Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan
That this House resolves not to approve the draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control” in the Context of the Football Governance Act 2025, as it creates uncertainty regarding the eligibility criteria; increases the likelihood of legal and ownership challenges; creates a conflicting regulatory regime for the licensed football clubs; and has the potential to damage the financial success and growth of the regulated leagues.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I have initiated this debate because the question of who is captured as a person of “significant influence or control” under the Football Governance Act inextricably links to the regulatory regime they will have to follow, and that will determine the success or failure of the Act. We need to get it right; clarity is the key word here. We need clarity to have effective regulation, and good regulation is essential for the success of EFL clubs and Premier League clubs alike. Unlike in debates during the passage of the Bill, we are all at one on this. We need to get this right, because that is the best way of ensuring the financial success of professional football.
Just one reason was given by the Minister for Sport in introducing the statutory guidance in another place on 27 October. She stated that the purpose of the statutory guidance on the meaning of “significant influence or control” under Section 1 of the Act was to
“ensure that fans can identify the real persons exercising control of their clubs, notwithstanding any opaque or complex ownership structures. This will give fans the much-needed transparency they deserve”.
She added just one further observation:
“This delivers the Government’s election promises to combat poor governance and financial mismanagement of football clubs in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/25; col. 1WS.]
Unfortunately, as drafted, it does no such thing.
As the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, helpfully contributed during the passage of the Bill, the concrete benefits to fans are a few statutory protections, mainly of heritage items, typically club names, crests— courtesy of my noble friend Lord Parkinson—home colours and home ground; and consultation, which already exists in most of the professional clubs in this country. There are no fan veto powers. What it does is create far tougher owners’ and directors’ tests than exist anywhere in the world, and it overlaps with UEFA and the Premier League and EFL’s requisite regulation.
There is no clear definition in the guidance of the meaning of “integrity” or “competence”, or indeed “source of funds”. In fact, the stated objective of the regulator is to go further than the Premier League does at the moment, requiring each and every club to list in the personnel statement those of “significant influence and control”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the final rules on guidance and regulation will come before the personnel statements that are requested from clubs.
Most Premier League clubs sit inside a multi-club organisation and most of their owners live in jurisdictions abroad, where identifying those with “significant influence or control” is exceptionally difficult to determine. To say that the ownership of professional football in this country is complex is an understatement. In the Premier League, only two clubs have a solitary shareholder. The staggering complexity of the challenge for clubs is clear when you realise that the ownership of Premier League football clubs is primarily international. As of this summer, American ownership is 40%; Chinese, 5%; Saudi Arabian, 4%; Swiss, 4%; Egyptian, 2%; international institutions and others, 2%; Greek, 5%; the UAE, 4%; Uruguayan, 2%; and Czech, 1%. UK ownership stands at 22%. Yet clarity is everything, so let me ask the Minister about just one club. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and I are both avid supporters of Leeds United, I have chosen that club.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am in football paradise, but not for the reason the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. It is because my team, Arsenal—I declare my interest—are top of the Premier League and top of the Champions League group, as all noble Lords will know. I also declare my interest as counsel to Manchester City Football Club in long ongoing disciplinary proceedings brought by the Premier League.
I will make three points on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. First, the Football Governance Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance on the meaning of the phrase “significant influence or control”. That is in Schedule 1(15)(1), read with paragraph 2.1. The Secretary of State has no choice; she has to produce guidance.
The second point is that this is, in football terms, a hospital pass. Significant influence or control is one of many legal concepts which are amorphous; they depend, essentially, on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. I can give many examples, such as reasonable care, driving without due care and attention, indecency or obscenity. None of these concepts can be defined with the precision the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks. There was a famous obscenity case in the US Supreme Court in the 1960s, during which Mr Justice Potter Stewart said that he could not define obscenity, but he certainly knew it when he saw it.
Parliament uses a phrase such as “significant influence or control” and fails to define it here and in other contexts where it is used, such as the Companies Act, precisely because Parliament wants to ensure sufficient flexibility to cover such cases and circumstances as may arise from time to time that fall within the general mischief at which the Act is aimed. That is the whole point of having a phrase such as this, and Parliament—us—not defining it in the legislation.
I very much hope that, when the Minister responds to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, she will not rise to the challenge of attempting to pronounce on the Floor of the House how “significant influence or control” applies to the people the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. If I may respectfully say so, it would not be appropriate for a Minister to attempt to prejudge how this concept applies to particular persons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am also in football paradise because my club, Birmingham City, after 30 years actually has very decent owners. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminds me that Birmingham beat Arsenal in the League Cup in 2011, as he may well recall.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has raised an important issue, essentially about definitions, but I just want to ask him: why a fatal Motion? Only a handful of fatal Motions have ever been passed by your Lordships’ House. I listened very carefully and I do not think he gave one justification for a fatal Motion. I do not know whether he is allowed to come in again, but it would be helpful to this debate to know what on earth this is about.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. My interest in this matter is in the Football Governance Act itself, and less in football. I have no football club interest whatever to declare. I just want to ask: what is the noble Lord trying to achieve here? There are all sorts of people in both Houses who seem terribly keen on stopping the football regulator getting on with what they are supposed to be getting on with. This Bill originated in the Tory party prior to the general election, and it was picked up willingly by the Labour Party while we were in opposition. I was the leader of that team at the time: I pushed for it to be in our manifesto and I am absolutely delighted that it is there. There is an excellent chair of the regulator in David Kogan, who has the respect of all sides of football and is uniquely well qualified in his knowledge of both broadcasting and football. All we need here is for the regulator to be allowed to get on with the job. It is my understanding that it is doing so at great speed, in the interests of football clubs.
The noble Lord refers to specifics. Surely, he wants those football clubs to survive and thrive. That is what this regulator is about and what this party wants to see: is the game of football surviving and thriving up and down all quarters and parts of the country? That is what the football regulator was set up to ensure and I really hope that the noble Lord is not trying to stand in the way of progress.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Debbonaire said that the Bill originated as a Tory proposal when she was a shadow Minister. I do not think she had joined your Lordships’ House a year ago when we were going through this Bill and had the marvellous sight of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who had moved the Bill for the Tory party prior to the election, turning handstands to say why it was not suitable, why we really did not need it and why all sorts of changes had to be introduced before it could make any progress—the text for, “We don’t really want it to make any progress at all”. I understand that that was not always personal on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that there were forces behind him, shall we say. In many cases, they were influenced by connections with Premier League football clubs.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom I hugely respect, particularly in sporting matters—I am loath even to question his motives—that I wonder why he is doing this. Is it not rerunning some of our debates a year ago, when there was opposition to the Bill per se? I am not suggesting that he is acting on behalf of anyone else—he is well capable of speaking for himself—but it seems to me that, when he gave the Leeds United example, that was personal. He unpicked the layers, almost like an onion, of who controls the club, and I understand why there were questions there: but that seems to be more about Leeds United than about the Bill and this guidance.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord thinks the guidance is unclear. Paragraph 2.7 talks about
“significant influence or control … For example, absolute decision or veto rights”
relating to eight examples. It is quite clear. We can look too closely at what “significant influence or control” actually means: it is usually quite clear, and those involved know whether they have that. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about effectively turning people away from football because of the test they will have to meet. I suggest that, if people are not prepared to be open and transparent about what they are doing and perhaps why they are doing it, they will not be any loss to football, because there is more to that than just the financial terms.
I will make one last point. The noble Lord cited his own football club, which I think I am right in saying was not a Premier League club at this time last year, when the Bill was going through. But it seemed that the main thrust was about Premier League clubs, rather than EFL clubs. If we are declaring our interests, I declare that I am a proud part-owner and season ticket holder at AFC Wimbledon, further down the pyramid. The noble Lord said, “We didn’t think the guidance was about existing owners; it was about new owners hoping to come into the game”. Well, I did not get that impression when we had the discussions a year ago. Look at the clubs at level 2—Reading, Cardiff City and Sheffield Wednesday, which he mentioned—which could not get rid of owners who were really dragging those clubs down. It is not just about the Premier League; it is about clubs at a lower level that may have aspirations to get to the Premier League. There are more mundane examples than the high-fliers that hope to be the Arsenals of this world. So, again, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is seeking to achieve, other than to undermine the force of the Act.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I saw that we were going to pray against the Bill, I thought, “Oh, this is interesting”, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is good at this. He casts the fly across the water and drags it out to see what will rise and bite. Well, this trout is biting—not at the fly but at the line. The Bill is going through and we will have precedent and case law very quickly on how this is operating. We will have to let the regulator get on with it.
I agree with the noble Lord on one point: the ownership of these national bodies is incredibly complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just mentioned it. If you think this is complicated, look down the chain. The origins of many of these institutions go back to the Victorian period, and they have been through many evolutions, changes and traumatic experiences along the way, wrapped around them. There is a great mess about these institutions, which is why they get into so much trouble and why we need the regulator.
You will have to have a series of general terms, which will be defined by experience, case law and the attitude of the regulators. I hope the current regulator is a success. Let us face it, the regulator has not exactly arrived to universal fanfare, but I hope it is a success and we set a precedent for how this should be done, because we need that. It is too complicated to get the definitions and clarity the noble Lord seeks here. I know he opposed the regulation of this sport and is worried about other bits. I happen to disagree with him on this; I may agree with him on something else tomorrow, but on this I disagree with him. We should let the regulator get on with it and observe. We have other things coming in the “state of the game” report, and the Government cannot look away from this. We have to make sure that it happens independently. I hope that we just let the regulator get on with it because, let us face it, we have talked about this enough.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking when the Front Benches have started speaking—I was going to stand up, but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, jumped up far too quickly.
When it comes to football, I want to use a phrase that the late Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me. We had been working hard to get the Holy Trinity Church restored; it was a very poor congregation and fundraising was really very difficult, but we managed to do it. He came to open this amazing refurbished place, with the organ returned to its great glory. The church was full, and he said, “Your vicar, John Sentamu, can almost be compared to a Yorkshire terrier—never letting go, or only doing so in order to get a firmer grip”. That is how I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: when it comes to football, he is like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not wanting to control or anything but just because he loves football, and he knows a lot about football. He is doing this with an honest attitude. I do not think he is doing it to prevent regulations and all that is happening. But because he is like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go.
This stands on a three-legged stool. The first is what we passed here in your Lordships’ House—an Act of Parliament, the primary legislation. If you go there, you discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what he has just done. He is not doing it out of any reason other than that the Act that we passed gave him that power. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said exactly the same thing.
Secondly, there is the regulator, with powers given, again, by an Act of Parliament. The third leg is guidance—but I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things, which is why it cannot be clearly defined on every occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, guidance always has to be understood in context. You cannot simply talk about what happens to my little club, which is not in paradise. York City Football Club is climbing up slowly, but it fell out of League Two a long time ago. You cannot say to the people of York City that paragraph 1.6 should not apply to them, when it says that
“regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personnel statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, will ensure this statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to fans and the wider public”.
That will also apply to my little York City Football Club. Therefore, I do not see those phrases needing to be more precise.
This three-legged stool of the Act, the regulator and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that it actually knows who really owns it and who those people are. I think this is a good thing. I beseech the highly admired noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is the time to drop the Motion. He can continue to be keen on football, but this is not the time—otherwise, you are going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I for one am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for giving us the opportunity to consider this guidance in full and for acting, if I follow the metaphors correctly, like a trout-fishing terrier who loves football too much but did not read the Tory manifesto with enough diligence. Of course, had my noble friend not brought this Motion, I doubt we would have had quite as many people here, or quite as many speeches, or spent such a long time looking at the guidance that is before your Lordships’ House—and I am glad that we have, because much has changed even since the debates we had on the Bill before it left your Lordships’ House and went to another place.
For instance, we saw just yesterday the sanctions that the EFL has handed to Sheffield Wednesday, following multiple breaches of its regulations relating to payment obligations. The EFL has given that club a six-point deduction and banned its former owner from owning any club in the English Football League for three years. Had we known that example at the time of the Bill’s passage, we might have taken it into consideration when discussing the amendments allowing some of the regulation to be delegated to the leagues themselves—but that debate has passed.
We are also meeting this evening after the Commissioner for Public Appointments appeared before a Select Committee in another place, where the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Football Regulator was likened to a
“mafia appointment in Sicily sometime in the 1950s”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, those were the comments of the chairman of the Select Committee in another place. But rather more pertinent are the comments not by a politician but by the commissioner, Sir William Shawcross himself, who spent the morning giving evidence to a Select Committee of Parliament and who said that he had never seen an appointment with as many breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments as this one. He said that it was
“not easy to set those breaches aside”
and called that very disappointing. I am sure we all agree that it has been a very disappointing process.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but are we not somewhat straying from the subject of this Motion? We appear to be now discussing the football regulator and some very flowery language used by the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee this morning, which was wholly unfair and wholly unreasonable, when we are actually supposed to be discussing the guidance. Are we not just using a political opportunity to have a go?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
This is guidance and this is a Bill that is to be enforced by a new independent regulator. We did not know the name of the Government’s preferred candidate for the regulator when the Bill went through, regrettably. We know now who is entrusted with applying this new regime, and we know that the Commissioner for Public Appointments has criticised not just the Government but this morning Mr Kogan himself for a lack of transparency. It is straying from the guidance, but I wonder whether the Minister, when she rises, will have anything to say about the comments made by the Commissioner for Public Appointments today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, is right: the focus of this debate is the guidance before us. On this too, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised a number of pertinent questions, some of which we touched on during our scrutiny of the Bill and some of which are raised by the guidance that has now been published. Under particular consideration today is an issue that we spent considerable time on. When we were looking at the Bill, we were provided with rather scant information about what significant influence or control would mean in practice. We now have draft guidance—but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan says, that appears to raise rather more questions than it answers.
As my noble friend pointed out during our scrutiny of the Bill, there is no requirement in the legislation to consult before publishing the guidance, which has now been published. I think that is regrettable. I see from some of the comments that there has been informal consultation with some in football, but maybe the Minister can set out in a bit more detail the consultation and discussions that were had, which led to the drawing up and publication of this draft guidance.
A second and rather more serious point of contention regarding the new owners’ test, again raised by my noble friend in his speech and his Motion today, is the significant departure from the current concepts of ownership employed by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and others in football. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made some remarks about obscenity—not obscene remarks, I note carefully—drawing attention to other areas of law, both in this country and in the United States, where different tests are made. But in a football context alone, the Premier League’s handbook uses the notion of control and control only, whereas here in the guidance we see the new concept of significant influence or control. So this is introducing some new thoughts into this particular sphere of football regulation. The draft guidance states:
“The right to exercise significant influence or control over a club may result in that person being considered an owner for the purpose of the Act, regardless of whether or not they actually exercise that right”.
Surely the combination of this broader interpretation of the meaning of owner and the fact that one does not actually have to do anything to be considered as such, under the Act, means that this guidance would capture a far greater number of people than one might initially anticipate.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course the guidance goes further than addressing ownership. That is because the legislation which Parliament enacted requires attention to “significant influence or control”. That is the whole point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My question to the Minister is: will that capture more people than one might imagine? I think the lay person looking at this imagines a single owner of a club, but as in the legislation that Parliament has passed, a number of people can be considered an owner and to have “significant influence or control”, and I will come on to a few more examples of that. For instance, on page 7 of the guidance, paragraph 2.11 states:
“A person might exercise significant influence or control if their recommendations or instructions are always or almost always followed by other owners and/or officers, due to the financial relationship of the person to the club”.
What does that mean, for instance, for a club sponsor? They have a clear financial relationship with the club, and they might make recommendations to the club which are often followed by the officers of the club. Does that mean, under these regulations and the Act that we have passed, that they could be considered to have “significant influence or control”? Would a sponsor in any circumstance count as an owner under these regulations?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, because he always puts the facts as he wants to put them, but the question that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked was: would it catch everybody? Yes, if they are regulated football clubs. Paragraph 1.6 states that
“regulated football clubs will be required”,
so it will catch everybody. Everybody must do what paragraph 1.6 says.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My point was a broader one about whether, under the definitions in paragraph 2.11, a club sponsor could be considered to have “significant influence or control”. It seems to me, on a reading of the guidance, that they might, but I look forward to the Minister’s response. It certainly seems that there is quite an expansive list of people that the regulations might apply to. Paragraph 2.12 states that a former owner who sold his or her shares to a close friend could still be considered an owner if he or she makes recommendations on how to vote to the person to whom he or she sold those shares. So, under the guidance, a person with no current financial stake in the club at all could actually count as an owner. I would be grateful for confirmation of that from the Minister. I see her nodding, but I look forward to her confirmation.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out, through the history of Leeds United, the complicated arrangements by which football clubs are owned. Another example might be Bournemouth. In 2022, Turquoise Bidco Ltd obtained 100% of shares in Bournemouth Football Club. Turquoise was then renamed Black Knight Football Club UK Ltd, which is a UK-based holding company wholly owned by Black Knight Football Club US based in Nevada. That American entity is in turn owned by Cannae Holdings, Inc. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Cannae owned 44.3% of Black Knight, but Cannae is in turn owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock and the Vanguard Group. An American businessman, Bill Foley, owns 7.7% of Cannae, meaning that his beneficial ownership of Bournemouth is 3.4%, but a filing in April this year disclosed that his economic interest in Black Knight is 28%. That adds to the example of Leeds given by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of the complexity of even the most straightforward football clubs and the difficulty that will be involved in setting out all the people that might need to be regulated, investigated and brought before the regulator.
I conclude by echoing the question that my noble friend asked, as the Minister would expect, given my roots in Tyneside. The question that my noble friend posed will be of great interest to my friends and family there: would she advise the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to continue to invest in Newcastle United, through the Saudi Public Investment Fund, given what this might mean for him and for the club? That is just one of many questions of great interest to football fans, which is not made clear through this guidance. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to probe those in a rather fuller House than I think we would have had in Grand Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, my life would be truly boring without the chance to talk about football in your Lordships’ House, so I am very pleased to have the opportunity to provide clarity on the draft statutory guidance on the meaning of “significant influence or control” in the context of the Football Governance Act 2025, guidance that was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 27 October 2025. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory guidance. The committee did not draw the guidance to the special attention of the House and no objections were raised in the other place.
It is always a pleasure to debate issues relating to football regulation with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. However, I cannot help but share my surprise and regret that he felt the need to do this by tabling a fatal Motion against the guidance. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that this feels like a disproportionate approach. I am also tempted to agree with my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is attempting to rerun the debates we held over the past year. I regret this not least because I sent the draft guidance to the noble Lord myself and offered to meet to discuss the guidance in a letter sent to him, and a number of other Peers with a known interest, over a month ago, an opportunity I also offered to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Notwithstanding this, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised no concerns directly to me or my team before this evening’s debate—not when he received my letter, nor even when the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported on this guidance on 13 November. I am a little confused about the noble Lord’s quoting of the Minister for Sport, as beyond her Written Ministerial Statement, this has not been discussed or had concerns raised about it in the other place. I am grateful, however, for the opportunity to stress how vital this legislation is in delivering for fans.
The implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from unsuitable owners and financial distress, and the interests of fans nationally, is a priority for this Government. That is why, during our lengthy discussions on and scrutiny of the primary legislation, the Government committed to producing this guidance before clubs are required to identify their owners in the personnel statement. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this guidance does not add clarity. The Government are pleased to have delivered on this commitment and to provide clarity regarding the concept of “significant influence or control”. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not find it clear. I read it twice and I thought it was clear. If I understand it, as somebody who is not a regulator, I believe that it is relatively clear.
This guidance plays a key role in the regulator’s regime, with this unexpected Motion disrupting progress and preventing David Kogan and his team from getting on with their important job. As my noble friend Lady Debbonaire made clear, the regulator now has an excellent, experienced and well-respected chair in post. He has wasted no time in meeting clubs and stakeholders from across football, including the top five English leagues, consulting industry on new rules and building up an executive team of regulatory experts. I hope that noble Lords across the House agree that the regulator needs to be able to make progress on these priorities without delay. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we need to let him get on with his job.
As someone who has a terrier, I might not agree with the phrasing of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, but I agree with the sentiment of his interventions. We just need to look at the plight of Sheffield Wednesday to understand the urgency of giving the regulator the tools to get to work. With regard to concerns raised by noble Lords today, it is important to note that this guidance was drafted collaboratively. I make it absolutely clear that officials have worked with both industry and non-industry experts to ensure that it is clear, useful and user-friendly.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about consultation. I give him an assurance that this has been extensive. Officials have spoken to UEFA, to all the competition organisers, to a wide range of clubs throughout the different leagues and to DBT officials about their comparable Companies Act guidance. In developing the draft, we have drawn on the approach used in the Companies Act “persons with significant control” regime to ensure that we are aligned with current precedent. Building on the Companies Act guidance, it introduces industry-specific examples that have been tested with the football industry, makes these concepts more tangible for those who will have to interpret the guidance, especially clubs, and ensures that this guidance is suited to the regulated industry.
In relation to the point on consultation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I say that, crucially, the guidance has also been tested with the regulator itself to ensure that the concepts are clear and that the non-exhaustive examples are helpful. David Kogan and his team have confirmed that this guidance provides them with the product they need to undertake their important work.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions that were posed. I apologise if I missed this, but does she accept that, under paragraph 2.11, it might be possible for a sponsor of a club to be considered as part of the new owners and directors test, if the sponsor’s recommendations are usually followed by the club? That is the test that paragraph 2.11 shows.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will have to defer to the Box on that point, but I will be happy to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. I will pick up on some of the points she has made and try to answer the other interventions that came from the packed Benches on the Government side, which I am delighted to see for this debate. I have rarely been called a trout-fishing terrier. I love trout fishing and I also love terriers, so I take those both as compliments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that I am passionately committed to football, both amateur and professional; I always have been in 40 years involved in sport. There is no one who would regard my intervention on this subject as coming from any other position than being passionate about sport and football.
The Act is detrimental to the future of professional football; it is a view I spoke about a great deal in Committee. This evening, I did not address any of those points but focused exclusively on the guidance. I say to the Minister and to others that the debate this evening does not stop the regulator for one day. The statutory guidance is laid before both Houses until 5 December, and there is the opportunity to debate it in either House until that point. It is not a delaying tactic; it does not delay the regulator getting on with its job. To say that and to imply that is fundamentally wrong. We cannot do anything about this until 5 December, when both Houses will have had the opportunity to consider it. We have had the opportunity in advance of that to have a debate.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, who are passionate about sport and highly knowledgeable about football—they may not take this as the greatest compliment coming from me, although it is meant to be a compliment at the highest level—that I tabled this Motion because, if we have secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to review it in the normal way, but if we have draft statutory guidance the only way we can debate it is by tabling a fatal Motion. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote, but I absolutely intended to make sure that what we looked at during the passage of the Bill—the decision to bring forward statutory guidance on this so that the whole of Parliament could consider it—was given due consideration.
Having read the guidance, I made it clear to the House this evening that I was concerned it went too closely along the lines—which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was inevitable and important in the drafting—of being kept purposefully and precisely vague, to use his phrase. I was a little nervous that, in responding, the Minister might do exactly what the noble Lord encouraged her not to do and provide clarity and precision. Understandably, she could not, because it is vague, and intentionally so.
I say to the Minister that this could be far better written. I genuinely believe that it is important to take it away and write it with greater clarity, because the guidance needs to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need for the regulator to look into significant interest or control and, on the other, having to think about investors and the best interests of every club. It is my firm belief that, if you go too closely down the road of being so precisely vague and wide ranging, it could deter investors in professional football. That is why I felt it important to have this debate.
This Motion does not delay the regulator at all and gives this House the opportunity to consider something it requested in Committee on the Bill and which the Government granted. This debate has been very well attended. I am exceptionally grateful to those who have contributed. I avoided completely going down the line that the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, thought I might by focusing exclusively on and going into detail on this guidance. Having placed this on the record, I hope that the regulator and the world of football will be able to go away and consider whether there are ways to improve the statutory guidance and that, when we sit down with the football clubs, we avoid overlapping with the regulatory frameworks of UEFA, the EFL and the Premier League, which is also vital and to be avoided here.
I am grateful to the Minister for sitting through another debate on football and for the very helpful contributions from, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, feared that we will see this in case law; I fear that he is absolutely right.
It may help the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, if I repeat one point. I was absolutely opposed to this legislation all the way through and thought that it would be bad law. I believe it is bad law. I thought Boris Johnson’s knee-jerk reaction to go to legislation on the Monday after the Saturday announcement of the super league was wrong. That is not the right way for professional sport in this country. But I did not go down that road this evening. I focused on this because I want to make it as good as possible and passionately want this Act to succeed now that it is in statute, in the interests of football and investors as well as of regulation. I wish the regulator every success with this. I hope it gets it right and has the opportunity to reflect on what has been said on both sides of this House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.