Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)

I think that is a fair question, but the amendment that the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to support today is what I might call a dangerous dogs amendment. It is basically reacting—legislation by anecdote or by the lowest common denominator. You find one bad apple in a barrel and you smash the barrel up and throw the apples everywhere. This will have a big impact on clubs. I pray in aid the financial guidelines 17/6 that the Financial Conduct Authority put out in 2017 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That was about stopping people laundering money—fair enough. What it has actually resulted in is dozens of people in prominent positions, such as local councillors, Members of Parliament, judges, chief executives of local authorities—even Members of your Lordships’ House—not being able to open bank accounts, and their sisters, their wives, their husbands and their brothers not being able to open bank accounts, because of onerous, overzealous regulation. I am not saying that the IFR would necessarily develop in that way, but some of the most innocuous wording in primary legislation can sometimes give rise to that kind of gold-plating. It began, of course, under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism regulations that we all supported. My point is that the sins of some clubs should not be visited on all clubs. My noble friend Lady Brady is absolutely right that if we do not have an objectives-based strategy, if we do not have a focused strategy for dealing with the most egregious issues, we will have a universalist approach of assuming that all clubs will be owned by dodgy owners—drug traffickers, people smugglers; I exaggerate for effect. There is the perception that that is the case and, of course, it is not the case at all. I say to noble Lords: be careful what you wish for. On Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, I have very serious issues with this clause, because it fails on its own merits, in many respects, because it is not commercially flexible. If we are going to give a power, under Clause 22(5), for the Secretary of State to vary the licence conditions—and I have big problems with “add”—which are already settled, we will want to do that quickly and in an efficacious manner. We will not be able to do that using the affirmative resolution in this House and the other place, because we cannot move quickly or make decisions quickly to respond to commercial change. I am also very worried about the limited sanctions available in terms of mission creep. Clause 22(6) says: “The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (5) only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR”. Again, mission creep is almost built in there. Then, in Clause 22(7): “A request under subsection (6) must explain why the IFR considers that the making of regulations under this section is compatible with the purpose of this Act”. The question is: is a Secretary of State likely to refuse that? Probably not. There is not really a built-in self-policing mechanism in the Bill, and it is because of the wide-ranging powers and the permissive nature of this wording that I have problems. The provision fails because it is too onerous and too draconian. However, it also fails on the other side, in that it cannot work quickly enough to address the specific club-based issues that the licencing condition variation is needed for. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider Amendment 128 carefully. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it invites the independent football regulator to exercise its powers ultra vires, which is not in the best interests particularly of smaller clubs.