Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
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.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
We are debating a group of amendments that attempt to better the regulator’s independence. The shadow Minister has set out at great length—made even longer by the interruptions —how these amendments would do that.
I think we all agree that the regulator should be independent. It is perfectly open to Labour Members to say, “Hang on a minute, the Bill already does that,” but their interventions and their scoffing from sedentary positions seem to make the counterargument, “Well, when you were in government, you made political appointments to bodies like the BBC and Ofqual.”
Joe Robertson
The Government Whip is agreeing from a sedentary position. “And therefore it is perfectly open to us to make a political appointment to the football regulator.” That is an extraordinary argument.
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—
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.
The Chair
That result may not have come as a surprise. Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to move amendment 116 formally?
The Chair
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. For the reassurance of the Committee, we will reach amendment 119 later because we have not yet got to that point in the Bill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.
(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”
This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I have not said it in a while—even if you have given me a yellow card. At least in football that does not mean the sin bin, so I can keep playing.
Let me explain why the amendment is important. In doing so, I will stick to the principle of trying to play not the man but the ball. We tabled the amendment to make sure that taxpayers and fans get value for money from the Government—in what would be a first since their election. It would limit the pay of the chief executive of the Government’s regulator to make sure that they are not paid more than the Prime Minister. Who would argue with the principle that the chief executive of a regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country, whatever you think of him or her at the time?
It is a fair amendment that would also ensure that non-executive board members determine employees’ pay, instead of the chief executive by themselves as an employee of the regulator. We believe the Bill will create a conflict of interest if it is left solely to the chief executive to determine pay, as the chief executive would be able to determine their own pay increases as part of the package, unless it was done independently by non-executive members of the board.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)