Lord Markham (Con)

I join in with the sentiments expressed by many other noble Lords. I made the point at Second Reading that, however well intentioned, noble Lords came up with seven new commitments they wanted the regulator to be involved in. This all starts from the premise that we believe it should be a light-touch regulator and the unintended consequence is that each one, however well intentioned, can add another burden, as so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Brady. I, like others, am fearful of adding something new to the Bill. I would like to explain a slight difference. In her response to the first group, the Minister talked about mission creep regarding how we were trying to expand the sustainability argument to other objectives of the regulator; for example, to some of the income-generating TV advertising. The key difference here is that we were trying to talk about the action the regulator takes—the measures the regulator might take to force clubs to put down a deposit to cover their sustainability requirements, and whether the regulator should have wider criteria beyond financial sustainability regarding the wider benefits of the game. Those sorts of things are appropriate because they look at what the regulator is responsible for and its objectives. Thing that put new burdens on the clubs come into a different category. They come into the mission-creep category, so to speak, which I, like other noble Lords, are reluctant to add in. So, although I support the points made by other noble Lords, I would make that distinction. When talking about things the regulator might do that might impact clubs we should make sure that the regulator looks at the wider benefits of the game but we should not look to add extra burdens on clubs, however well intentioned.