Lords Chamber

Tuesday 11th March 2025

(began 8 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Mohammed of Tinsley MBE
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and Shafaq Shafaq Mohammed.

Shafaq Mohammed. Officer Shafaq Mohammed. Officer of Shafaq Mohammed. Officer of our Shafaq Mohammed. Officer of our most excellent order of the British Empire. To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron. And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron. To have and to hold for life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as heretofore used and enjoyed or as In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster. The 21st day of February. In the third year of our reign. By warrant under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do swear by Almighty God that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors,
14:44
None Portrait Oral questions: Plans to assess the ‘scope 3 emissions’ of licensed oil and gas fields, and what impact they have on their emission reduction targets Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question.
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
I believe the noble Baroness is right, it's not covered in the EIA consultation. The EIA consultation is about scope three and I think the venting and flaring would come in scope one. We are concerned about this. We are considering the matter. My understanding is that upstream oil and sector overall makes up 3% of the total net territorial greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we are committed to meeting carbons four, five and six and have just received advice in relation to carbon budgets.

All of those things come into the mix as well but I certainly take the points you raise it seriously. Considering the it seriously. Considering the Supreme Court decision in the new rules on oil and gas production which are being consulted on, can I which are being consulted on, can I ask the Minister what are the measures and assessments of extra resources is the government resources is the government considering or undertaking to ensure the continued progress is made towards a just transition in the North Sea? The noble Lord is right.

We currently issued a consultation paper last week in relation to the North Sea. Under the transition that takes place. There is decline carried out for many years in North Sea production. On the other hand the workers and the North Sea are very skilled and there is no question that as the number of workers in the oil and gas fields reduces, so there is a big demand to increase the workforce in offshore oil and gas. The consultation, our quality of a just transition, the jobs hubs we have established, are very much geared towards ensuring that we make use of very skilled people and find new employment for them.
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
None Portrait Oral questions: Consultation with rail users on the latest version of the proposed East Coast Main Line timetable Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-

Second or question.
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
travel on the west coast on Avanti The train was cancelled without any explanation. So when are we going to bring Avanti into public ownership so we can have a decent service on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the West Coast as well? Well, I am afraid I do not have the time or the facilities to give each member of this House the train information that they need on their information that they need on their daily journeys though I will do my best if you ask me. But of course best if you ask me. But of course there is a serious point to this. Which is that the House will have Which is that the House will have heard before that actually Avanti have not breached the contract that they were awarded when the original contract was extended and that is in fact why I meet the management team on a regular basis because I want them to perform the contract which the government contracted them to do.

He is right that sometimes the service is not very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the noble Minister agree that as well as the detail of the timetable, accuracy is at least as important? important? It is a real skill on today's railway to fit so many trains in with so many different station stops and there is a serious point to the and there is a serious point to the original question the noble Lord asked. There are some compromises to be made. The strange position I find be made. The strange position I find myself in after four years of saying where is the timetable and how are we going to put it in is that it had to come to the Minister for agreement to do it.

I think there are only two other countries in the world where ministers decide the trains. The other two are North Korea and Russia. Korea and Russia.
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
None Portrait Oral questions: Recent reports of an autistic woman with learning disabilities being detained in a mental health hospital for 45 years Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-

Fourth Oral Question. standing in my name on the Order standing in my name on the Order
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed being undertaken. That concludes all questions for today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. My Lords, I'm sure that all members of the House will agree we are very lucky to have such excellent deputy speakers who support the Lord Speaker and that senior deputies speak in their work. Spending many hours at the table, and in Grand Committee, and it's why before we go to the crime B business I have a few remarks to make. I want to remind the House of the responsibilities you support the deputy speakers and the clerks who are also doing an excellent job and refrain from behaviour which is below the standards expected from each other in this House.

When the noble Lord stands up we should sit down. When the House is sitting, all members should ensure long conversations on the bench of colleagues take place outside the chamber. There have been several instances of increased chatter during other members contributions. This is not only not in line with the overall good courtesy of the House, but it also makes the management of the chamber or the clerks, the noble Lord Woolsack and the whips all that more difficult. Movement around the chamber should be limited when a member is speaking.

There are increased reports of noble Lords walking in front of members of the House were now making contributions. This can be distracting, makes it harder for noble Lords to be heard and is rude. No member of this House should walk between the Woolsack and the table. At any point when this House is sitting. Especially when the Lord of the Woolsack is speaking. It is disrespectful and we should expect that of each other. Please do not do this. It is important that we do not restrict the ability of the noble Lord, the Woolsack and the clerk to see each other and also the white House.

We have also seen an increased movement around the chamber when division is called with members jumping up straightaway. I would remind colleagues that once a question has been put to the voting system needs to be activated before a vote can take place. So please wait to advise the advice that voting is open and that they have sat down before proceeding to the voting lobbies. After three minutes when the question is put again, both sides need to say loudly content or not content, for the vote to continue.

A microphone is on during the divisions, it does pick up your conversations. While on my feet, I will also, when you arrive in the voting lobby please place your cards firmly on the reader and make sure your vote is recorded. You get a ping and a visual confirmation that you have voted. The act of walking through the lobby is not casting your vote. It must be recorded on the reader. Votes can be close, so try not to be the noble Lord, who wanted to vote for their side but walked through the lobby and has not actually voted.

Finally, these leave the lobby quickly after voting, do not stand behind the Tellers talking and make it harder for other noble Lords to walk through. If we observe the simple courtesies, rules and procedures it will improve the House for everyone, members, clerks, doorkeepers and all staff, and it will look better to the public are watching. -- You are watching. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think we may allow a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think we may allow a moment for members who wish to leave the House to do so before we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Supply Supply and Supply and appropriation
15:32
15:32
None Portrait Legislation: Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill - third reading
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. The third reading of the terrorism protection of premises
15:33
None Portrait Legislation: Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill - third reading Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I have it in command from His Majesty The King to acquaint the House that His Majesty having been House that His Majesty having been informed of the purpose of the bill has consented to place his interest so far as it is affected by the bill so far as it is affected by the bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the purposes of the bill. I beg to move the bill now be read for the third time. The question is this bill now be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this bill now be read for the third time. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, "Not content". My Lords, I beg to move this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pass. This bill has its genesis on the evening of May 22, 2017 in the evening of May 22, 2017 in the Manchester Arena, where more than 1,000 were injured and 22 killed in 1,000 were injured and 22 killed in a terror attack. The sole responsibility of the terrorist involved. This bill is a tribute to those victims and victims of other terror attacks. They will never be forgotten. Noble lords will be aware forgotten. Noble lords will be aware of the campaigning work of our team.

We would not be where we are today without the team and I thank them. This bill will be known as Martyn's Law in memory of one who died in the Manchester terror attack. I also pay tribute to the in intelligence services, law enforcement and others who work day in and day out to protect this country from the ongoing threat of terrorism and to the first responders who are at the front line if and when the worst happens. I thank all noble lords who contributed to debates on the bill.

They have been astute and considered and I am grateful for their scrutiny. I hope we have had a collaborative, constructive approach to this bill. I think it is important that legislation on terrorism does have that cross-party support across this House and the House of Commons. I am proud to be one of the ministers who brought this to fruition on behalf of the government. I also thank the Minister Dan Jarvis in the House of Commons who has led the bill there.

And Baroness Anderson and Lord Murray, who have been the whips on the government benches. I thank the noble Baroness Davies of Gower, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Cameron and Baroness Suttie for their leadership on the opposition benches in this house. I want to thank the policy, legal and the bill teams in the Home Office who have worked under the previous government and this one, and whose tireless work made this bill possible, and of course the team from the office of Parliamentary Counsel for drafting the bill before us.

I extend my gratitude to Parliamentary staff, goalkeepers, clerks and others for their professionalism and continued support to the bill and to this house. My final word on this bill are that it will help to save lives. As it leaves this House now, I look forward to its final passage in the House of Commons soon and its continuance to Royal assent in due

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I commend it to the house. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for bringing this bill forward for the third reading today. I expressed my gratitude to noble lords for diligent scrutiny and contributions throughout the progress of the bill. I would also progress of the bill. I would also like to extend my thanks again to the team for their tireless campaigning, instrumental in ensuring that we make progress on the stronger protection of premises, together with as has been mentioned already the team.

Without her dedication the bill would not have progressed as it has done. I am pleased we have the opportunity for a thorough debate around the important issues in this bill and committee and report stage. During report stage, several crucial issues were raised. Foremost among them the concern the bill should not place undue burdens on small businesses and voluntary organisations. I still have some concern over it and it remains to be seen the effect it From Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord de Mauley about the intelligence faced by small enterprise, charities, events and community groups and in particular implementing the legislative -- necessary security measures without strain.

Similarly concerns were voiced regarding the potential impact upon volunteers and organisations in the cultural, sporting and heritage sectors. We heard from the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester about the potential issues with church communities and how they would be affected. These discussions did- the necessity of making sure provisions are effective and also pragmatic in their application. While I am disappointed the government felt unable to support an amendment seeking to protect small businesses and volunteers, we do acknowledge the importance of moving forward with a bill that does still represent a significant step forward in our collective security.

We also welcomed the clarification on the Henry VIII powers concerning the bill, contained in the bill. This issue of concern was rightly debated in detail. I thank the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich for bringing amendments to refine these provisions and I commend the noble Lord the Minister for seriously engaging with these concerns and ensuring the necessary clarification was made. This is exactly the constructive scrutiny in this House that strengthens legislation. I am grateful to all those who took part in this process.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst for their support. I have to mention our team on this site as well. As we move forward towards implementation, it is vital those affected by the provisions, businesses, charities, local authorities and operators receive clear guidance and support. The effectiveness of this legislation will not be determined by the words on the page alone but by how well it is put in practice. Adequate resources, training and advice must be provided to make sure compliance is achievable and security measures are implemented effectively, without unnecessary complexity and confusion.

To that end, a watchful eye will be kept on the performance of the Security Industry Authority. We must continue to evaluate the impact of these measures once they are in force. Security threats evolve and our responses must remain adaptable. I hope the government will remain open to reviews and if necessary refining legislation in future to making sure it meets the needs of those it seeks to protect. This bill represents a significant and necessary step in our ongoing effort to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism.

No legislation can eliminate it entirely. But we have a duty to take every reasonable measures to mitigate threats and ensure venues and public spaces are as prepared as possible. This bill is a tribute to those who have tragically lost their lives to terrorism. It is a testament to our resolve that we will do all we can to prevent future tragedies.
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 1, amendment one, Lord Parkinson of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitley Bay. Let me begin this first day on report by thanking the noble report by thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for her Baroness the Minister for her engagement on this bill. It is nearly 2 months since the committee finished and barely a day in the intervening weeks where she has passed without talking about this passed without talking about this bill with the build team all colleagues across this house. I am colleagues across this house. I am grateful on behalf of myself and Lord Markham for the many meetings she has had with us on the she has had with us on the opposition front bench to talk about it and I know she spent a lot of time talking to noble Lords across the house.

I welcome the government amendments she tabled. Some of which develop thoughts raised on all sides of this House in committee, demonstrating she and her team have listened to some of the concerns we raised in committee and she has heard them from all sides of the house. I congratulate Lord Patten and Lady Taylor, who have seen a lot of the issues that they raised, more than 100 amendments in committee I think have been taken forward, and I hope we might yet persuade the Minister of one or two others but we didn't thank her for the amendments she brought forward.

My amendment one is an amalgamation of several amendments we discussed in committee, tabled by Lord Hayward and Lord Moynihan and seeks to alter the stated purpose of the bill from the current wording, to protect and promote the sustainability of English football, and would say instead to protect the financial sustainability and success of English football. It reflects a compromise suggested by the crossbenches, arguing on the first day in committee "the word sustainability on its own is too undefined " and suggested combining amendments.

The noble Lord sadly cannot be with us today but I'm pleased to say I have his support in bringing his suggested compromise back today. It focuses the intent of the bill and is in line with the language the government proposed in amendment 14. I hope it may find amendment 14. I hope it may find I have tabled amendment number two, this is not the time to repeat the arguments we heard in committee on the precise nature of fans but I think the consensus in committee was that there should be as good a definition as possible, fans of English football, from every corner of this country and indeed from across the globe.

As I said in committee, we must ensure this bill does not create a stasis info. The worst scenario would be for the beautiful game to be frozen in time. It's improvement and growth need to be promoted. Fans of the future after all the future of football. It is for this reason have tabled amendment 15 which seeks to ensure that the regulator does not act in any manner which undermines or harms the growth of English football. That is an alteration from the original iteration of this greater duty that we considered in committee and in similar to the amendment 14 tabled by the noble Baroness the Minister, and we welcome the fact that she has brought that forward.

I wanted to question the wording in the government's amendment 14. That specifies financial growth whereas our amendment 14 talks about growth more generally stopped I know that more generally stopped I know that the noble Lady also wants to see the growth in football reflected through for instance much attendance, the sale of TV rights, numbers of supporters and so on. So if when she comes to respond to this group she can say why it is amendment 14 shows the tighter wording of financial growth, then I'd be interested to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hear that. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. Amendment proposed, clause 1,
15:48
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 4, believed subsection

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 1, line 4, believed subsection 4 and insert the words in the marshalled list. I stand to speak briefly to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to speak briefly to these group of amendments. As I said during committee stage, the government has been vocal in their demands for existing regulators to institute cultural change within their organisations in order to help deliver economic growth rather than sensibly focusing on risk. In January the chance to said every regulator no matter what sector has a part to play by tearing down regulatory barriers that hold back growth. I want to see this mission with image the fabric of our regulators through a cultural shift from excessively focusing on risk to helping drive growth.

That's a call I strongly support, committed have a significant influence over the economy and it is only right they take into account the need for growth in their actions and decisions. It was a significant oversight not to include such a commitment to ensuring the continued growth of football, one of our most successful sectors, from the outset in the remit of the new regulator will stop I would therefore like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister to listening to the points raised in this issue and coming forward with the government amendment that obliges the regulator to have regard to the desirable tea of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of a good football.

It's a welcome change and input and issued to the IFR's duties and I thank the Minister.
15:49
Baroness Brady Portrait Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
-
Milos, a the House to my interest as declared in the register. I would like to begin by welcoming positive engagement many of us have had with ministers and the Department since committee stage, it is clear that the government has been listening and is responding thoughtfully to a number of concerns raised by noble Lords from all sides. So I would like to thank the noble Baroness Minister and the build team sincerely for their collaborative approach. Most importantly, I believe the ongoing dialect we have established will result in a more effective bill which of course is our job here in this place.

I rise to strongly welcome amendment 14, the government has proposed inclusion of a new duty for the IFR to avoid the adverse impacts on growth. This reflects the balance and proportionate approach many noble Lords have advocated for throughout this process and I know the government genuinely intends. This is a very positive development, new duty should help to ensure the regulator does take such a balanced approach in practice. It's inclusion is an Englishman that in order to ensure English remains financially sustainable, we must not inadvertently constrain the games ability to continue to grow and succeed.

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

In short, this growth duty does offer some meaningful reassurances to football clubs that the regulator would approach its task constructively, supporting the long-term success and dynamism of the whole game stop and helping us to navigate the challenges of the future not just fix the issues of past. I'm very grateful to the Minister, there is more to do and we will talk about a number of further proposals throughout report stage but I'm happy to offer my support for this amendment and I believe that growth duty is a meaningful and substantial step forward in this legislation.
15:52
15:53
15:55
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
I would also like to write briefly to speak about the growth amendment in my name, the noble Lords I welcome the government's recognition of the importance of growth and generally, point made by the noble Lords, the impact from the Minister and the collaborative man. There is one point I wanted to make, it's clear for the record, the success of the Premier League, there are two main reasons, one, as Lord Birt pointed out, they have got best players in the world, 44% of best players and two every game is competitive.

Why is that potent in this context? There are two elements the regulator can be involved in, which could impact that. One is the backstop, and if there's too much redistribution between the Premier League and the other leagues, then the Premier League will no longer be able to track the best players in the world and that will affect the attractiveness of the port. And two in terms of the payments that if those are impacted to a degree that clubs no longer feel confident to invest in new players if they have just been promoted if they are a threat of relegation, those games become less competitive, again the Premier League becomes less attractive.

That's why I think it's very important, and to put down on record that the regulator said of just having one dimension when they consider this in terms of the financial, in terms of the sustainability of clubs which would always point them towards redistributing money, they now have the twin objectives of growth and that will mean they need to counter that against making sure Premier League and all of them were very successful because it can attract the best players because it has the financial resources to do it and all clubs want to invest because they know they have got the safety net, should they be relegated.

Again I was very pleased to see that extra dimension is now added in there and that will be an important point that the regulator will always have by their side as they consider. Thank
15:58
15:59
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

Milos, I like to thank noble Lord Lord Parkinson for tabling his amendment and for his very kind words of engagement on this bill, and I would extend that all noble Lords for the engagement and the time and input I had benefited from over the last few weeks and months. Starting with amendment two I would like to ensure the noble Lord that although the bill does not specify the requirement to consider both prospective and current plans The regulator has inherently future minded with requirements to focus on sustainability and the long-term protection of the club and its heritage assets.

Future fans are therefore already required to be in the brigade's mind while making decisions, and this is also reflected in the exclamatory notes to the bill. Turning to amendments one, 40 and 15, throughout the committee stage we heard about the incredible growth and success of Angus football. The fan-led review highlighted that the Premier League is one of this countries greatest exports. It has fans across the world and has been a true success story over 30 years. However despite its success we know that irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate relations have cast a shadow over to many of our clubs and to often fans have had to fight to protect their clubs identity, heritage and even their clubs existence.

So while the government believes the statutory regulations needed all these reasons, identified by Dame Tracey Crouch's fan-led review, we all recognise the need to protect the sector including ensuring it can grow sustainable ee. I'm glad both the government and the noble Lord appear to be trying to achieve similar outcomes with the amendments was existing duties in clause 7.2 provide the important control and the regulators pursuit of sustainability to protect against overregulation. These require that related to have regard to avoiding adverse impacts on domestic supporting competition with the competitive of our clubs and investment into English.

Having heard concerns from this House we have considered how to further expressly strengthen these duties but without fully constraining the regulator. That is why we have tabled an amendment to add financial growth into clause 7.2, C, alongside financial investment. The letter would be obliged to have regard to the desirability of avoiding adverse impacts on the financial growth of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will protect the growth of the Graham without inhibiting -- the game without inhibiting the game without inhibiting the The government amendment has a more precise focus on financial growth precise focus on financial growth and this will prevent any ambiguous reading of the duty as related to a different form of growth, such as the absolute growth of the number of clubs or competitions in English football. We understand aspects like growth, fans and TV viewership is growth, fans and TV viewership is important.

We believe this is already captured in the amendment as key components and drivers of financial growth. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the growth and success of English football is well protected. Whether his amendment goes even further, and we believe too far, by making success part of the act and so the regulator primary purpose, and as I set out the regulator will avoid harming the structure of English football. But if it is tasked with more actively pursuing this, this would be a broadening of the remit.

It would have more to think about and have to concern itself more with further aspects of football, such as the commercial side and sporting performance. The amendment seeks to narrow the purposes of the act to financial sustainability rather than sustainability as currently drafted. On our view that does not achieve anything required. We have already defined sustainability and it is more than sound finance but continuing to serve the interests of fans, the well-being of the community, and financial sustainability is a critical part of this, but if the balance sheet remains healthy but it moves miles away and changes its name and colours, in our view that does not serve the interests of the fans either.

I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. But I hope we can count on support for the government amendment which we believe achieves our shared goal on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

growth. I'm grateful to the noble lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble lady for that reply and the recognition that the government would also like to see the growth of English to see the growth of English football in non-financial ways, such as she set out. I take the points she made about the drafting and the she made about the drafting and the need for precision in this bill. I thank her for her engagement on this thank her for her engagement on this point. I congratulate my noble friends, Lady Evans and Lady Brady, who particularly raised the issue of growth in committee.

I am glad the government put this forward. It is consistent with government action regarding other regulators. I am glad that we have the government amendment here. I am glad also for the recognition the regulator and all we care about in English football will focus on prospective fans, as well as simply a preservation order being slapped on and this is something to encourage sustainability and growth. As my noble friend says, it is welcome to see the change from some of the responses we had in committee and I thank the sports minister for the
16:06
16:07
16:07
None Portrait Amendment:3 Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-

that the amendment be withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. Amendment two. Lord Parkinson, not moved? Clause 1,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment three. We are trying to point out the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are trying to point out the fact that we regarded the football clubs as being social assets. Things clubs as being social assets. Things which should reach into their community. Inspired by a series of meetings with various parts of the football community. They did not seem to be taking this on board shall we say wholeheartedly. I proposed a series of amendments which gave specific duties to what those clubs were covered by and what they should do.

I give great thanks to the Minister who clearly listened to at least the concept of this if not my particular idea and have come up with their own amendment. The amendment 32. I am really here to say that if the Minister wanted to add to her amendment by accepting mine I would be grateful. But her own amendment bringing into corporate governance and the schedules of the bill is one that I think may give a chance to grow and develop this idea of a community interaction.

From clubs and communities in which they serve. I think it is very important. There has been too much talk about financial and great growth and nothing stays still forever, my lord. Italian football has been very popular and may be again. Who knows? But the fact of the matter is these are things we are now regarding a social assets. Clearly that is something in the bill to be embraced. Saying they have an outstanding duty to the community is something we should embrace.

I would something we should embrace. I would not feel that way if any other promotional body should take this and I welcome this with open arms. I look forward to the comments on my humble efforts but I think this was The Minister's championing of an idea and I thanked her and the government for bringing this amendment forward and I will support it when it is moved wholeheartedly. it when it is moved wholeheartedly.
16:09
Baroness Brady Portrait Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
-
My lords... Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Page two, line four, insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. Apologies. I rise to support amendment which will make the economic and social impact of a economic and social impact of a football club part of corporate governance requirements. It has become a cliche to point out become a cliche to point out football clubs are deeply woven into the fabric of their communities. But it is such an important part of why it is such an important part of why football is so important in the lives of millions in our country. I would just like to very briefly would just like to very briefly share what it looks like in practice through the example of my own club, West Ham United.

I am proud our foundation reaches more than 50,000 people annually across east London, operating in some of the most deprived boroughs in the country. When we moved to the London stadium, we committed that this would not just be about a bigger stadium, but deeper community groups. The foundation delivers more than 30 different programs, focusing on health, education, employment and social inclusion. During the pandemic, players and staff personally delivered meals to vulnerable residents. The club and fans made significant contributions to local food banks.

None of this was seen as charity. It was about responsibility. It is what a football club is all about. Our award-winning player project has seen 13 players become ambassadors for specific community initiatives, not only their names but their time and genuine engagement. These connections matter profoundly to local residents. What makes these initiatives particularly powerful is they leveraged what football does uniquely well. They bring people together across the divide of age, background and circumstance. When a young person struggling with education attends programs at West Ham United, they engage in ways traditional institutions often cannot reach.

I have seen from my own personal impact for myself this effect countless times. The impact is equally significant economic. We support thousands of jobs directly and through supply chain predominantly sourced within east London. My club has contributed 323 million in Gross Value Added to the regional economy through supply chain supporting employment and the visitor economy. It brings vital trade to local business. Targeted employment programs have helped hundreds of local residents to find sustainable work. These amendments would help to make sure such contributions are not peripheral or dependent upon the goodwill particular owners but fundamental to how clubs operate and are governed.

I commend the Minister and the noble Lords Adlington, Lord Basson and Baroness Taylor for supporting these amendments. I know this is a particular passion for Lord Chadlington and in relation to his amendment 50, also part of this group, I believe he has some productive conversations with the Premier league about how to build on our experience and support football charities. I believe the legal now examine how to work with export organisations to make good governance advice more accessible to small community organisations.

I small community organisations. I think this would be a good use of the reaching profile within communities and I am pleased this is happening. Football clubs get extraordinary loyalty and emotional investment from their communities. This relationship is reciprocal and should be embedded in government structures. I think it is a structures. I think it is a reasonable thing to ask as we develop this new regulatory framework so I fully support these amendments.
16:13
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Portrait Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
-
It has been some seven days we have discussed the detail of this bill and I think it is probably the first time when I can rise and say I actually agree with Baroness Brady. It is true that football does have the power to do a lot of good and many clubs, not just West Ham, do actually do a lot of good in their communities. The Minister has mentioned amendment 32 and myself and Lord Basson added our names to that amendment, because this is one of the issues we have discussed with the Minister and indeed mentioned in this house.

I will resist the temptation to talk about the good work of Bolton Wanderers in the community. Suffice to say that it is one of the few clubs that has actually got a chair that not only talks about helping the community but actually involves herself in the sleepout's overnight for charity and other such activity. I do think it is a mark of the level of commitment of many of the people running football clubs that they have to their communities. I think it is something we should appreciate.

There is sometimes an accusation of sport washing when clubs make big gestures. But a lot of direct involvement with communities can make a difference. I think in this context it is particularly important in terms of mental health because many football groups are reaching people who would not be reached in any other way. Therefore I am grateful to the Minister for the time in which she has taken to talk to all of us about these issues and for the amendment she has tabled and which I am happy to support.
16:15
16:15
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
beg to differ. I do have some reservations about this group. I actually find myself at odds with the noble Lord Lord Addington which neither of us will be surprised by. But I also find myself at odds with the noble Baroness Baroness Brady, which may be more surprising. Having been through committee. Let me race of right reservations. We have been consistently told this legislation is necessary to protect football clubs precisely because they are such intrinsic parts of our community.

And interwoven into our society. And for me, it's that authentic, organic relationships with local areas and generations of fans that I'm worried this bill could undermine. And so I'm not convinced that the clubs need regulator to add something which could become a performative and unnecessary Corporate Governance Code duty. And that's one of my reservations. I was also somewhat surprised to see the government's amendment 32, and making a clubs contribute to the economic as well being of its local community parts of its Corporate Governance Code.

Because I felt somehow that was quite insulting, as though clubs need officialdom to tell them to be socially responsible. Actually that is indeed the noble Baroness Baroness Brady indicated, very much the ecosystem of connectedness, that's an clubs DNA, and I just do think there is a danger of overregulation here. But also in a later group on regulatory principles, the government amendment 18 which by the way I really do welcome because it states that regulatory principle that the Independent Football Regulator should have regard to whether it is necessary before it imposes any requirements or restrictions, and also asks whether to consider a similar outcome would be achieved by less burdensome means, seems to me to fail, amendment 32 seems to fail that test.

I'm just worried about putting on the face of the bill a regulation that could be interpreted as asking football to take on responsibilities far removed from football, in a regular tree fashion, football, in a regular tree fashion, that makes them behave summer between social engineering and social work. I would like some reassurance this won't be contradicting or adding burden onto clubs for what they already are doing and why do we need to have it written down in this bill? written down in this bill?
16:18
Lord Maude of Horsham Portrait Lord Maude of Horsham (Conservative)
-
-
There is a consensus around the sentiments reflected in this group amendments, and I think the point has been made by a number of your Lordships that this is what good clubs do. Clubs successful clubs are deeply rooted in their communities, serve their communities, act as a focal point for social action, and focal point for social action, and social activity, and can do enormous good. On Thursday evening I shall go in Hope to watch Tottenham play in the Europa League.

The following morning I shall attend the governors meeting of the London Academy of excellence Tottenham which is as brilliant, six from Academy, which serves disadvantaged young people with academic promise from across the community -- sixth form Academy. Its principal sponsor is Tottenham Hotspur's football club. Its premises are in lilywhite house which is the office headquarters of the club. And it's prudently the club. And it's prudently -- It is brilliantly successful. Tottenham is deeply embedded in the Tottenham is deeply embedded in the community.

The clubs that are successful at do this already take their social community responsibilities seriously, because that is what we need to do as part of their success and their obligation, part of the debt they owed to the communities they are part of. They will not find it regulatory burden because they are, as the noble Baroness said, doing it already. So while I'm generally allergic to regulatory powers, when the case of them is not overwhelmingly proven, I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

to make an exception in this case.
16:21
16:22
16:24
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Addington for raising this issue at report stage and giving us the opportunity to discuss this further. I would like to thank him for his very kind words and not least for his persuasive arguments over the past few weeks. I'm grateful to him and to Lord Goodlad for your time on many occasions. I'm also grateful to noble Lords across the House irrespective of whether they agree with the government position although I do feel that there was a general consensus.

What we are all agreed on across your Lordship's House is that the government, and the government is also clear and completely agrees that clubs play a vital role in their local communities. It is a key part of what makes foot for our national game as well as our local anchors. However, as I previously said, we believe the noble Lords amendment will expand the scope of the regulated too far and are potentially over prescriptive, as the noble Lord Lord Pannick expressed in a much more elegant way than I can.

The regulator should be tightly focused on areas of critical need addressing genuine market failures rather than regulating on issues that the industry console. Many different ways a club can make a difference and service local communities, there are fabulous examples, we have heard throughout the bills, passes through your Lordship's House, including a number we have heard today, such as the mention by the noble Lady Baroness Brady, examples during the pandemic at West Ham and from work Bolton Wanderers. The government amendment 32 strikes the right balance, we want to encourage clubs to continue their great work in the local communities, without restricting the manner or form on which they can receive this, for example clubs could match their community outreach initiatives and the size and resource of their clubs.

And this specific community's needs and issues which may vary. This could include the bespoke type of training for charities and community groups envisaged by the noble Lord Lord Addington. Like the noble Lord we agree that the regulator can shine a light on vital work carried out by clubs up and down the country and therefore encourage more outreach, that's why we have brought forward the government member which would require clubs to report on the actions they're carrying out. The government amendment 32 would mean the regulator alludes clubs, unity contributions in its code and its criteria for what constitutes corporate for football clubs.

I welcome the support to the government amendment for buy noble friends Lord Bassam and Baroness Taylor in the noble Lord Lord Addington who sponsored the amendment, and I think this is in the spirit of cooperation and discussion we have had over the past few weeks. It will be explicit that a clubs contribution is part of its corporate government to ensure clubs outline how they contribute to communities and their statements. In answer to the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley, don't think this is heavy-handed, this is what good clubs already do.

If they weren't contributing to the local community they would be expected to explain the reason for this in the statement. Their report will be published online to allow for public scrutiny and so they can be held accountable for that can actions, this will encourage transparency and as with the approach of corporate governments more widely, this will encourage greater action in this space. Above all the approach will allow Flex ability for each club to comply in accordance with the resources and size and in a way local communities need.

Additionally when the regulator publishes its Corporate Governance Code port on traps, best practice can be shared with the industry. The approach will also ensure we don't step on the toes of the likes of the FA who spearhead good social and community initiatives across the. I hope I have through creating action to ensure this is captured without giving rise to scope creep. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and I beg to move the government amendment 32.
16:28
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
She hints of normal service being resumed but you have got to look at what we're actually trying to achieve here. If good clubs do it anyway, why should they be hamstrung by doing it when bad ones don't? It's something I would say. A bit of basic fair play. Also, the idea of light-touch, will be spoken about very much in this debate. It is one of the mantras. I just received information from the EFL saying now worried about this.

Because what does light-touch mean? Doing virtually nothing? And I remember, the noble Baroness shakes her head but possibly we will drag that out in the course of the bill. We have heard of debates when light-touch routes describe as the leap at the wheel and only paying attention when there is disaster. I would hope the careful use of relation encouraging people to do the things they should something we shouldn't shy away from. The good ones do it. Bravo. Let's make the restaurant.

I hope that we can take this principle forward and indeed other pieces of legislation. Because just because somebody is good, doesn't mean to say everybody will be. And I don't know how many pieces of legislation have that principle running through the middle of them like a stick of rock. I beggarly to withdraw my amendment and will look forward to supporting the government amendment when it is bought before the House -- I beg to leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. We come to the third group, was won, amendment
16:30
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
the third group, was won, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Writers beat Amendment four and five which is consequential. I would like to place on record my thanks to like to place on record my thanks to the Minister for her much appreciated constant support to all appreciated constant support to all members of your Lordships' House, not least myself the regards to meetings, letters and engagement on meetings, letters and engagement on numerous issues that are relevant to the bill, which I think already this the bill, which I think already this evening has been improved.

My amendment recognises that the English football operate successfully in an intensely successfully in an intensely competitive global market. In Europe, UEFA runs at the champions league, this summer, FIFA host the first World Cup competition, with $1 billion in prize money available, Chelsea and Man City will compete for the trophy, in the states. They do so for one reason, my lords. Because ether and UEFA recognise the FA, Football Association as the sole governing body of all rules and regulations, governing football in England.

That is why the FA has a veto of changes to the Constitution of the Premier league. The FA is the sole member of UEFA and FIFA. The FA is the sole footballing member of the British Olympic Association meaning and that the FA has control over the men's and women's Olympic football team. All of England's professional football teams are members of the FA. The English football league made up of professional divisions below the Premier league is self-governing, subject to the FA's sanctions.

And indeed, in another place, David Newton in giving evidence, to the committee, stated that the FA is responsible for 16 million, or 17 million players and all the money Like every other league, in England, the FA Premier league comes under the jurisdiction of the FA. And must submit its rules each year, for approval and sanction. But this fundamental duty of the governing body is not reflected in this bill. Which is why my amendment seeks to protect our football clubs, to avoid jeopardising their growth in international competition and the authority of the FA.

What is more, as drafted, the bill sadly removes that the FA, from the face of financial regulation, football regulation in England. It is a mentioned 13 times, 124 pages, mostly definitional, the company number, as though in one reference the FA is referred to as the Football Association a couple more. It is not there as a voting board member of the IFR. Otherwise it is member of the IFR. Otherwise it is purely one that is in the salted, consulted without any authority, with any need for the IFR to take into account what the Football Association, one recognise football governing body in this country feels.

It does have one power on page 40, clause 49, subsection 2 and it is the one power, in the whole bill. The club must not change its name, operated, by the club, unless the change has been approved by the Football Association. So there is one place, name changing power that is on the face of the bill. Now, my lords, UEFA has never hesitated from making clear that it is protecting and preserving the independence of the Football Association. As the sole governing body for football in England, with accordance with UEFA and FIFA statuettes.

UEFA stated that legislation cut that compromises at the FA's autonomy, is that the primary regulator of that the primary regulator of football in England would be in non-compliance with these statuettes which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. UEFA warned, last year, that there should be no government interference in the running of football. They have the specific rules that guard against this, in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of the sporting competition to stop the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the national governing body from UEFA and its teams from competition.

And UEFA statuettes do not, I repeat not permit them to recognise the primacy of a state licensed regulator. The autonomy of the FA cannot be challenged. It has no right to hand us more powers to a government regulator which conflicts with UEFA's regulation. Now, this was well covered in committee and the noble Baroness of Twycross, taking the bill through committee said I do not want fans and to be alarmed by our discussions and referred to the letter. Which she said was a private letter from UEFA and there was no intention for it to be published.

The letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick pointed out, during the debate, is, " Obviously relevant to the bill. Transparency demands, in my respectful submission that we be allowed to see it and UEFA will not allow that. Like what we heard in January that UEFA did not want it published, but only a couple of weeks ago we had a different answer from the DCMS. There was a request made to the DCMS Freedom of information team and they're applied to an MP reads as follows, "We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of information act, we regret that we are unable to respond to your request, because it exceeds POS limit set out by the act.

Section 12 of the act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information, when the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which central government set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending a 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information. We consider your request will be over the statutory limit. Because of this will take considerable resources, involving many staff, across the department.

UEFA is a key stakeholder, across bought, and is engaged with the department on a regular basis. " My Lords, it would take some imagination to work that into a script of yes Minister. Consider my lords, in every country established its own regulator. Without the national governing body being at the centre. This would lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance, across the continents and in essence challenge and hinder the ability of UEFA, FIFA and the IOC to maintain cohesive and effective governing standards.

My Lords, this amendment recognising that the FA is in no way a part of the proposed legislation, which your lordships are considering, this amendment protects English football. amendment protects English football. It protects a clubs, in many ways. If the Minister is right and there is no threat of scope creep then the amendment lies comfortable on the face of the bill. If I am and my colleagues are right, it is placed on the bill providing a protection against mission creep, which none of us want to see.

I hope therefore that the House will support us and I beg to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 2, line 4, at the end insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. ... Eloquently explains why the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict, with UEFA regulations and with FIFA regulations. They are the governing regulations. They are the governing bodies. Despite the lunacy of some
16:38
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
bodies. Despite the lunacy of some of the decisions, most recently, FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend to half-time, so that there can be a concert, while players seek to maintain warm. And fitness. Notwithstanding that the other governing bodies and the structure of English football recognises this. It does so, because both UEFA and FIFA impose, in their rules and regulations an obligation on associations, the FA as Lord Moylan says to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations.

The FA imposes a similar obligation on beliefs and in the Premier league. It imposes a contractual commitment on the clubs and the Premier league itself to comply with the statuettes of the regulations of FIFA and UEFA. Notwithstanding all of this, I am doubtful, with great respect, as to the wisdom of Lord Moynihan's amendment, number four. The reason why Emma doubtful is this. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court the statuettes, the regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State, or a decision of the IFR to go off to court and to say this decision is a breach of UEFA or FIFA decision is a breach of UEFA or FIFA regulation? Because, this would be welcomed enormously, I can tell Lord Moynihan by sports lawyers, such as myself.

The opportunities for litigation are endless. And the reason why the opportunities for litigation are endless is because regrettably, the UEFA regulations and the FIFA regulations are not drafted, always, to put it modestly, they are not always drafted with the precision and the clarity which we expect and which we see from the parliamentary draughtsman in this country. Lord Moynihan, I would be grateful when he comes to reply, he could address at this point. There is going to be an enormous expanse of litigation, further litigation in the football field, we are going to find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation, to challenge in the courts.

If his amendment is accepted.
16:42
16:43
16:44
Baroness Brady Portrait Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
-
pace of these amendments were great clarity. Without revisiting all of the arguments, my fundamental concern are straightforward. We must avoid inadvertently seizing control of English football to external bodies. The relationship with international governing bodies, inevitably creates tension points, where our interests may diverge. The Premier league, UEFA, FIFA and not just partners, fellow lawmakers, governing bodies, they are also competitors who run competitions involving English clubs. Unless you allow FIFA to provide unequivocal confirmation that nothing in this bill raises concerns about state interference, the truth is the Premier league will face ongoing vulnerability.

The regulator could become a strategic pressure points with international football politics. Like English football losing sovereignty over our domestic arrangements, as a consequence. We know less UEFA withdraw a letter expressing in numerous concerns about the bill, that they are unwilling to provide such categorical assurances. I certainly wouldn't provide them to me. This is understandable I think, a statutory regulator represents an unprecedented step for football and they naturally wish to preserve the options, as implementation unfolds. They want to maintain maximum How could this play out? I will give an obvious example, the football calendar, a raw material for our game, it is a fiercely contested territory.

The Premier League faces increasing pressure to accommodate UEFA and FIFA expansions, including, as a result, the football regulator, there will be profound implications for the structure and scale of our domestic competitions. We have already seen this attention play out at a smaller scale, with the unavoidable scrapping of FA Cup replays. My Lords, forcing changes to the size of domestic leads will directly affect the value created and retained within English football, versus what flows outside our ecosystem. This amendment therefore offers an important degree of protection for English football.

Ensuring the regulator is explicitly bound to avoid conflicts within For the Minister's letter on this issue, but I'm afraid I do not think the insurances are sufficient at the moment for I trust the Minister appreciates these are genuine concerns that the Premier league at the Premier League club has, so I hope she may shed more positive news regarding UEFA's current position on the bill. We really do need a clear commitment that they will not revoke their statutes regarding the regulator.

Absence of this, I believe in supporting my noble friends amendment will be a wise and necessary step for us to take.
16:47
16:48
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

they? My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen. And in answer to Freedom of Information act request, the of Information act request, the of Information act request, the department says it cannot find, within 3 1/2 days, and within 6 pounds, even though the noble Lady, the Minister, has referred to it the Minister, has referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates and committee, this letter is assuming an almost mythical is assuming an almost mythical status.

Which is unhelpful to this status. Which is unhelpful to this debate. And I think reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in committee and will be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had concerns about the bill, in this letter, which has not been shared. And noble Lords, rightly, want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed because of the very serious ramifications that they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.

So, I am grateful to my noble friends, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friends, Lady Brady, with great experience from their own involvement in football, and as a former sports minister who understands the byzantine world of understands the byzantine world of sports regression better than most -- Sports regulation better than most members of your house, in pursuing this point. I take what you're noble Lords upset about the private briefing they were able to attend yesterday and insurances given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horses mouth.

We know that UEFA have written expressing concerns about the bill, earlier in its passage, and UEFA have not said anything further. I find their silence deafening. We were asked to accept reassurances can pass through an intermediary, to a private meeting, of your Lordships. It seems to me, either this matter could be settled, if the noble Lady was able to reveal the letter, that we are all sort of searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information act, or the Freedom of Information act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or, if in the absence of that and in the face of that deafening silence, if we could put on the face of the bill what seems to be a reflection of the government's own position, of the government's own position, take what the noble Lord Pannick says about...

I will in just a second. I say what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says about the intergenerational of sports lawyers, but I think he will accept that there is plenty in this both sports lawyers to get involved in the new regulatory regime, and I suspect they will find plenty to occupy them, with or without this amendment. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he have been in the habit, when he was, revealing the contents of private correspondence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of private correspondence? In the habit of complying with the Freedom of Information act, and the Freedom of Information act, and I think in this instance, my advice to the noble Lady would be to give us as much as she can about UEFA's concerns. I think it is very clearly concerns. I think it is very clearly , hearing your Lordships house, and I hope the matter can be settled. Maybe the noble Lady can say a bit more about the correspondence she has had with UEFA, but if not, I do hope my noble friends, Lord hope my noble friends, Lord Moynihan, will continue to pursue this important issue.
16:52
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Well, my Lords, I had actually been slightly unnerved by the tone of the debate up until this group. So I feel myself and much more comfortable territory. Under attack, Of international competitions. I do understand the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan's amendments, to put beyond any doubt that the bill regular to will not breach any UEFA or FIFA statutes. I would like to thank him for his time, both in writing and in meeting myself and officials. However, I would like to mention once again that these amendments are not necessary.

At the very least, these amendments are trying to solve a problem that do not exist, and at the worst, they attempt to create an issue that doesn't exist. My Lords, I would be a brave and foolish minister, if I propose legislation that risked us being banned from international competitions. UEFA has again confirmed in writing the Secretary of State just last month, and as the noble Lord, the Lord Goddard of Stockport, another noble Lords, including my noble friends, Baroness Hale, and Lord Bassam highlighted, the FA confirmed directly with noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just yesterday, that the bill, as drafted, does not brief UEFA statutes.

The regulator will be operationally dependent of the government and will not insert on the FA's ability to govern the game. Its duties were sent to not allow it to do so. I know there have been requests to see the letter, that was leaked to the media last year. I wrote, following the conclusion of committee stage, to UEFA, asking if -- Content for me to release the letter, but they replied to me that they rather communications be kept private. It is important I respect this request, to ensure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government can continue to have honest and constructive conversations with our stakeholders. Turning to the issue of the FOI. Very grateful. Could she throw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. Could she throw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. Could she throw any light on why it is that a Freedom of Information quest should state... You are coming onto that? Very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. It is as if seamlessly, I was just coming onto the FOI. In my just coming onto the FOI. In my just coming onto the FOI. In my view, this is a lesson in how to get FOIs rejected, and this rejection is actually the intent. The FOI request, if you can bear with me, on the benches opposite, the FOI request referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was extremely a broad request for all correspondence ever, to the Department for UEFA.

The request was advised in a response to narrow his request for a particular time frame, in order for the Department to be able to respond. In my humble view, this sounds perfectly reasonable. I understand that such a letter has not yet been sent in, but clearly the respondent may choose to except From officials. Turning to specifics of the amendments themselves, much as I do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick lose the opportunity for future litigation, rather than protect English football, I am afraid the noble Lord's amendments would have serious unintended consequences, the amendments would see a regulator established by an act of Parliament in this country, in a position of deference to private international organisation.

Not only would this undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, but would league -- Leave English football in a very weak position indeed. The noble Baroness, Baroness Brady, has raised concerns, both today and on the fourth day of committee that the bill compounds the problem of UEFA and FIFA's ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a revelatory environment that could become unstable. While I do not accept that is currently the case regarding the bill, amending current drafting to fix a statute that the regulatory must fall in line with whatever rules those organisations set, which surely create such an issue, the result of these amendments would be a concerning loss of autonomy and independence for the resonator, and in turn for English football as a whole.

For these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. Lord to withdraw his amendments.
16:57
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. And let me attempt to respond to comments that have been made. Yes, I did attend the meeting yesterday. And I was very attentive to what was said. And the first thing that was said from Joanna, who represented the FA at the meeting, was that, and this is an answer to the question from UEFA, the first question asked, that UEFA had been happy, since the start of the journey, I wrote it down and that was precisely what she said.

Well, I have to say, noble Lords, that the correspondence that was sent in September, of last year, to the Secretary of State reflected five pages of unhappiness about the potential of the legislation, as far as UEFA was concerned. And it is inconceivable that any -- To any noble Lord that has read that letter, to see that they could possibly be UEFA happiness since the start of the journey. I make that point, because I never would have started on, with the strength that I have throughout the committee, with this subject.

Unless I had read the letter. And I was sent to different copies. Two of the same copies of the letter from two different sources. It has been quite widely distributed. Everything that I have said in my opening remarks reflected the content of that letter, and the very real concerns that UEFA had. I am surprised the government haven't published that letter. I think the government should have published that letter, because it isn't simply not true, to say that UEFA has been happier since the start of the journey.

It was also disingenuous, my Lords, to say that the request that was made was so wide as to have taken a great deal of time, when everybody knows precisely what correspondence was requested. Because the question that was placed, the question that was placed by James Wild was, please divide an electronic copy of correspondence from UEFA regarding the proposal, to introduce a football regulator. That is specific. That isn't wide in its remit, everybody knows which letter we are talking about.

and so it is, I have to say, disingenuous to say I have to say, disingenuous to say it would have to take 3.5 days for officials to go through all the letters UEFA have sent on the subject of the introduction of a football regulator, when this bill has only been one year in the making, including the time the Conservative party have spent on it. It is just disingenuous, my Lords. As I say, I would not have taken the view that I had, listening to that meeting yesterday, when I happened also registered very specific surprise, and the comment made that the bill takes no powers away, " Takes no powers away from the football Association." My Lords, this bill takes all its powers away, when it comes to financial regulation.

The FA has no status whatsoever in this legislation. It severs the connection between the one national governing body that is recognised in this country for football. And legislation which is now taking over the full running of the financial regulation. With very few, by the way, of the Fan-Led Review requests. It is virtually all financial regulation out of the 124 pages. And then it is also unwise to say, as we said yesterday, to this House that has been scrutinising this legislation in detail, that this is the end of the road with this bill.

Far from it. There is 31 further secondary items of legislation and regulation still to be made. There is possibly more pages of regulations and secondary legislation to be published in the third quarter of this year, than there is in the bill itself. We have no idea about the degree of scope creep and we should be very concerned indeed about it, because, as my noble friend said, they are the competitor league. And they are a competitor league that will take no pleasure, I am sure, but they will take every opportunity to will take every opportunity to Because it doesn't reflect in any way the wind governing body, the football Association, which is the member governing body of UEFA.

It severs that link, it is a car crash about to happen. I finally turn to Lord Pannick's points. Sport is autonomous, globally, still. And that autonomy, for example the International Olympic Committee International Olympic Committee means the IRC charter, request some legislative support. We have two items are legislation that came forward. They go to the British Olympic Association, rather than the courts, if they have any concerns and the British Olympic Association engage as they did on that occasion, with the government to ensure that the games are a success.

That is the same framework as UEFA operate with the football Association, or FIFA operates with the football Association, as they increasingly will moving into the club game as will moving into the club game as well. Their relationship the football Association means that that is why disputes are sorted out, the autonomy of world sport, the autonomy of global sport means that it isn't for legislators. But it is for the independent autonomy of the relationship between UEFA, FIFA and the FA, to sort out problems, as they exist.

The moment you sever that link and at the moment you place the powers of this governing body, the one body that is recognised by the international federations, in the hands of the state, without any role for the national governing body, you are heading for a car crash. And it may not happen this year, it may not happen now, but it will happen in the future and it will happen to the detriment of English football clubs. And for those reasons, my Lords, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like to test on the wall of the House in the interest of our national game. The question is at the moment for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is at the moment for be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
17:04
17:15
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
contents have it. Amendment five, Lord Moynihan. Not moved. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

six, Lord Moynihan. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments six and 8.2, standing in my name on the Order Paper. The my name on the Order Paper. The purpose, my Lords, of moving this amendment is found in the delegated amendment is found in the delegated and regulatory reform committee report of the of 20 November last report of the of 20 November last year. They made a very reasonable point that inability kind it is probably wise and helpful to state on the face of the bill who it refers to.

And the fact of the matter, my Lords, is that there is no reference on the face of the bill as to whom the bill refers to. They say that the bills scope and purpose should appear clearly in the bill and clause one states the purpose of the bill as being to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Yet, as the regulatory reform committee states, the meaning of interest football and therefore, the meaning of the regulator, is incomplete.

I requires filling out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. They recommend the power of the Secretary of State enclosed to define specialised competitions should be removed from the bill, since it is self evident and clear, that the government policy is that the top five leagues of the men's professional game should be regulated. And they conclude, my Lords, that this policy should appear in primary legislation. I'm not be relegated to secondary legislation. It is fairly rare, my Lords, that we have a bill of this magnitude and importance.

Certainly in sport, but it doesn't actually say to whom it refers, but in due course, the Secretary of State will come forward and tell us to whom it confers. There is an argument being put forward that, to say on the face of the bill to whom it prefers -- Refers would make it hybrid. I was advised and it is indeed interesting to see the government, in describing this amendment, called it the hybrid this amendment, called it the hybrid amendment.

Not at all, as far as I was concerned, moving it. It was put on the face of the bill to whom this legislation refers, which seems to be self-evidently sensible. However, I can see that there is a possibility that you do say to whom it refers, it can turn the bill into a hybrid bill. Some people would hold that view and I was advised by the Public Bill Committee, the head of Public Bill procedure, that my amendment would put certain leagues in the face of the bill.

As leagues that need to be included in the independent football regulator's remit, as set out in regulations. Add a regulation making power, in clause 2, subsection 3, doesn't specify any leaks and has a de- hybridising provision attached to it. So, it is interesting, that within the legislation without naming the clubs all the leagues to which this legislation refers, still has A.D. Hybridising -- Still has a de-hybridising provision attached to the bill itself, I assume the government recognised that if you said he would refer to on the face of the bill, then there was the possibility that it would make the bill hybrid.

And indeed, the way it has been done so far is away to avoid the bill containing the high provision, United may not be a genuine class of football clubs playing in certain leagues, but not others. And in view of the officials playing in the leagues specified in my own amendment, do not form a genuine class. And if the House therefore agreed to my amendment, the bill itself would be at high risk of becoming hybrid. My Lords, I do not want to put that to a vote and test the will of the House on that.

Because I think there is clear evidence in both houses that there is a will to move forward with this legislation. And if there is, therefore, a move by the government to avoid it being tested for hybridity, by putting clubs and leagues into secondary legislation, then that is the decision that underpins the government's wish to enact this legislation. But I have moved this amendment because I do think it is important in future not to try and avoid saying who the bill refers to.

At which competition it refers to on the face of legislation. When we are scrutinising legislation, we need to know who it refers to, and I don't think it is a sensible approach or a wise approach to bring legislation forward before either house without clarity on that point. Therefore, I do believe the delegated and the regulatory reform committee made an important point for the consideration of the House, and it is for that reason I move my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Amendment proposed, clause 2,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection 3, and insert the words
17:21
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
as printed in the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, Lord Moynihan, that the name of this group on the list circulated by the government with offices is a by the government with offices is a little unfortunate, because this is an important issue into which we an important issue into which we stumbled unwittingly in committee, it is not clear that even the it is not clear that even the amendment that my noble friend, Lord Moynihan, has tabled today would make the bill hybrid, that is a sort make the bill hybrid, that is a sort of question that has to be of question that has to be considered separately.

But both in at the amendment that my noble friend, Lord Markham and I brought in committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, noble Lord, Lord Bassam, brought in their amendment, relating to national league north and south, we stumbled across the conundrum really that my noble friend, Lord Moynihan, has set out here, that by trying to say on the face of the bill whom it regulates, there was a risk that this bill would have to be considered a hybrid one, and dealt with in that separate way.

And as my noble friend says, it affects the concern that has been raised by the dedicated powers and regulatory reform committee of your Lordships house, which, in its eighth report, recommended specifically that is -- That this delegated power be removed from the bill, it said policy is clear that a top five leagues of the men's professional game should be regulated, this policy should appear in primary legislation, not be regulated to secondary legislation. So, it is unfortunate we have been unable to find a way around this problem.

I am grateful, in one of the meetings my noble friend Lord Markham and I had with the Minister and the bill team between committee, and now, we asked if they could go back to parliamentary counsel and see if there was another way around this, and no other way, I think, has this, and no other way, I think, has been found. Which is, as I say come unfortunate. I take the point that the noble Lady made in our conversation, that those that are being regulated in the first instance by this bill are very clear.

There has been a consultation with them both in the last Parliament and in this one. My concern, reflected in my amendment 85 is with those that might be brought into scope. Say, the women's game, say the National League, north and south, even due cause future governments agree with the point that the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor, noble Lord, Bassett were making in committee, there are plenty of people in football who haven't have the same degree of engagement the top five leagues have had, was the bill that has got us to this point.

That is why I have tabled my amendment 85 which concerns the de-hybridising provisions of the secondary legislation that might be brought forward by this bill. Really to try forward by this bill. Really to try and ensure that those football organisations, which might come under the scope of the bill in the future, are able to get the same level of consultation and opportunity, to give their views that the top five leafs -- Leagues of the professional game have been hitherto forced grateful to all the mines that have been applied to this problem, to the member of your Lordships committee, on dedicated powers and regulatory reform for highlighting it, I regret we haven't been able to find a way of saying in the bill he was being regulated, but, as my noble friend, Lord Mohammed, says, none of us want to delay the bill by exploring this point further.

But I look forward to hearing what the noble Lady, the Minister, has to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is an interesting one. Hybridisation being caused by effectively naming some clubs, or
17:25
17:25
17:25
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Lords for their contributions to the group, and I think it has been an issue that we have discussed at length. Throughout the course of the bill's passage through this House. And I've come A1, would like to thank -- And I, for one, would like If it would be helpful that we could progress the legislation, so we could get the regulator in place. On amendment six and 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Monaghan, I do understand his desire is to have upfront clarity on place of the bill, as to what would be an scope of the regulator's regime, however, again, the noble Lord would maybe be trying to solve a problem that potentially does not exist.

There is no doubt as to which competitions are an scope of the regulator's regime at this point. And which would not be. And by delegating this to secondary legislation, we are avoiding the Sports regulation, and without wanting to Simon gracious, this includes the Safety of Sportsground Act 1975, and Football Spectators Act 1989, and act with which the noble Lord, Lord Monaghan, with no doubt be very familiar with, he was a bill minister in the other place during its passage. The approach the government is taking off those reasonable and evidence-based consultation, with all key stakeholders in the industry, the delegations a power issue as the Be regulated in a timely manner, and ensuring the scope remains relevant, and protects against circumvention by assuring clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename, or establish new domestic competitions to avoid the regulatory regime.

The government intended scope for the regulator is well known, has been a subject of policy development process over many years, both by this government the previous government, has also involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues in scope. Any changes in future would, again, be based on clear evidence and conservation as part of a published assessment. The requirement to consult before future uses of this power is set out on the face of the bill, any changes would be subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, under the affirmative procedure.

On amendment 85 for the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, this is a standard provision in many bills, including the remedial tree bill, which I know the noble Lord, who was the Minister the time, in order to future proof this legislation, regulations have to be made in a timely way. Getting bogged down in lengthy parliamentary proceedings couldn't demand the government's ability to keep the regulatory framework up-to-date and ensure it remains effective. This is of no benefit to anyone, including the industry. This comes back to the issue of hybridity that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today.

As I set out during committee stage and during our memorandum, the policy intent behind, the policy intent be in the top five tiers in football, has never been in doubt, throughout the development of the policy throughout the past three years. They have encounters -- There have been countless opportunities for parties to make recommendations on this, it was a no purpose in our view, other than to delay the effect of the regulator. It would be set out incurring costs, but future regulations, and it would bog down the process.

I have set out clear processes for the regime, and will not use up your Lordships time further relay to gating this issue. But for these reasons, I would urge But for these reasons, I would urge the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
17:29
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful to noble Lords for the contributions to this debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't around in the 1975 bill. I was far too young, but I was present for the 1989 Bill, as the noble Baroness, the Minster, rightly pointed out, I was working with my honourable friend, Lord Howard, who I am glad to see us in his place today, on that important bill. Can I just say that I think there is a serious point, that was the reason why raised this amendment.

We really must try, when we are looking closely at bills and scrutinising bills, to start from the premise that we know who we are talking about and which corporations we are talking about, and when the noble Baroness, the Minister, says there is absolute no doubt about which competitions and which clubs we are talking about, then one would expect the House to put it on the face of the bill and the government to put it on the face of the bill. And so, I agree with her completely, there is no doubt, but the reason why it is not in the face of the bill, I shouldn't be just cast aside, likely, is because of the danger of hybridity.

Hybridity only exists when a bill is injurious to a party or group of parties that might be affected by the bill. And in this case, it is clearly, the comments case, it is clearly, the comments made across the chamber, a concern that it could be, if it was considered hybrid, to be injurious to a number of clubs. And that they would want to be consulted on that and there was a proper due process on the hybridity that needs, normally, to be followed.

But I echo the comments made across the chamber, that to actually pursue this, to a vote, and to put on the face of the bill at this stage the clubs, would jeopardise the will of the Parliament to see this bill made progress, and for that reason, I withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. It is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment seven,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave, withdrawn. Amendment seven, I arise and to move amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I arise and to move amendment seven and a moment 28 which referred to the owners and directors test. to the owners and directors test. Which go far beyond, the regulatory requirements, in sport. And in FIFA, and in UEFA, in the FA, in the and in UEFA, in the FA, in the Premier league. Hiring an additional test to be made to determine a potential owner of a football club. That additional test is one of influence. My amendment seeks to leave out reference to the influence a person can have over the activities of the club are being considered for a licence, to operate as a professional football club in England and to create clarity on the face of the bill.

In trying to understand what influence means we are immediately referred to schedule one on page 83 of the bill were in keeping with the financial regulation we will once again somewhat let left in the dark. "The secretary of state must publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence, or for the purposes of this schedule, the purposes of the test, such as we scrutinise the bill before us we have no certainty as to the meaning of significant influence, yet its impact on the Premier league and indeed on EFL clubs could prove far-reaching.

In committee, I took the example of Newcastle to seek clarity from the government, by working through a specific case. Newcastle is majority owned and financially controlled by the Saudi, Sovereign Wealth Fund, the PIA. The PISA became the majority Shia factor, with 80% of the shares in October 2021. The chair of the PIF is Mohammed bin Salman, the son of Saudi Arabia's King. He runs at the Saudi government. For once there is a clear distinction between this bill and the one inherited from the last Conservative government.

The face of the Conservative bill there was a protection against the government appointed regulator, in investigating whether MBS, the Crown Prince and share the PIF that was a fit and proper person to exert control of Newcastle through the chairmanship of the PIF. The government deleted this and deleted what the previous government had put in, the very protection which the Conservative government put on the face of the bill, that required the regulator to have regard to the
17:34
None Portrait Amendment:7 Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-

foreign and policy objectives of the government. Now this removal was a direct consequence of UEFA's insistence, to the Prime Minister, insistence, to the Prime Minister, the protection politicising sport. I the protection politicising sport. I can assure the House that anyone who has read this bill, the answer to Newcastle fans is that unlike under the Premier league or UEFA rules, the Crown Prince is open to investigation by the regulator and the Minister was clear on that question. It is exactly what the government intends the regulator to do.

It has removed the one do. It has removed the one protection it had come at the regulator in this bill has full rights to use his or her powers to investigate and applied over the suitability, or otherwise in any owner exercises a degree of influence of over any club, including Newcastle United. That is just one example, such detailed and intrusive due diligence risks being replicated across at the Premier league, unless the bill is amended as I propose. It is the Secretary of State who will write the guidance that determines what significant influence, or control means.

Yet there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult anyone, on a drafting that guidance. Now, we can speculate on the definition, by looking at other legislation were the same phrases used, but there is no guarantee, the Secretary of State will take the same approach on this bill as has been taken with other legislation. It is not worth acting on the Companies Act guidance, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to follow that guidance. If you look at the Premier league rulebook requirements for acquisition and control, they are significantly narrower in scope than this bill.

In fact I can find no example of any legislation regarding example of any legislation regarding sport, anywhere in the world, of any sport that is so intrusive as to have the phrases significant influence, over as a criterion of ownership. Without any doubt, the Crown Prince is known in the context of this bill. An owner exercising influence over the proposed Statuette and regulation. I understand that since December is been made clear to the government any proposal to put the Crown Prince through the due diligence would be resisted.

It doesn't exist in any other sport, worldwide. It will be the first time any country had legislated to that extent, to the ownership of a professional club. It will potentially lead to the PIF proposing proposals. In the watersport. I hope the Minister can dispel that and confirm that nothing of the sort of been said to anyone in Number 10 and DCMS. It would help the House to know that if the Crown Prince was to be excluded aren't all state entities to be excluded from the influence test.

This is the most far-reaching political intervention in the running of any sport, in the history of this country. A country which once gave the country the rules and regulations for sport. The context of the discussion with the Lord Pannick, universal, autonomous and self-regulating. It is a historic irony that now it should be a first this, a government to be the first government to take control of sport. Existing Premier League ownership tests are already onerous, as they should be.

The influence test only creates uncertainty, mitigates against growth and has the tension to be deeply damaging to English football, without generating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any benefit. I picked. Amendment proposed, clause 3, page 3, line 15, leave out, "Influence all. " "Influence all. " 45, together with a (Consequential Amendments) 42, 43 and 44. I follow Amendments) 42, 43 and 44. I follow this bill closely from the sand. It has been televised on every occasion it has been debated. My amendment, at this stage seeks to delete the unnecessary and counter-productive clause 27, which has been prematurely engaged, at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement, between the son of a football club and a number of purchasers.

By deleting clause 27, notification will be engaged, only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and determined a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that .28 would be engaged, on the face of the bill. Football is a game of dreams and some of them dream so hard that they
17:39
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
want to own their own club. In a small way I am one of those people, because back in 1932 my grandfather was an Olympic athlete and he was was an Olympic athlete and he was known an arts and a small advertisement in the daily press and to provide 250 shares in the Norwich city football club. When he passed city football club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending annual meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates, ever since.

From that perspective I can tell How clubs change hands. It isn't how the bill contemplates. The bill anticipates that some point, someone at dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR, so that an army can measure them up for the sheepskin coat. In particular uniform owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they may be subject to NHMRC winding up order, or issues. Even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by civil servant.

However we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are open, how can the purchaser know if the deal was feasible? Unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books, for fear that person was a charlatan. You can see the jeopardy here. Quite simply, the new law under clause 27, in particular, would prevent buyer and seller from being put together. This bill purports to stop clubs going bust. But the actions of the bill would ensure that they do.

Now, as I look back and reflect over Norwich and my small slice of ownership as I recall when Norwich was owned by Mr Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out and a deeper pocket came forward. A man called Geoffrey Watling who owned a local taxi firm came forward. To act as a midwife. He held that club, whilst he walked his round. He was a modest man with a deep interest in the community for stopping understood the role of football clubs, what it can and should be and he put himself in harm's way when nobody else will step up to the play.

Idle fans, Norwich fans and thank you for what he did and the main stand today is named for him. Eventually Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, with her husband acquired the shares of the club, in a story that was beautifully told and the time is about three weeks ago. It must've been a very expensive taxi ride, for them both. No two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club. Last week the club entered a new phase.

A new owner, Mark taking a new role. We hope you bring glory and by accounts he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have a degree as a blessing. -- Delia's. Had there been a regulator operating at clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel, long before he did. Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed clause 37, paragraph 4. He only owned a taxi company. He had no qualifications.

You question why husband-and-wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harms way down the Norwich city football club, in a Norfolk, similarly failing clause of 37, paragraph 4, because I do not think that being a cook isn't necessarily the requisite qualification of club ownership was not put simply, as a result of clause 27, our club would have folded. And would have presented these deals from happening, even before they started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop clubs, in trouble and creating a vortex from which you will be able to escape.

The consequence of 27 is to condemn a club in trouble extinction. My amendment would not stop the IFR from eventually certifying a clause under clause 38, but it will stop the stuffing out of hope at clause 27. Of course it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat, in the first place. In my view the regulator should not be allowed, at this early stage, from preventing clubs from doing different. From taking those calculative risks, the rolling of the dice.

Football is embellished not just by the great players like the Beckham's, Ronaldo's, but also decorated by the local characters. People like the Roberts, the Jefferies, the Delia's and the Michael's and we should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the Dolman's club. A system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities and big businesses and fat lawyers are preferred, which is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes in clause 1.

With the economic, social well-being and local communities are the objectives. I was with Delia on the infamous rans, 20 years and two weeks ago. It is passed into legend and our lexicon as part of the colour of the game and our nation yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost, if we do not attract and cherish community minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line.

Abandon at clause 27 and let's just rely on clause 28, at which point the deal is a certainty is greater.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I returned to Lord Moynihan's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I returned to Lord Moynihan's seeking to leave out the words influence, or. There are in fact in clause 32 references to influence. clause 32 references to influence. In the subclause to be, the one that Lord Moynihan focuses on, a higher
17:45
17:46
17:47
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
friend, Lord Moynihan, for the forensic way he set out the case for his amendment, number seven. Add the example with which he illustrated it, and the example he has used throughout the passage of this bill is certainly one that captured my attention, coming from Whitley Bay, and which I have to say is causing some concern across Tyneside and among Newcastle United's many fans across the world, and I would be failing in my Geordie duty if I didn't take this opportunity to wish the team the best of luck for the cup this weekend.

I understand the noble Lady, the Minister, cannot speak for regulator, which is to be independent, and which doesn't yet exist. But I do hope she would be able to say a bit about the implications of this bill, for example, such as the one in my noble friend, Lord Moynihan, has set out. It clearly has some very serious consequences. Not just for Newcastle in the example he has given, but potentially for the teams in the future. I look forward to hearing what she says.

I just want to say little bit about my two amendments in this group, amendments 46 and 47. As we said in committee. Among the many changes the government has made to the bill, compared to the bill the previous government brought forward in the previous parliament was one, which we understand that the case for. It was in the earlier version of the bill, provision stating the regulators must have regard to the government's foreign and trade policy, when making determinations for the owner's test.

We know this is an example of a concern that UEFA raised. That one concern that UEFA raised. That one has been reported publicly, and the government were very clear when they made the change to the bill that is now before us. It was in response to concerns by UEFA that this undermines the independence of the regulator, if you were to have regard to the governance -- Governments foreign trade policy, it would be too close to the government in regard to the eyes of UEFA, so I understand the rationale for making that change, but in committee, I expressed some concerns about the unintended consequences of making that change, the potential loopholes.

I give the example in committee, if there were to be to potential foreign owners of the club, one from a friendly nation and one with a nation with which this country does not enjoy friendly relations, and we can all think of some examples that would spring readily to mind in a troubled world we face today, then we would all be clear which way we would like to see the independent regulator comedown. Even if the government isn't able to direct it. Or if it is not able to have regard to the government's foreign policy.

So, the rationale for my amendments 46 and 47 are, firstly in the case of 46, to insert a provision highlighting if that individual has breezily believed to be or has been involved in terrorism -related activity. I am sure noble Lords would not want such person to be an owner or director of one of our prominent football teams. And in 47, to set out a number of agencies, the National crime agency, the security service, the serious fraud office, and others.

Whom the new regulator may consult in carrying out its test. I have watered down my amendment from committee to say may consult and not must consult, in the hope that this will find some greater support from the government. I understand the reasons for the change they have made to the bill, but I do hope the noble Lady will be able to look at these ways we might be able to tighten up the potential for a loophole, so we can avoid seeing those who none of us would like to see taking control of English football clubs.
17:51
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

I thank them noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, for tabling their amendments, and advising me with the opportunity to resave the government's views on this point. I joined Lord Parkinson in which Newcastle could look for their forthcoming match. We can agree on some things in your Lordships house. Starting with amendment seven and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Before I go into a bit more detail, I would just like to clarify whether incumbent owners are offices could be tested, and indeed, they can be tested, the Gator can test incumbent officers or owners, on grounds of their fitness, or owners, only with source of their wealth, but I would repeat where there are grounds to be concerned.

Of an owner, in order to hold owners to account. The government has intended to provide owners with the tools to identify ultimate owner as accurately as possible. One of the noble Lord, not Monaghan's point on precedent, this is why the bill's drafting takes its lead from the president of other acts, for control, including the Companies Act, the control regime, and the economic crime act, we are confident we have the correct definition to achieve the bill's aim. It ensures an individual that inserts influence over a club, more than that of any other owner, can still be identified as another owner, even if they do as another owner, even if they do not have for their legal control.

In fact, without this definition, ultimate owners could circumvent regulation. It is fundamental that clubs have suitable custodians in order to cure the future of clubs. And most importantly protect the game that fans hold so dear to them. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lords can understand the importance of the definition. Turning to amendment 28, as I outlined during committee stage, I agree it is important the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider significant influence by owners. That is why the Secretary of State's guidance will be produced in good time, in order to give this clarity.

I want to make it clear the bill's provision which provide owner, enclose three, schedule one, that come into force on the day the bill comes into act, that means the obligation for the Secretary of State to pursue this guidance comes in force on that day. We take note of the valuable points Lord Drayson committee, and after looking at this again in detail, we stand by our position that the intent of this amendment is made without the need to change the bill. But we agree that before guidance is produced, clubs should not be expected to identify those that meet the definition of an owner, by exercising significant influence or control, so I would like to provide greater reassurance, that the scenario the greater loads are concerned with should not be an issue.

I should say the clubs required to identify their owners required to identify their owners Significant influence or control of the regulator. In response to a Lord Pannick's point on why we have not defied significant influence and control on the face of the bill and put it in guidance instead, this approach is based on precedent. As I mentioned, the Companies Act also sets out the definition of significant influence or controlling guidance, rather than legislation, and the Secretary of State guidance will give clarity to us about who meets the definition.

Turning now to amendment 42, 43, 44, 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I first, it is a bit cheeky, but I take exception to the slight motion that Delia Smith is a cook, I would argue she is, through her professional career, arguably also a highly successful businesswoman. But leaving that point aside, the requirement to notify us there for a reason. Keeping unsuitable owners and officers out is a core part of the regulator's regime. We want the regulator to block these individuals from entering the system, not have difficult costly battle to remove difficult costly battle to remove So, it needs to know who clubs prospective new owners and officers are before they buy or join a club, but simply the regulator needs to be able to gather the information needed to test them, and work with them, the club, to ensure this proper application in good time and it will help the regulator prepared to act quickly, when it retrieves -- Receives application.

This clause has another function, if a club has become an owner or an officer of a club without the regulator having first found unsuitable, they still have to notify the regulator as soon as possible, after the event. Without this provision, there could be untested unsuitable individuals in the system, that the regulator was unaware of. Moving out to amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, we agree it would be... It would not be right for money related Terrorism Act to find its way into our clubs.

The bill is already drafted, already stops just that, through its provision about a through its provision about a serious criminal conduct. Serious criminal conduct includes offences listed in section 41 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. That has an extensive list of terrorism - related offences, mentioning a few from an organisation, to encouraging terrorism, and offences to result in terrorism. This is considered under the ODT source of wealth and honesty and integrity tests. And the club licensing regime lets the regulator block funding connected to serious criminal conduct.

That is why we are confident that the bill appropriately and thoroughly agrees with terrorism -related activities. Finally, turning to amendment 47, also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, I am pleased to have another opportunity highlighting the shared agreements directly to Canada will use to its advantage. I absolutely Needs to work closely with organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord for the discussions we have had on at this point.

The bill establishes a gateway for the regulator to share information with a range of organisations, including HMRC, National crime agency, serious fraud office. It creates a specific gateway for HMRC to share information with the regulator and empowers the Secretary of State to create other such gateways by regulations as needed. The regulatory already consult whatever it needs to make robust decisions. The regular table seek expertise from -- The regulatory will seek expertise from organisations, for national concerns. The shadow regulatory is already building a strong relationship with the NACA and a law enforcement in order to ensure the regulatory was in a strong position to gather at receive the information it needs.

We are confident the bill adequately empowers the regulator to gather such information and for the reasons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Lords could withdraw their amendments. My Lords, turning first to Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, turning first to Lord Goddard's comment by proposing this Goddard's comment by proposing this amendment, we will be watering down amendment, we will be watering down the regulation. On the contrary, if you look at the regulatory you look at the regulatory requirements of FIFA, and UEFA, if you look at the FA, if you look at the Premier League, if you look at the Premier League, if you look at any of the national governing bodies in football in Europe, which I have done, it isn't a matter of watering down, it is that this makes a much Additional layer which doesn't exist in the other countries, simply put
17:59
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
it to him there must be a reason for that, there is a good reason why, in the detailed regulation which exists the detailed regulation which exists in FIFA, UEFA, the FA, the Premier League, it is unnecessary to access additional layer. To my noble friend from the frontbench, I would say to from the frontbench, I would say to him that Lord Parkinson mentioned, my noble friend, Lord Parkinson, mentioned the exchange that took mentioned the exchange that took place over the clause having regard to foreign and trade policy objectives to the government.

It was objectives to the government. It was one classic example of when UEFA said jumper, the British government's position was how high? government's position was how high? And I fear that if you take the FA out of the equation, which has happened now, we are going to see far more work for lawyers in the future than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, anticipates. His point however on this amendment was receptive and accurate, they do believe it is incumbent that if this legislation is not changed this evening, that has a future opportunity, the Secretary of State makes absolutely clear in his consideration of this, which he will detect, -- Undertake, to make sure there is clarity on that.

As far as the act is concerned, I simply stated that, there is no requirement whatsoever to take into account the Companies Act when opining on the subject. If there was, should be written onto the face of the legislation. Once again, there are, as mentioned before, 31 different areas, where we are going to wait until we hear detail, competitions, the clubs, the detail of exactly what influence means. This is all for the future. This is in many respects a sort of shell bill, but using influence over has the impact that I have mentioned in the example of Newcastle and I'm very concerned about that.

I would ask the Minister to write to me can if she would, I appreciate you want a time to respond to the concerns that have been stressed in regard to the owners of new council, not just in regard to the club, but in response to this bill, if it is enacted. On their investment in the Newcastle area, over and beyond their financing of the club. Because as I understand it, those rumours that are circulating are well grounded. But the Minister will no doubt be able to write to me to tell me, because this is meant to be a growth bill, all regulators are meant to grow their businesses that they regulate, and I fear this will have exactly the opposite effect and I think Newcastle may be on the receiving end of that.

So, if we do not change the bill to remove the influence over, as a key criterion of control, then I think we will have made an error and for that reason I wish to test the will of the House. the House.
18:01
18:05
18:14
None Portrait Amendment:8 Lord Maude of Horsham (Conservative)
-

my name and the name of my noble friend, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I do not need to detain it your Lordships long on this. The effect of this amendment is to put on the face of the bill, the act, as it turns out, what the Minister has already committed to colour herself in her letter to my noble friend, on 13 January, where she said the chair of the Independent Football Regulator will be subject to pre- appointment scrutiny by the DCMS Select Committee.

And we welcome that commitment. It is a good commitment and of course her word is her bond. Her word is not necessarily the word of future Ministers. It is important that we believe that this commitment should be there on the face of the bill. It is very hard to see where they could be any objection to that. The wording of the amendments in my name and if the noble Baroness, the Minister felt inclined to say that she will bring back, at third reading a improved version of this, which gives effect, in a substance to what is contained in my amendment, I would be content not to press this vote, this amendment to a division.

I think it is important to reflect on why it matters that this appointment, which will happen, if this all goes through. Will happen on a regular basis. New chairs will be appointed and the nature of the debates we have been having in your Lordships chamber, the course of this afternoon illustrates how important it is. We have said and it remains the case that what is being introduced, for the first time is a regulator, of a sport, which includes the most successful sporting league in the world, and it is a huge success.

English football is a huge success. English football And we take risks with its success at our peril but also a political peril of the government of the day, who, if things go wrong, will be blamed. And rightly blamed for setting this up in a way that has created the peril. And I know from my own experience that subjecting the Chair of an important public appointment to scrutiny by a Select Committee, it can be hazardous. I rented an appointment I -- I remember an appointment I made, when the Minister was subject to scrutiny, and the candid and we selected it did not measure up to the examination of the Select Committee.

We had to rerun the process. They had not shown themselves to be across the issues and the sensitivities, that was an appointment which required strength and the ability actually to be able to stand up to the government and resist the banishment of the government, whatever the government was, it was the government I was a member of. And the Select Committee was right. So, it is important that, given how the effects of the actions of this regulator can damage something, which is important economically, financially for the country, but also affects an activity, which is very dear to the heart of many millions, billions of people actually, across the world.

Which gives pleasure and as we all know, periodically, painted many of us. -- Pain too many of us. It is important that person carrying these awesome responsibilities is fully tested, before they take up their role. And while we welcome the commitment for noble Baroness, the Minister, has made, that to this, for this appointment, that that will be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee. We think it is important, and I would urge the House to support the idea that this commitment should be there on the face of the bill, so that other ministers in future, it is possible, may not have the same good intentions that she herself has.

And I would therefore urge the House to support this amendment, now she is willing to give the commitment that she will come back at third reading to give something that will give a substantive effect to what this amendment would introduce. So, I beg to move this amendment.
18:19
None Portrait Deputy Speaker. Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Schedule two, page 85, line 12, at the end, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. Just responding briefly to the
18:19
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
noble Lords comments, I quite understand where he is coming from, in terms of ensuring there is proper and effective process in securing good quality public appointments. And I thought the noble Lords reflections of his experience was very interesting. But I think possibly, this goes a bit too far. And I am not sure the noble Lord himself would have approved of giving Parliament the effective veto that his amendment does. Looking at the detail of it. I'm sure my noble friend the Minister, has made contribution and enough in good -- And an offer in good faith, to ensure there can be pre-appointment scrutiny of appointments, to become the Chair of the regulator.

So, I hear what the noble Lord says and, tempting though it is, I think it would be leading to a path which is not common in our jurisdiction. I know in the States, they have the public appointment processes were effectively, Congress can veto an appointment, but that is not the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. Grateful to the noble Lord, of course, it is right that it is usual course, it is right that it is usual for the effect of an adverse vote in a Select Committee, where there is pre-appointment scrutiny, is only advisory, and it is open, and may advisory, and it is open, and may even have happened. I can't remember an example where the government has ignored that. It hasn't been binding, and if the government binding, and if the government wanted to come back with an alternative version which reflected the comments he is making here, I the comments he is making here, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment in favour of that.

But the amendment in favour of that. But the reality of course is whether the, on the face of the act it is a binding Select Committee, already advisory vote, the effect is pretty much the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

same. Looking at paragraph 4 of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Looking at paragraph 4 of the noble Lords amendment, says the Secretary of State... Welcome a Secretary of State... Welcome a negative opinion on appointment of a person, the Secretary of State may person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person and that is clearly, in my interpretation of it, a veto. I'm sure the noble Lady, the Minister, will reflect on the noble Minister, will reflect on the noble Lord's words.

The other members of the group, which I think has been putting today, and my noble friend, Baroness Taylor and I have put up to, I am sure the House will support them, they simply need sure there is a proper process there, to ensure there is a declaration and registration for members of the regulatory board, and also the expert panel. And I commend the Minister for bringing those amendments forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in the debate on some
18:23
18:24
18:24
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
do so, because I take issue with the noble Lord bass, -- Lord Bassam, because we undecided both sides to be fair have been consistent in pushing and advocating for proper scrutiny and oversight of this new regulator, which is, after all, unprecedented as a body, with unprecedented sweeping powers. I think it is appropriate and reasonable for us to seek to test the personal manifesto, the vision, the leadership, love someone who has seen theJEROEN BROERSMA: With someone who has seen the chairmanship.

For instance, the kick it out chairman has been muted as a potential leader of the new regulator. Whether that happens or regulator. Whether that happens or not is another issue. Both the Minister will know the Civil Service process can sometimes be criticised in respect of public appointments, with how it's secretiveness and how it is not that transparent, until right at the end, when the basket of appointed bulls -- Appointments is placed in front of the Minister. At that regard, I do think the scrutiny for the opportunities for a new candidate to put their case for parliamentarians is quite compelling.

And I know my expert -- My experience having served for four years in the Public Accounts Committee and the other place, yet it was make or break, as ministers, Decline at those meetings but rose to the occasion on a number of occasions, and I do think there is inherent worth for that, for them to have the opportunity to put their case forward. And I would finally say there is a precedent for it. The financial conduct authority, senior appointments routinely go before the Treasury Select Committee command there are other committees also that interrogate the appointments put forward.

Just because it hasn't been done before, given that we have a brand-new body with these very widescale powers, does not it shouldn't be tried on this occasion. I would hope that the Minister which looks pathetically on this amendment, because I think it doesn't undermine the bill, even I am very much Football Governance Bill sceptic, but I know it is going to happen, so I want to improve it. And irrespective of party affiliation, we will improve it by testing the mettle of candidates in senior -- Senior leadership roles, so I implore the miss a look at this amendment, look at it benignly and perhaps support it, if not tonight, perhaps support it, if not tonight, then certainly in the form of a new amendment, along these lines at third reading.
18:27
18:28
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
time, but I think we have to have it. it. To my noble friend, Lord Parkinson's amendment 10 and to support the other amendments on this group. Our other amendments on this group. Our amendment hopefully is quite modest and uncontroversial, in that we seek to limit the number of individuals appointed to the expert panel, to appointed to the expert panel, to 20. And I think we would all agree that 20 is actually quite a large number. But, this was the number put in the previous Conservative version in the previous Conservative version of the bill, which, for some reason, was removed by the government and I'm sure he would be quite surprised, because I must be honest, 20 sounds like a lot to me, to go out and then remove that, so it can be higher than that.

I think it probably leaves us open to jokes like how many regulators does it take to change a lightbulb? Hopefully 20 will definitely do it. So, I would hope that would be something that the government would be happy to bear in mind. And I think there is a serious point here, when you talk about a light-touch desire, and wanting to remove red tape, I think a body of over 20, I would argue 20 is pretty unwieldy, I think over 20 will definitely be unwieldy.

In terms of the other amendments. I would like to support those made by the noble Baroness, the Minister, and others, in terms of welcoming transparency at the heart of the regulators work. Entirely correct that any conflicts or potential conflicts should be openly declared. And finally, in terms of my noble friend, Lord Maude's amendment, ready to follow the points made by other noble Lords, where I think there is a consensus that this is a sensible move, I think is my noble friend said, we are perfectly happy to accept the assurances that the noble Lord, the Minister, made about subsequent Chair.

She is happy for it to happen for the first one, so the precedent has been set. And so hopefully that is not a big ask, that some sort of assurances are made for future ones, and again, flexible in terms of performance that takes. I would also take the opportunity, given that there has been quite a bit of press speculation, whether there has been any update on the timings of potential candidates and when we would hopefully see them in place at that point.

So, I do hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will either accept this amendment or give an undertaking for third reading, but if not, my noble friend would have our full support if he wishes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test the opinion of the House. Can I make a quick point? I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I make a quick point? I think it is disingenuous of Lord Jackson to actually name a proposed candidate, in line of talking about candidate, in line of talking about If you knows the other candidate perhaps it might be helpful if he
18:31
18:32
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Lords for their amendments, taking amendment it in the name of the Noble Lord first I understand the Noble Lord first I understand the desire for the scrutiny of The Chair and am grateful for the thoughtful and am grateful for the thoughtful speech that he made outlining the reasons for the amendment, getting The Chair right both now and in the future would be pivotal for the success of the new regulator. I will success of the new regulator.

I will not go into names of her speculation and I do understand progress is being made on the appointment. I am not personally involved in that, so I will not comment further. As a publicly.of the regulator, the Chair must be a competent and strong individual, free from any vested interest. I would like to issue a noble Lords across the House that the existing public presence is a robust one in accordance with the governance code on public appointment and when the pulmonary candidate should have faith in, as per Cabinet office guidance commentary select committees can already carry out pre-appointment hearings and offered them to the Secretary of State and The Chair of the regulators subject to this scrutiny.

The Secretary of State will of course where any committee's views carefully as the Cabinet Office guidance already sets out, so this would also be the case for future, however the condiments code sets out that Ministers must have the ultimate responsibility appointment for decisions for which they are accountable to Parliament. It is not common for Parliament to hold a statutory right to veto over such public appointments and we cannot see Aries intercept that precedent to the regulators. In response to my Noble Friend of Brighton our view is that this amendment would represent a veto.

Moving onto amendment 10 in the name of the Noble Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay which seeks to place a veto on the number of regulators at the expert panel. The regulators and the expert plot plays a vital role in making various decisions across the regime when and where it is appropriate. It is essential that that panel has a range of the relevant expertise and expenditure for the diversity and complexity of the decisions that may come before it. In number of members of the expert panel is to be determined by the Chief Executive officer in response to the operational need.

The Government was not one to fit at the effect on the panel by introducing a cap on the maximum number of members of the panel as the amendment seeks to do, however sensible that level may appear to noble Lords, the regulator does need to fix ability to react in the event of high workload in the panel most of the Rigoletto will be required to deliver value for money and has a regulatory and civil, so we do not believe that the CEO could appoint an unnecessarily bloated panel.

Finally, turning to the Government amendment nine and 11, during Committee stage by Noble Friends emphasised that real importance of protecting the regulators public interest and the Government is in complete agreement on the independence of the Rockies must be protected, including against vested interests. While the bill already makes the provision of interests we have tabled them to strengthen these amendments even further and beyond any doubt. The amendments require the regulators to establish and maintain a system whereby the memos of the regulators board and the expert panel must declare their relevant interests and these must be kept and maintained.

This would ensure that all panel members declare relevant interests from the outset of their appointment and an ongoing basis. This is good practice not only for transparency to help the regulator manage any conflicts and to insulate its decisions for potential vested or committee interests. For these reasons I hope I have reassured your Lordships house and noble Lords will withdraw their amendments and I beg to move the Government amendments nine and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11. I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this for their contributions to this important debate. And to the comments made at the outset by the comments made at the outset by the Noble Lord pass on, so I am open- minded about what goes on the face minded about what goes on the face of the bill should contain what is effectively a veto or whether it should be much more in accord with should be much more in accord with the usual practice and if minister were to give an undertaking she were to give an undertaking she would come back to the reading with an amendment framed in those terms I would be willing not to press this to division tonight but I have not heard that commitment from them, which is a disappointment.

We heard from the Noble Lord who is scarred by his own personal experience but I would simply remind him that had cases make bad law and his sons like a particularly hard, for which he has my sympathy. And just typical point made by the Noble Lord Addington who seems to be not recommending or arguing really that there should be no reappointment scrutiny at all, whether it should be on the face of the bill and therefore he presumably is at the virtue of the Minister to withdraw the commitment and there should be great appointment scrutiny were just typical substantive and he made argued that scrutiny would turn that connector into a political fumble but actually the reverse is the case.

It is important that the regulator should be genuinely independent and my experience of observing the scrutiny procedures is that select committees are particularly concerned to test is the capability of the nominee to
18:37
18:38
18:38
18:48
18:49
18:50
None Portrait Amendment:13 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-

this is so important. The reason for football clubs, I am a football fan and I love football. I'm aware of and I love football. I'm aware of the power that football clubs have over their fan base and their sphere over their fan base and their sphere of influence in white society. -- of influence in white society. -- Wide society. We have to limit our impact on the planet and understand this amendment is particularly trying to acknowledge the link tweener environmental and financial sustainability and the urgent need for the games regulated to be empowered to drive greener practices.

-- Link between. Looking at environment sustainability is backed by pledge Paul and fellow sport and sustainability organisations, support for climate action and nature at Loughborough University and the football and climate change newsletter. In 2021 in response to a number of high- profile crises that had arisen in the sport, a fan led review being discussed shared by the former sports minister, many had 10 findings focusing on financials to, including fan input and diversity and welfare, but it is crucial that a focus on environmental standards and sustainability is part of the remit stop as part of the second reading and at Committee stage, ministers did resist amendment around environmental sustainability on the basis that such measures would put a burden and cost on the regulator and on clubs.

Ministers argued that entry sustainability efforts by clubs and leagues were and would continue to be sufficient. However while some clubs do commendable work, progress is inconsistent, erratic and lax enforcement. Without regulation, football has fragmented inadequate response to climate threat and it is predicted in the current set, clubs could be at a high risk of flooding and the average grassroots pitch loses five weeks of play every season due to adverse weather and approximately 120,000 fixtures called off every year because of unplayable conditions.

Government policy links financials to to climate risk and the Bank of England is required to consider climate is required to consider climate risks financial perspectives. They want to submit a report on how climate risks affect the sector and football should be no different from these. My amendment 13 would ensure clubs comply with a Climate Change Act 2008 to secure the long-term environmental sustainability of English football. I simply feel that this is too important to leave and I
18:53
18:54
Baroness Brady Portrait Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
-
government decision to adjust the frequency the Secretary of State of football governance and it looks at various key processes across the bill ensuring consistency, clarity and practical efficiency. I would like to thank the Minister for listening to the points raised and responding positively with her amendment. In terms of guidance and consultation and my amendment, the bill requires guidance only for discretionary licence conditions leaving many critical regulatory functions without similar obligations. I want to highlight three areas where greater clarity is essential and guidance should be mandatory.

First, financial sustainability is the regulator's primary purpose, but there are no obligation for the regulated to define how it will look at resilience through guidance, with clubs making long-term investment decisions deserve clarity on how these will be evaluated. Can the Minister confirm the regulator will define these incredibly important terms influencing the overall approach of the regulator and in the state of the report. The owners and directors test, vital for the lax detail in the legislation itself.

Without requirement to consult clubs and existing potential investors on design, we risk creating unnecessary uncertainty. There is a requirement to consult on the definition of significant influence of control within ownership laws, but no consultation requirements have been tested. The backstop power of financial distribution could fundamentally alter football economic, yet the regulator need not explain its approach for mythology ahead of determination for a mechanism with such profound location that this seems to represent an obvious gap in procedural and legal safeguards.

This uncertainty around guidance can create practical problems. The Premier League broadcast deal runs until 2030, clubs like mine are making infrastructure decisions spanning similar timeframes or even longer. How can responsible planning occur without regulatory clarity? Surely mandatory guidance across a range of areas in the bill would be conducive to generating greater clarity and regulatory certainty? This would require the regulator to provide guidance across all functions and consult appropriately. I'm not seeking to constrain the regulator's authority, just to ensure powers are exercised transparently and coherently.

If as the Minister assures us this will be a collaborative regulator can I ask her to commit to the principal more comprehensively in the legislation.
18:57
18:59
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
I looked at the amendments and I was promoting them, but I was assured by the comments of the Minister on this that they were not necessary and I support that comment. I think a bit of research, and this is where I take issue with Baroness Jones stop if she looks at the working of all of the regulators that operate even in things like the FCA and so on, she will find that all of them publish a commitment to sustainability and acknowledge the role and responsibility they have got for ensuring that we meet net zero targets.

These amendments are well-intentioned, and do not need to be on the face of the bill and I don't think they are necessary. What would be better if we could focus on what clubs are currently doing. Brighton and Hove Albion have a sustainable transport policy and most clubs commit to that. We get most of our fans thereby some form of public transport or other, 50 or 60%, and most clubs will recognise there is an agreeable target. It does not require legislation to do that.

It requires working closely with local authority and transport undertakers. While there is a good intention behind this, I do not think we need this on the face of the bill. Most regulators already subscribe to statements relating to sustainable practices. While the Bishop of Sheffield makes a good point, clubs are working hard in this area to promote good environmental practice. Well- intentioned these amendments are, but they are unnecessary and I would hope that the noble Baroness would Looking at other amendments in the group very briefly on ticket pricing, again, as I understand it, obviously ticket pricing is a commercial matter for clubs and they have got to work at the best way of ensuring that they maximise the number of fans that come through the gate.

But I think as I understand if it is already explicit in the builders clubs will consult the ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. I do not think it is something that really should be tamed in the House but for something for the clubs to work out and ensure that they adopt good practice in the way that they engage with fans in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand not as a learner learner lawyer but as a former sports minister with understanding as Lord minister with understanding as Lord Moynihan said not as a senior and experienced administrator of a huge club, I stand as a humble fan of club, I stand as a humble fan of Mike amendment 27. I have not spoken much in the course of the bill and I much in the course of the bill and I have done I have spoken as a
19:02
Lord Ranger of Northwood Portrait Lord Ranger of Northwood (Conservative)
-
-
lifelong football fan who does pay regularly to watch my beloved club Tottenham Hotspur for bit of a bus and I sense and here the very opinions of fans when it comes to the independent regulatory a mix of scepticism and concern. I must acknowledge there is some enthusiasm on the terraces, but it is tempered by doubts about the regulators scope and power because some fans are worried but it will not address their immediate concerns like the rising ticket prices, or clubs prioritising lucrative overseas to us over local engagement.

Posts on suggest scepticism about whether the independent regulator can truly challenge the entrenched power of the Premier League and is one user noted you cannot force clubs to lower ticket prices. I fear it may impose bureaucratic burdens without meaningful change even threatening potentially the competitors competitiveness. Fans can be quite astute in their analysis and their hopes for what he regulator is going to do, as it now meets the harsh reality of what the regulators might actually do and at a time when some clubs, dare I say and I use the example of English biggest commercial club Manchester United which was facing demonstrations from its fans demanding change the fans are motivated themselves by a myriad of reasons and much of their ire does have to do with the performance of their team on the pitch.

And one of the issues at the heart of Manchester United fans fury is the issue of ticket prices must that was why a specific run demonstration was organised at the rising of ticket prices to £66 and the removal of some concessions in December last year and the issue continues to rumble on. The support the decision to sell adult away tickets for the Old Trafford cup and between £51-£61 as callous with away tickets capped at £30 for Premier League matches. I do not want to be accused of picking on Manchester United, especially as they are having as poor a season as my own club, where the natives are also extremely restless.

Again, for many footballing reasons, but also because of the restriction on ticket concessions that have been announced this season, and the same can be said about a number of Premier League clubs were ticket prices are only going one way and potentially acting as a barrier to many fans actually experiencing the beautiful game at the grants. It must be acknowledged that clubs, especially Premier League clubs, are facing challenges. Clubs generate huge revenue, yes. Equally, they have huge outgoings and I will continue chasing talent to achieve success in a highly competitive international market.

They also face national financial pressures such as the impact of the additional labour governance national insurance increases on their employee base. The Labour government's increase in the national living wage, the further compliance costs about the new Employment Rights Bill. And then the Independent Football Regulator's levy. So, we can debate about the impact on the pyramid and the question that I and millions of fans will have is well all these additional costs and that of the IFR on EPL clubs and every single club in the land mean ticket prices will go up? Rather than meeting the aspiration of helping France reduced ticket prices, the cost of the independent financial regulator is likely to do the exact opposite, therefore I seem to add a modest amendment to clause 14, that the IFR annual report includes a review of the impact of the IFR on ticket prices to give us fans some comfort on the burden for the regulator that it will not fall on us.
19:06
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
I am conscious that the passing of this bill has been somewhat lengthy, so I will be incredibly brief, but I rise to support the noble Baroness with absolute delight in her amendment 13 and I do so for three reasons. First was that the often overused phrase soft power and no one can deny the huge following impression football has on so many and that implies equally to fans in this country and abroad. And as has been said for, the Premier League makes up a larger share of television exports and football is forecast over one and 1/2 billion people in just shy of 190 countries.

And throughout the ages it has been noted from noble Lords football has pushed the campaign on many issues. pushed the campaign on many issues. To me, it is right that amongst this many things that clubs promote at home and abroad can include the environment, nature and broader sustainability to and that leads me to a second point which is in effect football is hard power. Not just in all the science that they own what they offer during matches to fans.

They can make a difference. And the third point at which to make it a more broad one and I wish to speak to those who cannot support this amendment, however well-intentioned it is, because they do not the idea of a regulator. The debate we are having now is about this amendment. It is not about the bill in its entirety and whether they agree with it or not the bill will end sin, so the question to me is not the virtue of the regulator or how we can improve it, this amendment does not have specific targets or rules on what exactly they should fund, what it should look like, what should interfere needlessly and how the games are played the key is that this culturally God what is already in other legislation, something that we are all expected to do ourselves, which has been said to other clubs under their own steam and to play their part and I would respectfully ask and urge all noble Lords of the noble Baroness presses the boat to support her.

support her.
19:09
19:10
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I wanted firstly to amendment 24, reducing the minimum frequency of revived football governance statement from three years to every five years, because I think that is a positive direction of travel, reining in disproportionately from some direct bureaucracy, meaning that clubs who are fearful live any perpetual state of having to fulfil the paperwork rather than the Government and football. I am glad to see that. Another worrisome of us have raised is also the intervening politicised mission, so I do want to oppose, I was opposing amendment 12 oppose, I was opposing amendment 12 and 13, but 13 seems to be the focus that is linking this bill to the climate act and thinking sustainable availability to economic sustainability and the climate impact part of the IFR objectives.

I just think that this is incredibly unwise for those reasons. First of all, it goes against the Government earlier amendment 14 which all sides of the House loaded and I agree with them. That is a commitment to avoiding any adverse effect of the financial growth in English football because let's be honest, outside of all, even the Government are now acknowledging that zero targets and environmental regulations are often expensive and burdensome barriers to economic growth and not allowing the Government and in fact whole sweets for example the infrastructure projects like building houses and so on, so I do not think that we can say it is uncontentious to simply say that because you say the words environmental sustainability and economic sustainability in the same sentence that there is not some tension between them, and I think that there is.

I also think that this would really be an example of scope that the Minister has assured us and in turn that has been promised to us to UEFA and FIFA we were told earlier, and at Committee stage I spoke next to the football clubs into this ever greater none related, none for all related political territory. Setting them essentially politically driven environmental use to jump to and that committee the Government assured us the Government had no intention of accepting these into the legislation.

And I was reassured. What I do want them to promise that the independent regulator will not, once this bill is passed, which undoubtedly it will be, actually simply slip them in to the governance remit. I am worried because the green lobby is very active, persistent and wealthy and to be honest has an interest in pursuing this after the is long gone. And now for larger of course with lots of money they might well be able to go along with a lot of the things that this will demand and we know that there is all sorts of Premier League football clubs at that moment who are more than happy to look at the sponsorship, by sustainability, green energy companies and so on.

We have seen a lot of that happen. But I do think that this could amount to on the one hand eco-virtue signalling, of the big clubs, but it is all greenwashing that we know the corporate social responsibility that they do so well, but my fear is that it would distract smaller clubs in their court role of thinking about financial stability, improving their governance so that we have beautiful all clubs, and just dragging them in to this extraneous environmental sustainability world.

As we heard from Noble Lord Ricker of Northwood, when he talked to fans about this, and I am rather sceptical of many elements of this bill, fans would elements of this bill, fans would say to me, " I really want this bill because I I'm determined that we are going to have to cut prices brought down. That is the main thing that is said. And I said we do not want any of this nonsense. Maybe not the word he used.

Around EDI or net zero and he used. Around EDI or net zero and I want ticket price cuts, not bloody carbon cuts. The Minister is very keen that we should be led by the fans on this. I would suggest that we reject these amendments because I can assure you within the fans priorities, it is not top, in fact it is not relevant at all.
19:16
19:18
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
they afford it. It is a working persons game. It is not a class persons game. It is not a class issue, but it has been. It is a tribal thing. The reason we get tribal thing. The reason we get excited and depressed about football excited and depressed about football teams, if Sheffield United when I will be depressed and I will be no doubt unsurprised when it happens. The most obvious thing to do would The most obvious thing to do would be to stop going to the game to effect change.

It is hard to do. The regulator asking reasonable questions about why they increased tickets and prices is a very sensible option, and if they are there to check on the validity of the due diligence around the ownership, I would have thought the least they could do looking around the due diligence of looking after the fans. No one looks after them outside of the Premier League, and it is pretty awful. The toilets, the restaurants, if they pass as that, traditionally has been pretty diabolical and I think regulators need to look at this and if the money going into the club is straightforward and is coming from the sources that are alleged.

I will support the ticket price amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should it be put. Having listened to the debate I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having listened to the debate I discovered I had no original points to make. I discovered having a quick to make. I discovered having a quick discussion with Lord Paddick and if it is in law anyway, it is law. An it is in law anyway, it is law. An enforcement capacity, the earlier amendment may have been better or amendment may have been better or more relevant, it is already out of scope at Committee, and when it
19:20
19:20
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Minister for the government amendment that falls in this group. They reflect amendments I tabled at Committee to reduce the frequency of which the Secretary of State may revise the football governance statements bringing it more in line with the parliamentary cycle rather than every three years and secondly to remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend the definition of the football season. It always seemed a disproportionate power why a cabinet minister would define a football season is a point that bemused football fans and I grateful to the noble Baroness for amendment 24 and 87 brought forward on those points.

I applaud Lord Ranger for his passionate speech in favour of amendment 27 which seeks to require regulators annual report to include a review of impact of activities on ticket prices. It is important that the regulator dictates ticket prices to clubs, recognising the point that Lord Hogan-Howe made about how cubs try the patience of fans, it is a commercial decision for clubs to take, but there is a distinct possibility that the activities of the new regulator may force clubs to increase ticket prices further.

It is different to the point that Lord Patten of Brighton made -- Lord Patten of Brighton made in relation to the bill. It will bring higher compliance and legal costs and many clubs will have to hire extra costs. That is to comply with legal duties. That looks at the impact assessment. When we couple that with the job tax, increase in minimum wage, the impending duties on the Employment Rights Bill, we can see football clubs facing significant cost pressures over the coming years and inevitably, surely, the only solution for many clubs might not be thinking about the Premier League or championship clubs, but about in league two and the National League, the smaller and less well off, will be to hike ticket prices to offset be to hike ticket prices to offset these increased costs.

It is clear we need the impact assessment of the regulator's actions on ticket prices if Parliament is going to create legislation, it owes it to fans to ensure the impact of the cost is properly accounted for. Baroness Fox, Lord Ranger and others reflected the fact that fans have high expectations of this bill and this regulator. They hope the provisions in schedule four will allow them to benefit from lower ticket prices, but I fear the reverse is likely to be the case.

Higher prices, higher costs leading to higher ticket prices for fans and I do hope my noble trend Lord Ranger will pursue his point on behalf of football fans across the country. I am pleased that Baroness Brady tabled her amendment to ensure the regulator publishes guidance to its functions on clause 21-25, but also functions under the whole bill. The regulator needs to transfer the abstract powers and duties set out in the bill into a more detailed explanation of the rules it will be producing to support clubs to understand what will be expected of them.

If it does it clearly, it will mitigate the costs the regulatory regime will impose on them. Amendment 25 is a simple one, but the impact will be helpful to all clubs facing these regulations. Two Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, the Bishop of Sheffield and Lord Gascoigne, I must say I cannot support them on the amendment they've spoken passionately about but I set out in Committee that we worry about the propensity for mission creep here. They have wisely chosen to put their initiative behind amendment 13 which is the more modest of the two and reflects an acts of Parliament that has been passed with duties there.

While we cannot support her amendment, we will oppose it if she puts it to a vote. We thank the Minister for the government amendments and we look forward to her response. forward to her response.
19:25
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

I am not sure I have got many original thoughts either, although I will try and address points raised during the debate. Starting with amendment 12 and 13, I want to thank the noble lady for these amendments and I'm comfortable with her absolute determination as is her right to raise environmental issues in every way and point of deliberations in the House. She is right that it is impacted, and I know she has support from Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Gascoigne demonstrating the ability to forge a likely, unholy alliance with very likely, unholy alliance with very noble aims.

I do apologise to the Right Reverend Prelate, I am not referring to the Right Reverend Prelate in that sweeping statement. The government is committed to environment and sustainability and one of the Prime Minister's five national missions is to accelerate the transition to clean energy and ensure the UK fulfils its legal obligation to meet its obligations by 2015. I agree with the Right Reverend Sheffield that there is a huge part including football have an important role to play in this transition and the government expects authorities to work together to advance environment and sustainability and we don't put these if they are to object on general duties.

The bar for statutory duties should be high and this is why the regulator focus should be on the problems football has shown itself to be unable to properly address with legislation, by contrast taking action on the environment. You only have to look at Forest Green Rovers as a brilliant example taking example on environmental issues lower down the pyramid and the new sustainability pledge involving a minimum standard of action on environmental issues across all clubs in the league is an example, but this is just a starting point on future initiatives.

Trouble authorities must take steps to accelerate their environmental initiatives, but it is within the gift of league, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention. This will also constitute scope creep as highlighted by Baroness Fox, something I know noble Lords will all agree we need to be aware of stop not least the additional burdens it will place on the regulator and the industry and I hope the noble lady withdraws the amendments stop turning to amendment 25 in the name of Baroness Brady, this amendment seeks to produce guidance on every aspect of its function.

This is disproportionate and would be a significant burden on the regulator. We are not aware of precedent for any regulator to publish guidance without every single aspect of its function and it would be unnecessary and not relevant to clubs or competition organisers and would involve engagement in consultation with clubs adding significant burdens to them. The regulator will produce consultation with relevant stakeholders in line with its duties and principles and I hope the noble lady will feel reassured sufficiently to withdraw her amendment.

Moving to amendment 27 in the name of Lord Ranger of Northwood regarding ticket prices, the annual report is a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account and I understand the desire to ensure this report will cover necessary details. It is important to have the extra nation and intent of the amendment and through his contribution and I recognise how important ticket prices are to fans and recognise determination to raise the issue on behalf of fans. Ticket pricing is a matter clubs which is why the government made it explicit in this bill that clubs must consult their fans on ticket prices as part of fan engagement ensuring fans have their voices heard on impactful issues and the annual report is not the most effective place to achieve this.

It may well be the regulator chooses to look at ticket pricing as part of the state of the game report, however as is the commercial decision, the regulator will not intervene aside from ensuring clubs consult fans. My understanding from the contribution to the bait from the noble Lord was that the cost of the regulation itself may cause clubs to increase prices and that wasn't our reading of the amendment before debate and I would like to address that point specifically. I want to reassure the noble Lord if clubs increase ticket prices, we don't believe it will be a proportional reaction to the regulator and this is something officials have looked at and I have written to Lord Hayward about the costs that might be incurred by costs that might be incurred by clubs as a result of the regulator and I asked for a copy of this letter to be placed in the library and I hope it will give reassurance to the noble Lord and others that we do think the cost of the regulation will be proportionate and have necessary impact on fans in this His reasons outlined I urge the Noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 24 changes the minimum frequency of the rights of the Government member states to three years every five years. I would like to thank all the Noble Lord who spoke to myself and officials and other Ministers about this point. I think the discussion in committee was a good one and the Government listen to the concern about the influence in short-term stays a statement every three years may generate. We are all aligned for the generator to be independent and therefore we have changed the timing of the revisions of the statement to every three years to every five years.

I would also like to thank the noble Lords Lord Moynihan, Lord Markham, as well as the members of the delegated house and three informed committee for their engagement on clause 92. The original intention of this was to allow the regulatory regime to keep this within any future changes in the structure and seasons of the industry, however we recognise the concerns regarding the delegated and are content with the rest of the definition of the bill becoming outdated which is why we put forward an amendment removing this delegate power.

I hope this will satisfy the noble Lords concerns on these issues and I beg to move Government and I beg to move Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate but particularly the holy Right Reverend Bishop of Sheffield and the very brave and possibly and the very brave and possibly and the very brave and possibly slightly less holy Lord Gascoigne. Their speeches were short, powerful, and to the point, which I think the whole house probably appreciates. I whole house probably appreciates. I
19:33
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
whole house probably appreciates. I would like to say to the Noble Lord that colic might amendment well- intentioned was probably the nicest thing he has ever said about a green party person, so I will bank that. However, he is completely wrong because acknowledging a commitment, which is what he said various organisations do, is not the same as actually doing it, so I would argue that this is absolutely irrelevant, this amendment, subscribing to statements which was another phrase he used, that does not mean doing it.

And what I want is for clubs to do it, and therefore I am afraid the Noble Lord is totally wrong. This is not OTO, this is not unnecessary, in fact in the water bill in section 10 we did at this very act, and so if it is relevant then it is relevant now. The Noble Lord Parkinson was very kind in seeing the opposition would not oppose this. I am totally touched by these positions. The kindness towards me.

And the Noble Lord Addington I was told that the Liberal Democrats are abstaining on this which I actually found quite shocking. And it seems an application of their concern about this particular issue and I am very disappointed. And the Noble Lady the Minister, such kind words. That was very kind, even though she said no. And I do understand, I mean when she says that this Government has a complete commitment to environmental obligations, I know that she is incredibly sincere, however I think probably our sort of views on how the covenant is dealing with the environment probably differ slightly and I realise that is partly because you could call me a rabid green, I want green stuff and absolutely everything, but at the same time I think I am right.

That the think I am right. That the Government is wrong, so what I think my amendment would do is actually make it easier for clubs to do the right thing for their founders. And for wider society. And so I really do think that we need this environment, this amendment in this bill. I think I have to ask the Noble Lady what she wishes to do with amendment 12.
19:36
19:36
19:48
19:49
None Portrait Statement: Courts and Tribunals sitting days FY25/26 (around 7.30pm)
-

of March on court and tribunal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sitting days. Whilst I recognise and welcome some of the changes the Lord
19:49
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
some of the changes the Lord Chancellor made in his statement, they are far from sufficient in tackling the court backlog. It is tempting for any new government to blame the outgoing administration for all it possibly can and for that reason I would like to focus on what has happened since this government took office in July last year. Upon taking office, the Lord Chancellor was advised that at least 5600 sitting days were available to tackle the growing court backlog, yet instead of seizing the opportunity the Lord Chancellor only added 500 sitting days and the backlog continued to expand.

In response, the Lord Chancellor added 2000 sitting days, but by then the backlog had only worsened. Now, eight months after they assumed office, we learned last week that she still rejected available sitting days and in a surprising admission conceded the court backlog will only continue to grow. This is simply inexcusable. The Lord Chancellor said victims will receive quicker judgements but victims of serious crimes of rape are being told their cases will not be heard until 2028.

It is not a matter of inconvenience or inconsistency, but the failure to deliver the justice victims deserve and expect. It is critical to act now before the backlog expands further. It is vital we maximise our core capacity, utilising every available day and exploring every possible avenue to relieve pressure and create additional capacity. There are bigger distinctions to existing capacity and judicial capacity. I am confident the noble Lord Minister of course understand the importance of this and cutting the court backlog will undoubtedly be a difficult task.

There is a clear plan of timetable of when this backlog will fall. When will the noble Lord the Minister tell the House that they will date when they expect them and why the Lord Chancellor did not or will not take up the additional 2500 additional sitting days offered by the honourable lady Chief Justice. I look forward to hearing the response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The statement describes the government inheritance of the last administration on Crown Court capacity as a little short of capacity as a little short of disgraceful. It was worse than that.
19:52
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
disgraceful. It was worse than that. It was an utter disgrace and sadly even with the measures announced in the statement, an utter disgrace it remains it was a great system and it has sunk to a level of service that has produced unpardonable delays, decrepit courts, and not enough of them, underpaid and demoralised staff employers. Offenders in custody on remand for a next periods. Prosecutions dropped on many occasions because victims and witnesses lose heart and abandon cases lacking the confidence they will ever see justice.

When trials themselves eventually happen are bedevilled by lapse of time and witnesses failing recollections. Overall, the level of public trust in our Criminal Justice Bill system as a whole is rightly abysmally low. The system would be even worse if it weren't for the tireless commitment of those who work within it, mostly under rewarded, staff, lawyers and particularly our committed indefatigable and independent judiciary who struggle to keep the courts working with some semblance of order against overwhelming odds.

This statement represents a move in the right direction and to that extent of course we welcome it, but it is not enough. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor recognises that. She acknowledged as Lord Cameron said that even with the funding and measures she announced, the backlog will grow. She pins her hopes on the radical measure of structural reform that may or may not be proposed by the legacy and review and those will only take place when the review has reported and its recommendations be implemented.

But what is needed is far more extensive matters to bring down the backlog. There is no significant saving of resources in keeping people hanging around for long periods running for periods with the lives largely on hold because we cannot get cases to trial. I cannot question the seriousness of the crisis they inherited and we now face, but I do question the lack of urgency and I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why is it that a time of catastrophic shortage of sitting days, a progressive government dedicated to the delivery of justice should simply accept the process of agreeing a number of court sitting days should be a negotiation between the government and the judiciary? The honourable lady Chief Justice, a judge widely admired for her levelheadedness and good judgement sought agreement to an extra 6500 days a year.

She advised the government that many extra days were available to address the court backlog. Now standing at 73,000 cases within the system as it stands. Why is the government not simply accepted that? Why has it not agreed to all the extra days for which she seeks sanction and arranged to provide them? Those extra cases would make a significant difference. The House of commons Public Accounts Committee in its report published last Wednesday described the MoJ as tinkering at the edges, reacting to each new issue that affects the courts without planning for long-term solutions.

How is it government has not made swifter process progress without initiating the repairs to our courts and of course the increased funding is welcome, but why is urgency lacking? This was a known problem way before the general election. Like some of the Nightingale courts not retained to clear part of the backlog, has the government considered evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trial? I know the government is well aware of the disproportionate effect of long delays on cases of rape and serious sexual violence, as victims withdraw from prosecutions under the psychological pressure that these cases entail.

The average weight for serious sexual offences cases from arrival at Crown Court, not from report or charge, but actually getting into the Crown Court, to completion is actually 356 days, a shocking figure and many cases weight for far longer. Has the government considered an enhanced status to these cases because of the particular difficulties they face in order to get them more quickly. We agree there is a need for long-term reform and we trust the review will make recommendations that will help restore our Criminal Justice Bill system, but there is much we can do now and I would invite the noble Lord the Minister to take back to his department and invitation to the government to do much more more quickly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome Lord Cameron and I think it is the first time I've think it is the first time I've encountered him speaking from the despatch box. The government inherited a record advising backlog, which stands at 73,000 cases, twice which stands at 73,000 cases, twice the figure of five years ago, and as Lord Marks was saying, there is a Lord Marks was saying, there is a human cost to the delays, victims wait years for justice and attrition wait years for justice and attrition rates in rape cases has more than doubled in the last five years, 2.9% in 2019 to 7.5% now.

I recognise the figure he quoted. The government is funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swift justice to victims, 110,000 sitting days next year, 4000 days higher days next year, 4000 days higher than the last government funded. Lord Cameron asked me a number of questions and basically the question was why weren't we maximising the number of sitting days and taking up the offer as he put it of sitting at capacity within the Crown Court system? We have some simple answers to that.

One is a cash constrained and we need to acknowledge the Lord Chancellor has wide responsibilities to the court and has to balance where the money is spent on the Criminal Justice Bill system and we do acknowledge there are issues and we increased the number of sitting days, but the second point is that it is wise to keep some headroom within the Crown Court system and we saw the benefit of that when we had the riots last year and we were able to deal with those really quite quickly and I think that was in part because of the policy of keeping some headroom in the Crown Court The Noble Lord marks quite rightly pointed out that trials are bedevilled by delays and he was right.

When he said that victims drop out of the system and that there are many problems because of the many delays within our system. And the Noble Lord mentioned the Concord act process and I think it is with noting that the concordat process has been accelerated this year because it is being resolved much earlier in the year than in many previous years, and that will give more certainty to the judges when they are planning and allocating these days between the various courts and that is a benefit of the system which the Lord Chancellor has introduced.

I reject the charge that we are tinkering. I think that the Noble Lord, and acknowledged as well the ever- increasing city days will not solve the problem. We need more radical reform 's and we are looking to serve Brian Levinson 2% reforms. There are a number of things which are being talked about in the papers. We do not exactly what he is going to recommend but we are absolutely clear that there needs to be much more radical change. We need to deal with trials within the magistrates court, by doubling the positive 12 months but again that is a marginal benefit and there needs to be other changes and we are looking forward to Sir Brian's recommendations.

The Noble Lord
20:03
20:04
20:04
20:05
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. First, I think it is very clear that if you get a backlog in the system, people will plead not guilty. That was my experience from that Magistrate's Court I believe in Gloucestershire in 2006 and I do not believe anything has changed. The first question I would therefore ask is question I would therefore ask is what are the Governments projections as to going forward over the next 12 months as to the likely increase in those that are awaiting trial because the real problem is if you do not clear the backlog it makes it worse because it is always tempting to put off facing reality and you to put off facing reality and you just get was and worse.

I think secondly the question, there is always in the courts system time lost during the day and one of the problems that we had relates to prisons, the difficulty of bringing prisoners to the courts on time. And what is done to ensure that has improved. I remember more than 20 years ago this being a problem and it really required extraordinary tough contract management. I took some of the job on myself as the Ministry of Justice did not seem capable of doing it.

What is being done to manage the contracts so that they are managed as a commercial contract should be managed? And penalties or other stern action is taken if a prisoner is late. I just hope the contracts are to enough to ensure that. Then in connection with the present, when I chaired the commission on justice it was obvious that there was a problem in funding the criminal justice system. And I do not think there can be any real doubt that the financial problems that arise arise from, which I completely understand, first of all the constraints on what money is available for justice, but the conclusion we are driven to as if the Exchequer will not provide more money the only place it can come from is reducing the prison population.

And when are we going to find out, but how do we avoid the crisis that will come in the early part of next year but what is being fundamentally done to reassess our policy of sending people to prison for a very long time? Because that, I believe, is what is at the heart of the problem. The Lord Chancellor very eloquently spoke, and I think, doubly so, on dealing with the question of the court. The much more difficult political question is dealing with the sentiment that was impressed on us some years ago of prison works.

I do not believe that is true, but what it does it does to undermine all of the justice system with their not being enough money for dealing with an lawyers to do their job properly and for funding the administration of justice and I really took my second question in two parts but I do commend the Lord Chancellor for what she has done, but I think there are other problems that we need to face up to.
20:09
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Agree with the concluding sentence of the noble and learned Lord. There are indeed other problems that we need to face up to and reducing the prison population is one of the most fundamental of those problems and in many ways that problem goes hand-in-hand with the problem of the Crown Court backlog. The noble and learned Lord will know that my Noble Friend Lord Timpson went to Spain to see their presence system and my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor went to Texas.

But constructively the other ways of dealing with these issues. But of course as he said I think the reoffending rates are really crucial to trying to reduce the backlog. And there will be legislation on this moving forward in due course. But moving forward in due course. But the noble and learned Lord opened by talking about the incentive to plead not guilty because of that lengthy backlogs and that is undoubtedly true. I have heard that point made many times and it is an added incentive for us to try and reduce the backlog think there will be a number of benefits to reducing backlogs and the noble and learned Lord has pointed out one particular one of those.

The other point I would make is it is my understanding in the Magistrate's Court the work about five times more quickly than about five times more quickly than crown courts. I do not know what Sir Brian is going to recommend but I think that if more work could be done within the Magistrate's Court's that would help as well. The noble and learned Lord spoke about bringing prisoners to court, of bringing prisoners to court, of course I agree with that point.

I do remember that perhaps the last mini campaign that did when I was still a sitting magistrate was to try to get in London for the prison fence to be able to use the emergency service able to use the emergency service debate, so I am afraid I lost it, but nevertheless the point he makes is a good one and it is important that everyone gets to court on time so that the whole process can be properly managed which is to the benefit of everybody involved in it as well.
20:12
20:13
20:13
20:14
20:15
20:28
None Portrait Legislation: Football Governance Bill - report stage (day 1) continued
-

Report on Report on the Report on the Football Report on the Football Governance Bill. Baroness Twycross.
20:28
20:28
None Portrait Amendment:16 Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 16, Lord Moynihan. I rise to address amendment 16 and 26 standing in my name on the and 26 standing in my name on the order paper. I move this amendment setting out a number of legal issues setting out a number of legal issues that have been raised outside of this House but to set them in context what we are talking about tonight is the importance of the Premier League and is watched by 1.9 billion people across 89 countries and the most successful domestic league in the world.

It supports 8 billion in close value added to the economy, contributes over £4 billion annually to the Exchequer and supports more than 90,000 jobs. The championship is the sixth most successful league in Europe. The issues which are central to this amendment reflect the importance of the Premier League which generates more revenue internationally than domestically and attracted substantial foreign investment over recent years and operates within a complex international regulatory framework by UEFA, FIFA and numerous international arrangements to which the UK is a party, but no longer the FA which is not a part of it.

The establishment of the IFR introduces unique risks for potential dispute with international investors and potential complications with complication with international obligations. The significant issues that arise, the impact on foreign investors, many Premier League clubs have significant foreign investment relying on regulatory stability, property rights and protections and nondiscriminatory treatment. And secondly, trade agreement compliance, the UK has international obligations including investment protections within trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties requiring fair and equitable treatment, transparency and nondiscrimination towards foreign Non-compliance could trigger diplomatic complications.

Now, the key legal risks, which I believe exist, are threefold. The first which we will come to discuss any future occasion is arising from the assiduous work of the Noble Lord Bert. For the mechanism of the backstop which is currently structured and I were not going to this evening except in the context of my amendment to look at the legal implications of this allows the regulator to impose financial redistribution without clear or predefined limits, effectively giving it the power.

Such intervention poses a significant risk of constituting what lawyers call indirect expropriation or regulatory action substantially diminishes the value without fair compensation. Foreign investors protected by bilateral investment treaties have reasonable expectations of regulatory stability and fairness and unlimited or unpredictable redistribution power would likely trigger claims under international investment treaties, arguing in violation of their rights to fair and equitable treatment in the protection from uncompensated expropriation. Secondly, as we have discussed earlier this evening risks from new ownership rules, retrospectively applied.

The bill proposes potentially retrospective and uncertain changes to the owners and directors tests. These new undefined ownership criteria could retrospectively affect existing owners, potentially causing divestment of clubs by foreign investors based on criteria not in place at the time of investment. And such retrospective application could reach fundamental legal principles for investor protection. It could be interpreted as discriminatory and arbitrary treatment under international investment law, leading to significant litigation risk and investor state arbitration claims, damaging the U.K.'s international credibility as a reliable investment destination.

And, thirdly, that risks of discrimination. Linked to the points I have just made, the regulatory actions perceived as disproportionately targeting foreign-owned clubs, particularly through retrospective regulatory criteria, national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment. Investors could legitimately claim discriminatory treatment undergoing significant legal disputes. If there was validity in law to these concerns than my amendment seeks to be carefully designed to mitigate them. And they fully expect there are greater to comply fully with the international trade obligations.

Thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation for trade disputes. It mandates nondiscriminatory and proportionate regulatory interventions. Ensuring predictability and stability for investors and thirdly in my amendment, the Second Amendment this evening, the Treasury and business evening, the Treasury and business and trade and to proactively manage compliance, avoids regulatory analysis. Embedding these protective measures in this bill which I see as being as helpful as possible to the Government on this front clarifies that regulatory framework front.

It pre-empts costly disputes and ensures that the regulator alliance clearly with the U.K.'s international economic and diplomatic interests from the outset. It is therefore a help amendment. It is intended to be pragmatic and necessary for addressing significant international and domestic risks comprehensively. It respects property rights. It ensures regulatory proportionality, it maintains international investor confidence which is absolutely critical in the Premier League to ensure growth. It thus safeguards the U.K.'s attractiveness and reputation as the premier destination for global football
20:36
20:36
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
to this group. As my Noble Friend has touched on there can be some serious unintended consequences unless we introduce his amendments to the bill. The Premier League, as we have said many times, is the most successful league in the world and one of the major reasons for that is its openness to global investment and its attractiveness for that. And foreign investors have played a transformational role in modernising the clubs developing world-class infrastructure and cementing English football to lead to a global land and help to create the most competitive and commercially successful football league in the world and without my Noble Friend is amendment the Government would introduce a regulatory framework that could unfairly target foreign- owned clubs for placing them at a disadvantage compared to those owned by the UK investors.

That is not fair, not necessary, and not in the best interest of English. And I sure that it is something that the course will not be intended by the regulator. But it could be as mentioned earlier one of those unintended consequences of where some of those decisions might call. So, I think that the amendment asking for Treasury advice woodwork in terms of doing that to make sure that they are not sleepwalking any way into some of these difficulties.

Again, I would hope to be seen as very sensible and very helpful in all of this and as my Noble Friend mentioned what is most important in all of this is that any investor has a clear set of rules that they can rely on a completely transparent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think the Noble Lord forgiving way. Noble Lord Monaghan was briefer than I had anticipated because I had than I had anticipated because I had intended putting this point to him. intended putting this point to him. I am not clear about the model discussion we had about UEFA in discussion we had about UEFA in terms of the regulator not being terms of the regulator not being able to take into account foreign policy and trade policy, been policy and trade policy, been removed from the bill.

Can someone explain to me how that differs particularly in amendment 26 international trading agreements to look the consideration of the regulator. Getting into the rooms of Government policy, that is something that UEFA made it quite clear that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they were unhappy about. Actually making sure that the trade agreements are in place already today and they are well known also I would not expect a football regulator, we are asking them to do many things. I would not them to do many things. I would not expect them to know exactly how their decisions because of the large levels of foreign ownership might levels of foreign ownership might proportionately affect some segments versus other segments and how that versus other segments and how that could trip over some of the World Trade Organisation routes or other such bodies.

And so really it is just that we are trying to protect against them and hopefully it is not even relevant but it is again trying to make sure that we do not sleepwalking into something that is thoroughly unintended, and so that is why the thinking is that this is a simple cautionary amendment to avoid such unintended consequences. So, as I say, I think that we must all recognise our interest in these agreements are not just beneficial but vital for our future growth and the Government has repeatedly, quite rightly said that growth is their number one mission, so again, what we are trying to do by this amendment is make sure that we do not inadvertently trip up on one of those in the regulators has one of those unintended consequences which clearly none of us would like to see happen stop
20:40
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

I would like to thank the Noble Lord Monaghan for his amendment. I do think there is much on which we agree, but unfortunately I cannot agree that these amendments in this group are required. Good investment which comes in many forms has held make English football the global success that it is today and this Government is absolutely committed to continuing that. Of course, this would later were not discriminated against foreign investors and it will not act unfairly against foreign investors or anyone else.

Nothing in this bill allows them to do so. This amendment is not needed to prevent that. Not only is it unnecessary but as the noble Lords appreciate it would be highly unusual to bring a broad range of treaty obligations directly into our domestic law in such a sweeping way. This Government of course takes our international obligations very seriously. On the bill complies with our treaty commitments to foreign our treaty commitments to foreign Decision there are mechanisms within our treaty to allow them to raise these concerns at the international level and, if necessary, to bring disputes.

That is the appropriate form, not our domestic hospital at me be clear once more we are confident that the bill applies to our international obligations. Nothing in it would us or even allow the regulator to make unfair decisions and finally I was slightly surprised in the last part of this amendment tabled by the Noble Lord Monaghan we have carefully ensured that regulators independence from governance and ensured that UEFA are content with the Bill as drafted, so I was not clear whether Noble Lord wants to wear the Recoleta to consult the Treasury on a wider range of occasions and risk undermining the regulators independent which I would argue would be concerning, especially given how much can the Noble Lord has been discussing UEFA throughout the course of your Lordships house and I sure that risk would be highly concerning to many others in this House.

That is why I urge the Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw his amendments. I am grateful to my Noble Friend for the convention also the noble Baroness the Minister for her contributions in the intervention, although I regret that I was not in
20:42
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
although I regret that I was not in a position to answer because I had already attempted to set the scene before the House managed to resume in full. My amendment was not about UEFA but the purpose of the amendments this evening about explicit statutory knowledge to reinforce clarity, reduce legal uncertainties and prevent inadvertent creatures, demonstrating transparency and foresight and collaboration between the relevant Government departments. It was to simplify what I anticipate would be potentially a legal mind field.

And to make sure that if we did that on the face of the legislation that we would avoid many of the issues that were going to potentially follow as a result of this. In parenthesis, one of the problems that will follow comes from the intervention of the Noble Lord. Namely UEFA is now out of this. UEFA is only a stepping stone into the running of football in the United Kingdom, and the FA as we have heard this evening and debated and come to a conclusion within the House has no role within the financial regulation of football in this country.

And that is the first time that has happened anywhere in Europe. I mean if you take Spain, it is rightful and central part of the financial regulation of that country and the deepest party to working with Government in order to follow a model that the Premier League has instituted here in the United Kingdom, it is a dangerous path to move away from the autonomy and I will not go into this again, but I am trying to do a service to the Noble Lord who has intervened this evening, I know it has been an insidious attempt to throughout the committee proceedings and also this evening it is a dangerous path that if you do legislate to run sport and have financial management of sport and you ignore in practice the role of the governing body which is the F a you do setup potential legal complexities that would otherwise not arise and that is why I have put forward these proposals simply to give additional protection to those legal challenges which I believe arise as a result of this legislation.

And to move the amendments before the House. Having said that, I appreciate the contribution that has been made by the noble Baroness the Minister. I do not agree with her interpretation, and I am sure she will recognise that I am not a supporter of this bill, although I have my party in The Other Place and indeed the Labour Party they have both been supporters. At least I have been consistent on that all the way through think that this is bad for football.

I think this is bad for sport, and I think this threatens the autonomy of global sport. And I think for all those reasons I put forward these proposals, not as a regular amendment but actually as a genuine control of, legal framework to protect those who propose a football Recoleta, do not leave the Minister is independent. I have never seen such comprehensive regulation and I took through the privatisation in took through the privatisation in The amount of time that was placed on the regulators in that bill that was many of the privatisations that took place was tiny by comparison to the other 124 pages that the government is bringing forward with a whole series of additional powers of the Secretary of State to direct the regulator moving forward.

We will get all of that in due course, but the idea that this is independent as we'll know is unrealistic, a genuine attempt by the government to provide financial regulation and a financial regulator for the sport of professional in this country, but with those comments I will withdraw my amendment and I'm grateful to the Minister for contributing in the way that she did.
20:47
20:48
20:48
None Portrait Amendment:Gov.17
-

engagement we have had over the past few weeks in Committee stage and also in a number of meetings. It has been really helpful. On amendment 17, we know football without fans is nothing and it is always of the intention of the regulators to engage with fans and anyone impacted by the regulator will be listened to. It is important that the essential value of players and fans to engage football is demonstrated both in legislation and regulatory engagement.

I thank Baroness O'Grady and Lord Watts for their engagement in ensuring that this is in the legislation and Lord Bassam of Brighton and Baroness Taylor of Bolton and Lord Addington for their support. This will clarify this and make it explicit on the face of the bill and reflect the essential nature of players and fans of English football, but ensure regulators directed to engage in both groups. Moving on to 18 and 19 concerning light-touch regulation, I thank Lord Paddick for tabling his amendment and his extensive discussion of this issue with myself and officials.

We agreed that light-touch regulation should be the light-touch regulation should be the aim of the regulator and have a bias against unnecessary intervention, excessive burdens of the industry and towards operation and engagement and proportionate intervention that deliver real benefits and that is why I've tabled amendment 18. To clarify the intention of the regime, it should be light-touch. We carefully considered the best way to deliver this aim including whether to use the actual words light-touch in the bill itself.

We believe the principal should be as clear and specific as possible. Each time the regulator acts it should be clear if it met requirements and if it has had regards to the principles. That is why the new principle in amendment 18 centres around the necessity of which the same outcome could be achieved in a less burdensome way. These like existing clause 8 These like existing clause 8C test the proportionality and effect the public law and gives clubs leagues and regulators appropriate legal certainty and light-touch by contrast is not call legislative drafting and that could make it typical for the regulator and regulated to be 100% certain of their legal position.

As the debate made clear at Committee stage, one person's light-touch is another's overreach and allows for a margin of discretion see is a less novel concept but we nevertheless have the concerns about the legal certainty. The wording of consideration of alternative and proportionality, a clear test to let both regulators act with confidence and that is what the principles in government 18 deliver. I assure the House the principles in clause 8 enclosing amendment 18 enshrined a light-touch approach in law.

Turning to government amendment 20, this minor drafting change seeks to clarify the regulator responsibility under the regulatory principle. It will not materially change the effect of the principal, the obligation for the public body to have regard to is precedented by the industry. The reasons I set out, I hope when the noble Lord comes to speak to his amendment, he will withdraw his amendment and I beg to move government amendment 17.
20:52
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment posed, clause 8, page
20:52
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment posed, clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out paragraph 1-3 and insert the words of the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I would like to say a few words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to say a few words on that. Amendment 17 moved by the Minister because I moved in Committee to try to ensure the players appeared on the face of the bill which originally did not. I welcome the fact that she has listened to the representations not just of myself and my noble friend Baroness O'Grady, but by the Professional Footballers' Association and others who have been a reasonable case by exerting players in this section as the regulator expected as far as reasonably practical cooperate and practice actively engage -- proactively engage with players and it will be statutory consultation which is appropriate because there is no football without players and I welcome the wording that the Minister has come forward with with concerns of myself and others.

I would like to say a word about the other part of this, the fans. The fans should be defined in some way. I've had discussions with the Minister and I accept it is always going to be difficult and it will become the job of the regulator to define what a fan is. You have to have address for a fan to consult them. That is why I consult season- ticket holders and deciding who they are in consultation purposes, but that has not been possible to reach any kind of consensus.

I welcome the wording in the amendment and I commend my noble friend for listening to representations and coming up with wording as a result of that.
20:54
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
I'm not going to add much to what my noble friend has already said about the importance and value of having players and fans recognised and it is probably the most important part and I was worried about the outset of the legislation and the bill the current party in opposition put in place before the election. There was no reference to players or fans and they are an essential part and without them where would the game be? Fans, they cannot be defined but they are in many different places, and we know what they are without defining them.

Amendment 18 is an amendment which I Baroness Taylor signed up to because I believe it is important the statement in the legislation which is clear the best way forward is usually without having to have recourse to excessive bureaucracy and excessive regulation. If the IFR can find a way of doing things that doesn't have to resort to that, more for the good and for that reason I am encouraged by Lord Pannick and Baroness Brady and Lord Burton.

They have touched on important points, but the government matched that point with the amendment. I'm not sure it is easy to define light- touch and I don't think Lord Pannick will tell me it is, but it is positively used in the regulation, not regulatory discussion. I am pleased that this issue is being properly serviced and I hope it will be returned to in a positive way and I hope fans and players are pleased to see they've been written into the legislation.

legislation.
20:56
20:57
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
I welcome it because it addresses in a clear manner one of the main concerns which was expressed across the House during Committee stage and the concern was the new regulator should operate with a light touch. I'm accepting that that is not a phrase that is used in legislation. We all know what it means. We will come to Lord Addington in a moment. The concern that was expressed at Committee stage, repeatedly, was that the regulator is operating in the context of a highly successful business which brings liens of pounds of revenue into this country every year and provides enormous amounts of pleasure and excitement to billions of people across the world.

Although the pleasure is not experienced at the Emirates Stadium if you are watching Arsenal on every occasion you attend a home match. This government in recent months has expressed in other contexts concern that regulators should not be a barrier to growth. There is a vital need to put on the face of this bill are clause that requires regulator to have regard to the need only to express the extensive powers being inferred if it is necessary to do so.

I mentioned Lord Addington because early this afternoon, in relation to an earlier group, he expressed concern about light-touch regulation and the noble Lord asked if really it means being asleep at the wheel. That was his phrase. Only acting when a disaster occurs. I don't understand light-touch regulation to mean anything of the sort. It means in the present context of a highly successful industry, being aware of the equal or greater danger of overregulation which can damage this very successful industry, there is, to use a sporting metaphor that I hope is appropriate, a real danger of own goals by the regulator wherever it comes onto the field of play.

The Minister was sympathetic to this concern during Committee stage and she undertook to go away with her officials and consider this important point and I'm grateful to her, genuinely grateful, to the build team, for the amount of time they spent discussing this issue with me and other lords and I wanted to look at amendment 20 and looked at this regulatory principle and it gives a priority in the bill and the central part of the bill that the regulator must have regard to whether a requirement or restriction is necessary, to whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means.

Amendment 18 is a considerable improvement. I'm grateful to the government to having listened and acted on this important topic. The Minister today confirmed that the purpose of government amendment 18 is to clarify the intention for this regulatory regime about which across the House there are different views, but she has clarified for the purpose of this amendment to ensure that the regime will be implemented and exercised will be implemented and exercised Even though as Lord Bassam says it is not appropriate or necessary to include that phrase on the face of the bill.

In the light of what the Government have brought forward, in light of what the noble lady the Minister has said. Although I'm very grateful to Lord Birt, Baroness Brady adding their support to my amendment, 19, I do not intend to move it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To comment a little on the light touch point. Before I do, early this evening I think prompted by Lord evening I think prompted by Lord Parkinson, the Minister offered good wishes to Newcastle, in the Karen Bell cup final, at the weekend and I wondered if she would also be willing to offer her best wishes to willing to offer her best wishes to Liverpool, at the weekend, with the due impartiality that I think is a due impartiality that I think is a merited.

We need a little help merited. We need a little help tonight, because we are one nil down at the time to PSG. She might like to send her immediate good wishes, before it is too late in that game. Needless to say, I've said it before, I truly do support the regulation of English football and I will repeat what I've said in earlier debates. I think the government's amendment as a Lord Pannick is a just made clear is extremely helpful. He has withdrawn it, but I didn't myself see anything wrong about just underlining it with a light touch...

Addition. Throughout my career, I experienced the public benefits of effective regulation, in broadcasting, but we know that not all regulation has proved successful in the UK, or in other countries and we must learn from both the success and the lack of success. As the Chancellor said, just a month ago, our economy has suffered due to stifling and unpredictable regulation. Overregulation that gives us the absurdly expensive and a long
21:04
21:04
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
1st to say about the first amendment, and 17. I did assign the amendment that said plays should be regarded and the fans. Talking about professional sport, two key elements or the two key elements, someone to play, someone to watch. They both should be recognised, they both should have something recognised within the structure of these important areas. Now the huge amount of appetite, clearly players are under pressure and overplayed. How they should be looked after is an important factor which all sports are dealing with.

So I would encourage their regulator to take a serious look at this. And the rights of fans are, we had great fun talking about how diverse and you consult. Let somebody else figure it out. We are going through. When it comes to light touch I will break a habit of mine I will read out something from the EFF, which I received, I think it was yesterday. The EFL does not support the enshrining of light touch as a regulatory principle, in the bill.

Light touch is an extremely subjective term, which the IFR will struggle to meaningfully define as it goes about its activities. Also limiting the effectiveness of regulators, once it is operational. Which instead should ability to determine what is the right touch. To deal with any situation it is required to address. Hiding behind a mantra is never a good idea. What the government has here is quantifiable, at the very least. So I say yes to that.

I hope that we can go forward, because in the minute you get something like oh it has got to be like touch, it has got to be light touch, you will actually get it wrong. It has to be effective. I hope my government enshrines effectiveness and the regulator enshrines effectiveness, from this point on. Because it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't matter if it is a light or heavy, it matters if it works. Arise to support the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise to support the government's amendment 18, introducing a regulatory principle focusing on portion reality and minimising portion reality and minimising regulatory burdens. Government deserves credit for this amendment.
21:06
Baroness Brady Portrait Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
-
deserves credit for this amendment. It is an attempt to recognise that the concerns expressed across the House during committee that this bill outlines an overly complex and intrusive regulatory framework for football. The Government ruled out light touch watchdog option in the impact assessment and justifying the need for a more interventionist approach. So we should bear in mind that this bill, overall is not easily described as light touch. Government's amendment to clarify the Minister's intentions, which I believe are for a light touch framework.

We should note the obvious point that it is not an attempt to change the overall licensing framework, existing model, extensive range of powers or broader sanctions. Nevertheless, short of a wholesale change of approach in a much slimmer bill, the tension this principle introduces is how the regulator exercises of those powers, so it is welcome. But I for one would like the government to go further. Both in the bill and guidance and in its engagement with the shadow... That is what supported Lord Pannick's additional amendment, detailing a light touch, which I know he has now withdrawn.

What I would like to suggest today is that Ministers enhance their amendment further, by explicitly enabling different types of intervention approaches, for different needs, guiding towards greater reliance on Leeds and where it is appropriate. The football pyramid is diverse, with various, what is appropriate for Maidenhead United in the National League is very unlikely to be appropriate for Manchester United. The Premier league, for instance has developed robust governance and hereditary structures, over many years. They built financial monitoring systems, they effectively maintain a competitive balance, while ensuring sustainability.

I have not heard a single Minister, or pier in this House expressed any concern over sustainability of Premier league clubs. Staring at the regulator, more explicitly to tailor its approach it intervening, based on the league's governance standards, rulebooks and enforcement practices would be a very sensible approach. It would ensure resources are targeted genuine areas of risk, in the pyramid. And it would really help to bring about what I would describe as a light touch regime. Like touch were effective systems already operate, but more interventionist, where they do not.

I think this could deliver a more efficient model as well as create positive incentives for leaks to strengthen their own governance framework. Perhaps, with the Minister response, she can commit to working with me, the football authorities, the shadow regulator, to encouraging this commonsense approach, recognising the practical benefits that we will realise, working more closely with the leaks by acknowledging the natural differences, within our diverse football pyramid and by steering the regulator to adopting targeted
21:10
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to agree with my noble friend the Baroness Brady about the importance of light touch approach. importance of light touch approach. Not just because of the light touch way we do things today, but the light touch in wave might innovate and take going forward, in the and take going forward, in the future. My wife and I spent Christmas in Omagh, during the period of which the Gulf states were having their own little World Cup. The key point was, how they are innovating, how they are building a nation through football and breaking down barriers.

How they are changing the way things are done in football. And more of the same will not be the recipe for success, with the English game as we look forward. I would illustrated with the story. 30 years ago, earlier this evening I explained I was a shareholder of knowledge football club. About 30 years ago, Norwich city football club auditors told us that a certain Alan Sugar, a member of our Lordship's House macro decided to move his planes from the Provident loss, and onto the balance sheet.

It was the first time this had ever happened and that My Lords, at that moment, in that blink of an eye, English football changed, because what honourable friend did, in that moment was to turn a series of cottage industries, clubs that were grounded in the local communities, into in in investable proposition. Whether he appreciated it at the time, or not, it was that stroke of the pen that put British football clubs on the part of greatness. So overnight, football became a better, capitalise becoming a magnet for success.

Sky made the difference. It was noble friend that made football so investable in the first place. Can you imagine how an overbearing regulator react at this astonishingly innovative, but unprecedented counterproposal, to move the players from the BNL to the balance sheet had been made -- P&L. It was a huge innovation. Would it have happened if this regulator had been overbearing? Of course not. I've always found it change hasn't been publicly recognised, viewing his innovation through the lens of history has transformed the prospects of English football.

It is my purpose of telling the story, the regulator must continue to be flexible, to adapt to the future, as it can be, not just how it is today. And the principal of the light touch is essential, for us to maintain our leadership, the leadership of English football, at the forefront of our industry. To be flexible and imaginative. It not only owes us a place in history, we need to keep moving forward to survive. If we aren't overly fossilised on the system as it is today, then we risk falling behind.

I'm very focused on supporting the light-touch approach. I'm pleased that this is on the amendments that are in front of us this evening.
21:13
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to start by not thanking Lord Birt for his update on the score, because I'm hoping to catch the highlights at the end. So I would hope that when he speaks further on his amendments, we have no further updates. A small plea from myself. On a more serious matter, I too would like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, the Minister for listening and bringing forward these series of amendments. And it really covered the sentiment.

I think we all agree that Lord Pannick and others were trying to do in the light touch. I must admit I am particularly taken by the points made by my noble friend Baroness Brady and Lord Fuller, around a variable touch, tight model. We move on to talk about on a day to about some of the other things. There was a consensus around the House about trying to promote independent and non-Exec directors, on the boards of these clubs. And again it is something that comes up later on.

But really, what we want, more than anything is a well run clubs. And I think a system that if a club is a well run and has got independent, non-Exec directors who are really making sure that it is run in a good manner, then there really should be a light touch on them. At the same time we should have the flexibility that, you know, if there are greater concerns that there should be a heavier touch. We do have precedents for this.

We have a so-called special measures in schools, in situations such as those. I would like to say, thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for recognising the sentiment and bringing that forward, in terms of light touch, but may be ask her to consider, maybe as it goes through the Lords, can we bring a variable touch? So there is not just a one- size-fits-all approach. If clubs show that they are well run and a reputable, that they do not need the same level of scrutiny and the same burdens placed on them, as those that are in more difficulties.

With that, as I say, I welcome the amendments made and wish to hear the noble Baroness, the Ministers, thoughts on the idea of a variable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

touch model. This group of amendments and the discussion we have had I think
21:15
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

discussion we have had I think reflects the real value of the style debate that we have in your debate that we have in your I welcome the opportunity to work across the House to refine the bill. across the House to refine the bill. With all the bill -- We thought the bill was going to enter the previous government, we thought our version was slightly better, and I think we do have the possibility of sending an even better version to be considered in the other place.

To start, in responding to the comments during this short debate, and with appropriate due, impartiality, I am very happy to pass on my best wishes to Liverpool. I won't comment on the score. I think whichever team we support, and whatever team anyone supports, I think all noble Lords can agree that without players, we would have no game. So, I think on that basis alone, I think it is right they are included and I thank the noble Lords and my noble friends who signed up to the government's amendment on that and took time to talk us through where that should sit in the bill.

I think a lot of the discussion relates to definitions, whether that is about light touch, what that means, or whether that is about fans or who your fans are. I want to say a bit more about fans. The government doesn't see itself as the arbitrator who counts as a football fan, instead, it is something that fans and clubs themselves are in the best position to understand and discern. The make-up of the fan base differs from club to club, this diversity is part of the reason why the English football pyramid is so special.

This is why the government has introduced this legislation to protect English football by making it more sustainable and to help put fans back in the centre of their clubs, amplifying their voices on the issues that matter to them. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Question on how the regulator will engage with fans, it will do so on a case-by-case basis and I would be happy to arrange for the noble Lord to speak to the shadow regulated team, to provide them with more information on how they might do that.

The regulator, once established, will be able to provide guidance to clubs as to how best consult fans and this will ensure clubs having appropriate framework in place that allows them to regularly meet and consult this group, and key strategic matters and support interests. In response to Lord Pannick's question, the sort of Has to ask itself whether intervention is addressing substantial mischief that the intervention is likely to achieve, and the substantial benefit, the intervention is required, because a similar outcome couldn't be achieved by less burdensome means.

That is our understanding, and if that is the noble Lords understanding of where we are going with this, or this amendment, that understanding is correct. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke about the risk of both under and overregulation. And it is about balance, isn't it? We have added a new regulator principle to achieve this aim. I still think this will mean the regulator will be effective as this is key as both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made clear. The first part of this new principle, considering the requirement of restrictions is necessary, directs the regulator towards a light-touch approach to intervention, as a whole, adding only where it needs to do.

I do not think we are a million miles away from where the noble Lady, Baroness Brady, thinks we should be, and I am happy to meet with her again to talk this through a bit further, should she find that helpful. The second part of the new principle ensures any intervention that is considered necessary is as light-touch as possible by directing the regulator towards the least burdensome mechanism available in the specific circumstance of the outcome sought. Amendment 18 facilitates the regulator alongside the portion principle, taken a different approach to clubs to ensure each action taken by the regulator is at least, is as least burdensome as it can be.

We have not chosen to call that light-touch any regulation, but it is intended to be light-touch. With that, I will finish my remarks,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and beg leave to move amendment 17. The question is this amendment be
21:21
21:22
None Portrait Amendment:21 Lord Birt (Crossbench)
-

My Lords, I strongly support the notion of a state of the game report. Above all, to encourage an evidence and sophisticated dialogue between the leagues about phone flow, either in direct negotiation, or as part of the mediation process, if the backstop is triggered. But I make three points, my Lords. First, the bill currently states that the report should include, " Information about any other matters relating to the state of English football." One highly critical matter which has come up more than once during the course of the day, my Lords, is the global position of the English game.

The Premier League, as was said a moment ago, is the most successful sporting league of any kind in the whole world. It's global broadcasting revenues now surpassing those raised domestically. We propose the state of the game report should capture the position of the Premier League in relation to other major European leagues. The purpose of our amendment. 21. Second, producing the first draft of the state of the game report should not take, as the bill suggests, up to 18 months.

Football is an incredibly data rich activity, as I have learned over these last few months, with enormous pools of relevant publicly available information, at home and abroad. Six months to produce the report should be quite sufficient. Third, Lord Burns, Lord Pannick, and Lord Thomas and I will be arguing Monday that a well evidenced state of the game report should be the first step in a redesigned backstop process. But there is a problem. The bill indicates that after the first state of the game report is complete, future reports will be produced on a five year cycle.

And we cannot be certain at what point in the five year cycle that the backstop might be triggered. This is actually all quite technical. Hence, my Lords, our amendment 22 suggests that if the backstop is triggered, and more than two years have passed since the last report, that the report, the state of the game report, should be refreshed and updated before the backstop mediation process begins. My Lords, I do not plan to test the opinion of the House, but we tabled these amendments in the hope the government will continue to refine
21:25
21:25
21:26
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his amendment. I am really grateful for the huge amount of time and effort the noble Lord has put into considering how he could, well, how we could all further improve it. I would like to thank the noble Lord for the amount of time he has given to discussing it with my officials and me over many weeks. This amendment will see the regulator having to provide an overview of English football's global appeal in the state of the game report.

The state of the game report is focused on the issues affecting English football so far relevant to the exercise of the regulator's function. The issue this amendment attempts to capture will likely already be capturing the state of the game report, they could impact the regulator's objectives and duties. We have purposely left the required content at the state of the game report broadly to regulators discretion, to ensure flexibility and independence. It would not be possible to list every issue worth including. The list, in our view, would be too long and doing so would remove the regular disability to prioritise issues -- Regulator's ability to prioritise issues.

Moving onto amendment 22. Requiring an updated state of the game report, if the backstop is triggered, could place a significant burden on the regulator, and might slow the process down. Significantly. Three months would almost definitely not be long enough in our view, to update the review of English football, given the breadth and depth of relevant issues it must cover. The regulator has to identify analysis needed, to request different parties, let them respond, analyse it and consult on findings before publishing.

We also have to consider the significant burdens this amendment places on the regulator, with particularly smaller clubs. Furthermore, this amendment would require an updated state of the game report, solely of an application to trigger if the backstop is put forward. If that is accepted. Ultimately, three-month delay in the backstop process and the burden on both the regulator and the industry to engage with a rushed updated review is likely to be disproportionate to the benefits, I therefore hope the noble Lord will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendments. Before the noble Lady sits down, just to be clear, so when the just to be clear, so when the backstop first has to happen, the state of the game report is critical. It is part of the process critical. It is part of the process further. Is she now saying that for any future triggering of the any future triggering of the backstop after that, the state of the game isn't part of that process, the game isn't part of that process, because, sorry, we thought the noble because, sorry, we thought the noble Baroness said the state of the game report was always part of the triggering process.

I may have completely misunderstood but if she could clarify that, that would be helpful. helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the issue is whether or not you would automatically have a state of the game report simply by state of the game report simply by the process being requested to be the process being requested to be triggered. Once you have got a state triggered. Once you have got a state of the game report, you have a state of the game report that is in existence. It may or may not be necessary for that to be updated if necessary for that to be updated if somebody triggers the process.

So, the automatic triggering of an updating of the state of the game updating of the state of the game report, in our view, is disproportionate, but there would already be a state of the game report in place, and absolutely, we intend the state of the game report to be in place before an initial process would be triggered. And clearly, that would have to be written within the relevant time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frame within the light station. Before the noble Lady sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lady sits down, may I suggest to her that five years is an awfully long time between state of the game report and that state of the game report and that may be the defect here, the game can
21:30
21:30
21:31
21:32
21:33
None Portrait Amendment:23 Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-

might be one place we could do without it. It might be a very useful revenue to the clubs involved, but My Lords we have already heard about the huge reach of football, as a subject. The fact that there is huge demand for it. Can we not get rid of it here? I have proposed for different solutions to removing gambling from the football structure. We have removed other forms of gambling, the occasional flutter is not as damaging, it is very damaging for some people.

It is an international sport. Have a look at Kenyatta and the problems with children gambling on the Premier league. The fact that gambling has developed, the fact that football is a lovely thing, because you have lots of nice options to have occasion bets on. It has become something that has grown out of all recognition, something which none of us would have probably suspected 20 years ago. I am proposing for ways of exiting, getting gambling to exit from football, professional football. I could go on My Lords at great length about what happens here, but it is a fairly late and we had a good go at this activity.

I would hope that the Government can say they are going to do something on gambling, in the course of this bill. I have given four options, a bit of them might match a bit more, willing to move his amendments. If I don't hear that, I will take a vote on this. I think we have got to draw a line in the sand at some point. We have got to stop it, the fact that football markets was the universal game from the childhood onwards and it is almost impossible.

I had a discussion with the advertising Association, a very nice dinner provided by them. I said will Ai allow you to filter out children? It was a resolute no, or at least they think so at the moment. We have got to do something here. It has got ridiculous. Can we please take some steps that stop advertising, in football being quite so pervasive. It is not just television it is talk radio etc. That goes through. If the government is prepared to take some steps I will of course back with them, because well, a slice is better than no cake.

If the government is prepared to do that they will have my full support. If not I will vote at some of the points and probably for amendment
21:36
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Newlove (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

53. My Lords, a victim. Apologies Lord Addington I put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies Lord Addington I put you off. Thinking you had already debated. The question is amendment proposed, under clause 10, insert the cross as printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I just want to say a few words on this amendment, because I have a great deal of simple the with what great deal of simple the with what Lord Addington has been saying, though I'm not sure that this is the though I'm not sure that this is the vehicle for what he actually wants to do. I do think that there are many concerns about gambling including in football. I just want to mention what one club has actually done and that club just happens to be a Bolton Wanderers, which may not surprise some people who have been here on other occasions.

Because in 2021, Bolton Wanderers closed all the on site betting facilities that had been there for many years. And that was a there for many years. And that was a very big step, it committed the club to a new approach, to allowing gambling anywhere near the actual stadium and I think it was really stadium and I think it was really important and it included not just direct gambling companies but actually those that were involved in them.

It was a big step forward, because in the North West gambling has been quite a significant problem. That was a big step for a club and there are other clubs that can and should do likewise. Actually Bolton Wanderers went one step further and introduced a system, with others in the area, introducing courses for fans who had actually been concerned about their own rambling habits and did not know where to access help. There was an outreach program that I understand has had some degrees of success and actually there was a group who were called organisers against the odds that actually were worried about the gambling logo, the number of adverts going around the stadium, during a match.

It isn't a solution to all the problems associated with gambling, but I mention it because it does indicate what individual clubs themselves can do and I think
21:38
21:39
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
antagonistic to every aspect of gambling being involved in football, seems to me to be the epitome of what had been warning about in terms of an intrusive and disproportionate regulatory overreach. The noble Lord, Lord Addington and I and other members of the Lib Dem benches have views on gambling at committee stage and previously. I would like to avoid repeating that. In some ways this group of amendments, along with the early amendments, on the environment express a worry that the independent football regulator will be used as a Trojan horse for a range of political hobby horses.

If one of the aims of this bill, as I understand it is that the football regulator will help clubs come financially sustainable and avoid a financial jeopardy. Particularly smaller clubs. That has been a compelling and convincing argument, for this bill. So why would we cut off one perfectly legitimate source of funding, in the form of LinkedIn sponsorship, which is what these would do. Gambling companies provide significant revenue, through sponsorship for football teams and that money helps clubs not only pay staff salaries, upgrade training facilities, maintainer stadiums, but also to invest in youth academies and community projects, i.e., they often help fund, fuel and fund those essential responsibilities responsibility products that my lords seemed so keen on this afternoon.

Any discriminatory treatment on the gambling industry as potential sponsors would imply a moralistic and politically charged decision-making about which sponsors were virtuous enough to be allowed. I think the regulator and this bill should keep well away from it. I'm sure that in this House there will be people who will cheer on Del Vince's horror screen sponsor and honour... Sorry eco-tree city. A particular type of company, as renewable energy companies are. You may not like gambling, but what about the people who do not like airlines? What is can happen to the Emirates in relation to Arsenal, or Eddie had airlines and Man City.

What about all those big financial services companies that also fund football teams. He will make those kind of moral decisions? And finally, gambling is a legal activity. It is also a legitimate form of entertainment, a long- standing social activity that can be as many people find exciting and thrilling. He gets the adrenaline going, it is risky and yes you can lose, but that can be disappointing, or sometimes thrilling when you win. One of the reasons why that is attractive, anybody who follows football will recognise the pattern.

Guess what, I might win, I really do, but I can just about cope. I think it is understandable that some football fans will occasionally have the odd bit and enjoy it. Sometimes they went and sometimes they lose. I can tell you from my own family that I am more than aware of problem gambling. Do not get me wrong, it is a vicious, nasty, horrible thing when it happens. But obsessive, compulsive gamblers are a small minority and they should not be used as an excuse to deprive football teams of valuable financial support.

And this bill should have absolutely nothing to do with that kind of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

puritan moralism. When I acknowledge that concerns

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I acknowledge that concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Addington has raised, I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox that this
21:43
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
noble Baroness, Lady Fox that this is not the bill for those concerns. We have got to be cautious in ensuring that the focus of this bill remains squarely on football governance and not introducing far reaching regulations on other matters, particularly in relation to gambling where it risks duplicating or cutting across the work of the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority are many other regulators, that look into this thorny question and provide useful research and pointers bowed to the gambling industry and to those who want to tackle those that can be associated with it.

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

So, given the broader implications of noble Lords amendments, the fact that this bill was never intended to address complicated issues, such as this. I don't think we should be taking it in this direction. So if he does indeed devise on his amendments, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Abbott like to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Abbott like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendments in this group. I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impact on gambling.
21:46
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

And he has indeed raised it with me on a regular basis. I absolutely agree that where gambling advertisement and sponsorship does adhere to football clubs, it must do adhere to football clubs, it must do so in a socially responsible way. The cumulative impact of gambling advertising, specifically around football, is, as I said, mentioned to me frequently. I already set the gambling industry recently a task to raise standards to ensure gambling advertising more widely is both proportionate and appropriate. This work we monitored closely.

It is fair and reasonable for the government to challenge the sector, to make self regulatory improvements first. This can deliver positive change more quickly in our view. The Premier League already made a decision to ban front of shirt sponsorship by the end of next season at many clubs, as highlighted by my noble friend, Baroness Taylor, already do not take sponsorship or advertising by gambling firms. All major sports have also posted their codes of conduct. We will work with sports bodies to undertake the review of implementation of the impacts of the codes of conduct, to ensure they are effective.

This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps, however we do not believe the regulator should have a specific role in commercial matters, like advertising and sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs. It is important to recognise the vital revenue that clubs rely on, via advertising and sponsorship, from gambling firms, as highlighted by the noble Lady, Baroness Fox of Buckley, we have to be wary of scope creep that sees regulators stream into matters that should be reserved for the industry and step on the toes of industry authorities, like the FA, and other regulators that have a remit over this area of have a remit over this area of 29, current drafting already requires fan engagement and clubs business priorities and strategic approach.

Discussion of the club's overall approach to sponsorship could reasonably play a role in these consultations. We do not however think it appropriate for the regulator to require specific fan engagement from gambling advertisement and sponsorship specifically, especially as it would not be relevant at all clubs, such as those with no gambling sponsors. One amendment 53, what constitutes Gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, such as players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors. Clearly this would or could have significant unintended consequences for clubs in the sport more widely.

One amendment 23 specifically, review into gambling advertisement and sponsorship in football should not, in our view, be the responsibility of the regulator with a specific remit of the kind intended by this regulation. This is already taken out in junction with the industry and governing bodies in football, and other sports. This will review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. Further action on sponsorship and advertisement is needed, we will take it, but for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendments. I thank the noble Baroness for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for her response. However, it seems to be, yes, something should be done, some point in the future, we will
21:49
21:50
21:50
21:51
21:52
22:03
22:03
22:03
22:05
22:06
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
ancient problem was highlighted. I am grateful to who her and her am grateful to who her and her officials for their engagement, on officials for their engagement, on it. I know some may think that the use of correct heraldic terminology use of correct heraldic terminology and may be trivial, but it is my firm view that it is not only, should we generally aim for should we generally aim for precision in the language that we use in legislation, but when the provisions of this bill and indeed provisions of this bill and indeed the actions of the regulator may intervene in the activities of the body, as vulnerable as the College of Arms, we do need to ensure that we get it right.

I welcome the goodwill that is reflected in the fact that the Government have brought forward some amendments. I'm afraid we haven't quite got there yet. Which is why I have a reason to speak to my amendment 80. In the government amendment 30, which at the noble Minister has just moved. To summarise the problem that I set out in committee, the problem is that a crest, which some will take to be, the badge part of a coat of arms, but in fact the crest is what appears above it.

In the Government amendment 30, the word crest is repeated. In the explanatory statement, the noble Lady said that the amendment adds a reference to teams emblem alongside Chris to avoid confusion with the use of the term crest. So to avoid that confusion by not using it which was the moment I brought it committee, suggesting that we should call it properly badge. We are repeating again the term which is incorrect, which is the problem that I and the coat of arms have been erasing with the government.

And during the meetings that I and they have had we have, I think we have been trying to land this point with the government but we haven't quite been able to get there. I'm aware that correspondence was had with the noble Lady's department, only today following their point and they welcome at what she is going to put in the Explanatory Notes, as do I. That is very helpful. What they are looking for is a saving clause, that simply asserts or reasserts that the authority of the kings of arms on honourable wearing.

That is the sticking point which I think we might be able to resolve on this might be able to resolve on this matter. As I understand from the College of Arms, the department's argument is that the regulator argument is that the regulator Their substance in the badge, but merely decides whether it went through the required process and consultation under the bill. The department argues therefore that there is never any risk of the regulator string onto the colleges turf, since the regulator is not involved in the question of what a badge consists of looks like.

And that, it argues is why nothing is needed. Rather perversely it argues that a saving clause would create That there is a conflict there. I think, My Lords, that misses the point. When taken as a whole, the bill does create approval for a badge, which is a crest, albeit via consultation with fans and others was that the bill creates a mechanism for the approval and indeed the disapproval of a badge, mistakenly called a crest, in Statuette. And this cannot fail to create a sense of them at some level, the badge that has gone through the process and achieve some kind of authoring status.

And we have discussed in committee, the examples of problems as they occur. Local authorities, a football club uses the same, or a similar coat of arms as in the local authority, if there were to be a conflict between the local authority and the club about the proper use of it, it will be the College of Arms that will be asked to step in and adjudicate. So, there is a risk here. That the bill unwittingly encroaches on the Crown Prerogative, in regard to heraldry.

This is not the same as trademarks. In the case of coats of arms we are talking about the Crown Prerogative, which surely limits the extent towards clauses of other parties are required. What the college is asking for what I'm suggesting, in my amendment 80 is not unusual. There are plenty of examples of saving causes and other legislation, section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971. My amendment 80, which the college hopes to see in the face of the bill, not just in the Explanatory Notes.

Follow the well- established precedent to protecting, with absolute certainty, the rights of the kings of arms. All of us were commenting on a ship's House have taken our first steps, in the chamber, following, slowly and reverently come in the footsteps of the Gaza principle kings of arms. An office that has existed since 1415. -- The guards principle. We see agreement for our names and titles. We have sworn a oath of allegiance to the sovereign that it is his sovereign duty to proclaim at the moment of the session.

I hope we can give a few moments of our attention, even at this late hour and at this late stage of the bill. The saving clause that I have proposed, drafted in general terms will not create the impression that the regulator will be involved in considering the substance of designs, or anything else, for that matter. I believe it is a simple but important amendment that I very much hope the noble Baroness will be able to accept. Happily, if there needs to be a Happily, if there needs to be a division on my amendment it will come not tonight on day two.

If she is not able to give that reassurance and now, she will be able to take it away and reflect on it further. Particularly in light of the correspondence that I know she and her department have heard, today and the meeting to divide on this. I'm grateful for the time and attention she is given and for the improvements we have had already, this final matter would allay the concerns of the College of Arms and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore, me as well. I baked. I would like to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again, whose Lord, Lord Parkinson, again, whose engagement on this matter and the amendment, we generally do not think this matter trivial. Would you believe the language and the noble Lords amendment would be a redundant Lords amendment would be a redundant addition to the face of the legislation. We do not think it is required. Aside from the terminology required. Aside from the terminology used regarding the club emblems, the regulator's power is not expected to regulator's power is not expected to interact with the College of Arms and therefore the powers of the Kings Arms.

Indeed the regulator will ensure that fans have been fully consulted on proposed changes. fully consulted on proposed changes. It will not be for the regulator to approve designs, only the process of clubs working with fans. This is rightly for other organisations including the College of Arms, but also the intellectual property office and bodies. As the regulator has no role what the Cresta emblem looks like, nor whether it infringes
22:13
22:13
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page