Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving Amendment 51 on his behalf—and to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and then Amendments 71, 126 and 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham. To those final three, I have also added my name. The amendments in this group seek to restrict some of the wider powers granted to the new independent football regulator in the Bill as presently drafted. Amendments 51 and 52 would alter the fundamental objectives of the regulator. As drafted, the Bill states that the objectives of the regulator include “to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”, and “to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”. In essence, that is both a specific objective, directed at clubs themselves, and a general objective, which applies to English football as a whole. Leaving aside the important question of what constitutes English football— which we have already debated but not yet had much success in ascertaining—and indeed the question of what the Government mean by “financial soundness” and “financial resilience”, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham has sought through his amendments to probe the Government’s intention to set the regulator’s objective as being to protect and to promote. In place of those words, my noble friend proposes the alternative description, “monitor and where necessary intervene”. His amendment thus addresses the core question of how activist a regulator we want. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for underlining that point in his contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response both to the amendments and to that that core argument. That is, I think, what Members of the Committee have been probing in this group. Clearly, as drafted, the Bill sets the independent football regulator an active objective to protect and promote English football. That objective is necessarily continuous and seemingly proactive. It could be taken by the regulator to require constant involvement, giving rise once again to the concerns that the Committee has raised about excessive activity and mission creep. By contrast, a lighter-touch duty to monitor the financial soundness of clubs and the financial resilience of English football could allow clubs to get on with their ultimate objective of winning competitions without the overbearing and excessive involvement of this new regulator. I was struck that my noble friend’s amendment is explicit that the regulator’s objective would involve active intervention only “where necessary”. That is a helpful formulation and discipline when drafting legislation. The question these amendments pose to the Committee, therefore, is whether we want an active, interventionist and potentially overbearing regulator, which might run the risk of getting in the way of our world-class football clubs; or a vigilant, diligent but ultimately careful regulator, which has a duty to stay its hand and intervene only when necessary. I have stretched from teeth to hands in extending the metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; I agree that the regulator must have teeth and must be seen to have them. We would like to see those teeth bared from time to time, and to hear them gnashing but, like my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, I would rather not see the scars from those teeth on world-class and highly successful businesses and clubs too often. We have to strike the right balance to make sure that we have a regulator that commands the respect that it needs to, without biting too often and too damagingly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on where to draw the line, both in the legislation and the words that we have, and on what the Government hope the Bill will bring about for the regulator. Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, places a prohibition on the regulator from intervening in the internal financial affairs of regulated clubs. His amendment allows us to consider an important issue, on which a number of noble Lords touched. I know that my noble friend feels very strongly about the possibility of this regulator hampering the ability of clubs to operate as the successful businesses that they are at present, so I welcome his attempt to see whether there is a sensible way of placing some restrictions or limitations on the role that the regulator might play. As I made clear from Second Reading onwards, we support the establishment of this regulator. We recognise that specific market failures have been raised and recognised, both by fans during the fan-led review and by the previous Government’s work, which helped to inform this Bill’s precursor. The ability of the regulator to have at least some role in regulating the finances of clubs will, I hope, allow it to attempt to address the problems that have been identified. However, we again want to make sure that it does not do so in a way that damages the successful businesses that they are. Amendment 71 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and I put my name to it as well. It seeks to prevent the regulator from transferring funds from one private club to another. Mindful of the Government Chief Whip’s entreaties, I do not wish to repeat my noble friend’s argument, so I merely pose a question to the Minister: are there any circumstances in which she and the Government feel that a transfer would be appropriate? If there are no circumstances that she can envisage and set out, what are the problems with embracing my noble friend’s amendment? I will also say something about my noble friend’s Amendment 126, which seeks to strike out Clause 16(3)(c). That provision of the Bill allows the regulator to require clubs to provide any “such other information”, as the regulator decides in its rules, when those clubs are applying for their provisional licences. Once again, those rules are not set out in the Bill, but are to be determined at a later date so, as clubs are planning their financial affairs for the near future and beginning their preparations for the licensing regime that will be ushered in once the Bill gains Royal Assent, they will not know what information they will be required to provide to the regulator. All we have in the Bill is a vague requirement that they must produce a “personnel statement” and a “strategic business plan”, but there is no further information here and paragraph (c) seems to allow the regulator to request anything that it may choose. That is a distinct lack of clarity for clubs, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on whether we can add to that clarity by being more precise. Finally, Amendment 130, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would prevent the regulator from requiring information that is not specified in the Bill to be included in a club’s strategic business plan. The current drafting of the Bill grants the regulator a concerningly wide power to require clubs to include “such other information as may be specified by the IFR in rules”. This is yet another example of a lack of clarity in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting it. Where there is a lack of clarity regarding the regulator’s duties, there is uncertainty for the party that is to be regulated. It seems regrettable that the clubs should not get the clarity that they need about their duties under this part of the Bill but must wait until the regulator has published its rules in due course. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the kind of information requirements that the Government think that the regulator might be likely to include in its rules? Is that something that the Government have discussed with those who are preparing the regulator’s work in this area? Can she elaborate on this for the Committee’s understanding? I am grateful to her and to noble Lords who have spoken on this group.