Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I appreciate the Minister’s comments about proportionality; we will look to review that as the Bill goes forward. One question I have is about how the regulator will interact with the existing rules. The most obvious ones that come to mind are the financial fair play rules that are already in existence in the Premier League. What analysis of, and crossover with, the existing league investigations and restrictions to clubs will there be?
If the Minister could outline that further, it would be really helpful. At the end of the day, we are keen to ensure that there is no confusion in the regulations for clubs, nor any duplication of purpose for the regulator. We would like to understand how that will work in practice, and I would appreciate that in writing.
I beg to move amendment 106, in clause 19, page 13, line 19, at end insert— “(c) inviting the club to make representations about the proposed revocation, and (d) specifying the means by which, and the period within which, such representations must be made, which must be a period of not less than one month beginning with the day on which the notice under subsection (3) is given.” This amendment allows clubs to make representations about the proposed revocation of their operating licence. Clause 19 concerns the revocation and cessation of an operating licence granted to football clubs. That is understandably a crucial provision that goes to the heart of how the Government’s new regulator will exercise its most serious power, the ability effectively to remove a club from the regulated football pyramid by taking away its licence to operate. Let me clear from the outset that we support an independent regulator that can intervene when standards are seriously breached but, as with all powers of this kind, the devil is in the detail. Our task in this Committee must be to ensure that the regulator’s powers are proportionate, transparent and accountable. Clause 19 provides that the regulator may revoke a licence if the club in in breach of licence conditions or if there are grounds to believe that the licence should never have been granted. In principle, that is entirely reasonable, but the consequences of revocation, for clubs, fans and communities, are potentially devastating. This is not the revocation of a licence to sell alcohol or to host events late into the night; it is the revocation of a licence to participate in the life of a community—in many cases, the cultural soul of a town or city. That power should not be exercised lightly, so I must raise several matters with the Minister. First, what thresholds and safeguards are in place to ensure that revocation is used only as a last resort? Will the Government’s regulator be required to consider less draconian alternatives—such as conditional compliance periods, fines or a change in ownership—before resorting to the total revocation of a licence? Secondly, what procedural protections exist for clubs facing this threat? As it stands, there is no right of appeal, which is why I tabled amendment 106, which would allow clubs to make representations about the proposed revocation of their operating licence. These are serious matters. The Government’s regulator is empowered to act in the interests of the game and to uphold high standards of governance, transparency and financial responsibility. But with such powers must come robust safeguards, and that is where the clause as drafted falls short. As it stands, there is no explicit requirement for the regulator to notify a club of its intention to revoke the licence, or to invite the club to make representations, before such action is taken. In effect, the regulator could move straight to revocation, without a formal process that allows the club to defend itself, explain its actions or offer remedial steps. That is not due process, it is not natural justice, and in any other regulated sector such an approach would be wholly unacceptable.
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but we still believe that clubs have a right to representation and to appeal, which is what this amendment seeks to put into the Bill. My amendment would fix the problem. It would require the Government’s regulator, before making any decision to revoke a licence, to provide the club with written notice of its intention to do so, and not just stating that it will be revoked but setting out the reasons and the evidence relied on. The club would then be entitled to respond—to make representations within a reasonable timeframe, to challenge the basis of the proposed revocation and to outline any mitigating circumstances or corrective measures. Such a mechanism would not just be fair; we believe that it is necessary. The consequences of revocation of an operating licence are profound. It would prevent a club from competing in the regulated pyramid, as has been highlighted already. That would be likely to trigger financial collapse, job losses and irreparable harm to the club’s standing and its local community. Therefore, the decision to revoke must be taken only after the fullest consideration, and that cannot happen if one side is not allowed to speak. There is a broader point about public confidence in the Government’s new regulator. For it to earn the trust of clubs, fans and the wider footballing ecosystem, it must be seen to operate fairly and transparently. Due process, consultation and the right to be heard before sanctions are imposed are all basic principles of good governance and the basis of justice. By incorporating my amendment in clause 19, we would be helping to enshrine those values at the heart of the regulator’s enforcement powers. I urge the Committee to consider the precedent being set. If we allow revocations to occur without a statutory right to respond, we risk creating a regulatory regime that is reactive rather than reflective—one that punishes rather than reforms. That would be to the detriment of the game as a whole, particularly if clubs are chucked out or have their licence removed midway through a season. That would cause a much greater ripple across the league system. Let me be clear: this amendment does not seek to tie the regulator’s hands. It does not require the regulator to delay action indefinitely or to overlook serious misconduct. What it does do is ensure that any action is taken with the full knowledge of the facts and with the benefit of a fair and balanced process. As we have heard already, clubs, especially those in lower leagues, do not have legions of lawyers or vast compliance departments. Despite best intentions, they may make genuine mistakes or fall foul of complex regulations. We must allow them the chance to explain, to engage and, where appropriate, to put things right, before the ultimate sanction is imposed. This is a measured, sensible and proportionate amendment. It aligns with principles that Members across the House support, and I hope that the Committee will support it. If we are serious about building a strong, fair and sustainable regulatory regime, we must ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done. On my broader concerns about the drafting of the clause, I ask the Minister what transparency will apply in such situations.
I thank my hon. Friend for putting it very poetically. He talks about the spirit of football. I am not sure how many last-minute winners Chelsea have scored over the years, but he might have misbehaved on the terraces with joy and jubilation when it has happened. His description was much nicer than calling it the VAR amendment, which would not have been so popular across the House. His point is well made. Will the regulator be required to publish clear criteria and case-by-case justifications for any licence revocation, so that Parliament, the press and the public can understand why the decision was taken? What consideration will be given to the fanbase—the loyal supporters who may find their club’s future in jeopardy through no fault of their own? How will we be acting in the interest of fans of English football if we do not have transparency? We must also bear in mind the risk of regulatory overreach. Such a power as this, unless it is tightly constrained, could inadvertently create uncertainty and instability in the football ecosystem. Clubs, owners and investors must know where they stand. A stable regulatory environment, not a reactive or arbitrary one, is essential if the Government’s new regulator is to command respect, not just fear. I hope the Minister provides more clarity on how her new regulator will apply clause 19 in practice and on what guidance will be issued to ensure that the power of revocation is exercised only with great caution and care. When dealing with a matter as serious as extinguishing the operating licence of a football club, we owe it to the game and to the people who love it to think through every safeguard properly.
The Minister has outlined the initial process before revocation is determined by the regulator. As I explained in my lengthy speech, which I will not seek to repeat, the amendment would give clubs a say if they believed a decision reached by the regulator was wrong. The Minister was clear about the tribunal approach if a club is not happy with a decision, but as I have outlined previously, my fear is that clubs will end up spending more time in court than they will focusing on the pitch and on the game. The official Opposition believe that an appeal process at that point would be more beneficial than a legal route.
I thank the Minister for that lengthy response. To be blunt, I disagree, and rather than delay the Committee any longer, I will press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I am trying to get clarity. Again, I will happily accept it in writing if the Minister does not have the answer today. Waiting until the end of the season before revoking a licence is entirely sensible, but what would that mean for relegation and promotion? For example, if a club is mid-table and the regulator decides its licence should be revoked, that will have a direct impact on the competitive nature of the league. Has any thought been put into whether, for example, that may mean only two teams are relegated that season, because one has lost its licence? How might it work in practice?
I will not rehash the debate we have already had on the amendment. We were seeking greater transparency and a greater say for clubs at risk of losing their licence, which, as I have explained, is the ultimate sanction and would cause enormous damage to clubs and the communities in which they operate through job losses, and impact on the game and on fans. I would appreciate the Minister giving more clarity on how this will work in practice. These situations are hypothetical, but realistic, and would have serious consequences for not just the individual clubs, but the leagues and how they operate. We believe strongly that promotion and relegation should be based on competition on the pitch. However, in the extreme example of a club breaching the licence so significantly that it is revoked, which might more realistically happen at the lower end of the pyramid, we need to have a greater understanding of what that means for relegation. All clubs deserve transparency in that regard. We have seen much speculation in recent years around change of ownership—I will not mention the clubs involved as some of the legal cases are ongoing—what that might mean for relegation and the significant financial consequences it may have for other clubs. It would be greatly appreciated if the Minister provided guidance on that in writing so that all Members can have a greater understanding of how it will work in practice.
I appreciate the Minister committing to that. The example just mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby South needs fleshing out as well, because clubs get into financial difficulty as a matter of course; points are therefore deducted mid-season, as we have seen, or, in the worst cases, the club goes into administration. The tests for the licence are about financial prudence and sustainability, so the hon. Gentleman makes a fair challenge. What would happen if a club went into administration? Would the regulator seek to change the owner to allow the operating licence to continue, for example, or would the club, having lost the licence, then reapply via a new owner? The consequences would be dramatic. One would automatically assume that a club that no longer had a licence would have to start at the bottom of the football pyramid and come back up again, as we have seen in the past. Can the Minister add clarification of that important example to her letter?
As outlined by the Minister, clause 20 requires the IFR to attach four mandatory licence conditions to the each club’s operating licence, whether provisional or full. This includes a requirement for the club to submit a financial plan, either annually or at more frequent intervals. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on how frequent she believes is reasonable; is that semi-annually, for example? The club must also submit and publish a corporate governance statement explaining how it is applying the IFR’s corporate governance code, and regularly consult its fans. I think we need some clarity about how that will work in practice. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East raised the example of Sheffield Wednesday and multiple fans’ groups claiming to represent the club. I think that that needs some fleshing out so that the regulator is clear about what that consultation looks like. Obviously, that will be different for each individual club, which should, hopefully, know its fans better than anyone else. Last, there is a requirement to submit an annual declaration of any material changes in circumstances affecting the club. Again, we would argue that that needs to be very clear to clubs, particularly if there is any—
I hear your words and I appreciate them, Sir Jeremy. I was just going to finish by saying that we would like to see some clarity around that. I am sure that we can pick that up again in the later debate.
I have a lot of sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. The Minister argues that this does not need to be addressed through the regulator, but will guidance be published for those fan groups who are keen to ensure the long-term future of their grounds? What guidance will be published to ensure that any fans in this situation have clear advice from the Government on the best routes to protect their ground?
I beg to move amendment 135, in schedule 5, page 101, line 20, leave out sub-subparagraph (ii).
My amendments would remove the requirement for clubs to include in their corporate governance statements an account of the actions they are taking to improve EDI. Although the intentions behind the provision may be well-meaning, we believe it is misplaced within the framework of a Bill that is rightly intended to stabilise the footballing pyramid, preserve our historic clubs and ensure sustainable financial conduct. Let us be clear about what schedule 5 seeks to achieve. It introduces a requirement for clubs to prepare and publish an annual corporate governance statement setting out how the club is managed, its leadership and board structure, and the internal controls that ensure compliance with financial and operational rules. That is, at heart, a welcome and worthwhile measure that will support transparency and proper stewardship across the game. Those are principles that we have been urging the Government to apply to the regulator throughout the process of the Bill, but we believe in certain areas they have declined to do so. The inclusion, however, of a requirement for clubs to report on their actions to advance EDI veers into territory that is, at best, tangential to the core purpose of the legislation. This is, after all, a Football Governance Bill, not a vehicle for social policy experimentation.
In my previous career, I headed up sustainability on ESG, so I understand the hon. Lady’s point. If she will let me continue, I believe my points will answer her question. This country’s football clubs are not arms of the state. They are private institutions, many of which are more than a century old, with proud identities shaped by the local community’s traditions and values. Their job is not to issue corporate platitudes on diversity but to serve their supporters, compete on the pitch and conduct themselves with financial integrity. Mandating EDI reporting risks turning the regulator into a cultural enforcer rather than a steward of good governance. Importantly, however, we must also consider the burden it will place on clubs, particularly those in the lower leagues. Our amendments go to the heart of an argument that has served us time and again during the scrutiny of the Bill: the risk of regulatory overreach and overburden. Clubs in League One and League Two, National League outfits and even some Championship sides already struggle with the administrative requirements expected of them, from audit processes to licensing compliance. Adding more politically motivated reporting requirements, particularly in controversial and contested areas such as EDI, risks deepening the strain without any justification related to the Bill’s primary purpose: football. Some may argue that football has a responsibility to lead on matters of social justice, but cultural change should not be imposed by statutory mandate. Real change, where needed, comes from within; from clubs taking action because it is right for them and their supporters, not because a regulator demands it as part of its governance tick-box exercise. We can see that with Forest Green Rovers, a club that chose, of its own accord, to take a distinctive approach to sustainability, ethics and inclusion not because a regulator told them to, but because it aligned with their leadership values and the identity they wanted to build. Whether or not one agrees with their choices, the point is that they were made voluntarily. That is the right way to foster progress in football—through leadership and initiative, not through regulatory coercion. As we discuss schedule 5 and the role of corporate governance statements in football clubs reporting, it is important to recognise the significant work already underway in the game on EDI—work that is being driven voluntarily and effectively by the FA, Premier League, EFL and National League without an overzealous and politicised regulator interfering. The Premier League has developed its own EDI standard, known as PLEDIS. It provides clubs with a clear, structured framework to improve inclusion both on and off the pitch. It is not a mere tick-box exercise, as we fear the Government regulator will be. It is a rigorous programme of three levels: preliminary, intermediate and advanced. Clubs must earn all of those levels for evidence-based progress and independent assessment.
I am happy to answer that with a simple yes. They should have been consulted. To date, 27 clubs have engaged with PLEDIS, and 18 have achieved the advanced level. Clubs such as West Ham United have demonstrated genuine leadership by embedding EDI principles deep within their organisation over multiple years without the need for Government involvement. Beyond PLEDIS, the Premier League’s “No Room for Racism” campaign highlights a range of targeted initiatives, from supporting coaching pathways to enhancing representation among players and officials from diverse backgrounds. Premier League schemes such as the professional player to coach scheme and the coach inclusion and diversity scheme have supported more than 80 coaches into full-time professional roles. Meanwhile, thousands of grassroots participants benefit from programmes aimed at increasing access for under-represented communities in football, including the south Asian action plan. Meanwhile, the English Football League has also taken proactive steps through its equality code of practice, which encourages clubs to set ambitious, measurable goals and recognise best practice through an awards system, with 10 clubs having attained silver status as of last year. The EFL’s community outreach includes programmes such as the Stronger Communities cup, which promotes social cohesion by bringing together girls from local communities and girls who have been forcibly displaced. The EFL Trust’s talent inclusion programme further demonstrates how clubs are creating pathways for young women from diverse backgrounds, ensuring that football’s future is open and accessible. All that work has taken place without the need for the Government’s regulator to interfere. These efforts underline a key principle: real progress on equality and inclusion in football comes through leadership, commitment and initiative, not through bureaucratic mandates or additional regulatory burdens. Clubs are already stepping up in a meaningful way. That is why we argue against adding a new statutory reporting requirement on EDI in the Bill. We believe that this would risk distracting from the core purpose of the Bill—ensuring sound governance and financial sustainability within English football—while imposing burdens that may not add tangible value. I urge hon. Members to recognise the existing achievements of football and to support my amendments, which would remove the unnecessary requirements for clubs to report on EDI action in their corporate governance statements. Fans do not attend matches to receive diversity statements. They go to support their team, share in the highs and lows, and pass on the tradition that means something to them and their community. They do so as part of a footballing community that is focused on the team they support, not the colour of a supporter’s skin, their religion or their sexual preference. These initiatives reflect concerted efforts by the Premier League, the FA, the EFL and the National League to foster an inclusive environment in football. They demonstrate that meaningful progress on EDI can be achieved through voluntary, club-led actions rather than statutory mandates. What precisely do the Government intend that their regulator do with these EDI statements? Will they be assessed for adequacy and ranked against each other? Will penalties be imposed for perceived failure to meet EDI expectations? The risk is not just regulatory creep, but mission creep—the regulator may become an arbiter of social values rather than a guarantor of financial sustainability and good governance. Let me be absolutely clear: we support inclusivity and fair treatment in football and beyond. Discrimination has no place in the game. Kick It Out and Show Racism the Red Card do important work, and we will continue to support that work, but not by putting extra burdens on clubs that are, in many cases, already struggling due to Labour’s decision to hammer businesses at every turn and twist.
As I have made clear, we believe that some of these issues are important, but we believe that they should be addressed on a voluntary basis, which is what has driven progress in the game. We do not believe that it should be mandated in statute at arm’s length by the Government. I have been clear in making that distinction in my comments. Requiring clubs to report annually on their EDI action is not a proportionate or effective way to achieve those broader aims. It amounts to moral licensing, encouraging clubs to go through the motions rather than to take meaningful steps to foster a welcoming culture in ways that make sense for them. My amendments would restore clarity to the regulator’s remit. They would ensure that schedule 5 is focused on what really matters: clear lines of accountability, proper oversight of directors and owners, and a robust governance structure that protects clubs from the kind of catastrophic mismanagement that we have seen in the past. Football has always been about community; it is in the dressing rooms, on the terraces and in the shared heritage of our towns and cities that the game’s values are lived. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking that they can be legislated for by line item in a regulator’s reporting requirements. It is for that reason that I tabled these amendments. I urge the Minister to reflect seriously on whether this part of schedule 5 is truly consistent with the aims of the Bill and the traditions of our national game, which is inclusive by default.
I appreciate the clarity provided by the Minister in outlining what she believes the regulator should or should not do. On quotas, can we be absolutely clear that the Government’s intention is not for there to be a mandated quota for clubs to have certain elements and different parts of the community on the board? Is that the clear intention in what the Minister is saying?
I appreciate the clarity that the Minister provided on quotas, because that particularly concerns Opposition Members. As I have mentioned—I will not seek to repeat my comments—we are concerned about mission creep and scope creep of the regulator and what the Bill is designed to do. I made it clear earlier that I believe that football is inclusive and that it has done amazing work, when we compare the state of football 20 or 30 years ago with where we are today. We see that on the terraces at most clubs every single week, and we certainly see that with the national team, which most of the country comes together to support, particularly in big tournaments. Mandating EDI reporting and turning it into a bit of a tick-box exercise—that was highlighted in some of the Minister’s comments—moves away from what we believe to be the valuable part of this work, which is to drive forward inclusivity in clubs and increase the fan base, which is good for clubs, by expanding beyond some of the traditional support of the game. We fear that having this provision in the corporate governance code, in the way it is written, will lead to unintended consequences. It will drive certain agendas, and we fear that clubs will walk into a number of traps accidentally. We have tabled these amendments because we believe that EDI reporting, especially in certain areas where it is contested, should not be put on clubs in this way. The voluntary scheme in football has worked much more powerfully over the years, and that is proven in the experiences at football grounds around the country.
I beg to move amendment 137, in schedule 5, page 102, line 2, at end insert “including the club’s official charity.” This amendment would make clear that the activities of a football club’s official charity can be counted towards it meeting the corporate governance code. It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the amendment. The Bill as drafted does not specify that the activities of these charities—often known as community trusts—count when taking into account actions taken by the club in relation to meeting the corporate governance code, so I start by asking the Minister why the Bill does not contain explicit recognition, in the governance reporting requirements, of the work done by community trusts. I would appreciate it if she could pick that up in her comments. As both the shadow Minister for sport and the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I am in a fortunate position: I get to see week in, week out how sport, and football in particular, can transform lives. I also get to see what that looks like in practice, not just in headlines or strategies, but on the ground—in local parks, youth centres and school halls across my constituency. I know that other Members will have similar experiences in their own. In my constituency, we are lucky to benefit from the extraordinary work undertaken by Charlton Athletic Community Trust. It is no exaggeration to say that CACT, if we want to call it that—I do not really like that wording—has become one of the most respected and impactful community foundations affiliated with a professional football club anywhere in the country. It often wins awards at national level for that work. Its work extends far beyond the pitch and well beyond the borough of Greenwich, where the training ground and the stadium—the Valley—are located, and deep into my borough of Bexley, the wider south-east London area, and Kent. In fact, Charlton have been delivering services and support in Bexley for well over a decade. Charlton’s community trust delivers youth services on behalf of Bexley council. It provides safe spaces and structured activities that help young people to develop skills, build confidence and stay on the right path. In today’s world, where young people, as most Members would recognise, face growing pressures and limited opportunity, that kind of work is more vital than ever. Although Charlton are not a Premier League side just yet, one of the flagship initiatives that it runs is the Premier League Kicks programme, which operates across the borough in areas such as Thamesmead, Slade Green and Erith—places where young people often face the dual challenge of limited opportunities and exposure to risks—as well as in my area of Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling. The Kicks sessions are free weekly football sessions, but they are about much more than just sport. They take place in safe and welcoming environments and are led by trained staff. Young people aged between eight and 18 can build confidence, learn leadership skills and receive mentoring from positive role models—often young adults who were once participants in the scheme. What makes the Kicks programme in Bexley particularly valuable is its consistency and partnership working. Sessions are delivered year round in collaboration with the police, youth services and local schools. This is not a one-off scheme or a publicity stunt. It is part of a broader, integrated approach to youth engagement and early intervention that genuinely helps to steer young people away from things such as crime and towards the opportunities that football presents. Charlton’s work goes far wider than just youth engagement, although I have seen that recently at Hurstmere school in my constituency and when Charlton brought the Premier League trophy to a local park. It was incredible to see the reactions of young football fans to the trophy. Just remember not to touch it—a mistake that I made on the day, and I was rightly told off. In Bexley, Charlton are a contracted delivery partner for the council’s early help youth services—statutory support that has been delivered to a high professional standard for many years. Importantly, the trust has developed deep and lasting partnerships in Bexley and Greenwich, not only with the local authority, but with the NHS, local schools, the police and the voluntary sector. That joined-up approach is what makes its work sustainable and successful. As I said, I am sure that many other clubs around the country are doing such work.
Thank you for your guidance, Sir Jeremy. You will be pleased to know that I am coming on to why my example is relevant to the amendment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford for raising the example of Dartford football club—a rival of one of my other local clubs, Welling United, which also do great work in the community. In the light of your words, Sir Jeremy, I will move on to the amendment. Clubs do such amazing work around the country, and the amendment would ensure that that is recognised properly in the Bill. I hope the Minister agrees that work that such community trusts are delivering around the country, particularly in youth engagement, public health and crime prevention, should form part of a club’s social responsibility and how it is reported. Why does that matter in the context of the Bill? Because we are legislating for a new governance framework for football, and the Government have decided that this Bill must reflect football clubs’ wider social responsibilities and recognise the real value of institutions such as the trusts, which deliver on the responsibilities in practice. As the Bill is drafted, there is a risk that such work will be seen as separate from clubs’ corporate governance responsibility, and there is a risk that a club will have to wind up its charitable organisation—God forbid—and bring it fully in-house to meet the requirements of the Bill. Allowing a club’s charities or community trusts to count towards that will allow the good work to continue growing while trusts benefit from their charitable status. The Bill is a slight own goal, but I believe the drafting can be corrected. We believe it represents a missed opportunity for communities across the country, and our amendment would correct that by making it clear that clubs can include the work of their associated community trusts as part of how they meet their governance targets. That does not mean giving clubs an easy ride or allowing them to paper over poor performance elsewhere, but it does mean taking a more holistic, grounded approach to what good governance looks like in the real world. When we are considering how best to shape football regulation, I believe the example set out by the Charlton trust should give us something to aim for across the country and across the football pyramid. It shows what football at its best can do when it is rooted firmly in its community and takes its social obligations seriously. Charlton Athletic may not be in the Premier League at the moment—give them another season—but through the community trust, they are leading the way in community impact. I understand that it is up for another national award this year. That is why I believe the amendment is not only proportionate and practical, but in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. If we are serious about building a more sustainable and responsible football pyramid, we must also be serious about recognising clubs that take their community obligations very seriously, not through a statement of intent but through long-standing, properly resourced partnerships. In Bexley, it does not matter whether you are an Addick yourself; you can come along to a Premier League Kicks session and be part of something bigger. The same is true of neighbouring Millwall, who do lots of great work in the Lewisham borough. We want this to be more than a box-ticking exercise. There is a real risk that clubs will scale back some of that work if it is brought under the scope of the Government’s regulator. I am sure the Minister would agree that that would be an unintended consequence. Does she agree that allowing clubs to include their trusts’ work in their corporate governance statements would incentivise long-term investment in high-quality community programmes, rather than short-term or superficial schemes? We hope that any new regulatory framework, including the establishment of the Government’s regulator, will recognise and protect the kind of local partnership work that I have described today. Will the Minister therefore tell us whether she believes that when it assesses a club’s performance, the regulator will be equipped to distinguish between high-impact, properly evaluated community work, such as I have described, and less substantive activity? Will she issue guidance that the regulator must have regard to outreach delivered through a club’s trust when assessing corporate governance? The Chair adjourned the Committee without question put (Standing Order No. 88.)
It is a privilege to speak again under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate you and the city of Hull on the Challenge cup victory at the weekend, which probably does not please Mr Speaker on his birthday, but such is sport. Moving back to football, before the lunch break, I explained why the Opposition felt the need for amendment 137. It is a technical amendment that would make it very clear that the official charities and trusts of the clubs would count towards the corporate governance structure. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments and appreciate the feedback that she has given. However, we would still like to see the amendment made to provide clarity to clubs, so we will press it to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 131, in schedule 5, page 103, line 16, at end insert— “Agents fees 11A (1) An agents fees condition is a condition requiring a club employing an agent to cap their fees. (2) The agents fee cap will be set by Regulations subject to approval by both Houses.” My amendment proposes that clubs regulated by the Government’s new regulator should be required to cap the fees paid to agents, because, as many fans know, an ever-increasing amount of money is leaving the football pyramid to agents. The level of the proposed cap would be set through regulations, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and determined following consultation with clubs and leagues. Let me set out why we believe the measure is necessary—not as an attack on agents or their role in the game, but as a proportionate, reasonable step towards a more sustainable, transparent and responsible football ecosystem. If we are serious about football reform and safeguarding the long-term financial health of clubs up and down the pyramid, we must be prepared to tackle the excesses and distortions that have taken root in the sport. Few are more obvious or pressing than the spiralling sums paid to agents. According to the Football Association, in the year from February 2024 to February 2025, Premier League clubs alone paid more than £409 million in agent fees and intermediaries. That is more than the total broadcast revenue of a number of Championship clubs in 2022-23; or more than double the commercial revenue of several clubs for that season; or almost three times the matchday revenue of a number of Championship clubs in the same season. This is not wages or transfer fees, nor is it investment in the matchday experience for fans—it is money paid out purely for representation costs, often for work done on both sides of a deal. To put that into context, it is more than the entire annual income of many Championship clubs combined, and this is not just a Premier League problem. Although the sums are relatively smaller further down the pyramid, the pressures are arguably even more acute for clubs with less budget. My amendment seeks to introduce a straightforward principle—that there should be a fair and proportionate limit on the fees that clubs can pay to agents, and that the limit should be set by regulations made by the Secretary of State subject to affirmative procedure. This would help to ensure full parliamentary oversight and allow future Governments to adjust the cap based on changing market conditions, evidence from the Government’s regulator and broader economic factors in football. There is already a strong precedent for this kind of intervention. For example, FIFA’s agent regulations now attempt to impose limits on the commissions payable to clubs and players alike, but those rules remain subject to legal challenge and uneven enforcement across jurisdictions. In the absence of effective international enforcement, there is an opportunity for this to be included in the scope of the Government’s regulator as a core part of the financial sustainability of English football.
I discussed that consideration with a number of people in the game before we tabled the amendment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the French, who already cap agents’ fees at 10%. With this amendment, we are not seeking to say what the level should be—that should be determined by the game in consultation—but we are looking for the game to help to set the cap at a level that does not have the impact that he talks about. But it is a fair challenge. We must remember that the Bill is fundamentally about sustainability. Financial discipline is not just a boardroom concern, but a matter of public trust. Football clubs are more than private enterprises, as we have discussed. They are community institutions. They are the social glue in towns such as Bury, Scunthorpe and Southend, all of which have suffered financial distress in recent years. The idea that hundreds of millions of pounds can leave the game each year in opaque payments to third-party agents while clubs struggle to pay wages, maintain facilities or invest in their academies is becoming increasingly indefensible. Let us be clear: no one is saying that agents do not have a role. Many provide important professional services, such as legal advice, contract negotiation and logistical support, but the current system lacks transparency, consistency and limits. There are countless examples of agents receiving commissions from both buying and selling clubs on the same deal—a structure that would raise red flags in other regulated industries as a clear conflict of interest. Without a cap, there is little to stop the agents’ arms race escalating even further. Clubs are forced to pay inflated fees just to stay competitive in the transfer market. In some cases, they are backed into a corner by players who will not sign unless their representative is paid what they demand. That imbalance needs to be addressed, not with heavy-handed bans, but with clear, enforceable limits that ensure agent fees are grounded in reality and tied to the financial position of the English football pyramid. My amendment would allow for the cap to adapt over time, either up or down, depending on the financial context of the day. This debate also has a clear moral dimension. Football fans—the lifeblood of the game—see money flooding out of the system into offshore accounts while ticket prices rise, lower-league clubs fall into administration, as we have heard, and local facilities are left to deteriorate without needed investment. What message are we sending to those communities if we continue to turn a blind eye to this major issue? The problem is not new. Lord Sugar famously described agents as “ten percenters” during his time as chairman of Tottenham Hotspur. However, in recent years, that 10% has crept up; we now see cases in which agents walk away with fees amounting to 15% or even 20% of a transfer value, and in some instances with fixed payments that are totally unrelated to the value or complexity of the deal. That is not healthy, efficient or sustainable, and it is not a good use of fans’ hard-earned money. This amendment is about putting the interests of clubs, fans and the wider game first. In fact, we believe that clubs in the lower leagues would stand to benefit the most. Although some clubs in the top flight can absorb these costs through commercial revenues or broadcast income, those further down the pyramid often spend a disproportionate amount of their limited budgets on agents. That creates a vicious cycle: less money for youth development, community outreach and infrastructure, and more dependence on short-term deals brokered by intermediaries. By capping agent fees, we would take a meaningful step towards ending that cycle. We could help clubs plan more prudently, negotiate more confidently and operate on a fairer playing field. In doing so, we would strengthen the whole system, from the grassroots to the elite. Let us not forget that the purpose of the Government’s regulator is not to micro-manage football, but to restore public confidence and ensure long-term stability. Agent fees are a glaring blind spot in the current model. If we are willing to regulate ownership tests, financial reporting and fan engagement, surely we must also be willing to act on a financial outflow that directly threatens the viability of many clubs. This is a proportionate, sensible and timely amendment. It allows the Government to tackle one of the most visible and controversial financial issues in football; it helps preserve flexibility; it respects Parliament; and, most importantly, it places the interests of our clubs, fans and communities above those of unregulated market actors. We have an opportunity to help reshape the financial culture of English football for the better. Introducing a cap on agents’ fees is not only a necessary reform, but the right thing to do.
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments and acknowledge a number of the points that she made. The purpose behind the amendment was to have the discussion about the impact of fees on the game. I accept some of her points about the international nature of the transfer market. I would like to continue discussing this with her and the regulator once in situ, because I think there is something we can do here, either formally or informally, to move the game along so that it stops losing so much money to agents’ fees. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The clause formally sets out the regulator’s powers to attach, amend or remove discretionary licence conditions, which could bring a club toward meeting a threshold requirement or mitigate financial risks. It raises some concern about mission creep, so I hope the Minister will assure us that the regulator’s powers do not extend beyond those objectives. Should the regulator use the powers to effectively create new burdensome regulatory requirements, that would significantly change the purpose of the regulator. Will the Minister please clarify what engagement the regulator will have with clubs to ensure they are aware of the discretionary licence conditions? Will there be any consultation or engagement with clubs prior to attaching or amending a discretionary condition? Will clubs have the ability to request a variation or removal of a condition? In what timeframe will that be processed? If a club feels that a discretionary licence condition has been placed arbitrarily or punitively, how can it appeal or challenge the condition? What will the process look like, and what timescales will be used? Will the timescales be standardised, or will they be at the regulator’s discretion? Although some larger clubs may have the resources and budgets to appeal a condition, what support will be given to smaller clubs? Have the Government considered the potential merit of a tiered application based on the club’s size? Aside from the concern about mission creep, it is important that these powers are exercised proportionately and based on evidence. Will there be any oversight of their use to ensure that happens? Subsection (4) states: “The IFR may vary a discretionary licence condition where…the IFR considers that the condition is no longer effective, or…there has been a material change in circumstances”. However, it fails to define what constitutes a material change in circumstances. The lack of such a definition leaves the door open for the Independent Football Regulator to vary conditions without sufficient reasons or evidence. We ask those questions now because we are concerned about future legal cases if there is a lack of consistency and transparency surrounding how the conditions are applied. I would appreciate some answers from the Minister.
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 22, page 14, line 35, leave out subsection (a). This amendment prevents the IFR from being able to set licence conditions relating to internal controls.
I rise to speak on clause 22 of this important Bill, which provides the Independent Football Regulator with powers to attach, amend and remove discretionary licence conditions for individual football clubs. At face value, this clause offers the regulator flexibility to respond to particular risks or circumstances on a case-by-case basis. However, as with all regulatory discretion, the true implications lie in how such powers may evolve over time, be interpreted, or be expanded. In this Committee, it is our role to ensure that what begins as a sensible framework for tailored intervention does not become the thin end of a wedge that risks overreach, centralisation and, ultimately, the erosion of club autonomy. I believe strongly that English football does need reform in certain areas, but I also believe in restraint, clarity of purpose and fidelity to the principle that football clubs, however commercial they may have become, are civic institutions first and foremost. They belong to their communities, not to Whitehall, not to arm’s length bodies, and certainly not to ministerial discretion. Clause 22, as drafted, gives the Independent Football Regulator a wide and open-ended ability to impose additional conditions on individual clubs—conditions that are not part of the baseline threshold requirements in the Bill, but which the regulator may, in its own judgment, decide are appropriate. We should acknowledge that there are circumstances in which such powers might be necessary. For example, where a club has narrowly avoided insolvency, has a particularly opaque ownership structure, or is operating under unusual financial pressures, the regulator may wish to impose temporary conditions to help safeguard the public interest, protect creditors or ensure better transparency. That flexibility has its place. However, it must be anchored in the principles of proportionality, accountability and predictability. It is for that reason that I want to speak to three amendments that have been tabled in my name, each of which I believe would help materially improve the Bill by preventing mission creep, protecting the distinct role of the leagues, and ensuring that Parliament, not the Executive, retains the ultimate authority over the scope of regulation. The first amendment would prevent the regulator from imposing discretionary conditions relating to a club’s internal controls—that is, the systems and procedures by which a club governs itself, monitors risks, approves spending and safeguards assets. These are matters properly for the board of directors, who have legal duties under company law, are accountable to shareholders and fans, and must answer to independent auditors. To allow the regulator to second guess those internal arrangements and dictate how a club structures its finance team or risk-management processes would be a significant intrusion into corporate governance territory. Let us be clear: there is a distinction between requiring that a club has adequate systems and mandating the precise nature of those systems. The former is reasonable; the latter, we believe, is excessive. We must also be mindful of the danger that the regulator could, perhaps with good intentions, begin to substitute its own preferred model of governance over the perfectly legitimate models that clubs themselves decide to adopt. For example, what works for a large Premier League club with international operations may not be appropriate or affordable for a League Two club or a community-owned side. Discretionary licensing conditions must not become a one-size-fits-all instrument that penalises innovation, tradition or diversity in club structures. I support this amendment because it would help ringfence those areas of internal decision making that are rightly matters for the club’s board—subject to transparency and good practice but not for centralised prescription. The second amendment that I have tabled would prevent the regulator from imposing licensing conditions relating to a club’s overall expenditure. Amendment 108 would prevent the regulator from imposing licence conditions relating to a club’s overall expenditure. This is a fundamental issue. English football operates within a competitive ecosystem, as we have discussed. Decisions about how much to invest in players, infrastructure, academies or commercial operations are matters of strategic importance for clubs. They should be driven by ambition, fan demand and commercial opportunity, not by the regulator’s view of what is appropriate spending. We must not fall into the trap of conflating good financial regulation with financial central planning. The role of the Independent Football Regulator should be to monitor solvency, ensure robust business plans, enforce transparency and intervene when there are clear risks of harm. It is not the regulator’s job, and it should never become its job, to determine how much a club is allowed to spend. There is a world of difference between assessing whether spending is sustainable and attempting to control outright the volume of that spending. Let us remember that the leagues themselves already impose cost controls. The Premier League has profit and sustainability rules. The English Football League enforces squad salary caps and financial fair play frameworks, and now has the new financial review panel. The regulator is not meant to replace those roles. It is not a shadow competition authority, nor should it seek to override club investment decisions, which often have complex justifications and long-term returns. Amendment 108 would help to ensure that the regulator cannot use its discretionary power to micromanage investment levels. Such a step would go beyond the spirit and the letter of what the Bill intends to achieve. The goal is to protect clubs from existential risk, not to homogenise them or stifle ambition. Amendment 109 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list of discretionary licence conditions by regulation. This is not a technical point; it goes to the constitutional heart of the Bill. The Independent Football Regulator must be just that: independent. Its scope, duties and powers must be defined by Parliament and subject to oversight. We cannot accept a model in which future Secretaries of State, by regulation and with minimal scrutiny, can expand the areas the regulator may interfere with. That would allow a future Government of any colour to alter the regulatory perimeter at will. Today, it might be internal controls; tomorrow, it might be club ticket pricing, political messaging or hiring policies. The clause must be narrowed to ensure that any expansion of discretionary licence conditions comes through primary legislation that is debated and approved by both Houses. Regulatory stability is vital not only for clubs but for fans, leagues and the broader football economy. Clubs, particularly those in the lower leagues, need to be able to plan over multiple seasons. Uncertainty about what new regulatory burdens might be imposed, or fears that the regime could be altered mid-season by ministerial decree, will have a chilling effect on investment, sponsorship and ambition. Regulation must be predictable and principled, not politicised or ever-shifting. Amendment 109 would safeguard its integrity. Clause 22 presents a risk of regulatory overreach, however well-intentioned it may be. The amendments would not strip the regulator of useful tools. They would simply place guardrails around its discretion and ensure that decisions of fundamental importance to club governance, financial independence and regulatory scope remain where they belong: with clubs, fans and Parliament. We need a regulator that enforces minimum standards, upholds transparency and ensures financial resilience. What we do not need is a regulator that micromanages club affairs or displaces the judgment of boards and owners. Football clubs must remain free to compete, to innovate and to fail or succeed on their own merits—within a fair framework, yes, but not under constant intervention. The amendments reinforce that principle. They are not ideological; they are practical, measured and consistent with the values that underpin the Bill. I urge the Committee to support them and, in doing so, to send a clear signal that we are legislating not to control football but to support it firmly, fairly and with the long-term interests of the game at heart.
I will repeat my arguments, but I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and we remain concerned about various aspects of the clause. That is why we tabled not just one, but three amendments, to try to put some safeguards and guardrails around future powers of the IFR, as I said. Fundamentally, we believe that the ultimate responsibility for managing clubs should be that of the clubs themselves, while engaging with the fans, and we fear that without some of our amendments, the IFR will be too involved with the day-to-day running of clubs. That is why we tabled the amendments. We listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid that we are not fully satisfied, so we will press them to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 23 sets out the process that the Government’s new regulator must follow when it wishes to attach or vary a financial discretionary licence condition, which are by definition additional obligations that the regulator may impose on clubs that go beyond the mandatory licensing framework. In doing so, the clause confers on the regulator considerable further discretion. As with other discretionary powers in the Bill, the risk is not merely that the regulator uses its discretion, but that it does so inconsistently, unpredictably or in a way that strays beyond its core remit. Given that the powers provided by the clause relate directly to the financial obligations of clubs, the implications for competitiveness, investment and long-term planning are significant. Although it is welcome that the clause does not set out a consultative process for how the financial conditions are imposed or amended, the process must not be a box-ticking exercise. Clubs should be able to challenge unreasonable conditions, and the regulator should be required to justify in clear terms why any new financial burden is necessary to meet the threshold requirements. It cannot become the case that discretionary conditions are routinely imposed as a back-door method of raising standards in areas for which Parliament has not explicitly legislated. The risk of regulatory mission creep is particularly acute in a sector like football, in which the boundaries between finance, governance and culture are easily blurred. That is why we will be looking closely at whether there are sufficient checks, balances and transparency mechanisms in the clause to protect clubs from arbitrary financial conditions. Will the regulator issue any guidance on financial discretionary licence conditions, and will that guidance be made public? Will the Minister consider requiring an annual report to Parliament detailing how many clubs have had such discretionary financial conditions imposed, varied or removed, and on what grounds those decisions were made? Without such checks, there is a real risk of an unequal competition taking place without fans and Parliament knowing, until it is too late and UEFA and FIFA have ejected us from their competitions. That is what I most fear may happen by accident. As we have discussed at length, the Bill is already flawed in this respect, and UEFA and FIFA would intervene if the regulator caused any impact on competitiveness. I only have to highlight the example of Crystal Palace, which is currently in the press, to demonstrate that UEFA and FIFA will stick to their rules rigidly, whether we like them or not. As I said when speaking to my amendment 97, any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and international frameworks. Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a voice in the development and implementation of these requirements? As the clause stands, her new regulator will be able to attach or vary financial licence conditions that would that mean one club becomes more competitive than another. She has said that she intends for the regulator to be able to adapt to the circumstances of each club. However, we must be mindful that that would mean changing the level of competitiveness between clubs. That is the key risk. That is not a political point; it is sadly a risk and a fact of which we have to be mindful. Let me stress-test that with a hypothetical question for the Minister on the Bill’s impact. Brighton & Hove Albion and Aston Villa will both compete in the Premier League next season, both have been in that league for a number of years, and both also compete for European football. If her regulator decided, for whatever reason, that Brighton required stricter or simply more financial licensing conditions than Aston Villa, there would be a competitive imbalance between the teams. Does she accept that fact, which is plainly obvious, and recognise that such club-by-club tailoring of rules and licence conditions is potentially a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules on fair competition? To give her a bit of time, I ask her to respond to that concern after I have spoken about the other provisions in the group.
That is exactly my concern. In trying to tailor the conditions that we are discussing, there is a risk of inadvertently impacting the ability of clubs to compete on a fair and level playing field. I am concerned that that should not happen inadvertently, as the regulator evolves. That is why I keep pushing for more parliamentary oversight, so that we understand the risks. At the end of the day, fans will not forgive us as Members of this House if this goes wrong. I do not believe in any shape or form that the Government are aiming deliberately to get it wrong—I say that openly—but I fear that there will be unintended consequences, and that is the broader point that we have been trying to make in a number of the Committee’s debates.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for explaining the objectives behind the amendment, which is aimed at preventing individuals with a record of human rights abuses from owning a club. My question for the hon. Member is about new clause 8(2)(b), which states that “the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).” In other words, it will have discretion to determine whether such conduct constitutes human rights abuses. Given we are talking about a football regulator, the obvious question to ask is about what qualifications the regulator would need to make such a decision. What information could they rely on? Would we be looking for Government involvement in that, given that that would probably provide the intellectual experience required? Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham think it might improve the new clause to include a route of appeal against such a decision, as a matter of natural justice, so we are seen to give individuals the right of appeal if they believe that they have been wrongly classified?
I thank the hon. Member for speaking to the new clause on behalf of his colleague, the hon. Member for Wokingham. The point that he made is very interesting and I have great sympathy with fans of Reading football club, who he referred to, and with fans of other clubs around the country that have fallen foul of their owners, who, I think it is fair to say, did not have the club’s long-term interests at heart. I say that as someone who has already referred to Charlton a number of times in this Committee—been there, done it, got the T-shirt. As I say, I have a lot of sympathy with fans of Reading and I hope that the future looks brighter for that club. Even before the election, I publicly supported strengthening ownership tests. I believe them to be part of one of the most fundamental roles that the regulator should play. We should ensure the consistency of those tests between the leagues, and we should ensure that up and down the country we have the best people in charge of such community assets, and that they have the long-term interests of clubs at heart, as I believe the overwhelming majority of club owners do. Those examples of where problems came to a head and caused significant damage to communities have proven that there is a difference in some of the tests applied by the leagues historically, with gaps and loopholes that individuals have looked to exploit. Such examples have also highlighted the need for ongoing review by the regulator about how it manages the information that comes to light. An owner might be deemed an appropriate and fit person to run a club in 2025, but changes to their financial circumstances—assuming that they have other business interests—could mean that they become more stretched, and they might be involved in other activity that comes to light, so it would be right for the review to take place as early as possible to minimise the potential damage to clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East posited a number of important legal challenges around this point of duty. I have sympathy with the broader objective of new clause 15, but this issue of duty poses a number of risks for people who are not board-level employees or in significant roles of influence. I think that all Members would seek to avoid a situation where people disengage from a process because they are concerned about that word “duty”, and what that could leave them exposed to legally if they were to come across information, for example, but did not feel confident in passing it on. That might arise in a variety of circumstances, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 15 in particular and on how we can seek to deliver the broader objective of strengthening ownership tests, without having to go down the rabbit hole of this duty element.
As the Minister just outlined, clause 27 requires regulated clubs to notify about prospective new owners and officers if there is a reasonable prospect of such a change. It also requires an officer’s proposed job title, job description and senior management functions. If the football regulator is not notified before the change, the club must notify as soon as practically possible. I am slightly concerned that this could be a burdensome requirement on some clubs. Any large organisation, such as a football club, will often cast a wide net when considering such appointments, with people on the radar long in advance. I therefore ask the Minister to enlighten us on what she believes constitutes “a reasonable prospect”. For example, would media speculation that the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) might move to the Minister’s Department be considered “a reasonable prospect”? There are non-political examples of how that might work too, but it would be interesting to hear what the Government believe to be a reasonable prospect.
Clause 29 prohibits any person from becoming an owner of a regulated club without first applying to the independent football regulator and being determined suitable for that role. It requires any applicant to provide information on the proposed operation of the club, estimated costs, how those costs will be funded and the source of funding, which is a point that is been raised already in this Committee. The football regulator must make an affirmative determination regarding the application if the potential owner is considered to have sufficient financial resources and meets the individual ownership fitness criteria. I already spoken about why I believe it is important that these fitness tests are strengthened wherever possible, but there are a couple of questions I would like to ask the Minister on this clause first. What assurances can the Minister provide that this process will be completed swiftly and will not unnecessarily delay any ownership changes which, as we have already discussed, may need to happen very quickly when a club is under significant financial stress—to ensure wages are paid and to prevent further hardship when seeking a change of ownership? Clause 30 sets out what should happen in the event that a person has become an owner or an officer of a regulated club without first obtaining the suitability determination from the football regulator. The clause assumes that the football regulator “becomes aware”; is the expectation that there is a disclosure from the club, or will the IFR be probing clubs, looking at news reports, Companies House and so on? It would be helpful for Members to have an insight into how that might look, because this clause does not offer a specific timeframe within which the football regulator must act at once if it becomes aware of an unauthorised appointment at a club. It also seems that the football regulator can indefinitely extend the deadline for submitting such an application; the clause fails to clarify how many times and under what conditions. I therefore wonder whether the Minister has considered the potential effects on the stability of the club of the football regulator deeming an individual unsuitable: would that open clubs to legal or operational risk, and would there be financial consequences of those risks? It is vital that decisions taken by the regulator are independent and impartial, as already discussed, so what safeguards will there be to ensure that neither media nor political pressure is exerted on the football regulator to deem an owner unsuitable? Clause 31 states that the football regulator must “have regard to” representations from affected clubs or individuals. What does that constitute in reality—a response, or simply a consideration? Must the football regulator provide written reasoning if it rejects the arguments made in the representation? Does this clause not lack basic safeguards and, without a framework for how representations should be made or evaluated, does it not risk leading to inconsistent decision making? Again, I fear there would be various legal challenges, given the financial implications of such decisions. There is also no requirement, it appears, for the football regulator to consider other external stakeholders, which could include other directors or supporters’ trusts involved with the running of a club. Should an individual receive a negative determination, the legal and financial resources to make a strong representation within a specified timeframe might be considerable. Does the Minister envisage many applicants seeking legal aid or other advisory support mechanisms in such a scenario? Clause 32 outlines several points about the football regulator’s determinations after an individual makes an application under clauses 28 and 29. The IFR seems to be able to extend its determination periods several times, but the clause fails to outline for what reason an extension might be justified and how long it should or could be. Can applicants, for example, challenge or appeal those delays, if the reason for them lay with the regulator rather than the individual club? A delay by the regulator would risk unfairly penalising applicants who were not personally at fault for it. Will there be an obligation on the football regulator to inform applicants of approaching deadlines, to ensure that they know when the determination period is nearing its end, and what oversight will there be to ensure that extensions are not routine? Lastly, will there be monitoring of how often extensions are used and how long determinations typically take, so that clubs can start to plan for such instances where they occur? That would also give greater certainty to the leagues because, as I highlighted earlier, it is not just individuals, but clubs themselves at risk. If we think about not just the financial penalties imposed, but the points that can be deducted, there are major implications for the competitive nature of the league. I look forward to the Minister answering a few of those questions.
Clause 33 places a duty on clubs to notify the Government’s new regulator of any change in circumstances relating to the current owner or an officer that could impact their suitability under the regime set out in part 4 of the Bill. On one level, it is an understandable provision. To fulfil its statutory duties, the regulator must be kept informed of material changes, as ensuring the fitness and propriety of owners and officers is a core part of its remit. However, the clause as drafted raises a number of serious and practical concerns about how such a duty will be defined, interpreted and enforced. The first issue with the clause is its vagueness. What exactly constitutes a “change in circumstances”? The explanatory notes prepared by the Government give a small indication of what such circumstances might include, stating that “Relevant material changes could include, for example, an officer becoming subject to criminal proceedings or regulatory action”. That is somewhat clear, but what qualifies as “regulatory action”? Could it be an Ofcom investigation, for example? The explanatory notes add that “new information coming to light regarding whether an owner’s source of wealth is connected to serious criminality” also qualifies as a material, relevant change. What qualifies as “new information”? Does it mean a full-blown criminal investigation or spurious claims, potentially made by activist groups against foreign owners? How the provision will work needs to be clarified. The Government and the new regulator must be up front, open and honest with fans and Parliament as to what those terms actually mean. We fear that the Government are deliberately muddying the waters around what the regulatory environment would look like under the Bill, and around the rules that the regulator will seek to apply. The Minister must answer whether a “change in circumstances” is limited to formal legal developments, such as bankruptcy, a criminal conviction, or something as small as a parking fine. I hope not the latter. Could the definition extend to more subjective matters such as personal, reputational issues, media allegations, or ongoing investigations? If so, I fear that the Government and their regulator would be on very shaky ground, not just because clubs would find themselves in the near-impossible position of having to second-guess what the regulator might later deem to be relevant, even when no formal wrongdoing has occurred, but because it would open up the regulator to spates of judicial reviews. As we see already, the wealthiest clubs would be able to hire the best lawyers, and those clubs that are already struggling would be subject to the personal diktats of the chairman of the Government’s regulator. That is not a sustainable, appropriate or moral way to regulate, and it is totally incompatible with the principle of legal certainty that should underpin any new statutory regime. Furthermore, clause 33 requires that the Government be notified “as soon as reasonably practicable” after a change has occurred. Again, the language is open to wide interpretation. What is “reasonably practicable” for a large Premier League club with extensive legal support may be entirely different for a National League side with minimal back office capacity. We must ensure that smaller clubs are not disproportionately penalised because they lack the administrative infrastructure to track and report such changes with the same immediacy as those international brands that sit atop the English football pyramid. We must also ask whether the sanctions for failing to report, which could be very serious, potentially leading to licence revocation, are proportionate to each breach. Clubs cannot become the regulator’s enforcement arm, expected to carry out continuous due diligence on their own officers and owners, with the threat of regulatory action hanging over them if they get it wrong. Clause 33 touches on a sensitive area: the relationship between clubs and their owners, and the role of the state in policing suitability. It is right to expect clubs to act responsibly and keep the regulator informed, but the duty must be clear, proportionate and fairly enforced to avoid lower-level staff being put in extremely difficult situations. We do not want to create a culture of regulatory paranoia, where clubs feel compelled to notify the Government’s regulator of every minor development just in case it is later deemed relevant, nor do we want smaller clubs punished for failing to meet standards that are de facto only achievable for the top tier. The Government must ensure that the clause is not a trapdoor for arbitrary enforcement, and that it supports predictability, stability and confidence in the regulatory framework. We understand the underlying principle, but we will continue to press the Minister to ensure the practical operation of the clause does not give rise to legal ambiguity, unjust outcomes or unaccountable discretion. Before moving on, I have a number of questions on clause 33. Could the Minister clarify what sorts of events would qualify as a “change in circumstances” under clause 33? Will guidance be issued by the football regulator to ensure consistent interpretation? Will the definition be limited to formal, objective legal changes? What level of evidence or certainty will clubs be expected to have before reporting a change? Will clubs be required to report allegations or media speculation? Will the football regulator consider good-faith failures to notify or take a strict liability approach? How will the regulator account for differences in club size, structure and resourcing when judging what is “reasonably practicable”? Will there be any threshold or scaling in terms of compliance expectations for clubs of differing means? What appeal or review mechanisms will be available to a club if the football regulator finds that it failed to notify as required? Will there be a formal process for representations or challenge before any enforcement action is taken? How does the clause interact with the broader principles of legal privilege and privacy? Will clubs be expected to disclose internal HR issues or ongoing internal investigations, even if there is no conclusion yet? Have the Government assessed whether the clause is compatible with UEFA and FIFA expectations of non-interference in the running of football clubs? I had a written response from the Minister this morning regarding her last meeting with UEFA and FIFA, which was 1 November. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, so we are still concerned about the broader point regarding UEFA. I would appreciate a response to that point today. Moving on to clause 34, it empowers the football regulator to determine whether an incumbent individual owner meets the fitness criteria or has wealth associated with serious criminal conduct, if the regulator has information that raises grounds for concern. It requires the regulator to inform the owner and club before making a determination and then notify them of the outcome. If passed, more than 100 English football clubs will be subject to the regulation. It is not specified in the Bill what level of information would raise grounds for concern regarding incumbent owners. If the bar is set too low, the regulator may be immediately burdened by reviewing multiple existing owners, causing unease in English football. What level of information is required to qualify as grounds for concern? There is also no time limit for the regulator to make its assessment, so how will the regulator ensure that the threat does not needlessly hang over existing owners? Clause 35 empowers the football regulator to determine whether an incumbent officer meets the fitness criteria if the regulator has information that raises grounds for concern. It requires the regulator to inform the owner and club before making a determination and then notify them of the outcome. As I said regarding the previous clause, more than 100 English football clubs will be regulated if the Bill passes. It is not specified in the Bill what level of information would raise grounds for concern regarding officers, of which there are even more to consider. If the bar is set too low, the regulator may be immediately burdened by the need to review multiple existing officers for each club. I ask the Minister again: what level of information will be required to qualify as grounds for concern? There is also no time limit for the regulator to make its assessment, so how will it ensure that this threat does not needlessly hang over existing officers? Lastly—you will be pleased to know, Mr Turner—clause 36 requires the football regulator to give advance notification to an incumbent owner or officer if it is minded to find them unsuitable. Before making a final decision, the clause requires the person and club in question to be allowed to make representations, which must then be taken into account. The clause stipulates that the regulator must inform incumbent owners and officers only that it is minded to find them unsuitable, not of the reasons why. Given the vital importance of these representations, should there not be a requirement for the regulator to disclose the reasons to the person and club so that they can fully engage? I would appreciate the Minister picking up the point about the reasons, because it is important. There is a broader point here about clubs that may be listed on the open market. My understanding of this clause is that, before a final decision is taken, the club would effectively become an insider from a trading perspective. It will be interesting to see how the Government will seek to manage that risk in terms of financial compliance, given that an issue with a particular owner or officer could have significant financial implications for a club and therefore potentially leave individuals inside that loop at risk of being involved with inside information from a dealing perspective. As we all know, if anyone is found to be in breach of inside information, it has very serious consequences. It will be interesting to see how the mechanism in this clause to inform clubs and individuals first will work with the broader notifications in the market where clubs are listed.
Residents in Bexley village in my constituency—it is one of London’s outer villages—are particularly concerned about the erosion of their green areas around the village. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that, when the outer London green belt issue was discussed in the London Assembly last week, Reform backed Mayor Khan in building over the green belt? Reform backed Khan against the interests of Bexley residents.
Grand Union Community Energy in my constituency is a non-profit community group that has done excellent work in Kings Langley to raise funding to install solar panels on the roofs of local schools, developments and car parks. It also educates local residents on how they can utilise community energy to reduce energy bills, which we have all seen rise under this Government. What steps are being taken across Government to ensure that community projects such as Grand Union Community Energy are implemented more widely?
In the spirit of trying to get as many birthday wishes into one Hansard record as possible, Mr Speaker, from one part of the greatest county in the country to another, I wish you a very happy birthday. In the context of the dash to net zero, rural economies can also be damaged by the infrastructure that is being put in. The Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cabling corridor and substations will cause damage to rural businesses over 20 miles along the cabling route, including disruption caused during the construction stage. What efforts is the Minister making to assess cases in which the infrastructure that is being put in place does more damage to rural economies than it benefits them?