Lord Moynihan (Con)

My Lords, an exceptionally important point was made about UEFA not being shy in coming forward. Indeed, we know that, as a result of UEFA representations, the Bill in its original form was changed. If it had such an influence, it is not unreasonable to ask to see a copy of the letter, which is clearly far beyond private correspondence. It is of public interest. I return to the question that I put on 19 December, when I asked whether it was the Government’s intention “to seek assurances from UEFA that the introduction of backstop powers to the proposed Football Regulator does not impact on the autonomy and independence of football’s governance as required by UEFA.” The response was interesting: “As set out during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on 18 December, UEFA raised no concerns about the backstop in its most recent meetings with DCMS and the Minister for Sport”. It does not refer to the letter. Therefore, can the Minister kindly confirm to the Committee this evening that there was no reference to the backstop in the UEFA correspondence? This was of such significance that, in its first introduction into the Committee proceedings, the Minister’s response to the Committee was that publishing the debate around the letter would worry the facts. That was the position. It was not the letter: it was the debate we were having around the letter. I have just one very simple question, and then I will be much relieved if the answer is as I assume it will be, in the light of the answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross: that “UEFA raised no concerns about the backstop in its most recent meetings with DCMS and the Minister of Sport.” Can the Minister confirm that it did not raise the backstop in the correspondence it had with the DCMS, or raise any concerns referring to the backstop?