Contribution
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments. I will take them in turn.
On Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to allow the regulator to block a club from accepting funding that it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom. I agree that it is important to protect clubs from harm; that is what the Bill as a whole seeks to do. The intention of having this power, as set out in the Bill, is to protect English football from illicit finance and keep it out of the game. Illicit finance is inherently unsustainable.
However, I caution the noble Lord as to the implications of a football regulator discerning what is harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom and then blocking such funding. This is not something that a regulator can determine. They can make evidenced-based decisions on facts in a clearly defined framework. It also must be noted that there are protections in the Bill that go beyond protecting against serious criminal conduct to protect against wider harm. For example, the owners’ and directors’ test will look at the fitness of a club’s owners and officers, including any criminal history and investigations and whether the individual has been prevented from entering the UK. This seeks to protect English clubs from unsuitable owners or officers making decisions that may endanger their club. This, in conjunction with the power to restrict funds suspected to be connected to serious criminal conduct, will help to ensure that clubs are protected from harm.
I turn to Amendments 194, 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. On Amendment 194, I reassure the noble Lord that the intent of his amendment is already achieved within the current drafting. When assessing an owner’s or officer’s fitness, the regulator must have regard to any criminal convictions and proceedings, including those included in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act. Consequently, the current provisions in the Bill deliver the intent of this amendment. I hope that he is reassured by that.
On Amendment 196, I agree that it is vital that the regulator has access to information when assessing the suitability of owners and officers. The regulator may need to work closely with other organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions. That is why the Bill establishes information-sharing arrangements with a range of organisations including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office and why it adequately empowers the regulator to gather information, including from other organisations, to assess suitability. However, to require the regulator, as the amendment would, to always consult multiple organisations, even when this is not necessary to its ability to make an assessment, would be disproportionate. It would lead to slow decision-making, impacting on growth and investment. It would be a wholly unnecessary burden on clubs. As part of the fitness test, officers will be assessed on their competence, specifically their qualifications, experience and training.
Amendment 197 would give the regulator discretion as to whether to consider these matters when assessing competence. General public law obligations would still require the regulator to act consistently and fairly when testing officers. However, this amendment would give officers less certainty about what they will be tested on.
Finally, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the whole point of the owners’ and directors’ test, which has been carefully designed, is to ensure that club custodians are suitable for assessing an owner’s fitness—this is absolutely crucial. It is right that any owner passes the tests set out in the Bill, so it would not be fair, appropriate or responsible to exempt certain types of owners from testing, but that is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. This amendment intends that owners with diplomatic status or who are Heads of State, Government Ministers or high-ranking officials of foreign Governments would not be tested. I do not need to tell noble Lords about some of the people this could exempt from testing. That means that the regulator could not consider any personal finances or criminal history, no matter how egregious. Instead, it would have to ignore these matters, so the regulator could be letting unsuitable owners in. This could be incredibly risky for the club, and any incumbent owner captured by this amendment could also never be tested, even if concerning information subsequently came to light.
Suitability should be based purely on an impartial assessment of the criteria set out in the Bill. This will ensure that the test can be applied consistently, remain fair, transparent and robust, and focus on whether an individual is suitable to own a football club. For the reasons I have set out, I would therefore be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.