5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am about to answer that. The figure is based on conversations with the leagues and other regulators already in play. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in the points I am coming to. We have heard that the number of people employed is 42. Unofficially, before today, I was told that it would be 80. That is the rumour going around the football world, but we have clarity from the Minister that it will be 42. [Interruption.] That is based on conversations with clubs. That is what engagement is about. That is why we asked the question. We are not basing the figure on rumour; I have just asked the question. That number will include civil servants, of course, and, as we have heard, regulatory specialists, policy advisors, analysts, stakeholder engagement leads, public affairs professionals and legal advisors, all of them at considerable expense to the taxpayer in the short term, and at significant cost to football fans in the longer term, as costs are passed on. In our conversations, the industry shared concerns about the scale and cost, especially compared with how football currently operates. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe just made a point about the size of the regulator. I do not think it is fair to quote someone directly when they are not here, or to quote an informal conversation, but I understand from a briefing that was given to the Lords, and a similar conversation that took place with me directly, that a gentleman very well-respected in football—who was key to this Bill—suggested that the work of the regulator could be done with several people. That was his expert opinion. When I suggest 50 people in this amendment, I am being very generous, given what the football industry believes the number should be, the costs and the fact that other regulatory bodies will still be involved in football.
I respect the hon. Member’s comments, but I think that this issue is fundamental to the discussion. The Opposition are seriously concerned about the cost and scope of this regulator, and how that will impact both clubs and fans in football’s delicate international ecosystem, so this issue is pertinent to the point that we are trying to make. The number that we have reached was not plucked out of the air. We had discussions with people directly involved in running football to try to ascertain an appropriate number of employees for the regulator. People in football are concerned about how big this regulator has become, and how quickly, even before the chairman has his feet under the table.
I am slightly confused. The hon. Member for Dartford is telling me that we should not dictate how the regulator works and how it manages staff, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is saying the opposite. We have suggested a cap, and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on what that cap should be and how many employees she believes the regulator will need. That is important because we are passing a piece of legislation that is the first of its kind, and it will create extra costs for clubs that, as I am arguing, clearly will be passed on to fans. If the essence of the Bill is to protect clubs and fans, we need an honest, open conversation about how big the regulator should be. The Conservatives have tabled a sensible amendment that seeks to cap the regulator’s size in line with how other regulatory bodies in the sporting world work. That is the premise of our amendment. I would like to move on, because I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy. We are told that, once operational, the Government’s regulator will be funded through yet another statutory levy. That may sound benign but, in practice, it will be yet another financial obligation imposed on clubs, many of which, particularly in the National League and the EFL, are already stretched due to increases in other bills that we have already seen this year. Higher energy bills, national insurance, and employment costs around wages are real costs with which clubs are already struggling.
I am getting used to being interrupted, Sir Jeremy. This is so thrilling that people want to escape as quickly as possible. Before the Division, we were highlighting that clubs will have no choice but to pass these additional costs from the regulator on to fans. As we have explained, we believe that a number of clubs are financially stretched, particularly as we go lower down the pyramid, although that is not always the case, as clubs’ finances differ. We believe that this cost will go on to fans, by which we mean higher ticket prices and higher merchandise costs. Matchday programmes, concessions, streaming fees and even transport subsidies and loyalty schemes could be scaled back as clubs tighten their belt, and they will be required to tighten that belt even further. This is not just speculation; it is the economic reality that clubs are experiencing, according to their feedback, although I appreciate that economic reality is not always the Government’s strong suit. This matters because, as those of us who still manage to watch our local clubs know, the cost of attending football matches has already become prohibitive to many families. The idea that we are creating a regulatory regime in the name of protecting fans while simultaneously driving up the cost of a matchday experience is not only a contradiction; it is laughable.
The structure of the regulator is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, so I will not drift too much because I have already been yellow carded by the Chair, to use a football term. However, we have made it quite clear that we are trying to limit the size of the regulator because we are already concerned, and that question about costs is one that I want to ask the Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will come on to this shortly. The Opposition have been clear that we will not oppose the Bill for the sake of opposition, but like many fans and clubs up and down the pyramid, we are worried about how these bills will be paid. A regulator of this scale, with powers of licensing, enforcement, business model oversight, owner scrutiny, fan engagement mandates and financial analysis, does not come cheap, yet nowhere in the Bill do we see sufficient transparency or constraint on how big this body might grow to be, including how many people it may hire or how heavy-handed it may become. That is our concern regarding scope creep. Let us not forget that the Football Association already exists, the EFL has its own monitoring tools and the Premier League already has fit and proper tests and financial regulation. This new regulator risks not only duplicating existing efforts but adding an entirely new layer of complexity, cost and compliance for clubs, particularly those already operating on a knife edge. The smaller clubs that are already struggling will, in a cruel twist of fate, be the clubs that suffer the most. When they are forced to divert resources away from their academies, community foundations or stadium improvements to pay for the regulator’s levy, it will be fans who feel it first and the Government who will deserve the blame. Looking forward, what is the projected headcount of the football regulator over the next three years? What is its estimated operational cost in its first full year? How much of that cost is expected to be recovered from clubs? Will the Minister provide exemptions for smaller clubs or those in financial distress, or will this be another flat levy that hits the lower leagues the hardest? Good governance in football is vital, but so is affordability, restraint and remembering that every pound extracted from the system is ultimately paid by someone—the fan in the stand, the father and daughter already paying £90 to sit in the upper tier of some Premier League clubs, the lifelong fan who travels to away games week in, week out, and the dedicated fans who create their own podcast to discuss their club’s trials and tribulations. There are lots of podcasts out there, and I could recommend a few. On a more serious note, they are the ones who will suffer, and they are the lifelines that clubs will lose. We are already seeing fans protesting ticket prices in the streets and the stands. We are concerned that the burdens from extra reporting will increase the cost for those fans.
I am happy to answer that question. I think it is quite clear. The comparison is drawn and it is argued that this is the same regulator as before, but it is not. We clearly have different political opinions about what regulation might look like and how big it might be. These are the questions that we are trying to tease out. We are trying to put a cap in place because we are concerned that what is being proposed in the Bill will significantly increase the size of the regulator and its cost. These are the key points the amendment is designed to draw out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he has concerns about the cost of the regulator, will support it. It is clear that the Government’s Bill for the regulator is not about lowering costs for fans or improving the experience of football. It is about Government control and intervention into more aspects of our lives. By limiting the number of employees that the Government’s regulator can employ, as those across the industry have suggested, we can make sure that fans are protected and clubs not over-burdened with new costs and regulations, because in football, as in politics, promises are easy but the bill always comes due.
If we follow that train of thought and bring it back to what we have been talking about today, which is a regulator, does the hon. Member believe that such a hands-off approach to a regulator is common sense, given the issues of regulation that we now see across our country—issues that the Liberal Democrats often campaign on—which call into question the expanded powers that regulators have failed to act on. Using that same philosophy we should try to ensure at this point in time that this regulator does not end up in the same bad place as regulators in other parts of our economy.
The hon. Lady is missing the point of what I said. By adding tens of millions of pounds, which I suspect will end up being the cost of the regulator—the Minister will be able to explain the figure—we are not reducing the cost for clubs but adding further costs. We will get on to distribution—
We will come to the distribution of media rights and so on, to which the hon. Lady referred, but that is separate from the problem that we are talking about, which is that if the regulator is too big, it will add to the costs and there will not be as much money to go down the pyramid.
My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument. The other point that we are trying to make is that the other established bodies of football are still in place and doing other parts of the job. The regulator is seeking to bring in new responsibilities, but it will not reduce the existing costs on clubs of those other regulatory bodies.
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. My argument, which I believe he is making too, is that hon. Members should have a say in what the regulator looks like, both now and in future. Our overriding point is that once the Bill has passed, there is no power in it that I can see that gives hon. Members any say over what the regulator will look like. We are trying to put a ceiling on it now so that hon. Members can have a say in the size of the regulator.
I am sorry to jump in—I am a bit keen. The point that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe makes supports the point that we have made throughout. The political argument that the Government have made is that the objective is to have a light-touch regulator. Does my hon. Friend agree that by trying to limit its size, in principle, we are helping the Government to do exactly what they are promising?
The Minister referred to an impact assessment based on the previous Bill. Given that there are changes in this Bill, will a new assessment with estimated costs be published for hon. Members to understand?
I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and to the answers provided by the Minister. I am concerned that the Government will not publish a refreshed impact assessment because, as I have highlighted, the costs to businesses and football clubs around the country have increased since the impact assessment was published. The regulator designed by the current Government also differs from the previous Government’s. We believe that it is bad practice for Members not to have all the information to hand for a live discussion about the expected costs of the regulator or concise information about what the size of the regulator may be.
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The amendment is about the headcount, and he asked the Government, who oppose the amendment, what assumptions they have made for the headcount in their financial calculations. That is a completely fair question for Committee members to ask in this debate. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer, and I do not believe my hon. Friend is either, based on his intervention. Members should have the information on the impact of staff costs. I have set out some of my concerns about what it may mean for fans down the line. I am afraid we have not had assurances that give us any confidence that the Government will seek to cap the size of the regulator. We want to get a vote on the record, because we believe there should be a cap on the size of the independent regulator. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert— “(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum. (3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.” This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive. It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I have not said it in a while—even if you have given me a yellow card. At least in football that does not mean the sin bin, so I can keep playing. Let me explain why the amendment is important. In doing so, I will stick to the principle of trying to play not the man but the ball. We tabled the amendment to make sure that taxpayers and fans get value for money from the Government—in what would be a first since their election. It would limit the pay of the chief executive of the Government’s regulator to make sure that they are not paid more than the Prime Minister. Who would argue with the principle that the chief executive of a regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country, whatever you think of him or her at the time? It is a fair amendment that would also ensure that non-executive board members determine employees’ pay, instead of the chief executive by themselves as an employee of the regulator. We believe the Bill will create a conflict of interest if it is left solely to the chief executive to determine pay, as the chief executive would be able to determine their own pay increases as part of the package, unless it was done independently by non-executive members of the board.
I am happy to answer that question, because I believe the figure should be considerably underneath that rate. The amendment would allow pay to go up to the cap, but I am not saying it should be a target. This is similar to the slight difference in understanding about the previous amendment. We are not saying that it should be that artificial figure; we are saying that we believe there should be a cap that is not above the Prime Minister’s current salary.
I disagree with the hon. Member’s interpretation. It is quite commonplace for the chief executive to be the highest paid member of staff in most organisations. In my experience, it would be highly unusual for members of staff underneath the chief executive to be paid more than them.
Well, we will see. All jokes aside, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It would be highly unlikely and deeply unpopular if any member—or especially all of them—of that regulator was paid more than the chief executive, and it would add more to our cost argument.
There is no equivalent to the football regulator. It is the first of its kind. We cannot argue to fans that it is unique and everything else, but then say that it is the same as something else. If it is the same as something else, why are we doing it? We have benchmarked the figure quite clearly—the hon. Gentleman may disagree; that is what voting is about in Committee—to the Prime Minister’s salary, which we believe is fair. It is fair to the taxpayers, who understand that someone appointed by the Government or by the board to run the independent football regulator established by the Government should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. That is fair and moral.
I understand the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. We have had lots of attempts at muddying the waters today, but it is Government Members who will have to explain to their constituents and fans around the country why they believe that a regulator should be appointed that earns more money than the Prime Minister. We on this side of the Committee are happy to stand up and say very clearly that we do not agree that that should be the case. We do not agree that those costs—which we have concerns about, as I have said in debates on previous amendments—should be passed on to fans, as the cost of the regulator ultimately will. That may not be the case for the clubs that have large billionaire owners, but we are talking about the whole pyramid all the way down to the National League. I fundamentally believe that it is our duty in this place to seek to limit the cost of the regulator to those fans.
I disagree. As I have said, we are here today to set the guidance for what we think is an appropriate level of pay. We believe that fans on the street will think that this amendment is fair and proportionate, and that the chief executive of the football regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. He made the comparison with a public servant, which is the point that I am trying to make. If we classify this independent regulator as a public servant—that is another rabbit hole that we probably do not want to go down now—should they be paid more than the Prime Minister, who should be the ultimate public servant in this country?
No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman actually makes the point that I have made already, because we believe that Parliament should have a say on what the regulator looks like in future. We have already made the case that the Bill gives unchecked powers to the Secretary of State. The hypothetical situation that hon. Members have referred to, where we come back with another Act of Parliament, would give Members the opportunity to scrutinise what the regulator has done and scrutinise its costs. It would give Members the opportunity to explain to fans around the country why they are increasing ticket prices and other costs. Members should have the opportunity to keep a sensible check on the regulator in future. I will get back to my comments, as I appreciate that I am testing your patience again, Sir Jeremy. I am sure that the Minister will understand the serious concerns around not only the cost of the chief executive but, importantly, who determines the pay, which is the second part of the amendment. I hope that the Minister can also answer my questions about the other issues that my amendment brings to the fore today. On paragraph 8(4), why must a non-executive member of the board of the Government’s regulator notify the Secretary of State when they intend to resign from said board? Why do they not need to inform the chairman, deputy chairman or even the chief executive of the regulator? From my experience, it would be commonplace on most boards for someone to notify the chairman of the board rather than—obviously this is a unique situation—the Secretary of State, so the focus of the Bill seems unusual. Does the Minister understand that, once again, that makes it look like a political regulator? By maintaining the legal ties between the employment of non-executive directors and the Government, it is clear that they are not independent of Government, but reliant on Government. Will she clarify why that is the case? Paragraph 9(b) states that the Secretary of State can remove a board member if they are satisfied that there is a conflict of interest. Will the Minister tell us what qualifies as a conflict of interest and how the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, will decide what meets those qualifications? Would donating to a political party not in government count—or perhaps donating to a political party that is in government? Would having an interest in related broadcasting companies qualify? Paragraph 10(1) sets out that the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of non-executive members of the board. That gives the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, extensive powers over patronage. Can the Minister tell us how many board members does she anticipate will be needed and how many will be appointed? What will the remuneration per board member be, and what is the total cost of the board’s operation? Does the Minister agree with the spirit of my amendment that the Prime Minister should be paid more than whoever is the chairman or the chief executive, whoever that may be? Those already large salaries may encourage the Prime Minister, perhaps on the advice of the current Secretary of State, to appoint somebody to the role to make sure they get a good return on their investment into Labour leadership bids.
I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am listening carefully. On the point about markets, we are not talking about the market dictating the level, but Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in for a rude awakening if he believes that this is what the market looks like, if he goes down to the City of London. But on the argument that the Minister is making about the size of the regulator, what is that comparable size? We have tried to get an answer on what size the Government are looking at. So on the point that she just made about the salary being appropriate and reflective of other representative regulators, what is the size of the regulator? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the point about the salary that has been advertised only being a part-time salary, so what are the expectations in relation to that compared with the size of the regulator? That is fundamental to the Minister’s point.
Again, there is this deliberate conflation regarding what I am asking. The Government are arguing that this regulator is light-touch and different from those other regulators, and that the salary has been benchmarked against those at other regulators of a similar size and nature. This is the question I am asking the Minister: what is that other regulator, and how big is it? That determines what is an appropriate level of salary. This is about not only the Government’s arguments and our understanding, but the cronyism argument. I will not go into this but the reality is that a Labour donor is in the process of being appointed to a part-time job on a six-figure salary. Members of the public have a right to know what analysis the Government have done to determine that level of salary on a part-time basis.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I think they were more confusing than they were an answer to the questions. We have tried to be clear, and I do not mean this disrespectfully. I am not wilfully misunderstanding; I am asking a really clear question about the comparison the Government are making. What does the benchmark look like? That is not a theoretical question; we already know that someone has been appointed, and they used a benchmarking exercise to make that appointment. That is the point I am trying to make: a benchmarking exercise must have already been carried out, if the Government have done their due diligence in making that appointment.
To use the Minister’s comment, I think that the hon. Member is wilfully misunderstanding. I have made it absolutely crystal clear that the political argument—what we believe and what the taxpayers and fans will believe—is that it is not appropriate for a regulator to be paid more than the Prime Minister, the No. 1 so-called public servant in the country. That is the benchmark in the amendment. What I am asking the Government—the hon. Member is conflating this, I think deliberately—is this. What is the benchmark that they have already used to appoint somebody? That appointment—not of the chief executive, but of the chairman—has already happened. That is the point we are asking about: whether the Government have done a benchmarking exercise. They must have an idea of what the regulator looks like, yet we have had no answer to that question. We on this side of the House will be putting fans first. We will be seeking to cap the size of the Government’s regulator, to ensure that it is nimble and light-touch, that it is not overburdensome and that it does not do what we know regulation can do in this country, which is to snowball and to create more jobs and more duties for itself. We will look to cap it, in the interest of fans and taxpayers. Question put, That the amendment be made.
As the Minister set out, Government amendments 61 and 63 are consequential on the insertion of new clause 3, so I will limit my comments on this part, because I agree with her that it would be better placed at that point. However, I want to ask her about a couple of points. My understanding is that new clause 3 replaces what was clause 61, which set out the final proposal stage under the resolution mechanism. Again, I will save my substantive comments on that for later. Government amendment 62 provides that the board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or of making a distribution order under new clause 4 to another committee of the board. I would like to ask the Minister the rationale for making this change at this stage in the process, given that the Bill has gone through the other place. We had a discussion on Second Reading and, as she just acknowledged, the leagues were not happy with the mechanism as it was designed previously. It is a fair question to ask why the Government are seeking to change this part of the Bill now. Why does the Minister think that the decision on whether to trigger the resolution process or to make a distribution order should be delegated to a committee rather than taken by the board itself?
I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 94, line 34, at end insert— “31A (1) The Expert Panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under this Act. (2) Any decision published by the Expert Panel must include— (a) the number of members of the Expert Panel who supported the decision; (b) the number of members of the Expert Panel who did not support the decision; (c) the reasons for the decision; (d) the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to. (3) The Expert Panel must publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph (30).” This amendment requires the Expert Panel to exercise its functions transparently. The amendment seeks to ensure that the panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under the Bill, and that any decision published by the expert panel must include the number of members of the expert panel who supported the decision, the number of members of the expert panel who did not the support the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to. The expert panel must also publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph 30 of schedule 2. The amendment is all about transparency of the decisions made by the expert panel. As it stands, paragraph 30 requires that the expert panel “must act independently of the Board” when exercising its functions, without preventing the two-way exchange of information between the board and the expert panel. It is clear, however, that that needs to go further, which is why we tabled amendment 121, which requires the expert panel to exercise its functions transparently. I hope that the Committee agrees that no regulator should hide behind closed doors, and the Government’s football regulator should be no different. That being said, the Bill lacks detail on the expert panels, and I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the following. How many people does she expect to be on the panels? How many of the panels does she expect to be needed in the first year of operation, and then in subsequent years? What is the cost expected per panel, and is there a specific cap on the cost that can be incurred by an expert panel to the regulator? Finally, how will each member of the panel meet the qualifications of the experience, skill and knowledge we have discussed already, while not incurring a conflict of interest? To be clear, amendment 121 seeks to ensure that the regulator, a world-first in sports governance, and not in a good way for many of us, will maintain transparency with the fans it is intended to protect and support. We in this House have a great many tools at our disposal to hold the Government to account. It is only right that fans who do not have such tools can see what those deciding the future of their clubs and English football are doing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and my amendment seeks to let the sun shine on the Government’s regulator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne just missed the Minister, but if he is minded to intervene on me, I am happy to accept an intervention.
My hon. Friend gives an example that I admit I had not thought of. That is a well-made point about transparency and how that works in the City, and about the important role of the Bank of England.
That is an excellent point. I believe that the people who want to sit on these expert panels and help with the future of football—I assume that is what they will be contributing to—should be able to operate transparently for the ultimate fans. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I will press the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Unfortunately, based on the earlier deliberations, I do have something to say. I will try to be succinct and not rehash the debates we have had already, although I am happy to carry on taking interventions, as I have done all day. I will set out why the Conservative party will be opposing schedule 2. The Government have missed the opportunity to tighten up the transparency of the regulator. Instead, they have allowed it to operate under a shadow, and they have not ensured that it will be transparent to fans, who are the ultimate stakeholders in this process. There is a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes. The regulator is granted broad discretionary powers with limited obligations to publish detailed reasoning for its decisions, as we discussed in the debate on amendment 121. Clubs and stakeholders may be left unclear about how rules are interpreted and applied, undermining confidence in regulatory fairness. A number of times today, I have made the point that there is to be limited parliamentary scrutiny. Because of the amendments that have not been accepted, there are limits in the Bill on how Members of Parliament can have their say on what the regulator will look like. The regulator’s rules and standards are not subject to the affirmative procedure or meaningful parliamentary oversight. I know that the Minister did not wish to make any comments, but I am interested in her view and the Government’s view on where reports on the regulator will end up. Will it be at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or, given the costs involved, at the Public Accounts Committee? It is important that Members understand whether they will be at least able to see the reports, even if the Government are not willing to make votes available. There is no requirement to consult publicly before issuing or revising key regulatory frameworks, which again limits external input. We have already brought up the issue of some people not being consulted and others being consulted. On the opaque appointment and governance structures, we have highlighted the Opposition’s concerns about how the selection process has taken place and how it will take place in the future. We need strong safeguards to ensure that political interference does not impact the perceived and the realised work of the independent regulator. It is a fundamental risk to the future of football and the future of sport. We believe that the duty to disclose key information is insufficient and that the regulator should be disclosing information on a regular basis, so that Members of Parliament and fans can have clear sight of what it is doing. That is a completely fair thing to ask for. It is not a political request; it is about transparency. On costs, which we have discussed at length, the Opposition are concerned that we do not have transparency about the cost of the regulation. We are unclear on what the Government’s end goal is for the regulator. We have heard different arguments about what its size may be in the future and comparisons with regulators that I think would scare most of us. Hearing the cost of 900 members of staff should scare all football fans, if that is the direction of travel the Government are going down with the regulator, which is supposed to be light touch. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, just to give her a bit more time. How will Parliament scrutinise the regulator’s spending, as set out on page 96 of the Bill? Can she tell us whether scrutiny will come from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? There is also mention of financial assistance being provided, based on the Secretary of State’s judgment. Can the Minister tell us what the Bill means by “appropriate” and whether taxpayers will be bailing out failing clubs or even the regulator?
As I referenced in the question, I was deliberately trying to be specific because we have not really got into what part 4 of the schedule says. The Minister has just made a point about scrutinising the spending of the regulator. How will Parliament be able to scrutinise the regulator going forward? I am happy to have it in writing, if the Minister does not have the answer on her today. Will it be the role of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Public Accounts Committee or both? Will reports be laid on the Floor of the House, for example, for hon. Members to look at, or in the House of Commons library? That is the question that I am trying to ask the Minister today, and I would appreciate it if the hon. Lady gave us a bit of certainty on that.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving amendment 1 so that we can have an initial conversation about this very emotive and important issue facing ex-players, and about the campaigns on these well-known health challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot be part of these discussions because she is a Deputy Speaker, but I have agreed to meet and listen to the group in the Southampton area. I draw the Committee’s attention to the new clause we have tabled on player welfare, as we believe there are strong links to the arguments made on amendment 1. I will park those for now, as I am conscious that I am close to a red card following my initial yellow card—I will not go too far on that, Sir Jeremy. Clause 6 defines the core objectives of the independent football regulator as “to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs… to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football…to safeguard the heritage of English football”. Amendment 1 seeks to add another subsection that would clarify this particular issue, and I understand the arguments that have been made. We have already engaged with some of the leagues on this issue, and I draw the attention of the Committee, and of anyone listening at home who may be seeking assistance and support on this issue, to the funds that are available. I am not taking a particular position; I just want to highlight the existing scheme to support former footballers in this regard, as I think it is very important for those families around the country. My understanding is that the scheme was set up in 2023 by the Premier League and has distributed over £1.4 million to date. If this Bill Committee can achieve anything, we will be performing a good public service by advertising that the fund is available for ex-players to ensure those families can get the support they desire. I will return to our player welfare new clause, but my understanding is that the drafting of the Bill, however well intentioned, does not look to include either the PFA or the LMA, both of which are key stakeholders in how we protect the rights of footballers and managers, who are under a lot of pressure. I think we all recognise that as politicians, because we have a lot of pressure placed on us in our duties in the workplace. With an increasing fixture list, as clubs look to add more fixtures to be more commercially viable, there is broader concern about player welfare. That is why I am keen to have that debate later in our considerations. It is key that once this football regulator is established—and we know that it will be established—it considers the welfare of players. It is important that it does that with the bodies that represent both players and managers. I look forward to debating this further, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment for discussion.
To be clear, I was not taking a particular side. I was just explaining that funding is already available. I understand the hon. Member’s point about whether the funding is adequate. On Nobby Stiles, the footballs that people play with are materially different from the ones that were played with in 1966. I ask in good faith: is the hon. Member leading this conversation to a potential ban on heading the ball in games, or is it just about the distribution of financial support for players?
I absolutely understand the hon. Member’s argument, and as I said earlier I have full respect for the work he has done as chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. However, a story in the press yesterday highlighted that there could be a breakaway league in rugby union. A lot of the arguments he is making about the creation of the Bill are about why the heritage part is so important. Given that commonality and that we are talking about a similar risk, does he believe that the Government should set up a regulator for rugby?
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech about the heritage elements of cup competitions, and a genuinely important point about fixture scheduling and how the international teams impact that. We are talking about Club World cups and tours of Asia—we have just seen Man United go straight to Asia. However, to try and spin a positive on the situation—I am not defending certain clubs—would the hon. Member agree with me that it is a good thing that this year the underdogs have won those cups? There is value again in those cup competitions, whether that is Crystal Palace winning a tournament—the hon. Member for Dartford is nodding at that—or Newcastle winning.
Indeed. We could keep going. That proves the value of the cup competitions. Many more clubs should take our traditional cup competitions more seriously.