I believe, to speak about this. We will be debating it later; it is just the way that the Committee’s proceedings have fallen that means that these technical amendments come now.

I would like to reassure Members that these changes have been proposed after extensive engagement with the stakeholders most heavily invested in the process and following significant scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. We believe that the changes will strengthen the mechanism, making it more likely to deliver a distribution solution that works for football.

The primary function of Government amendments 61 to 63 is to make the board of the regulator, rather than the expert panel, responsible for the design of distribution orders. Both the decision to trigger the process and the design of the final distribution orders are important regulatory decisions that will have a significant impact on the financial landscape of football. The regulator may face criticism or challenge over decisions of such magnitude, and needs to be accountable for them at the highest level. These amendments enable this.

First, amendment 61 removes an exemption to the functions exercisable by the board of the regulator, so that decisions regarding distribution orders can now be undertaken by the board. The amendment is intended to improve the coherence of legislation and to reflect the increased responsibility of the regulator in the design of a potential distribution order.

Government amendment 62 ensures that the board directly takes these important decisions itself, by specifying that it can only delegate those decisions to a committee of the board and not to another entity. That reflects the previous design of the backstop, which we will speak to later. As stated, the decisions at this stage are crucial to secure the financial future of football and to ensure that the regulator can deliver its objectives, particularly regarding sustainability. It is right that these decisions are taken directly by the board.

Government amendment 63 removes the requirement for the CEO of the regulator to establish a committee of the expert panel to undertake the final proposal stage of the distributions mechanisms. Again, that reflects the change from the previous mechanism. It is slightly odd to discuss this outside the backstop, but we will be able to debate that in more detail later on. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that Members will support these amendments, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Mr French]

As the Minister set out, Government amendments 61 and 63 are consequential on the insertion of new clause 3, so I will limit my comments on this part, because I agree with her that it would be better placed at that point. However, I want to ask her about a couple of points. My understanding is that new clause 3 replaces what was clause 61, which set out the final proposal stage under the resolution mechanism. Again, I will save my substantive comments on that for later.

Government amendment 62 provides that the board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or of making a distribution order under new clause 4 to another committee of the board. I would like to ask the Minister the rationale for making this change at this stage in the process, given that the Bill has gone through the other place. We had a discussion on Second Reading and, as she just acknowledged, the leagues were not happy with the mechanism as it was designed previously. It is a fair question to ask why the Government are seeking to change this part of the Bill now. Why does the Minister think that the decision on whether to trigger the resolution process or to make a distribution order should be delegated to a committee rather than taken by the board itself?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. On the broad question of why we are making the change, to be quite blunt, it would be easier not to. We have a big majority in this place, but we spoke earlier about parliamentary scrutiny and we genuinely listened to the debate in the Lords, where there was quite a lot of discussion around the mechanism of the backstop.

It is important to make it clear right now that the backstop is a backstop. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a very succinct speech—it is worth reading—about how the backstop should be a backstop. Understandably, a lot of the debate has focused on the backstop—that is not a criticism—but it is genuinely meant to be a backstop. To be quite blunt, it would be easier not to make the change, but we think that it is the right thing to do. I could understand the previous Government’s pendulum arbitration and why it could be successful, but it was more risky, and that prompts more nerves from stakeholders. I am straying into debating the backstop, which I do not want to do because we will debate it later on.

On the question about specifying that the board can delegate these decisions to a committee, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not changing the way that the backstop can be triggered— again, we are straying into the backstop. There is a set of criteria for when the backstop can be triggered by a league, and the state of the game report must have been written and the regulator must agree with that. That stays the same.

I am straying into a future debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying—he can correct me if I am wrong—that under the previous mechanism it was pendulum arbitration, where party A would put forward a proposal, as would party B, and an expert panel would decide on one or the other, in a completely binary way. This changes it so that there is informal mediation and then a proposal stage. Because the regulator is more involved in saying, “We like that but go and speak a bit more about this,” or, “Seek some more evidence on that,” it makes sense that they do not then delegate that decision. That is the point that I am making, though it is quite difficult to debate this outside the backstop, as I acknowledged in my remarks. I am happy to take his comments away, and when we come to part 4, I believe, and we debate the backstop and the changes more thoroughly, I am really happy to go into more detail.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

Amendment made: 62, in schedule 2, page 91, line 41, at end insert—

“(da) the function of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under section 59;

(db) the function of making a distribution order under section (Distribution orders);”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment provides that the Board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or making a distribution order under NC4 to another committee of the Board.

Amendment proposed: 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, at end insert—

“4A No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”—(Mr French.)

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 94, line 34, at end insert—

“31A (1) The Expert Panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under this Act.

(2) Any decision published by the Expert Panel must include—

(a) the number of members of the Expert Panel who supported the decision;

(b) the number of members of the Expert Panel who did not support the decision;

(c) the reasons for the decision;

(d) the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to.

(3) The Expert Panel must publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph (30).”

This amendment requires the Expert Panel to exercise its functions transparently.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under the Bill, and that any decision published by the expert panel must include the number of members of the expert panel who supported the decision, the number of members of the expert panel who did not the support the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to. The expert panel must also publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph 30 of schedule 2.

The amendment is all about transparency of the decisions made by the expert panel. As it stands, paragraph 30 requires that the expert panel

“must act independently of the Board”

when exercising its functions, without preventing the two-way exchange of information between the board and the expert panel. It is clear, however, that that needs to go further, which is why we tabled amendment 121, which requires the expert panel to exercise its functions transparently. I hope that the Committee agrees that no regulator should hide behind closed doors, and the Government’s football regulator should be no different.

That being said, the Bill lacks detail on the expert panels, and I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the following. How many people does she expect to be on the panels? How many of the panels does she expect to be needed in the first year of operation, and then in subsequent years? What is the cost expected per panel, and is there a specific cap on the cost that can be incurred by an expert panel to the regulator? Finally, how will each member of the panel meet the qualifications of the experience, skill and knowledge we have discussed already, while not incurring a conflict of interest?

To be clear, amendment 121 seeks to ensure that the regulator, a world-first in sports governance, and not in a good way for many of us, will maintain transparency with the fans it is intended to protect and support. We in this House have a great many tools at our disposal to hold the Government to account. It is only right that fans who do not have such tools can see what those deciding the future of their clubs and English football are doing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and my amendment seeks to let the sun shine on the Government’s regulator.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will address some points on amendment 121 and then respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The Government recognise it is vital that the regulator is transparent and able to be held accountable by Parliament and others. That is why, for the expert panel, the legislation already sets out a number of requirements to publish decisions and give reasons for them.

Transparency in decision making is important, but it is also important that individual panel members can act without fear or favour and that ultimately the regulator as a whole stands behind the decisions it makes. It will also be necessary in some instances for details to remain private for commercial, personal or other sensitive reasons. We absolutely agree that transparency around the regulator’s processes and decisions is important, particularly in football, where fans often complain of being out of the loop. That is exactly why the Bill already contains extensive publication and consultation requirements and the regulatory principle encouraging the regulator to be transparent. However, the amendment goes further and risks undermining the operation of the expert panel. Some details may be commercially sensitive, as I have outlined. Equally, individual panel members should not necessarily be singled out for their contributions to decisions; the panel as a whole makes decisions and is held accountable as a whole.

I am at risk of comparing apples with oranges, but we spoke earlier about the Select Committee. In this place, we will have minorities on Select Committees, and I do not believe that those Members who do not agree have their names published. I acknowledge that I am not comparing like with like, but I make a gentle point about how members should be able to make decisions without fear or favour.

The hon. Member asked some specific questions about the expert panel. For the panel to take a decision, it must form a committee of at least three members. If that decision is appealed, three new members will be needed to form a committee to take a new decision, so the minimum number of members required for the expert panel is six. There is no cap on the maximum number of members as the regulator should have flexibility to react in the event of a high workload. Obviously, different panels may be required for different issues. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am sorry; I have just finished.

[Mr French]

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne just missed the Minister, but if he is minded to intervene on me, I am happy to accept an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Unfortunately, based on the earlier deliberations, I do have something to say. I will try to be succinct and not rehash the debates we have had already, although I am happy to carry on taking interventions, as I have done all day.

I will set out why the Conservative party will be opposing schedule 2. The Government have missed the opportunity to tighten up the transparency of the regulator. Instead, they have allowed it to operate under a shadow, and they have not ensured that it will be transparent to fans, who are the ultimate stakeholders in this process. There is a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes. The regulator is granted broad discretionary powers with limited obligations to publish detailed reasoning for its decisions, as we discussed in the debate on amendment 121. Clubs and stakeholders may be left unclear about how rules are interpreted and applied, undermining confidence in regulatory fairness.

A number of times today, I have made the point that there is to be limited parliamentary scrutiny. Because of the amendments that have not been accepted, there are limits in the Bill on how Members of Parliament can have their say on what the regulator will look like. The regulator’s rules and standards are not subject to the affirmative procedure or meaningful parliamentary oversight.

I know that the Minister did not wish to make any comments, but I am interested in her view and the Government’s view on where reports on the regulator will end up. Will it be at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or, given the costs involved, at the Public Accounts Committee? It is important that Members understand whether they will be at least able to see the reports, even if the Government are not willing to make votes available. There is no requirement to consult publicly before issuing or revising key regulatory frameworks, which again limits external input. We have already brought up the issue of some people not being consulted and others being consulted.

On the opaque appointment and governance structures, we have highlighted the Opposition’s concerns about how the selection process has taken place and how it will take place in the future. We need strong safeguards to ensure that political interference does not impact the perceived and the realised work of the independent regulator. It is a fundamental risk to the future of football and the future of sport.

We believe that the duty to disclose key information is insufficient and that the regulator should be disclosing information on a regular basis, so that Members of Parliament and fans can have clear sight of what it is doing. That is a completely fair thing to ask for. It is not a political request; it is about transparency.

On costs, which we have discussed at length, the Opposition are concerned that we do not have transparency about the cost of the regulation. We are unclear on what the Government’s end goal is for the regulator. We have heard different arguments about what its size may be in the future and comparisons with regulators that I think would scare most of us. Hearing the cost of 900 members of staff should scare all football fans, if that is the direction of travel the Government are going down with the regulator, which is supposed to be light touch.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, just to give her a bit more time. How will Parliament scrutinise the regulator’s spending, as set out on page 96 of the Bill? Can she tell us whether scrutiny will come from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? There is also mention of financial assistance being provided, based on the Secretary of State’s judgment. Can the Minister tell us what the Bill means by “appropriate” and whether taxpayers will be bailing out failing clubs or even the regulator?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. To take the final one first, taxpayers will not be bailing out failing clubs. This is not going to save every single club; to make it very clear, it was never intended to do that.

The provisions in the schedule ensure that the regulator has the necessary structures in place to function effectively and efficiently, with appropriate accountability as a public body, which is an issue that we have debated extensively. It ensures that an agreed and transparent process is adhered to when establishing a governance framework, including its board, committees and expert panel. We have made provision for the regulator to appoint a board observer from the Football Association, and as the national governing body for English football, they will get an insight into the operation of the regulator without having voting powers. Ultimately, the regulator will be accountable to Parliament. As we have spoken about throughout this debate, it will be operationally independent and free from undue political or industry influence. The provision in this schedule is central to creating that framework, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Mr French]

As I referenced in the question, I was deliberately trying to be specific because we have not really got into what part 4 of the schedule says. The Minister has just made a point about scrutinising the spending of the regulator. How will Parliament be able to scrutinise the regulator going forward? I am happy to have it in writing, if the Minister does not have the answer on her today. Will it be the role of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Public Accounts Committee or both? Will reports be laid on the Floor of the House, for example, for hon. Members to look at, or in the House of Commons library? That is the question that I am trying to ask the Minister today, and I would appreciate it if the hon. Lady gave us a bit of certainty on that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am absolutely happy to do that. It is obviously up to the Select Committees, and they can scrutinise if they want to—it will be up to individual Select Committees to decide. The IFR has to publish an annual report, and there is a review clause in there, too. We are happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail if that would be helpful.

Question put, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Apologies to the Minister, as I should have called her a moment ago.

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is quite okay, Sir Jeremy. I have done a lot of talking today. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment and for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I will explain why we are not able to accept it, but it is important to say first that the safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount.

I am very aware of this issue—I participated in a debate on it in the Chamber in September 2023, and I care greatly about the subject—and the hon. Gentleman, and indeed other Members across the House, spoke very movingly, giving a number of examples of the terrible experiences that footballers and their families have had.

I pay tribute on the record to the work of Football Families for Justice in supporting ex-players and their families. I commend it for its excellent work. Again, I echo the shadow Minister’s comments, as he made an important point about directing people to the fund and making it clear that the money is available.

The Government absolutely agree that this area requires further work, and we have committed to looking at these issues. I do not believe these measures are appropriate for this Bill, but I am fully aware of the importance of prioritising player welfare and ensuring that former players and their families have the support they need.

National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of sports and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, including head injuries. The Government expect national governing bodies to take the health and safety of players as a top priority.

The Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. We heard, at first hand, about players’ experiences and the views of the group on how safety and welfare could be improved at all levels of the sport.

We are considering what is required, including how to support football to come together to address the problems raised. We are committed to supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address those issues, and our officials are in the process of arranging meetings to further explore the issue.

That has hopefully outlined how the Government and I care very much about these issues. I will briefly say why we do not feel we can accept these measures. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for tabling them, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for introducing them—he spoke very powerfully.

The regulator will be a specialist regulator with a precise focus on financial regulation, corporate governance, fan engagement and heritage, as we have heard throughout today’s debates. It will be aimed at addressing the main issues that came out of Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review.

We have heard at length, in this House and the other place, about the importance of a tight regulatory scope focused on the market failures that the industry cannot address itself. Even if we wanted to accept this change, we feel it would open the door to other amendments, and indeed to scope creep, which we do not want. But that is certainly not in any way a reflection of how seriously we take this issue—we take it very seriously. We look forward to meeting and working with campaigners, and indeed with everyone in football, to come to a solution on this issue.

[Max Wilkinson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 6 sets out the regulator’s objectives, which are its primary aims and also the limits of its statutory remit. As clause 7 sets out, the regulator may act only if the action taken, so far as reasonably practicable, advances one or more of those objectives. I will speak briefly to the objectives, and then we can debate them further.

The first objective is club financial soundness—the ability of individual clubs to continue meeting their debts and liabilities even in the face of challenging circumstances, new risks and financial shocks. The second is systemic financial resilience, which relates to the wider financial resilience of English football. That involves issues that, individually, pose a small problem, but that, when aggregated or multiplied, pose a significant threat to groups, clubs and the pyramid as a whole.

The third objective is safeguarding club heritage and the heritage of English football. Clearly, financial collapse is a risk, but so is the potential for clubs to become unrecognisable to their fans and communities. As we know, the Bill grew out of the fan-led review, which highlighted myriad problems facing football in this country. There are a number of areas where action is needed, but not all the problems are for a statutory regulator to fix. We have been clear about the areas where the regulator would need to act; some relate to issues of sustainability, where we believe that the market has failed, or remains ill equipped, to act.

We believe that the three objectives are the right focus. When I talk about the Bill, I always say—and I said it when I opened today—that at a very basic level clubs have to do three things: be a fit and proper owner, have a business plan and consult their fans. Many are doing that, and doing it well, and in that case there will be no need for duplication. At a very basic level, that is what the Bill and the regulator aim to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I will make my comments brief, because the hon. Member has made a number of excellent points that need to be addressed by the Minister rather than by me. The objectives under clause 6 are the promotion of the financial soundness of regulated clubs; protecting and promoting the financial resilience of English football; and the safeguarding of heritage assets, which is the main point the hon. Member for Sheffield South East just made. He spoke well about how those different issues interlink between clubs of different sizes, and the impact it has on lower league clubs that value the financial benefits of a replay.

I remember, as a Cheltenham fan, when we were in what was League One then, but now is the Championship, going to Bolton, where we lost in Bolton’s new stadium, and going to Coventry where we beat a Premier League team. It is incredible for fans to go to grounds that they would not normally get to experience. We must not lose that aspect of this. There is also the financial impact of the smaller club getting a replay, which is absolutely crucial. Welling United, one of my local clubs, has sadly just been relegated from the Conference South. I remember—I think they had got to round two in the cup a few years ago—Carlisle had come to visit. Welling United fans would never normally have had the opportunity to watch them play that club, or to visit their stadium and see all the characteristics of stadiums at that level and professional players perform there. That is an important part of the fabric and the love of the FA cup, which we all share.

I am talking about the EFL cup as well, but the FA cup in particular is incredibly powerful. I spoke about the soft power asset of English football around the world—people understand the value of the FA cup and what that means for competition across the whole pyramid. We know clubs in the lower leagues play a number of qualifying rounds to try to get to round three when the Premier League clubs normally come in. We must not lose sight of the impact of replays, and I would be genuinely interested to see what the Minister says in response to the point made by hon. Member for Sheffield South East on those.

We had a long debate earlier about what we thought were good ambitions to try to expand the scope of the objectives of the IFR in clause 6, and I appreciate that Committee members have had their say already on whether that is the wrong thing to do. I encourage the Minister, again in good faith, to consider the point about the growth of the game. We are concerned that, as drafted, the objectives of the regulator do not fulfil the potential it could have to try to look at the growth of the game. In other Departments I know the Chancellor has urged Ministers to write to their regulators to ask for growth examples, but at this point in the Bill we can mandate that to be a part of the regulator’s considerations. I urge the Minister to think about that point.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to once again, and possibly finally for today, serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—but we will see. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for all his work in the all-party group and for his long-standing interest. I completely appreciate his points. I would say that the regulator will have a number of ways to safeguard heritage, including to be able to prohibit competitions, and require consultation on matchday operations. Clause 8 encourages the regulator to engage with both players and fans on relevant matters. The regulator has a tightly defined scope and purpose focused on protecting and promoting the long-term financial sustainability of the game for the benefit of fans and local communities. It will not intervene on sporting competition matters, such as the footballing calendar.

To address the point by my hon. Friend for Sheffield South East about the FA cup and replays, I remember that just as the previous Bill was published, it was in the news and a real debate. I completely appreciate that one could argue that it is very much part of the heritage of the game, but it is also a competition matter, and therefore it is out of scope of the Bill. I will take away the comments by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate Members from across the House for putting theirs on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)