Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I appreciate those comments. We will come on to conflicts of interest, and it is a question that I will put to the Minister, because the Committee and the House have to be clear and confident about what a conflict of interest might look like for the regulator. We will come on shortly to appointments to the expert panel. In such appointments, if there are no clear lines of accountability on what we believe to be conflicts of interest, I fear that we could have a situation like the one we have just had with the chair, in which the Government did not feel that there was a conflict of interest, but most people observing the appointment would say that there was a quite clear conflict, given the donations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Labour party. Those are the points we are making, and I am happy to debate the matter further as we make progress. I have given the Minister some extra reading time on what I plan to ask about conflicts of interest.

A crucial point was made about how boards work differently in different sectors, and about whether conflicts are transcribed early on, so that everyone understands what we believe a conflict of interest is. We want to ensure that there are no vested interests in the process and that no one side will benefit from the simple fact that a chair is interested in that same side; that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. By accepting the amendment, alongside our other amendments, the Committee could ensure total independence of the chair of the regulator both from this Government and from industry insiders. That is our objective.

Amendment 114 would make it explicit that there must be a system for the chair of the board to declare their relevant interests. As we have discussed, this needs to be explicit within the Bill because of how the Government have conducted themselves in the appointment process. We have seen that this Labour Government cannot be trusted to run the process properly or ensure that full and proper declarations are made. The amendment would make sure that nobody in this Government’s regulator can avoid being transparent with the public on their conflicts of interest. This amendment has become necessary because of the Government’s actions and their disdain for Parliament and public accountability.

It could be argued that the Secretary of State has hidden her interest in the appointment process to date, especially because she did not declare her interest on Second Reading. This amendment would provide much-needed transparency on the future of the regulator and its chair, whoever he or she may be. I would like to think that Ministers are in favour of full and proper transparency, unless there is something that the Government wish to hide from us. As I said, we found out about the donations only at the last minute, through a declaration made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This House would not otherwise have known. It troubles me deeply, regardless of which parties were involved, that Members made decisions without knowing about the donations.

Alongside amendments 117, 118 and 114, I have tabled amendment 115. As I have said repeatedly, this Government’s behaviour throughout the process has been nothing short of a disgrace. We found out about the appointee’s donations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State only via a Select Committee, and we did not know about them on Second Reading.

Without the appointee’s last-minute admission, we would have been in the dark. We do not know whether the Secretary of State would have been transparent about the donations she received. She has now recused herself, but we must remember that she nominated that person for the Select Committee’s consideration, which is a really important point that I am sure the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will look at closely. We cannot allow this sort of cover-up to continue, as we need a sustainable independent regulator. Amendment 115 would make it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest, as they have been proven to be by this Government.

I have also tabled amendment 116, which would ensure that politics is kept out of football. This debate is making me very uncomfortable as a football fan. I do not believe that politics should be anywhere near football, and it is because of this kind of issue. This has brought football into disrepute, and it is not just me saying that—it is across all the sports pages.

I am concerned about politics being dragged into football, and this amendment would require that the chair is not a member of a political party and does not publicly campaign or demonstrate support for one. It has been drafted in line with other such roles where chairmen are required to be politically neutral. Again, I believe this is common sense, and I hope all Members would support it.

Once again, this is an issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Requiring the chair of the board not to be a member of a political party or to campaign in a political way would protect the integrity of football and the regulator.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Amendment 116 also says that the chairman must not campaign

“on behalf of a candidate”,

which also applies at a local authority level. The regulator could have a friend standing as an independent candidate for a council. That would not be party politics, but the regulator would be barred from canvassing at a super-local level on a “save our local hospital” campaign, which really has no relevance to the football governance role that they hold. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that his amendment would too greatly impede the regulator’s ability to express their democratic rights in society while holding the role?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Committee to entertain a semi-hypothetical set of circumstances. I have spent many minutes googling in order to find the only club in the Football League represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—the mighty Bromley, as I am reminded constantly by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I think he said in the Chamber that visiting supporters have started chanting, “You’ve got the only Tory.”

This is a very particular set of circumstances—there is only one. Bromley has done jolly well this season. Let us just hypothetically suggest that they caught the eye of a very wealthy potential new owner, which would bring riches beyond belief. That would come under the strictures of this Bill in terms of change of ownership. Let us suggest that, in carrying out its normal duties, the football regulator questioned, delayed and, finally, denied that change of ownership.

If the football regulator was a paid-up member of another political party and a donor to that other party, does the Committee not understand that the perception would be that part of the reason the regulator had come to the conclusions that it had was political? That is what we are trying to avoid with the amendments. I ask Committee members to reconsider, in order to give the regulator the best possible chance of success.

[Mr Dillon]

Seb Coe is a successful leader of sports bodies in this country and of our 2012 Olympics. He is a former Conservative MP and peer. I saw him act with integrity and did not question his political past. Why can people not act with integrity and be members of political parties? This is looking to spin a political angle when there might not be one at play.

[Lincoln Jopp]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.

(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”

This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.

It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I have not said it in a while—even if you have given me a yellow card. At least in football that does not mean the sin bin, so I can keep playing.

Let me explain why the amendment is important. In doing so, I will stick to the principle of trying to play not the man but the ball. We tabled the amendment to make sure that taxpayers and fans get value for money from the Government—in what would be a first since their election. It would limit the pay of the chief executive of the Government’s regulator to make sure that they are not paid more than the Prime Minister. Who would argue with the principle that the chief executive of a regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country, whatever you think of him or her at the time?

It is a fair amendment that would also ensure that non-executive board members determine employees’ pay, instead of the chief executive by themselves as an employee of the regulator. We believe the Bill will create a conflict of interest if it is left solely to the chief executive to determine pay, as the chief executive would be able to determine their own pay increases as part of the package, unless it was done independently by non-executive members of the board.

[Mr Dillon]

I seek clarity. The shadow Minister said that the chief executive would not be able to negotiate their own pay, but if they were already at the limit and they were appointed on a rate of £172,153 per annum, they would not be able to receive any inflation increases, because the amendment would tie the pay not to the Prime Minister’s salary but to a specific value.

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that question, because I believe the figure should be considerably underneath that rate. The amendment would allow pay to go up to the cap, but I am not saying it should be a target. This is similar to the slight difference in understanding about the previous amendment. We are not saying that it should be that artificial figure; we are saying that we believe there should be a cap that is not above the Prime Minister’s current salary.

[Mr Dillon]

Proposed new sub-paragraph (3A) says:

“Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer”,

and it does not say whether any other members of staff could be paid the same as the chief executive, so it would do nothing to limit the costs of the operation—they could all be offered £172,000 a year. Part of the shadow Minister’s argument is about cost saving, but there are no arbitrary limits on other members of staff in the organisation.

[Mr French]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s interpretation. It is quite commonplace for the chief executive to be the highest paid member of staff in most organisations. In my experience, it would be highly unusual for members of staff underneath the chief executive to be paid more than them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

I rise in support of new clause 1, which starts by saying:

“The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing…support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition”.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to an existing scheme run by the Premier League, which initially put £1 million into the pot, and I accept that £1.4 million may have been spent. However, Nobby Stiles’s care was £125,000 a year, so that fund would help only a handful of players.

If we look at the money in the game, there is £10 billion in Premier League TV rights and the PFA has £50 million in cash assets. John Stiles, Nobby Stiles’s son, is on record as saying that the PFA is not working with them enough. The PFA union derives an income of £26 million a year, and shirt sales in this country generate £200 million a year. The money already exists within the game to fund this at an appropriate level—more than the Premier League agreed when it set up its fund.

This scheme also has the support of the Football Supporters Association. We know from evidence that footballers are four to five times more likely to suffer devastating conditions such as Alzheimer’s, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which was found to be the cause of death in Nobby Stiles’s post-mortem.

[Mr French]

To be clear, I was not taking a particular side. I was just explaining that funding is already available. I understand the hon. Member’s point about whether the funding is adequate.

On Nobby Stiles, the footballs that people play with are materially different from the ones that were played with in 1966. I ask in good faith: is the hon. Member leading this conversation to a potential ban on heading the ball in games, or is it just about the distribution of financial support for players?

[Mr Dillon]

I have a football at home signed by Sir Geoff Hurst, so I know exactly how heavy those old balls were, particularly when they got wet. We have seen coaching improvements so that children no longer head the football. That has come about because of the experiences of footballers who played in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. The Lib Dem spokesman referenced a game at Southampton in the early ’90s, when the football was not too dissimilar to the modern football. I can remember kicking it around at the park myself.

I am not in favour of banning headers in games. I would like to see a fully funded and legally compelled scheme set up to protect footballers who have suffered from playing the beautiful game and to support their families. Footballers of previous generations were not paid anywhere near what current footballers are paid. I would also like more research on preventive measures. Without the players, there is no game. We have to support our former players while protecting our future ones.

[Joe Robertson]

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham for speaking to amendment 1 and new clause 1. He said that this may not be the right place or the right Bill to do so, and I probably agree with him. Nevertheless, this is a helpful opportunity to acknowledge the issue, and it is timely given that there is a debate on dementia care in the Chamber right now. Until I entered this place, I worked for a national dementia care charity that was looking at the possible link between heading footballs and dementia diagnoses.

This debate is also timely because, almost at this hour as I understand it, an APPG is being set up to look at dementia in sport. While this amendment may not be successful, it is nevertheless very timely. I commend the hon. Member for raising the issue.