Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dawn Butler, Esther McVey, † Karl Turner, Sir Jeremy Wright

† Betts, Mr Clive (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

† Bonavia, Kevin (Stevenage) (Lab)

Dewhirst, Charlie (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

† Dillon, Mr Lee (Newbury) (LD)

† Foxcroft, Vicky (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† French, Mr Louie (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)

† Jopp, Lincoln (Spelthorne) (Con)

† Martin, Amanda (Portsmouth North) (Lab)

† Naish, James (Rushcliffe) (Lab)

Onn, Melanie (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)

† Patrick, Matthew (Wirral West) (Lab)

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

† Pearce, Jon (High Peak) (Lab)

Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)

Shanker, Baggy (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)

† Wilkinson, Max (Cheltenham) (LD)

Aaron Kulakiewicz, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

14:00:00

Before we commence proceedings, I mention that I am content for colleagues—Members and officials —to remove their jackets if they so wish. I am conscious that it is very warm. [Interruption.] I am thankful that Mr Betts is pleased about that. Clause 81 Reviewable decisions etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 66, 67, 68, 71, 69 and 72. Schedule 10. Clauses 82 and 83 stand part.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. Broadly, this group deals with the first three clauses of part 9, on reviews and appeals. A key safeguard on any regulatory regime is the opportunity to challenge the regulator’s decisions. As we will discuss in subsequent groups, decisions can be appealed to the specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal, but, as a preliminary step, clauses 81 to 83 create a statutory right for anyone “directly affected” by many of the regulator’s decisions to request that the regulator conduct an internal review. Internal reviews will involve fresh decision makers reviewing a decision. They will provide a quicker and lower-cost option than immediately pursuing litigation. That should also streamline the overall appeals process, help ensure that litigation is a remedy of last resort, and hopefully minimise burdens on all parties and on the legal system. Schedule 10 is a list covering the majority of significant regulatory decisions the regulator will make that directly affected persons are likely to appeal. These are the decisions that can be subject to internal review and appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. More operational decisions have not been captured in the list of reviewable decisions, nor have “positive” decisions, where the likelihood of appeal is negligible, such as the decision to grant a club a licence. The right to apply for judicial review still applies in the usual way to decisions not captured in schedule 10. Clause 82 sets out that, after the regulator makes a reviewable decision, a directly affected person can request that the regulator conduct an internal review. The clause outlines the procedure for internal reviews and empowers the regulator to refuse a review request in certain circumstances, including if the regulator considers that the request is vexatious. This should ensure that internal reviews are not used as a mechanism for clubs to frustrate and slow down the regulatory process. The clause guarantees that any individual who was involved in making the original decision will not be involved in conducting the internal review. That will ensure a fair review by fresh decision makers. Lastly, clause 83 outlines further procedure around internal reviews. The outcome of an internal review can be to uphold, vary or entirely cancel the original decision. This means that the applicable reviewer can correct a flawed or unfair decision. The regulator will have a statutory deadline of 14 days to conduct the internal review, with a maximum possible extension of a further 14 days in special cases. This should strike the fine balance between delivering a streamlined process and giving the regulator sufficient time to conduct a proper re-evaluation of the evidence. In the interests of an open and transparent appeals process, the regulator will be required to publish the outcome of any internal review. I turn to a series of Government amendments related to appeals. Government amendment 66 will add the regulator’s decision to trigger the backstop process to the Bill’s list of reviewable decisions. This will add a statutory route of appeal for the decision. Currently, the Bill makes only a decision not to trigger the backstop a reviewable decision. Making either decision at this vital stage reviewable will strengthen the regulator’s accountability by providing competition organisers with statutory avenues to appeal. Government amendments 67, 68 and 71 will make the board, not the expert panel, the applicable reviewer of the three distribution decisions: to trigger the backstop, to make a distribution order and to revoke a distribution order. The regulator’s board will be the regulator’s most senior decision makers and so will be best placed to make and review these momentous decisions. Government amendments 69 and 72 will remove the statutory route of appeal for three minor procedural decisions—the decisions to conduct an investigation under clause 68, to ask questions as part of an investigation, and to not accept a commitment in lieu of an investigation. This will reduce unnecessary opportunities to hamper the regulator by appealing interim procedural steps of an investigation. It would be inappropriate to allow a club to appeal the rejection of a commitment in lieu of an investigation, as this should be entirely at the regulator’s discretion as the investigating authority. I reassure the Committee that these changes will not limit access to justice. Affected parties will still be able to appeal the final decision—that is, the outcome of any investigation—to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The amendments simply remove the ability to challenge and frustrate the regulator at every step of an investigation. I commend the clauses, schedule and Government amendments to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I will keep my comments brief, which the Committee and you will probably be pleased to hear. I have listened carefully to what the Minister outlined, and the natural questions that arose about the amendments and clauses relate to how she imagines perceived biases will be avoided from boards and the panels, given that the expertise required to review such decisions will most certainly mean that most people involved in the process will be from the football industry. How will the regulator seek to avoid any perception of biases, so we can ensure that what looks like a stage 1 complaints process—it is easiest to compare this with a council—has the relevant transparency and process involved to avoid going to stage 2, which would be the Competition Appeal Tribunal? Secondly, can the Minister explain why Government amendment 72 removes the decision to exercise the power to ask questions in an interview from the list of reviewable decisions? Why have the Government made that decision?

I direct the hon. Gentleman to the regulatory principles, in terms of the individuals involved—whether that is the board or the expert panel—and schedule 10, which lists the major significant regulatory decisions. If we look again at the regulatory principles, we see that there is a requirement to be proportionate and to act in a fair way. I will write to him about his second question, on amendment 72, but I think that this refers to the three minor amendments we are making so that the system cannot be frustrated at each step of the way. But I will clarify that and write to him, in the interests of accuracy.

I am happy to receive a response in writing. Question put and agreed to. Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 10 Reviews Amendments made: 66, in schedule 10, page 120, line 17, column 1, leave out “not to trigger” and insert “to trigger, or not to trigger,”. This amendment includes a decision to trigger the resolution process in the list of reviewable decisions set out in Schedule 10. Amendment 67, in schedule 10, page 120, line 17, column 2, leave out “a committee of the Expert Panel” and insert “the Board”. This amendment provides that the applicable reviewer for a decision to trigger the resolution process is the Board rather than a committee of the Expert Panel. Amendment 68, in schedule 10, page 120, line 19, column 2, leave out “a committee of the Expert Panel” and insert “the Board”. This amendment provides that the applicable reviewer for a decision to make a distribution order under NC4 is the Board rather than a committee of the Expert Panel. Amendment 70, in schedule 10, page 120, leave out lines 21 and 22. This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4. Amendment 71, in schedule 10, page 120, line 23, column 2, leave out “a committee of the Expert Panel” and insert “the Board”. This amendment provides that the applicable reviewer for a decision to revoke a distribution order under clause 63 is the Board rather than a committee of the Expert Panel. Amendment 69, in schedule 10, page 120, leave out lines 27 to 30. This amendment removes a decision to conduct an investigation under clause 68 and not to accept a commitment in lieu under clause 70 from the list of reviewable decisions in Schedule 10. Amendment 72, in schedule 10, page 120, leave out lines 35 and 36.—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment removes a decision to exercise the power to ask questions under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 from the list of reviewable decisions in Schedule 10. Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 84 Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 85 stand part.

The clauses relate to the appeals of the regulator’s decisions to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. An appeals process should provide the appropriate opportunity to challenge that a regulator is acting fairly and within its statutory remit. It should also be a focused and efficient process that does not excessively delay the final resolution of decisions or hinder the regulator in achieving its objectives. Finally, while providing effective assurance of the regulator’s decision-making process and judgment, the appeals system should not unduly undermine the expert independent regulator. We believe that the appeals process, and the standard of appeals set out in the clauses, effectively balance those different considerations. Clause 84 sets out when appeals can be made, who can bring an appeal and how they are sequenced with internal reviews. Clause 85 sets out the standard of appeal that is to be applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on appeal of different types of decision. The majority of decisions will be appealable on judicial review grounds, having been first internally reviewed. That will provide a streamlined process for the majority of appeals. The regulator reviews internally to ensure that its decision is robust, and the reviewed decision can then be scrutinised by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In judicial review appeals, the Competition Appeal Tribunal will also be able to quash flawed decisions, but not substitute the regulator’s decision for its own. That will ensure appropriate deference is given to the regulator as the expert body that is best placed to make decisions of technical judgment in the football market. However, there are some particularly significant enforcement decisions that the regulator can take under the Bill. We expect these actions to be rare, as they are for extreme and serious circumstances only. But, if taken by the regulator, these punitive actions could have a significant impact on a person’s rights. That is why, for the six decisions, we believe that a merits appeal is more appropriate, which means that the Competition Appeal Tribunal can substitute its decisions over the regulator’s. Finally, as is standard, clause 84 also establishes an onward route of appeal of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decisions to the Court of Appeal. In summary, we think that the standard of appeal, and the wider appeals process set out in the Bill, strikes the correct balance between offering appropriate scrutiny of regulatory decisions and not allowing those decisions to be constantly challenged and undermined. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

This part of the Bill is important. We have argued consistently throughout this Committee that we believe that the right of appeal will be fundamental to the clubs in the context of this Bill. But we do have concerns, as the official Opposition, that football clubs will increasingly see themselves in legal disputes rather than focusing on matters on and off the pitch. The natural question regarding this process is really about how the Minister will help to ensure that there is a fair playing field in terms of the financial costs of going to an appeal. How will those smaller clubs have the same rights and access to such appeals when they clearly will not have the same financial means as some of the Premier League clubs?

My officials engaged with legal experts and senior members of tribunals while developing the Bill. That is why we have set out the Competition Appeal Tribunal process, and why we believe that it will be proportionate and appropriate for all levels of the pyramid. Question put and agreed to. Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  Clause 86 Disclosure of information by the IFR Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 87 to 89 stand part.

This group of clauses relates to the disclosure of information both to and from the regulator. Clause 86 will enable the regulator to share relevant information with bodies within the industry and regulators that are dealing with similar and relevant issues. As well as allowing those bodies to benefit from the regulator’s knowledge and information, that should encourage those bodies to reciprocate by sharing relevant information they hold with the regulator. These two-way sharing relationships should help to establish an effective network of communication that strengthens the efficiency of regulation in the industry and across the economy. Clause 87 concerns the disclosure of information to the regulator, for example by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to enable other public authorities to share information with the regulator, if they do not already have the ability to do so. That will help to future-proof the regulator’s regime and ensure that it can obtain information from all the relevant bodies so that it can effectively deliver its functions. Clause 88 sets out some restrictions and protections on the processing and disclosure of information by and to the regulator. That includes ensuring that a disclosure is in line with data protection legislation and does not prejudice the prevention, investigation or prosecution of a crime. It also prevents the disclosure of certain information, received from the National Crime Agency or HMRC, without their consent. This is to give those bodies confidence that sensitive information can be shared safely. The clause also permits the regulator to exclude information from disclosure that might significantly harm the legitimate personal or business interests of the person to whom the information relates. These are all important safeguards around the treatment of potentially sensitive information. Finally, clause 89 creates criminal offences and penalties related to the safeguards for HMRC information set out in the previous clause. The penalties for these offences are commensurate with other regulatory regimes and are a proportionate but robust deterrent against the unlawful disclosure of information. I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 87 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  Clause 90 Rules Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

14:15:00

The Bill provides a clear framework of powers and duties for the regulator to follow. In places, that is a detailed and prescriptive framework to direct and constrain the regulator’s regime more closely, but in other places there is greater room for the regulator to exercise discretion. That approach reflects regulatory best practice, which is to give the expert, independent and better informed regulator the flexibility to adapt regulations to the circumstances of different persons and to changing circumstances over time. Such flexibility will allow the regulator to be light touch where possible but intervene more strongly where necessary. The ability for the regulator to make rules facilitates that approach. Rules will allow the regulator to fill in the technical and operational details of its regime within the framework afforded to it by this Bill. It could amend, replace or revoke those rules in future to adapt to developments in the market. The clause sets out some procedural safeguards around the making of rules and what these rules may do, including that the regulator must consult specified competition organisers and anyone else it considers appropriate before making, amending or replacing any rules. As outlined previously, this consultation is an important part of the participative approach that the regulator should take to make sure its regime works for the industry.

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, the Opposition have raised concerns about scope creep for the regulator down the line, and how that may lead to unintended consequences. The obvious question to the Minister is: what consultation will take place with Members of this House so that we can scrutinise any rule changes and be confident that the regulator has not gone beyond the scope of the powers that we deem necessary at this point?

I make two points in response to that. Of course, there is the provision in the Bill—I believe we will come on to this, but we may have already covered it—for a five-year review. On this clause, the regulator must consult specified competition organisers and anyone else it considers appropriate before making, amending or replacing any rules. This is about future-proofing, and certainly not about scope creep. Question put and agreed to. Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 91 Regulations

I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 91, page 74, line 24, leave out subsection (3)(iii).

With this it will be convenient to consider clause stand part.

Clause 91 provides the procedural backbone to the regulatory powers contained in the Bill. It sets out how the Secretary of State—whoever that may be, should this Bill become law—may make regulations under this legislation, including who may exercise discretion under them, and the form of parliamentary oversight that will apply. In short, this clause tells us how much power the Executive has in implementing the detail of the Bill, and how much say Parliament retains once the Bill becomes law. The clause may be tucked away in the final third of the Bill, but its importance should not be understated. It governs not only the process of regulation, but the boundaries of ministerial authority. In some areas, we believe those boundaries are drawn too widely. That is why I have tabled amendment 127, which would remove the Secretary of State’s power under clause 56(2)(b) to specify, by regulation, other sources of relevant revenue that could be brought into scope of the resolution process. Let me start by talking about clause 91. Subsection (1) allows regulations to confer discretion on a person and to vary by purpose, or to make incidental and consequential provisions. That is common enough in legislation, but it is worth nothing that that includes financial discretion, which has material implications for how the football regulator functions. Subsection (2) confirms that all regulations must be made by statutory instrument. Again, that is standard practice. Subsection (3) provides a list of which regulations must be made under the affirmative procedure, and subsection (4) confirms that all other regulations fall under the negative procedure. Subsection (5) removes the hybrid procedure, even if a regulation might otherwise qualify as hybrid, effectively limiting Parliament’s ability to challenge or delay regulations in which private or commercial interests are disproportionately affected. That all gives the Secretary of State wide scope to make rules that affect both her own regulator and the football industry, with only partial scrutiny by Parliament. Clause 56 is where this becomes far more than procedural. Under clause 56(2)(b), the Secretary of State is empowered to expand, by regulation, what qualifies as relevant revenue for the purpose of regulatory intervention. Put plainly, this is a power to change what money is up for grabs. That is a significant power. It means that the Secretary of State can decide what kinds of revenue are subject to redistribution disputes between leagues and competitions. Today, that might mean central broadcasting income, but tomorrow it could include gate receipts, sponsorship revenue, commercial arrangements specific to certain clubs or competitions, or even transfer proceeds or merchandising royalties. In theory, it could give a future Secretary of State the ability to bring any revenue stream into scope, and thereby invite the regulator to oversee, or even compel, its redistribution. This is a constitutional concern, not just a technical one. Will the Minister please confirm whether there are any limits—statutory or political—on what the Secretary of State could define as a source of “relevant revenue” under clause 56(2)(b)? If not, does she accept that that gives the Government open-ended authority to intervene in private commercial arrangements within football? My amendment would remove this regulation-making power from the Bill. It would ensure that the scope of financial disputes eligible for regulatory resolution is fixed in primary legislation, not adjustable by ministerial diktat. We believe that is the right balance; it allows Parliament to define the guardrails and prevents future mission creep, whereby politically contentious revenue streams are dragged into disputes between the Premier League and the EFL, or any other competitions. This is not just about the risk of interference; it is about certainty, predictability and trust in the regulatory model. We have already made clear our concerns about how English football will run into issues with UEFA and FIFA regarding their statutes. I will not repeat that again now, but we believe that, by granting the Secretary of State the power to redefine revenue categories by regulation—outside of parliamentary debate—clause 56(2)(b), as enabled by clause 91, risks violating those principles. Such interference has one clear sanction: “the ultimate sanction…would be excluding the federation from Uefa and teams from competition.” As we have already discussed, that is not a risk that should be taken lightly. If football governance is to remain independent, and if the regulator is to operate with a clear mandate, the definition of revenue categories must not be subject to political discretion; it must be set by Parliament in primary legislation, not by the stroke of a ministerial pen. That is especially true when the very mechanism in question, the resolution process, is designed to resolve disputes about money. What qualifies as “relevant revenue” goes to the heart of the matter. It is not ancillary; it is foundational. Clause 91 may appear to be about procedures, but it is in fact about power. It determines how broad the reach of the Secretary of State will be in defining, influencing and intervening in the financial affairs of English football. In particular, through the mechanism created by clause 56(2)(b), it allows new revenue streams to be brought into the scope of the Government-backed intervention without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is not what was promised when this Bill was introduced. We were told by the Government and this Minister that their regulator would be a light-touch and targeted regulator—one designed to uphold financial sustainability and protect supporters, not one that could be weaponised by future Ministers to remake the game’s financial settlement from above. By tabling amendment 127, we are saying that revenue boundaries must be set in statute, not in statutory instruments, that Parliament, not the Secretary of State, should decide where the line is drawn, and that the regulator should focus on its core remit and not be dragged into every financial dispute, with a “revenue” label slapped on by regulation.

I believe that amendment 127 is consequential on the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup’s amendment 124 regarding our changes to the Bill to include parachute payments, which we debated last week—although I think he gave a slightly more wide-ranging speech just now. Amendment 124 would have prevented parachute payments from being considered under the backstop, and it would have prevented the Secretary of State from amending the revenue in scope of the backstop in future. I will state here what I stated last week, and what has been my consistent position, even in opposition: for the regulator to make an informed decision regarding the financial state of football, it must consider all relevant factors, and that includes parachute payments. As drafted, the “relevant revenue” in scope of the backstop expressly includes broadcast revenue, because that is the predominant source of revenue and distributions for the relevant leagues. However, there is no guarantee that that will always remain the case. As I covered in last week’s debate, the financial landscape of football is ever-changing. No one could have predicted 30 years ago just how much television broadcasting of English football would grow, and who can predict where technology may take us in another 30 years? That is why clause 56 allows the Secretary of State to specify other kinds of revenue to be included as “relevant revenue”. This will simply future-proof the backstop mechanism. However, as I outlined in the previous debate, there are still clear constraints and safeguards regarding this power. The Secretary State must consult with the regulator, the FA and the relevant leagues before using the power, and can use the power only when there has been “a material change of circumstances”. Any use of the power will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure.

We cannot set something in stone and say, “That’s how it’s going to be forever.” Giving that bit of flexibility is right. I was talking to my friend Richard Caborn, who was a previous sports Minister, and he said to me that, when discussions first began about revenue within football, they were concentrated on the television rights to UK matches in the United Kingdom. It has since become apparent, of course, that it is the international rights that are the real driver of resources. That was not thought about when the first distribution was done.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention; he has put an important point on the record, and it is always nice to be able to pay tribute to Richard Caborn, the former sports Minister and my former south Yorkshire colleague. He has done a lot of work in this area; indeed, I know that he has worked very closely with my hon. Friend. This process is simply about future-proofing. Given that this Committee has already agreed to clause 56 and disagreed to the shadow Minister’s amendment 124, all that this amendment would achieve is to remove one of the safeguards, making regulations to update the definition of “relevant revenue” negative rather than affirmative. For those reasons, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s comments. The Opposition still have major concerns about the powers afforded to the Secretary of State and what we believe to be appropriate parliamentary oversight. We will press the amendment to a vote.

43|0|2|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 91

Regulations

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

Clause 91 sets out the parameters and procedure around the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations under the various provisions of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 92 Minor definitions etc

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 92, page 75, line 17, after “functions” insert “or give rise to the perception that said person’s functions have been prejudicially affected, including (but not limited to) a situation in which a person is— (a) employed by or engaged as a consultant by any specified competition organiser or any group undertaking of a specified competition organiser; (b) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from a specified competition organiser; (c) connected with a group undertaking of an organisation within the scope of part (ii); (d) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from any of the organisations listed in parts (ii) or (iii); or (e) connected (as defined in section 252 of the Companies Act 2006) with an individual within the scope of parts (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of section 92(1).” The amendment gives further detail to the definition of “conflict of interest” within this Bill. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, hopefully for the last time—in this Committee, I mean. The amendment is simply trying to make the Bill a bit more specific about what “conflict of interest” might mean. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the amendment is not quite right in its drafting and wording. Nevertheless, it is at least worth putting on the record that this is an important issue. Maybe we can obtain some clarification about what “conflict of interest” means in practice.

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this amendment. I acknowledge its intent to fortify the provisions in the Bill for dealing with conflicts of interest. We will cover “Minor Definitions” in detail when we discuss the next group of clauses, which includes clause 92 stand part. However, I will touch on “Minor Definitions” briefly when responding to this amendment. As we discussed at length on day one of this Committee, when we debated conflicts of interest, it is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime free from undue influence and vested interests. The Bill already makes it clear that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest and the Government amendments made in the other place strengthen those protections even further—indeed, beyond any doubt. We believe that the existing definition of a conflict of interest is appropriate and will capture the correct issues. That definition is any interest that “is likely to affect prejudicially that person’s discharge of functions”. I reassure my hon. Friend that our definition is well precedented; for example, it can be found in the Pensions Act 2008 and the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.

I am listening very carefully to the Minister’s definition of a conflict of interest. Does she believe that it should be applied to the new chair of the regulator, who has donated to the Labour party?

The shadow Minister is making a well-rehearsed argument. As we have discussed previously, the newly appointed chair of the regulator has been fully endorsed by a cross-party Select Committee. Returning to the amendment, we are confident that this definition and the conflict of interest protections in the Bill, supplemented by public law principles and non-legislative measures that are already in place, provide comprehensive safeguards to identify and manage conflicts of interest appropriately. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

14:30:00

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause 93 stand part.  Schedule 11.

Clauses 92 and 93 and schedule 11 relate to definitions. Clause 92 defines various terms used throughout the Bill that are not already defined elsewhere. Clause 93 refers to schedule 11, which lists where in the Bill to find definitions or explanations of terms that apply to multiple provisions—for example, “competition organiser,” “football season” and “regulated club.” Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.   Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.   Schedule 11 Index of defined terms Amendment made: 73, in schedule 11, page 123, line 4, column 2, leave out “62(3)” and insert “(Distribution orders)(9)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4. Schedule 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 94 Pre-commencement consultation

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 94, page 76, line 14, leave out from “to” to end of line 15 and insert “— (a) a provision of this Act which requires the IFR to consult another person; (b) the provision made by section 10(5)(a) and (b).” This amendment includes the provision made by clause 10(5)(a) and (b) in clause 94.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 56 to 59.

These amendments relate to a simple administrative change to clause 94, the pre-commencement clause. Clause 94 will allow the shadow regulator to conduct consultation with relevant stakeholders ahead of Royal Assent. That clause was added to ensure that the shadow regulator would be able to begin consultation on its functions, and that, if deemed appropriate by the regulator post Royal Assent, that consultation could be relied on, ensuring no unnecessary delays to the set-up and commencement of the regulator. The change simply ensures that the clause captures the slightly different wording in the state of the game clause about the regulator inviting suggestions on the report. By making this change, we reduce the operational risk of the regulator not reporting its state of the game report as quickly as possible post Royal Assent, and therefore being up and running as soon as necessary. Amendment 55 agreed to. Amendments made: 56, in clause 94, page 76, line 18, leave out “carried out consultation” and insert “did anything”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55. Amendment 57, in clause 94, page 76, line 20, leave out “consultation carried out” and insert “anything done”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55. Amendment 58, in clause 94, page 76, line 21, leave out “consultation had been carried out” and insert “thing had been done”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55. Amendment 59, in clause 94, page 76, line 23, leave out “consultation carried out” and insert “anything done”.—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 will allow the shadow regulator to conduct consultation with relevant stakeholders ahead of Royal Assent, and for that consultation to satisfy the requirements placed on the regulator in legislation post Royal Assent. Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.  Clause 95 Offences by officers of clubs and bodies corporate Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 makes sure that if a club is found to have committed certain offences under the Bill, such as falsifying or destroying information, the individuals responsible can be held criminally liable. Question put and agreed to.   Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.  Clause 96 Review of Act Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

During Committee in the other place, Peers raised the importance of evaluating the impact, intended outcomes and success of the regulator. The Government absolutely agree that it is good practice for the impacts of regulation to be monitored and evaluated post-implementation. That is why we have added this clause, which will require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the operation of the Act and its impact on industry. That review must be completed no later than five years after the full commencement of the licensing regime.

Given the concerns that His Majesty’s Official Opposition have raised throughout the passage of the Bill in this place and in the other House, we welcome the inclusion of the review of the Act. However, the clause mentions laying a copy of the report before Parliament. How does the Minister envisage Parliament being able to have its say on the benefits or non-benefits of the regulator at that point?

I think we discussed this earlier. It is up to individual Select Committees whether they wish to call the independent regulator before them. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the practicalities of laying the report. Question put and agreed to. Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 97 Payments into the Consolidated Fund Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 covers situations in which the regulator must return money to the Exchequer and requires the regulator to pay into the consolidated fund amounts received through the levy to recoup its set-up costs. Question put and agreed to. Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 98 Minor and consequential amendments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 12.

Clause 98 relates to minor and consequential amendments to other primary legislation. Those amendments are to existing Acts and are necessary for the Bill to function as intended. For example, they add the regulator to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and enable the competition appeal tribunal to hear appeals of the regulator.

I have heard what the Minister just said. Can I clarify that the amendments would make the regulator FOI-able?

I believe so, but in the interest of accuracy I will double check and write to the hon. Gentleman. Question put and agreed to. Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 12 agreed to. Clause 99 Extent Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 sets out the territorial extent and application of the Bill. The regulator’s scope is intended to be limited to the top five tiers of English men’s football. That is where the fan-led review identified significant harms and structural challenges that the market had failed to resolve. Five Welsh clubs compete in the English football pyramid, four of which—Cardiff City, Newport County, Swansea City and Wrexham—would be captured in the scope of the regulator. One more, Merthyr Town, which was recently promoted to the sixth tier, could be in scope in the future. To ensure that all clubs within the English football pyramid are captured and protected equally under the same regulatory regime, the legislation must extend to both England and Wales.

I will not seek to rehash an earlier debate on the multi-club issue that the Opposition raised. However, I urge the Minister again to look closely at how that may work in the future. I fully appreciate her point about the Welsh clubs that compete in the English structure, but, as we highlighted in previous debates, a number of Scottish clubs now have multi-club ownership with English clubs and will be affected by this legislation directly or indirectly. If the Minister gave further thought to that and let me know, it would be appreciated.

I will make that commitment. Question put and agreed to. Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 100 Commencement Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Bill provides for the majority of provisions to be brought into force by commencement regulations. Different provisions may be brought into force on different days, enabling the new regime to be brought into force in a structured and considered manner. The main exceptions to that are the provisions that establish the regulator and its governance structure. In addition, there are some basic initial functions that the regulator needs to stand up the regime, such as putting rules in place and preparing a state of the game report. These provisions will be brought into force on Royal Assent to enable the regulator to get on with the task of standing up the new regime without unnecessary delay. Question put and agreed to. Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 101 Short title

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 101, page 80, line 11, leave out subsection (2). This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Clause 101 concerns the short title of the Bill. It makes certain that, once it has passed through Parliament, the Football Governance Bill will be cited as the Football Governance Act 2025. Finally, Government amendment 60 is technical and procedural; it removes the privilege amendment inserted on Third Reading in the Lords to clause 101. This was added in the other place to make it clear that they have not infringed on the financial privileges of this House. Amendment 60 agreed to. Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 3 Proposal stage “(1) This section applies where mediation under section 60 comes to an end by virtue of the occurrence of an event within section 60(6)(b), (c) or (d). (2) As soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the event, the IFR must give notice to the two specified competition organisers. (3) A notice under subsection (2) must— (a) set out the question or questions for resolution, (b) specify the qualifying football season or seasons to which that question relates or those questions relate, (c) set out any findings in the IFR’s most recent state of the game report that the IFR considers relevant to that question or those questions, (d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to submit to the IFR and to each other a proposal as to how that question or those questions should be resolved, (e) require any proposal to be accompanied by supporting evidence (including evidence as to how the proposal addresses the findings set out under paragraph (c)), (f) specify the day on or before which proposals are to be submitted. (4) A question for resolution may be set out in a notice under subsection (2) only if it is the question, or one of the questions, for resolution remaining unresolved when the mediation mentioned in subsection (1) came to an end. (5) Where a notice under subsection (2) sets out a question for resolution that relates to relegation revenue (within the meaning given by section (Distribution orders)(9)), the notice must require the specified competition organisers to explain in a proposal how the proposal will promote the financial sustainability of clubs which operate teams relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser distributing the relegation revenue. (6) Subsection (7) applies if, on or before the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f), a specified competition organiser submits to the IFR a proposal which the IFR considers is not a qualifying proposal. (7) The IFR may give both specified competition organisers a notice specifying a later day (falling not more than seven days after the end of the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f)) on or before which proposals are to be submitted. (8) As soon as reasonably practicable after— (a) the initial proposal deadline, or (b) (if earlier) the day on which the IFR considers that both specified competition organisers have submitted qualifying proposals, the IFR must give a notice under subsection (9) to the two specified competition organisers. (9) A notice under this subsection must— (a) state which of the two specified competition organisers (if any) has submitted a qualifying proposal before the initial proposal deadline, (b) invite each such specified competition organiser to— (i) confirm their proposal, or (ii) make any permitted modifications to their proposal, and submit the confirmed or modified proposal to the IFR and the other specified competition organiser, and (c) specify the day on or before which the confirmed or modified proposal is to be submitted. (10) The IFR may specify in a notice under subsection (2) or (9) the form and manner in which proposals and supporting evidence must be submitted. (11) In this section— (a) ‘the initial proposal deadline’ means— (i) the day referred to in subsection (3)(f), or (ii) where the IFR gives a notice under subsection (7), the day specified in the notice; (b) a ‘qualifying proposal’ means a proposal which— (i) explains how the question or questions for resolution should be resolved, and (ii) complies with the requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3)(e) and (5) (if applicable); (c) a modification to a proposal is ‘permitted’ unless it results in the proposal no longer being a qualifying proposal.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This new clause substitutes clause 61 with a new clause providing for a revised procedure for the proposal stage of the resolution process. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 4 Distribution orders “(1) This section applies where the IFR has given a notice under section (Proposal stage)(9). (2) Before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the notice under section (Proposal stage)(9) was given, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice of the distribution order it proposes to make. (3) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (2) by up to a further 14 days if it considers it appropriate to do so. (4) A notice under subsection (2) must— (a) give reasons for the proposed distribution order, (b) explain how the proposed order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8), (c) explain how the proposed order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c), (d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to make representations about the proposed distribution order, (e) specify the period within which such representations may be made, and (f) specify the means by which they may be made, and the IFR must have regard to any representations which are duly made. (5) The period specified under subsection (4)(d) must be a period of not less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given. (6) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period specified under subsection (4)(d), the IFR must make an order requiring relevant revenue to be distributed in a way that the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(a) (a ‘distribution order’). (7) In making a distribution order the IFR must— (a) apply the principles mentioned in subsection (8), and (b) have regard to any proposal submitted under section (Proposal stage)(9)(b). See also section 7 (in particular the IFR’s general duty to exercise its functions in a way that advances one or more of its objectives and to have regard to various matters). (8) The principles referred to in subsection (7)(a) are that— (a) the distribution order should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and (b) the distribution order should not result in a lower amount of relegation revenue being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to the club during that period had the order not been made. (9) For the purposes of subsection (8)— ‘relegation revenue’ means revenue distributed by a specified competition organiser to a club in consequence of a team operated by the club being relegated from a specified competition organised by the specified competition organiser; ‘relevant period’, in relation to a distribution order, means the period of one year beginning with the final day of the first football season in respect of which relegation revenue would be distributed in pursuance of the order. (10) A distribution order— (a) must impose on the specified competition organisers such obligations as the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements set out in the order, and (b) may, where a distribution agreement is in force between the specified competition organisers in relation to the same qualifying football season or seasons to which the order relates, provide for that agreement to have effect subject to provision contained in the order. (11) At the same time as making a distribution order, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice— (a) including a copy of the order, (b) giving reasons for the order, (c) explaining how the order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8), (d) explaining how the order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c), and (e) including information about the possible consequences under Part 8 of not complying with the order. (12) The IFR must, as soon as reasonably practicable after making a distribution order, publish the order or a summary of the order.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This new clause substitutes clause 62 with a new clause providing that the IFR may make a distribution order that distributes relevant revenue in the way that the IFR considers most appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 7 Duty not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling “A regulated club or English football competition must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”—(Max Wilkinson.) This new clause prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. We are not calling for a ban on gambling with the new clause, but we are calling for a ban on advertising it through one of our most culturally powerful platforms. The new clause is a proportionate, evidence-led measure to break the link between football and gambling harm. When we consider that 70% of young people are aware of being exposed to gambling advertisements, is it any wonder, when these adverts are emblazoned on football team shirts and plastered on the side of every pitch for everyone to see? Gambling firms spend a huge amount of money every year on advertising. They do not lack influence or reach. Gambling has much wider impacts than simply in the football stadium. Since 2011, gambling losses in the UK have risen by 80%, and new data from the Gambling Commission indicates that up to 2.5% of adults in Great Britain may be suffering from gambling harms. Football is unique in its reach and influence. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, gambling is still embedded in the game. Club sponsorships, half-time adverts and pundit discussions all feature it. If we do not act here, we send a message that profits matter more than people’s wellbeing. We understand that the Government think this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is an important discussion for us to have in the context of anything to do with football.

Could the hon. Gentleman give us some sense of his assessment of how much money the new clause would take out of football?

It is not about the money that this would take out of football, but the money that is taken out of the pockets of many football fans who are being exploited by predatory gambling companies every day.

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. The Government are clear that, wherever gambling advertising and sponsorship appears, it must be socially responsible. The Government do not believe that the regulator should have a role in commercial matters such as sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs and competition organisers. We must be wary of scope creep that sees the regulator straying into matters that should be reserved for the industry, and stepping on the toes of industry authorities such as the FA. What constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely broadly, with significant consequences for clubs, and sport more widely. For instance, the new clause could be interpreted as meaning that players could not take part in competitions that had gambling sponsors. Clearly, that would have significant unintended consequences for clubs and the sport more widely. All major football bodies have published their joint gambling sponsorship code of conduct, which sets minimum standards for socially responsible gambling sponsorship within football. We are working closely with sporting bodies to review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure that they have a meaningful impact. This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps for gambling sponsorship. The Premier League has already made the decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the new clause, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

14:45:00

I am pleased that this is on the Minister’s mind, and that the Government seem to understand the problem. I think we would all accept that there is a bigger problem with gambling adverts in football which needs to be solved. Whenever we turn on Sky on a Sunday afternoon, it is obvious to all what is going on, as the adverts are often completely unrepresentative of the reality of football gambling. I have a particular concern about those who are engaged in punditry while encouraging us in half-time adverts to spend our money. That is a clear conflict of interest that needs to be resolved at some point. I accept that at this stage, the Government are not going to take it on. We will not press the new clause to a vote today, as we recognise the numbers in the room, but it is an important discussion that all parliamentarians need to be involved in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 9 Free to air coverage “(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season— (a) at least ten Premier League football matches, (b) the League Cup Final, and (c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals, are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics. (3) In this section “free-to-air television” means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”—(Max Wilkinson.) This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Televising of football matches of national interest— “(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows. (2) After Section 299 (categorisation of listed events) (2)(d) insert— “(e) the Independent Football Regulator, established by the Football Governance Act 2024, in relation to televising of football matches between licensed football clubs.”” This new clause adds the IFR as a statutory consultee on the listing of sporting events for free-to-air coverage.

With new clauses 9 and 13, we are calling for an expansion of the crown jewels of sports broadcasting to ensure that key fixtures from the domestic football calendar are made available on free-to-air television. Members will have recently seen some of the coverage about dwindling viewership figures for this year on TNT and Sky. That should give us all cause for concern, particularly those who are involved in the finances of football. Specifically, we are calling for the free-to-air package to include 10 Premier League games a season, the League cup final, and the play-offs for the Championship, League One and League Two, in addition to those already free to air, such as the FA cup, World cup and the Euros. This is not about undermining private broadcasters, but viewing figures are on the wane. We had a 17% drop in audience numbers last season. At the same time, there are signs that the value of Premier League broadcast rights has plateaued as more live games have been added to recent packages. This is an opportunity for broadcasters and leagues alike to innovate their offering. Our proposals could open the door to new forms of commercial engagement, such as sponsorship tied to mass viewership, broader brand exposure and appointment-to-view opportunities that bring in new audiences. That approach has worked elsewhere across Europe, most notably in La Liga, where one game a week is free to air, keeping the league accessible to all fans, regardless of their ability to pay. Recent research shows that in general Premier League fans are more likely to come from lower-income backgrounds than those who regularly attend matches. The hon. Member for Spelthorne has referenced the eye-watering cost of his season ticket on a number of occasions in this Committee. For many supporters, attending games is unaffordable, and with the rising cost of living, stacking multiple sports subscriptions is out of reach for too many households. Increasing free-to-air coverage would not just make games more accessible; it would reignite national moments of the kind we see during the World cup or the Euros. Those moments build unity, inspire young people and renew grassroots interest in the game.

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling new clauses 9 and 13, which concern the televising of football matches as listed events and free to air. First, I want to be clear that it is not an issue for the Bill or the regulator, but I would like to use this opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the issue. The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events of national interest are made available to the public as widely as possible. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against that investment, and not risk it. As for the Bill, there have been strong voices from all sides that the regulator must have a tightly defined remit, and must not intervene in areas where it is more appropriate for football authorities or others to lead. We agree with that, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the bar for statutory, regulatory intervention in any market should be very high. It would not be appropriate for the regulator to intervene in commercial decisions between the relevant broadcasters and rights holders. Decisions relating to the number of matches of specific competitions that are broadcast are determined through commercial negotiation and are subject to factors such as rights costs and scheduling considerations. Additionally, we do not feel it is right to expand the regulator’s remit by including it as a body that must be consulted on listed events. Decisions relating to the coverage of certain sporting and other events of national interest are, again, a matter for the relevant broadcasters and rights holders. A widened regulatory remit considering broadcasting and commercial decisions would distract from the key responsibility of the regulator and widen the scope of the Bill. The regulator will ensure that there are financially viable clubs for fans to watch, both at their grounds and on television. For those reasons, I am unable to support the hon. Member’s new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Fan representation: mandatory golden share “(1) A licensed club must, as a condition of holding a licence under section 15, issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan organisation. (2) The golden share must confer on its holder the right to veto any proposal by the club to— (a) relocate the club’s home ground outside its current local authority area, (b) change the club’s name, (c) materially alter the club’s primary colours or badge, or (d) enter into or withdraw from any competition not sanctioned by The Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League. (3) A licensed club must— (a) consult the holder of the golden share on any material changes to the club’s ownership, governance, or strategic direction, (b) provide the holder with access to relevant financial and governance information reasonably required to fulfil its function, and (c) facilitate structured and regular engagement between the club and the holder of the golden share. (4) The Regulator must monitor compliance with this section and may— (a) issue guidance to clubs and Supporters’ Trusts on the operation of the golden share, (b) impose licence conditions or financial penalties for non-compliance, and (c) take enforcement action where a club fails to uphold the rights associated with the golden share. (5) In this section— ‘Supporters’ Trust’ means a formally constituted, democratic, not-for-profit organisation that is recognised by the Regulator as representing the interests of a club’s supporters; ‘golden share’ means a special share or equivalent legal instrument issued to a Supporters’ Trust, entitling its holder to the rights and protections described in this section.”—(Max Wilkinson.) This new clause would give fans a veto on club proposals, exercised through a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan body. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 21—IFR duty to provide information and support on golden shares— “(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act the IFR must publish guidance for recognised Supporters’ Trusts or equivalent democratic fan organisations holding a golden share as specified in section [Fan representation: mandatory golden share]. (2) The guidance published under subsection (1) must explain the purpose of a golden share and advise on how holders of a golden share can engage with their regulated club when utilising the rights bestowed by the golden share. (3) The IFR must also provide an information support service for holders of a golden share to contact for advice on utilising their golden share.” This new clause adds a duty for the IFR to support fan organisations in the use of their golden share through advice services and guidance.

The spirit of the Bill is rightly focused on ensuring the financial sustainability of the game and, crucially, protecting the heritage of clubs by giving fans a greater voice. As I have said, we support the Bill. In the spirit of the noble aims of the Bill, we have tabled new clause 10, which proposes a simple but powerful safeguard: a mandatory “golden share” for fans. It would require all licensed clubs to “issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust” or equivalent democratic fan body. The share would grant fans a veto over fundamental decisions affecting the club’s identity and future, including relocation of its home ground, changing its name, altering its primary colours or badge, and entering or withdrawing it from competitions not sanctioned by the FA, Premier League or EFL. The golden share was an idea included in Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review, but it seems to have been forgotten. We are simply bringing fans’ voices back to the table. The Committee will, of course, be able to think of many instances where such a veto would have helped. I will raise three examples: the attempt by Assem Allam, the owner of Hull City, to rebrand the club as “Hull Tigers”; the relocation of Wimbledon to Milton Keynes; and the time that Cardiff changed their shirts to red. The new clause aims to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. It would be a positive step; we urge the Government to accept it.

The Hull City example is one I am very familiar with. I call the Minister.

I will respond to new clauses 10 and 21 together because they both relate to a “golden share”. The regulator will operate an advocacy-first approach, and the regulatory principles in clause 8 set out a collaborative approach, including with fans. Although we expect that the regulator will welcome any club that feels a golden share is the best approach for it, such an arrangement would require a significant restructure at the majority of clubs. The new clause would place a burden on clubs to make considerable changes, such as establishing a community benefit society if one does not already exist, and amending fundamental legal documents. Instead, the regulator will give strong, irreversible legal protections to prevent damage to the most important aspects of the club. That will include regulatory protection for club heritage and stadium changes, as well as ensuring fan engagement. As we have discussed, clubs will be required to consult fans on key issues that are important to them. The Bill mandates fan consultation on a club’s strategic direction and business priorities, and on operational and match day issues, which specifically include ticket pricing and matters related to the club’s heritage. Such consultation, along with the protections on stadiums and key points of club heritage such as colours, emblem and name, ensure that fans are put at the heart of their clubs without the burdens that could, as I have just discussed, be associated with a golden share. For those reasons, I am unable to support the new clause.

I am afraid I reneged on my duty to call Mr Naish. I think I was too interested in the point about Hull City.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I want to place it on the record that the Notts County supporters’ trust got in touch with me over the weekend, and it is very much sympathetic to new clause 10. The trust was set up in 2003 to save the club when it was in administration, and it has played an important role in saving the club from being wound up. It fully supports any improvements in supporter representation, and its representatives specifically noted that they would like to see at least one independent supporter director on the board of all professional clubs, which measure would push in the same type of direction as the new clause. I recognise what the Minister has just said, but I thank the supporters’ trust for getting in touch. I also recognise that, where trusts are in existence, they are doing excellent things for their clubs.

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituency, and I am pleased that he has been able to represent his local fan trust. The Bill will require fan engagement at all clubs with the adequate and effective means in place to deliver the licensing requirement. The regime does allow for a bespoke approach to be taken at each club, based on what is best in each club’s specific circumstances. A supporter director was considered by the fan-led review and support for the concept was mixed. The review concluded that “a fan director rarely delivers on fan expectations.” Clubs are welcome to introduce any additional engagement strategy that they think will be of benefit to them and their fanbases. Many clubs have already responded to the fan-led review, made decisions to push themselves beyond the recommendations, and implemented fan engagement strategies that they think will work best for their club. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that case.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 11 Protection of assets of regulated clubs “(1) Where any of the following assets belong to a regulated club, the asset must not be removed from the club’s ownership or used as collateral for a secured loan— (a) any stadium, (b) any training facility, (c) any trophies, (d) any car park, (e) any hotel. (2) But subsection 1 does not apply to a car park or a hotel where— (a) the regulated club can demonstrate to the IFR’s satisfaction that the asset is causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial sustainability, and (b) the IFR has provided prior written approval for the disposal of the asset or the use of the asset as collateral. (3) Where the current owner of a regulated club owns any asset listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c), the owner may not sell the club unless the owner has inserted the asset into the club’s ownership structure.”—(Max Wilkinson.) This new clause would ensure that the club assets listed above are recognised as the inalienable property of the club rather than the club’s owners. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We cannot claim to be reforming football unless we tackle one of its most dangerous long-term trends—the creeping financialisation and asset-stripping of clubs. The hon. Member for High Peak has mentioned this on a number of occasions; he has experienced it in his former role as chair of the RamsTrust. New clause 11 would introduce protections to ensure that core assets such as stadiums, training grounds, trophies and, in some cases, commercial properties like car parks and hotels, remain in the club’s ownership, where they belong. Specifically, the new clause would ensure that assets cannot be sold off or used as security for loans without the prior written approval of the regulator; that the regulator may give its approval only if the asset is demonstrably causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial health; and, critically, that if any of the assets are owned by another organisation rather than the club itself, they must be transferred back into the club’s ownership before any sale of the club can proceed. The current system allows owners to move critical assets out of a club’s hands with little or no transparency. Once that happens, the club often faces high rent obligations to use its own stadium and training facilities, has weakened negotiating power in takeovers and insolvency, and potentially experiences a complete disconnection from its historical home. Derby County are not the only example of where that has happened. We think this concept is worth taking forward, and we hope the Government are listening.

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. He and I have a shared aim to ensure that there are sufficient protections for home grounds and other assets. We have already discussed the issue of protections for home grounds, so I understand the intention behind the amendment. However, the Government do not believe that it is a proportionate measure. The amendment would place significant blocks on any action to alter the financial arrangements of a long list of assets, and would substantially interfere with the property rights of clubs. Clubs should be able to exercise commercial discretion over the use of wider club-owned assets. For example, the sale or refinancing of assets can sometimes be an acceptable and prudent way of improving a club’s liquidity, if necessary, but the amendment would remove that ability. There are other measures in the legislation to protect against the mismanagement of club assets, including the financial regulation provisions, regulatory oversight of financial plans, and an enhanced owners and directors test to ensure that owners are best placed to be the custodians of a club. Last Thursday, I set out my understanding that the regulator could prevent the sale of training grounds through the use of discretionary licence conditions. I want to clarify that the regulator cannot directly block the sale of a training ground through licence conditions, but, where appropriate, it can act to discourage a sale and to mitigate any harmful financial impacts of a sale. The regulator can only set discretionary licence conditions in a limited number of areas. As per clause 22, which we have debated already, the regulator can only impose financial discretionary licence conditions that relate to liquidity requirements, debt management and overall cost reductions. However, the regulator does have the levers to take action to protect a club’s financial sustainability if there ever arises a scenario in which the club intends to sell its training ground. By selling a valuable asset, a club may weaken its balance sheet and increase its financial risk. If there was a problem, the regulator could require the club to take mitigating action. For example, it could place a liquidity requirement on the club. The regulator could also use its powers to discourage the club from selling its training ground in the first place—for example, by indicating that if the club were to sell its training ground, the regulator would have no choice but to impose more significant financial restrictions on the club through discretionary conditions, thereby strongly steering the club away from that course of action. If that scenario were to arise because a bad actor sought to asset-strip the club, the regulator’s owners and directors test would kick in to remove that unsuitable custodian. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw the motion.

I have heard what the Minister said. She seems to be implying that this issue can be dealt with by the Bill, and that the regulator will have an eye on these sorts of things. I am somewhat reassured, but I hope that when the regulator is introduced—and we hope it is introduced—it will be given a strong steer that it ought to make sure that the owners of clubs are not stripping assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 12 Duty not to stage home matches outside United Kingdom without approval “(1) A regulated club must not stage any home fixture in a competitive match at a venue outside the United Kingdom without the approval of the IFR. (2) The IFR may only grant approval under subsection (1) if the fixture is not part of a specified competition. (3) For the purposes of this section, a ‘home fixture’ means any fixture where the club is designated as the home team by the rules of the relevant competition.”—(Max Wilkinson.) This new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside of the United Kingdom. It will allow regulated clubs to stage non-competitive fixtures outside of the United Kingdom. Brought up, and read the First time.

15:00:00

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. When we discussed this issue on Second Reading, I said that the prospect of Arsenal playing Manchester City in Dubai should have all football fans reaching for the sick bucket—I assume most Man City and Arsenal fans would agree with that. I remain of that view. The new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside the UK. It would allow a regulated club to stage non-competitive fixtures outside the UK. Football is our national sport but too many fans are already priced out of attending matches. Clubs with large overseas fan bases clearly have a profit motive to schedule games outside the UK. The new clause would erect further barriers to stop that happening. We do not want barriers to local fans, who have supported their clubs through thick and thin, getting to the game.

The hon. Member is pointing to a real fear for fans, particularly Premier League fans. In Europe, Serie A has said it will be playing competitive matches in the United States within two years. The Spanish super cup, its equivalent of the Community Shield, is already played in Saudi Arabia. It is important that we collectively as a Bill Committee keep an eye on this matter, so that the regulator uses its power to prevent that happening. Nothing would bespeak a bigger betrayal of fans than competitive matches played overseas that they could not get to.

I strongly agree. This is a real risk that we cannot look past. With the increasing foreign ownership of clubs, many people would clearly look to buy a football club and market it around the world by taking it on tour. We should not put up with that in this country; this is our national game and it should be protected as such. Staging competitive UK fixtures outside the UK must not be allowed. It would dilute football’s links to the communities that it needs to continue to survive. It would act only in the interests of club owners who might not always have the interests of fans at heart.

I am listening with interest to the hon. Member’s comments, but does he think that link to home is diluted for American football or baseball when those leagues play a match in London?

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. The US has a franchise system, so every club can be moved wherever it wants. Someone who is an Oakland Raiders fan would probably also have been an LA Raiders fan. Where else did the Raiders play? There was definitely a third place, at least, in my lifetime, because clubs regularly move around the nation. When there is that franchise problem in America, hardcore elements of a National Football League club campaign against their club moving, and then campaign for it to move back to that city. The LA Raiders are a case in point. That link between clubs and communities has already been severed in America, so it is less of a concern that the Jacksonville Jaguars are effectively now London’s team. London has taken that club to its heart, just as people across the UK have taken many other NFL and American sports teams to their heart. The hon. Member raises an interesting point, but I am not sure there is a direct comparison. We risk getting to that point where some English and Welsh football teams go abroad—although Merthyr Tydfil might like the idea of going on tour, if they get up to the level of league where they are regulated. We need to ensure that we do not get into the position where our teams go on tour around the world to play competitive Premier League games. That would clearly be a gross betrayal of what we hold dear as football fans.

I thank the hon. Member for tabling this new clause. I know this is an incredibly important issue for many fans, and I am grateful to be able to address it today, after a number of Members made contributions. FIFA is currently reviewing its position on overseas league matches. It has committed to looking at how that may impact supporters as well as players, along with a number of other valuable considerations. We appreciate this is an extremely important issue for fans and we do not want to see any developments that undermine the heritage or integrity of the game. It is crucial that fans are consulted and that their view is taken into account on any proposals that would take matches away from the local community in which they usually play. The Government have spoken about this issue to the FA, which has a right to veto any such future proposals. It has assured us that it agrees that fans’ views must be taken into account when considering this important issue. To be clear, the Bill already ensures that by giving the regulator the power to ensure that clubs consult with their fans on operational and match day issues. We have not tried to list everything that might be considered a match day issue in the Bill, but let me be clear that moving matches abroad would be an operational and match day issue. Fully licensed clubs must have mechanisms in place to adequately and effectively consult their fans about this issue and they must take fans’ views into account when making decisions about it. Given the importance of this developing issue, the Government will remain in conversation with the relevant governing bodies to ensure that fans’ voices continue to be heard. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

Hon. Members are all waiting for it—this was going to be the moment that we were going to force a vote, but given that the Minister has put on record the fact that this will be considered an operational and match day issue for the regulator, so fans must be consulted on it and would probably have a veto, we are content that we do not need to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 17  Impact on regulator of changes in Government administration “If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”—(Mr French.) This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We believe that new clause 17 is important, given the speculation that the Minister might soon be going somewhere else on a free transfer. On a more serious note, this is a sensible provision, given the legal requirements on the Secretary of State in the Bill. For example, there has been much speculation that if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were disbanded, sport, for example, would end up in the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for Education, which would mean a different relationship with the football regulator going forward. Therefore, it is important to include a review mechanism in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause suggests that if DCMS were to be abolished, or if football were to be moved out of the Department’s portfolio, that should trigger a review of the regulator. A machinery of government change should have no bearing on whether there is continued need for an independent regulator established by Parliament. Just because circumstances in the sponsoring Department change, that does not mean that the regulator should be subject to a review. Machinery of government changes are common; we saw several of them under the previous Government. We do, however, believe that the regulator should be assessed and reviewed at the right time, as part of important monitoring and evaluation of the regulation.

Were DCMS to be abolished, which Department does she think the regulator would end up reporting into?

I could not possibly speculate on such a hypothetical question. I will say that clause 96, which we have already debated, mandates a review of the Act within five years of the licensing regime being fully commenced. Among other things, the review will look into whether the regulator has been effectively achieving its objectives, or whether those objectives might be better achieved in a different way. There are also other ways in which the regulator can be scrutinised and held to account by Parliament, such as through Select Committee hearings. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his new clause.

I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Given the point that we are making about the role of the Secretary of State in relation to some of the regulator’s powers, we think that that hypothetical question is key. I gave examples of Departments that sport or football could move to, such as the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for Education, which we think would significantly change the perspective on the business side of football. We will therefore press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

44|0|2|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 18

Correspondence about the IFR

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish any correspondence received by the Secretary of State from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the IFR’s exercise of its functions.

(2) The IFR must publish any correspondence it receives from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the exercise of its functions.”—(Mr French.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause is designed to improve the transparency of the regulator, ensuring that the public, football and Parliament are aware of the risks that we have discussed at length—in particular, any issues arising from international regulators such as UEFA or FIFA. We believe it is important to have transparency, and to ensure that Members understand the risk, as can football clubs. The Opposition will look to press the new clause to a Division, subject to the Minister’s comments.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause. There has been a lot of debate in the House, including in Committee and in the other place, about letters received from UEFA. There have been particular concerns that the Bill and the regulator should not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes, and there is a strong feeling that we must not risk English clubs or national teams being banned from international competitions through this legislation. Let me be clear again that the regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. That is why both UEFA and the FA have confirmed that the Bill as drafted does not breach UEFA statutes. Indeed, the FA is on the record as supporting the regulator’s introduction. The new clause would require the publication of all future UEFA and FIFA correspondence received by the regulator or the Government, or correspondence relating to the regulator. Requiring private communications to be made public would serve only to discourage honest and frank conversations with key stakeholders, and would thus stand in the way of constructive relationships with UEFA and FIFA. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments. The Committee should also be aware that the FA has warned specifically about scope creep, which is something that the Opposition have also been very concerned about. We therefore think it is prudent to ensure that there is transparency and awareness of risk going forward. If there were to be significant warnings from UEFA or FIFA about scope creep, the new clause is an important mechanism for us to understand that as parliamentarians, clubs and fans of football. We will press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

45|0|4|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 19

Alcohol at football grounds

“Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must consult on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch in the top five tiers of the men’s game in England.”—(Mr French.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It has been 40 years since alcohol was first banned in view of the pitch. Given the support that lifting the measure has among a number of clubs, the Football Supporters’ Association, and even some Labour MPs, we urge the Government to consider the new clause.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Does the shadow Minister consider the new clause to be scope creep?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point—I was probably due one of those after five days in Committee—but if we are talking about the interests of fans, we believe that this measure should be considered. Some clubs might want the option; some might want it only in certain areas—for example, excluding family areas of stadiums. We believe that fans, especially those who act responsibly, should be treated as adults. A bit more common sense around how the ban works in the modern age might stop some of the binge drinking that happens before games because fans cannot drink in the stands. We urge the Government to give careful consideration to this option to consult. We are not instructing them to take a definite position, but just to consult.

15:15:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and to be in raucous agreement with the shadow Minister.

Finally.

The hon. Member suggests that we have not sided in any Divisions with the official Opposition; the record will show that we have.

The last one.

No, several. I have been to many football matches at more than 50 Football League grounds, and every time I have attended with groups of people who have been in the pub until the last possible moment, forcing down an extra pint—or an extra lucky gin and orange, which was a tradition that a group of my friends used to have—before a game. They did that because they knew that once they got into the ground, they were subject to ridiculous rules that meant they were not treated as adults. These people were very much adults. They were drinking real ale and talking about cricket, sport and things they had done at work that week. They were not football hooligans. We know that the majority of people who watch football matches are not football hooligans. These rules date from a bygone era when people were concerned that everyone who went to the football was a hooligan. The atmosphere in grounds these days is entirely different from what it was back in the 1980s and 1990s, when things happened that nobody would want to see now. We are drifting in the right direction, back towards standing in stadiums—that is positive—and we need to start drifting back towards a situation in which we treat football fans as adults and recognise that the current ridiculous ban means that people are more likely to be more drunk at football.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. People can sit on the terraces at Twickenham and watch rugby union while having a pint of Guinness. Does my hon. Friend agree that that causes no concern around behaviour, and could easily be transferred to the football stadium?

I agree. The assumption that football fans are hooligans is clearly not borne out by the statistics any more. We need to take a real-life, real-world view of what happens as a result of these rules. As the shadow Minister said, the new clause does not say that everyone must drink at football grounds or that the ban must be overturned. It puts the issue in the context of a review, after which clubs might be able to reintroduce alcohol in stadiums. That is important. I believe that the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) recently suggested such a measure, so there is clearly cross-party support.

I welcome the hon. Member’s support for the new clause. Does he agree that things have significantly changed since the 1970s? The majority of fan trouble is now fuelled by cocaine, not alcohol. We should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time for good, honest fans.

I think that we should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time, during the first half and during the second half. I have attended a football match and seen cocaine somewhat brazenly being taken in the loos at half-time. Those of us who attend football regularly will see that, and it is very concerning—more concerning, I would suggest, than people drinking beer during while watching football. I draw my remarks to a close, other than to say that this is a long-overdue debate.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope he forgives me for not being a supporter of a club at which gin is the normally consumed pre-match beverage. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I regularly attend home matches for Dartford football club, where people can drink in view of the pitch and there is no trouble—it is a great, family atmosphere. However, just to be real here, I have also seen situations where alcohol is clearly fuelling aggression, violence and bad behaviour for some of the reasons that have been pointed out. I am a little fearful of very significant consumption in view of the pitch; we still need to be careful of that. Were we to allow limited opportunities to consume alcohol in view of the pitch, in certain parts of the grounds, in the leagues where it is currently not permitted, we would need careful controls to prevent the problems that have been identified.

To clarify the point about the lucky gin and orange, I believe that my friends chose that as a pre-match drink because they had already had five pints of real ale and were no longer able to fit in that quantity. Having gin on top of five pints of real ale is clearly not a good idea. There are other opportunities for people to have all kinds of drinks before football. The point is that people force down drinks in pubs because they know that they cannot drink during the game, and that means that they are more likely to be drunk in the football ground. We support the new clause.

This is a difficult issue. None of us wants fan behaviour to get worse, given that it has largely stabilised at most grounds. Such behaviour happens not just before the game but at half-time: fans rush down and get at least two or three pints in during the quarter-of-an-hour break. I ask the Minister reflect on this proposal; I am not asking her to agree with it. She might talk to colleagues in Europe through UEFA. I have been to a Bundesliga game in Berlin. They serve beer there—in quite large quantities—but it is 2%, so it is weaker. That is one way to do it. It seems to be a regulation, and it seems to work.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should explore what is happening in Europe. Alcohol is sold in lower rates, and only in certain areas of the stadium and only at certain games. I, for one, would be willing to welcome alcohol, but there would have to be a really good review, involving the police, that looks at what is done elsewhere. As a Portsmouth fan, let me say that there is absolutely no way that it should be served at a Portsmouth versus Southampton game.

I would have thought that if my hon. Friend was going to watch Portsmouth play Southampton, she would want to be well inebriated before she had to watch Southampton win—[Interruption.] I am sorry to upset her. I say to the Minister that we do not have to make the decision now—this is not the Bill to do it—but we should at least reflect on it with the FSA.

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the new clause is not asking for the ban to be lifted. It is very much in the spirit of what he is saying. It says that there should be a requirement to consult, which seems to be the process that he is advocating, so I do not think it would be out of place in the Bill.

In the end, the Minister will advise us what the approach is likely to be. I hope she will at least keep a slightly open mind so that if she does not make a decision now, she thinks about the issue.

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling this new clause and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. I gently say to him that I think that his claims to end binge drinking would probably be scope creep. This is a very serious issue. As the shadow Minister may be aware, the legislation in question is owned by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is right that this is a challenging issue, but I recognise that it is important and I will therefore raise it with my ministerial counterparts in the Home Office. I hope the shadow Minister will appreciate that, as we have made clear throughout the Committee, the Bill seeks to ensure that football clubs are sustainable. It would not be appropriate for the Government to agree to review legislation about alcohol at football matches in the context of this Bill, given the significant public order implications, but I will reflect the comments from across the Committee to my counterparts in the Home Office. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw the new clause.

I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this important debate on an issue that has real impacts on fans and stadiums around the country, as we have heard already. I have also seen some of the behaviours that have been referred to, such as people rushing to drink before kick-off or rushing at half-time to make sure that they can get a drink in. I have also travelled around Europe watching football. I am a big lover of sport, so I do travel and watch games when I go abroad. I have never come across many issues when I have been abroad, where the rules are different. The Minister’s comments were interesting. I could make the usual joke about how for people to watch a team in red, they need a lot of drink—especially at the moment, given current form. However, the expressions of Committee members assure me that this is a live issue that they have concerns about. I think we should test the opinion of the Committee with a vote.

46|0|4|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 20

Player welfare

“Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must review how to improve the welfare of football players. This review should include consideration of—

(a) neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs;

(b) the number of games that footballers are required to play each season; and

(c) the impact on the welfare of current and former professional footballers as a result.”—(Mr French.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We believe that the provisions of new clause 20 are missing from the Bill as drafted. We have debated issues involving clubs, fans and leagues, but there has been little on player welfare. In different debates, we have discussed scheduling and the impact on player welfare of the excessive number of games in different competitions. The perfect example is the club world cup taking place in America. There are also other competing demands on player welfare and the welfare of retired players, as we have discussed. This new clause on player welfare would, within one year of the passing of this Bill, require the Secretary of State to review how to improve the welfare of football players, considering neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs, the number of games footballers have to play each season—in line with my earlier comments—and the impact on current and former professional footballers’ welfare. It is a straightforward amendment, very much in the spirit of the new duties being asked of the regulator and the leagues going forward. We would therefore be interested in the Minister’s response.

Briefly, will the Minister look at something else directly related to the new clause, which is the safety of the grounds that players play at? Three years ago, the PFA approached me about a horrible incident at Bath City, where a young player went headlong into a concrete wall and suffered severe brain damage. I was surprised to find that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 does not cover players, but only spectators. That is a shocking omission, although we can probably understand how it got there. At the time, I went to see the then Sports Minister with the PFA. He was supportive, and he agreed that he would write, with the PFA and others, to get the leagues and the other football authorities to look seriously at this issue. I think that guidance was given about how they should approach ground safety for players and the dangers they could face, such as running headlong into a concrete wall with no protection between the wall and the pitch. The Minister probably will not be able to answer me now, but will she investigate how far that guidance changed behaviour and whether it had any impact on making grounds safer for players? It is an issue. One incident caused severe damage to the wellbeing of one young player. It could happen anywhere. That was at Bath City, which is not a regulated club. It is an issue not just of regulation but of player safety, and we ought to be concerned about that.

15:30:00

I thank the hon. Member for his new clause. Player welfare is an incredibly important issue, and as we have discussed previously in this Committee, I agree that the welfare of footballers should be safeguarded. But the regulator will have a precise focus on financial regulation, corporate governance, fan engagement and heritage. It will be focused only on the market failures that the industry cannot itself address. The regulator has not been designed to address sporting issues such as player welfare or equipped with the relevant powers and duties. The safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount, and that is why we have committed to looking further at those issues. While it is not appropriate for this Bill, I am fully aware of the importance of prioritising player welfare and ensuring that former players and their families have the support they need. National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of their sports, and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, including head injuries. They are, of course, independent of Government, but the Government expect national governing bodies to make the health and safety of players their top priority. The Secretary of State and I recently met with a small group of affected family members and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering from dementia. We heard at first hand players’ experiences and the views of groups on how safety and welfare at all levels of the sport could be improved. On neurodegenerative diseases, we are considering what is required, including how to support football to come together and address the problems raised. We are committed to supporting the families and the football authorities to come together to address the issues raised, and our officials are in the process of arranging meetings to explore that further. The number of games that footballers play each season is a matter for competition organisers and the Professional Footballers’ Association. It would not be right for the regulator to become involved in those matters, which are not ultimately about the sustainability of clubs. Before I finish, I commit to writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East on ground safety, and to taking that issue away to investigate, as he asks.

The Minister said that the regulator’s purview is the financial sustainability of clubs, but that that was not in any way related to the number of games that teams play in a single season. Surely they are directly related, because clubs will be tempted to thrash their players in order to generate revenues from television and gate receipts?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is a match day issue. I direct the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee to the regulatory principles, which we changed under this Government to explicitly reference players. We think that that is an important change. I am afraid I cannot support the new clause.

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers in response to this new clause. I fully understand the point that she is making about it being up to the sport to better govern the welfare of players, and I have great sympathy with her on that. Ultimately, however, this Bill has been brought forward because the Government believe that football has not been good at regulating itself, and so we are debating that in Committee. Given the widespread concerns around player welfare, it seems to me that on sustainability—we had a long debate about that on the first day of the Committee—and where it sits, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne hit the nail on the head by saying that the sustainability of clubs depends very much on the sustainability of players. While I am not going to get a violin out for Premier League stars who may be on £400,000 or £500,000 a week, there is a broader point here about how far that can be pushed and what happens to players’ health—particularly, as we have heard from families, when they reach retirement. As the Minister has mentioned, there are a number of problems. We would like to give some serious consideration to where this needs to sit, because there does appear to be an issue here. As such, I will not seek leave to withdraw the new clause, and I hope that we can return to the matter at a later stage as well. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

47|0|4|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 22

Consultation on changes to kick off times

(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act the IFR must conduct a consultation on changes to kick off times in English football.

(2) The consultation must consider—

(a) the availability of transport to and from fixtures with a change in kick off time to another time;

(b) the amount of notice given before a change in kick off time to another time;

(c) the impact of European football games mid-week kick offs on changes in kick off time to another time; and

(d) the welfare of players.

(3) As part of the consultation the IFR must consult—

(a) the Football Association;

(b) each specified competition organiser;

(c) fan groups;

(d) Premier League fan advisory boards; and

(e) such other persons as the IFR considers appropriate.

(4) With 6 months of commencing the consultation the IFR must publish a report on the consultation.”—(Mr Dillon.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 22 relates to a consultation on changes to kick-off times. For football fans across the country, last-minute changes to suit TV schedules have a direct impact on their plans for that sporting event, whether having to procure a hotel because they cannot get home from the game as public transport is not running, or having to change their whole plan and maybe resell their ticket. The 2025 FA cup final had a kick-off time of 4.30 pm, and in the year Wigan beat Man City it was a 5 pm kick-off time. The last train to leave for Manchester from London is at 9.01 pm. So if the FA cup final this year had gone to extra time and penalties, fans would not have been able to make that last train back home to Manchester. As a Manchester United fan, I am not one for protecting City fans, but it just seems ludicrous that for the 2025 FA cup final, the BBC wanted to keep the kick-off at 3 pm because it had Eurovision later that night to schedule and ITV wanted a 5.30 pm kick-off because it knew that would increase its revenue. Both clubs were consulted, the broadcasters were consulted, but the fans were not. This clause seeks for the regulator to have a role in adjudicating on kick-off times. Listening to the Minister in response to other amendments, I was concerned she may consider ruling out this clause out because it affects commercial activity and broadcasters. I am now hoping it falls under the purview of operational and match day issues, and the regulator will have power to intervene.

The Government do not believe that it is appropriate for the regulator to intervene in the sporting calendar, including interfering with match day timings. This clause would widen the scope to cover on-pitch decisions, which is something we wish to avoid. However, I am aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised regarding the impact timings can have on fans. There may be consequential issues such as match day travel and club communication with fans that would be captured by “operational and match day issues” as one of the relevant matters for fan consultation discussed in our debate on part 5. In most cases, however, the kick-off time itself is not always an issue that club have enough control on to adequately consult fans and respond to opinion. To mandate them to do so could therefore be problematic. It is well within the gift of the leagues and the governing bodies to address concerns surrounding kick-off times, and the Government remain in conversation with stakeholders to ensure that fans are engaged properly by those bodies on this issue. For these reasons, I cannot accept the new clause.

I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. I think it is a crucial aspect. However, noting the numbers in the room, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 23 Duty to create emergency fund (1) As a condition of purchase of a regulated club the new owner may, if required by the IFR, pay an amount equal to the club's quarterly forecast expenditure into an emergency fund (referred to in this section as “the fund”). (2) Withdrawals cannot be made from the fund while the person who deposited the fund is the owner of the club. (3) When a club’s quarterly forecast expenditure increases the owner must increase their deposit into the fund to match the increased forecast. (4) If an owner does not update the fund to match an increase in the club’s quarterly forecast expenditure the IFR may suspend the regulated club’s operating licence until such time as the required deposit into the fund has been made. (5) When a club files for insolvency the owner abrogates all claim to the fund and the fund may be accessed to pay club salaries and day to day running costs. (6) When the owner who deposited the fund sells the club they may withdraw the fund but the fund must first be used to repay any debts accrued during the time period they were the owner.”—(Mr Dillon.) This new clause gives the IFR an option to require new club owners to establish an emergency fund to provide for club operational costs such as player and staff wages in an emergency scenario. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause introduces a duty to create an emergency fund if the regulator has concerns over the financial resources of a particular owner. If a player is not paid for two consecutive months, then under FIFA regulations they have the ability to terminate their contract with 14 days’ notice. However, that still means they are out of pocket. We know that there are real consequences from players not being paid, such as the contract termination that they may go through, the player and the fans having a loss of confidence in that club, and of course financial distress to individuals not paid. Clubs can have point deductions if they do not play players on time and registration embargoes as well. However, that still does not address the issue of the player and staff not being paid. As recently as March this year, the team of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, Sheffield Wednesday, did not pay its players on time. This is a live issue that we see season in, season out. An emergency fund would mean that players could have recourse to be paid on time.

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. While I understand the intent of adding this provision and creating an emergency fund, we have been clear that this is not a zero-failure system. Clubs can and do go into administration for many reasons, sometimes beyond their control. This regime tries to minimise the likelihood of that happening and gives them the best chance of being a going concern football club. This means that there is an assumption that a club will continue operating and meet its obligations for the foreseeable future However, I reassure the hon. Member that the Bill’s strengthened statutory tests on the new prospective owners, as we discussed in the debate on part of 4 of the Bill, will work to deliver the intent behind the new clause. At the point of entry, prospective owners will be required to pass the financial plans and resources test. This will demonstrate that they have sufficient financial resources to run the club and have considered things such as the estimated running cost. This will help mitigate against any future need for an emergency fund. On an ongoing basis, if a club is exhibiting an unsustainable level of risk, the financial regulation regime allows for specific discretionary licence conditions, which we discussed when debating part 3 of the Bill, to be put on clubs. Those conditions can relate to debt management, liquidity requirements and restricting the club’s overall expenditure. This is a far more proportionate approach to managing the risk of insolvency, rather than requiring owners to hold money that could be invested into the club to be used by default. This is likely to impact on levels of investment in the game. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 25 Youth and community projects: duty on the IFR “(1) The IFR must take steps to encourage regulated clubs to invest in youth and community projects. (2) The IFR must, in pursuance of the duty in subsection (1), at least once a year report on the extent to which each regulated club has invested in youth and community projects.”—(Mr Dillon.) This new clause requires the Independent Football Regulator to take steps to encourage clubs to invest in youth and community projects, including through annual publication of a progress report. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Many clubs already have excellent community outreach programmes and foundations with which they support their local communities. This is a simple new clause that just seeks the regulator’s ability to report on those involvements. I suspect that it would not push any existing club into having to engage, because I believe that they already engage with their communities. It is more about capturing that and selling to the wider public the benefits from the investment that football clubs make in their communities.

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. Football clubs are instrumental in fostering more active and resilient communities. By harnessing the power of sport, this community outreach work promotes social cohesion, improves public health and makes a positive impact on people’s lives. The Government recognise and support the contributions of many clubs in helping to strengthen communities and get more people active, in line with the Government’s own priorities. That is why we made an amendment to corporate governance provisions in the other place. This addition was explicitly to include a club’s contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the local community within the definition of corporate governance in the Bill, and so require clubs to report on these contributions as part of the corporate governance statement. This reflects that football clubs are more important to their communities than a typical local business. This reporting could include, for example, whether a club has invested in youth and community projects, and we would expect any club that does so to report on it as part of its corporate governance statement. I am afraid that I disagree the regulator should be required to encourage a specific type of community investment. As we discussed when debating schedule 5, the Bill is deliberately not prescriptive when it comes to corporate governance. That gives the regulator flexibility to write its code in consultation with the industry, and it gives clubs flexibility to explain how they are applying that code. This is about encouraging best practice and greater transparency around the operations and activities of the club. This should steer all clubs toward better governance, without micro-managing how they are operated. As we have been clear, the regulator cannot start mandating specific changes to a club’s corporate governance, such as quotas for board members. The same applies to community outreach. Of course, we recognise that it is important and should be encouraged, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to encourage a specific, prescriptive type of community action that all clubs should undertake. That is not in line with the approach that the Bill takes to corporate governance, and would not be in line with the light-touch approach to regulation that we all want to see. That is not to take away from the huge contribution that clubs make, and I take this as an opportunity once again to pay tribute to the Barnsley FC Community Trust.

I thank the Minister for her response, and welcome the recognition of clubs’ community work in the governance statements. The new clause would add a requirement around youth because, whether on literacy or childhood obesity, football clubs have a unique power to engage young people through their very presence as a shining example to look up to. However, I accept the Minister’s remarks, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

On a point of order, Mr Turner. I thank all the Chairs who have presided over this Committee; as always, I am thankful for your guidance and support throughout the sittings. I thank all those who have contributed their views on the Bill, both in this iteration and the version that the previous Government introduced. A number of important stakeholders—players, clubs and many more—have shared their views and enabled us to bring forward the Bill that we see today. In particular, I thank the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, football clubs across the country and the Football Supporters’ Association. Their engagement has been vital, and I am grateful to them for working productively to ensure that the Bill takes steps towards a future where football can be enjoyed for generations to come. I pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, whose brilliant work on the fan-led review of football led to the introduction of the Bill. Her work and expertise have been invaluable, and I thank her for her dedication to making the game fairer. I also pay tribute to the officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who have been working often very long hours on the preparations for Committee stage; I am grateful for all their help. I pay particular tribute to Adam, Ellen, Charlotte, Kaz, Lucy, Robbie, Conor, Matt, Beth, Leah, Kyle, Lewis, Comfort and Callum for their hard work on the Bill. I also thank those in my private office in the Department for their work to support me in taking the Bill through Committee as the Minister. My particular thanks go to Chris McAlister for all his work on this; the head of my office, Matthew Phillips; and of course Helen Elston. I also thank my parliamentary office, Millie, Karen and Anna, who supported me in opposition, when I was in the shadow Minister’s place. I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions. It has been excellent to see such strong feeling in the debate. I know that Members have aimed to represent fans and their constituencies in the best possible way. I thank the Committee for such a lively and thoughtful debate throughout the sittings. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North for keeping us all in check and on time; my opposite number, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup; and the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I also pay tribute to House officials, and thank them for their work to support us as elected representatives. The work that they do in this place is invaluable and I, like I am sure many other hon. Members, are incredibly grateful. It has been an excellent debate, and I am proud that the Government have delivered on our manifesto commitment by finally bringing in the Bill. I conclude by quoting Dame Tracey Crouch’s last contribution in Committee. She spoke of “the people who just go and watch the game because they love it and it is important to them deep inside their soul.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 246.] It is for those people who love the game that we have proposed these measures. I believe that the Bill introduces much-needed changes that will protect football so that they can continue to enjoy it for generations to come. That is what we have delivered today.

I, too, thank Dame Tracey Crouch for the work that she did in this House. I also thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Lib Dems for the constructive way in which this issue has been debated. I thank the learned Clerks for the help that they have given me, and all officials, including our wonderful Doorkeeper. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

15:49:00

Written evidence reported to the House

FGB07 The Football Association (The FA)