Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:

Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

7: Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—“(3) For the purposes of this Act, English football is sustainable if it—(a) continues to meet the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club, including through the club continuing to operate a team in club competitions, in a way that represents the unique heritage of the club as recognised by its fans, and respects the interests of these fans; (b) continues to contribute to the economic and social welfare of the communities with which regulated clubs are associated, including, but not limited to, direct or indirect positive effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment, or the reputation of the local area.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment intends to create a more precise definition of the sustainability of English football.

My Lords, Amendment 7 begins this group of amendments on this important Bill. It would expand the definition of,

“the sustainability of English football”.

On day one, we had a useful debate—although it was longer than the Committee Whip might have wished—about the purpose of the Bill and the limits of sustainability. As the Bill is drafted, the only definition of

“the sustainability of English football” is, as the Minister pointed out to us in our debates on the previous groups, Clause 1(3)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) states that English football is sustainable if it,

“continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs”,

and paragraph (b) specifies that it must continue,

“to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.

That is all we have to go on in the Bill. The criteria for the success of this important and novel Bill therefore rest upon these two simple lines.

Our contention is that these brief and rather vague statements of intent are not sufficient to act as the foundations on which the success, or otherwise, of this Bill and this new regulator are to be judged. The actions of this regulator will have significant consequences for the whole football pyramid. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure that it has the necessary legislative tools and the clarity of message from Parliament to set it up for success. To do that, it must have in statute a strong set of conditions against which its actions and its regulatory work can be assessed. This echoes the fruitful discussion we had on our first day in Committee about the underlying purpose of the Bill.

However, my Amendment 7 is about much more than this. It is about setting a precedent. If we do not establish from the outset the frames of reference and the standards to which the regulator will have to be held, that does not set it up for a successful future. It is surely the duty of this Committee and of Parliament more broadly to hold public bodies to higher standards than these two rather short and insubstantial lines we have in the Bill at the moment. That is why I look forward to my noble friends Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham setting out the case for their Amendments 12 and 13, and I will say a bit more once they have done so.

Their amendments add a number of conditions to subsection (3) of Clause 1. They pick up an important point about the global competitiveness of English football and our leagues, and ensure that the regulator must always have regard to the growth of the sport. That is an important point. The current Bill seems to me highly static. The regulator’s remit seems to be more focused on maintaining football as it is today and not looking to the future.

Requiring the regulator to pay attention to match attendance and sporting competitiveness would, I hope, encourage a more growth-minded regulator. That is why my Amendment 7 seeks to expand the definitions in subsection (3). It does so not by concocting some awkward, obstructive or restrictive definition but merely by inserting the expanded definitions that the Government themselves have set out elsewhere. The definitions used in my amendment are to be found on page 20 of the Explanatory Notes published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

In that document, the department sets out a far more detailed and helpful view than the two short lines that currently make up the conditions for sustainability in the Bill. There is reference, for example, to the “unique heritage” of clubs and the importance of serving the interest of fans. The Explanatory Notes specify that the economic and social well-being of communities includes improving

“the reputation of the local area”,

having positive effects on the “income of local businesses” and contributing to “cultural enrichment”—all important and helpful missions for clubs and for the regulator that seeks to assist them.

The question this raises is: if the Government are content with putting definitions of this much detail in the Explanatory Notes, why should we not put them on the face of the Bill? I hope the Minister will be able to explain that discrepancy and may be minded to take some of the wording that the Government are happy with in the Explanatory Notes to give a clearer message to the regulator on the face of the Bill.

My Amendment 7 is very simple. It does not ask your Lordships fundamentally to alter the Bill or its aims, or, indeed, the purpose of the regulator. All it asks is that the Government demonstrate their confidence in the points that they have made in their Explanatory Notes by placing those definitions on the face of the Bill. When at the end of this group the Minister comes to respond, I hope she will be able to demonstrate that she agrees and might be minded to do this. I beg to move.

I have to inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 7 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7A to 15 because of pre-emption.

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 12 in this group. Before I do so, I think it important to express mild regret at what the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said before we started our proceedings today. This is an incredibly important Bill, which, for the first time, imports into our much-loved national game a costly system of regulation. It is a very long Bill. There are numerous amendments being tabled, mostly by Members on the government side. We know that the House of Commons these days gives scant scrutiny to important Bills. It is therefore incredibly important that this House in Committee gives the Bill the detailed scrutiny that is required. If the five days that the Government have rather meagrely assigned to this Committee stage are not enough, I hope they will be quick to extend the proceedings so that we can give proper scrutiny. Much hangs on this. The more we have debated the detail of the Bill, the more issues have arisen, giving rise to greater concerns—

I was here last Wednesday, waiting quite a long time for my amendments to come up in group 3, and I sat through an awful lot of what I felt was hypocritical stuff from this side of the Chamber, given that this was a government Bill under the last Government. Not that much in it has changed, yet there was a lot of discussion on this side. Listening to that was agony, so I am quite keen to get through the Bill. Of course we should debate it, but not at the sort of length that is, I would say, rather self-indulgent.

I empathise with the noble Baroness’s pain, but this is what legislative scrutiny is about. It is about looking in detail at what is proposed and ensuring that we do not pass into law measures that will inflict damage on something that is both an incredibly important economic activity but also a source of great pleasure to millions in this country and more than a billion worldwide. So I hope the noble Baroness will suffer less and we will move as quickly as is appropriate in these circumstances.

We debated last time whether the ambition for football to be sustainable was sufficiently ambitious for the state of English football, and I think many of us in different parts of the House concluded that it was not so. However, if the Government insist that sustainability is all that is going to be sought then it is important that we define what is meant by sustainability in a way that does not circumscribe the mindset and the approach of the regulator that is going to be established.

Football is a very successful industry and activity. As we have heard, it remains the case that the Premier League is the most successful league in the world and the Championship is the sixth most successful in Europe, and we need to make sure that we do first do no harm but, secondly, because we know that there is no such thing as steady state any more, if it does not continue to grow and improve then it will be going backwards. So it seems right that, in addition to the addition suggested in my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, we should look at the four elements that I propose should be added to the definition of “sustainability”.

First, it should continue

“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”.

That is important because you cannot take anything for granted. The success of English football has been earned, but it has been harder over a period so we need to be extremely careful; this is a precious asset and we need to be concerned all the time with competitiveness. The costs that are proposed to be imposed on English football through the creation of this regulator—both the costs to be recovered through the levy and the compliance costs for clubs of accommodating themselves to this regime—will in themselves be a blow to competitiveness, so there needs to be at least an equal and opposite concern to offset that. Competitiveness is going to be incredibly important in relation to audience and quality.

Secondly, it should continue

“to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”.

My own club, Tottenham, has invested hugely in a world-class new stadium; other clubs need to do the same. A huge amount of investment will be required in upgrading stadia around the country. They are extremely expensive commercial assets that are of great importance to their local communities as well. They are community assets that tend to attract in their wake, in their slipstream, other regeneration investment into the communities, often some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. It will be extraordinarily important that the regulator has in mind at all times that the return on those big investments that will be needed should not be imperilled by the way that the regulator itself operates.

Lastly, it should continue

“to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues”.

All these are fragile. None of these revenue streams—from broadcasting or from the asset and enterprise values—can be taken for granted. The success of English football has to be earned, every day of every week of every season there is, so this will be very important.

Given these approaches, I cannot feel that anyone will quarrel with these being elements that the regulator should think about and seek at all times to prioritise. What is the objection to them appearing in the Bill, since that shows the importance that Parliament attaches to these considerations? That can in some way help to make a difference to the way in which the regulator is set up, because much of that is left unclear. Much of it will be at the discretion of the board and its chair, yet to be appointed, of the regulator. This Committee should have no difficulty in supporting having these factors placed squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this away and think carefully about whether it would a be way of improving a Bill that currently leaves much to be desired.

My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.

A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.

English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the simple reason that it is very helpful to the Government. We had the good fortune to meet the shadow regulator last week; it was a very informative and interesting meeting and, clearly, it is starting from scratch.

Given that the Bill has many wide-ranging and permissive powers that are given via statutory instrument to Ministers, it is important that on its face—in primary legislation—there are proper framework guidelines for the regulatory and legislative regimes for the regulator to go forward with. Given that last week the Government were quite firm in setting their face against growth parameters, which are pretty important, given that the Premier League is one of the most successful business outfits in the whole world—in fact, the most successful sports league in the world—I cannot really understand why the Government believe that this is mutually exclusive to supporting fans and putting into the Bill a commitment to fans, even though they are, as we learned previously, not defined.

This will give the regulator the ability to go forward and be more efficient and effective because it will know what sustainability means. Even the Minister admitted last week that, in respect of the drafting of the Bill, the concept of sustainability is obscure and opaque. As we learned last week, what Ministers were saying in the Committee was different from what the impact assessment said, because the impact assessment is focused firmly on financial feasibility, efficacy and sustainability. For those reasons, I say that this is an effort to be helpful to the Minister.

I take with a ton of salt the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We sat for many hours listening to her, her colleague and others opining, for instance, on the Rwanda Bill. That is scrutiny and oversight. That is holding the Government to account. We on this side make no apologies for doing that; it is what we are here for. It is the proper discharging of our duties. If it takes time to interrogate a flawed Bill, I will not apologise for that.

That aside, I ask the Minister to look very carefully at these amendments. They are designed to be helpful and to make sure that the independent football regulator can do its work in a most efficacious and efficient way.

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared on the register. I support Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, especially proposed new Clause 1(3)(f). This would set a clear success metric for the IFR that it should incentivise

“industry-led agreements on the distribution of” the Premier League’s broadcast revenue. This is absolutely critical for the future collective success of the football industry.

We already know that UEFA has written an alarming letter to the Government which said, among other things:

“Mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us” and

“would … prevent amicable solutions being found”.

This is why UEFA says that the backstop should be “carefully reconsidered”. I understand and respect that this is what Ministers genuinely believe they have done in relation to the backstop powers, which we will discuss in much greater detail later. However, I profoundly disagree that the backstop provides any such incentives.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that earlier this year Dame Tracey Crouch, the chair of the fan-led review, called the backstop powers “nuclear … coding” never to be reached for. However, the Football League chair disagreed, and said he fully intends to use the mechanism and that it is entirely logical. To extend the analogy, in the Bill the Government are doling out nuclear weapons to football authorities. They are doing so in the belief that these weapons will somehow create space for diplomacy. However, the evidence is already very clear. In the real world, one side is ready to press the button and launch its missiles. The powers clearly do not place the incentives in the right place. If they did, we would already have a new agreement and the football bodies would not have been driven so far apart.

This is why I have tabled amendments to rebalance the backstop, so it can create proper incentives and space for good-faith negotiations and diplomacy. The fact that the Bill has led one party to believe it can launch a successful first strike is proof that these powers have manifestly failed in their purpose already. That is why I am so supportive of my noble friend’s amendment.

I have a couple of questions for the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but first, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said that the amendments provide clear metrics. I do not think they do; they are very subjective, particularly Amendment 12. What is

“globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”?

Regarding the phrase

“continues to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”,

what is “significant”? I do not think it is helpful to include words like that.

For what it is worth—my noble friend the Minister probably will not like this—I think paragraphs (e) and (f) of Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, make sense, because we can clearly see what they mean. I would say the same of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 7 is rather rambling and unclear and is not suitable for inclusion the Bill. We need something clear that can be measured, rather than words like “substantial”, which could mean anything or nothing.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just used two words which are of significance: “subjective” and “clear”. The problem with the Bill as drafted, judging from the lengthy debate we had last Wednesday and today’s proposed amendments, is that we are trying to provide clarity in relation to very subjective words, not least of which is “sustainability”, which is used several times. All these amendments are about looking at ways of making things clear, so that the football regulator can operate in some form or another.

The noble Lord was present throughout the debate last week, and during that debate I spoke about the threat to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has referred: that other sports and organisations will overtake our system—the Premier League and the other leagues—unless it is able to modernise and change as time goes on. What worries me genuinely about the Bill as drafted is that it almost implies ossification. It is an immovable process, because “sustainability” is just not clear.

Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league whereby a set of clubs would be in a league of their own, never challenged. Quite rightly, the nation’s fans—not just this nation but a whole series of other nations—rose up and said that that is utterly unacceptable. Despite that, some clubs still believe that that is the right way to go. The Champions League has extended and we have the UEFA Conference League, et cetera. They are involving more and more British football clubs, and I welcome the success.

In referring to the football results of the past few days, I apologise profusely to my noble friend Lady Brady. But the success of the Premiership was identified in the fact that, albeit only briefly, Brighton & Hove Albion were second in the Premier League. That does not imply an unchanging, rigid position; it implies that the Premiership and the league system can develop. I was listening to the commentary on Liverpool v Manchester City—I apologise to any Manchester City fans for referring to yesterday’s game—and it was striking that, before the game, Radio 5 Live observed that there were more foreign correspondents covering that match than were covering the Liverpool v Real Madrid game only four days earlier. That indicates the very success and potential our system has—as long as it is reasonably developed and allowed to progress.

I have doubts, to be honest, about my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, because I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome that of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans, because it gives the Bill a better perspective and tries to provide clarity beyond the merely abstract word “sustainability”, and to develop some other aspects to which the football regulator should refer.

When I spoke last week, I was highly critical of the impact assessment, and I continue to be so. I know that it is largely based on the impact assessment prepared for the previous Bill, so I do not criticise the Minister; I criticise my colleagues in the previous Government just as much. However, I said that the impact assessment was intended to justify the current Bill, and that is made clear in paragraph 17:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.

In other words, it is providing support specifically for this Bill. It does not look at a range of other issues, which my noble friend Lord Goodman identified when he quoted from Tracey Crouch’s original report, relating to the overall success of the football industry in this country.

I believe that we need to provide greater clarity and greater indications of what we are trying to protect, develop and allow to go forward. Although last week I criticised the total lack of reference to “success” in the impact assessment, and I stick by that, I was very pleased, in part, to receive the letter from the Minister, page two of which has a section entitled “Proportionality and promoting success”. That is the attitude I want to see reflected in the Bill, in whatever phraseology we choose.

My Lords, it might be an appropriate time for me to make a few comments on the Bill. Amendment 12 suggests that the regulator will be able to have a very positive input into the marketplace. I do not know how it will achieve the aim of attracting significant domestic and foreign investment. Let us face it, our Premiership and our football structure have no divine right to be the most popular show in town, end of story. We all agree on that, but this Bill is about the fans and what they want from their domestic game. They want it to be there, and they do not want it disappearing off to Europe, or the top names disappearing off to Europe and the structure going.

If the Minister can point us to where we will have limits, and to the encouragement of involvement, we will all be able to move on a bit, but the “sustainability” factor is actually making sure that our domestic structure is there. I do not know how much else we can do without massive intervention by the state. Are we going to say, “You are not going to pay any tax on your revenue”, which means the state has no involvement anyway?

The noble Lord asked, perfectly sensibly, in relation to my Amendment 12, whether I am expecting the regulator to positively intervene to promote growth. No—my concern is that the mindset of the regulator has to be not to damage the sector, and not to impose regulation and intervention in such a heavy-handed way that it actually reduces competitiveness and the attractiveness of the sector to investment. It is really a warning shot to the regulator, to make sure it does not harm what is already there. There will be some harm, because additional costs will be imposed on English football simply as a result of creating the regulator, but that has to be as limited as possible.

My Lords, it depends on whether by harm you mean spending any money on regulation. Yes, making sure that there is any structure of regulation is a harm, but it is a necessary harm, because the Bill is not just about the top guys in the Premier League. It is about the entire structure, five leagues down, and should possibly go even further. It is about making sure that there is something below that, so that if things go wrong in your competitive league—and they will; the big boys will eventually lose, or at least they should—you have the capacity. That is something that we have all embraced, and I hope the regulator allows that to happen.

When it comes to making sure that it is as successful as the legal framework allows, I cannot see why not, but surely the regulator should not defy that. Noble Lords should also cast their minds back. We are not doing this because everything in the garden is rosy. This is not something that is happening in a vacuum where everything is wonderful in English football. We are doing this because dozens of junior clubs should be bankrupt, but by some myth of football finance are not being called in. That is why we are here. A number of regulations have already taken action against them, and that is why we are here—it is not because everything is brilliant. We want to keep the social structure of all those sides. If we keep that in mind, the actions of the Government, and indeed the previous Government, become sensible.

I would welcome a definition of what sustainability is and where that is to be found, but please remember that we are not doing this because football is in a great place at the moment. The people at the top may have plenty of air and light, but the people below them are struggling, and we have decided that we want to keep these structures, including of promotion and relegation. If we keep that in mind, the progress of the Bill will be quicker and saner.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 13. I echo the points made by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Jackson: if the Chief Whip had stayed and heard the debates last week and this week, he would have found real experts and real, passionate supporters—dare I say fans—scrutinising the Bill and making sure there is real health and success there. I believe we would all be doing this whatever colour of Government had introduced it.

Last week, if noble Lords recall, we were left scratching our heads somewhat about how there was some sort of aversion to the use of the words “growth” and “success” in all this. That is what we are trying to address in Amendments 12 and 13, both with a similar purpose. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is vital because the pyramid structure and the health of all clubs depend on the health at the top of the Premier League, because the redistribution of that money funds so many of the other clubs and is allowing the Championship to be the sixth-richest league in the world as a result.

I really do not understand the Government’s reluctance to engage in these types of measures. There are precedents in other regulators. Everyone knows about the Bank of England’s inflation target, but also within its targets is a target to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Other regulators such as Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat have a growth duty to look at innovation, infrastructure and investment, competition, skills, efficiency and productivity, trade and environmental sustainability. It is very clear that other regulators are being asked to consider these other measures of overall success in their objectives.

Why does it matter? Like other noble Lords, I think the meeting we had with the shadow regulator last week was very helpful. It is undoubtedly true that the intentions of all the people there are very good. Like all of us, they are trying to make sure that the game we love is protected, but the shadow regulator’s thinking on sustainability is very much in the mould of a bank regulator’s. The main method it sees achieving sustainability is to insist—as the FCA does with banks—that a certain amount of money is put on deposit to give a buffer, a certain comfort, to clubs. Numbers have been bandied around—it may be £20 million or so per club in the Premier League. Those are large numbers; £400 million will go out of the game because it will be held in aspect. That amount of money has a real impact. If the regulator has only a one-dimensional objective on sustainability, it will always be weighted towards putting more and more money aside as a buffer. However, if it has other objectives in its definition of sustainability, it will take other factors into account.

I think noble Lords know that all the successful companies we see today, such as the magnificent seven that people talk about—the Googles, Microsofts, Facebooks and Teslas of the world—had an early start-up stage when there was heavy investment and their costs far exceeded their income. We absolutely see that in football clubs. The story of Brighton was mentioned earlier, and I happen to know a thing or two about it. I think we would all agree that it is a fantastic success story. For years and years, that success was reliant on Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton, putting his hand in his pocket to invest more in players than the club’s income. He believed that, just like in any start-up company, you have to make that investment. That will build success, and from that you will manage to get promoted and get to a more and more sustainable position. He was able to achieve that.

Not every club can achieve that because, as we all know, not every club can get promoted. But the danger is that if the regulator’s only dimension is sustainability, it would look at business plans such as Brighton’s and say, “Hang on, they’re going to run a deficit if they stay in that league. That doesn’t sound very secure. How are we going to guard against that? We’ll make them put a certain amount of money into escrow as a buffer”. That will undoubtably dampen innovation, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. We all know that the beauty and the strength of English football are in the fact that clubs can get promoted and go on to do wonderful things, and we all know of plenty of examples.

Unless a regulator has more than one dimension—more than one club in its locker—it will only ever look at the sustainability angle and put more and more money aside. That is where I am coming from with Amendment 13, which is similar in intent to Amendment 12. It is from my knowledge of selling TV rights and of what people are really looking for. It is all about TV viewership, sporting competitiveness, the income that is generated and match attendance. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, those things are all clear and measurable; they are all things that a regulator should want for the health of the game.

I hope that when the Minister answers, she will let us know why we would not want to follow the lead of the regulators of the Bank of England, Ofwat, Ofgem or all the others, and give this regulator more than one dimension. I know the Minister really wants to see the health of the game and that everyone has good intentions. That is why this debate is so good—we all want what is best for the game. Widening the basket of measures that the regulator seeks to achieve can be only good for the health of the game.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude of Horsham for speaking to their amendments and for setting out the case for them. Before the Minister responds to them and to my Amendment 7, which I moved at the outset, I should say that I am not precious about my amendment vis-à-vis those of my noble friends in this group, Amendments 12 and 13.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said that he did not like my wording and found it rambling and insubstantial. I take no offence; I simply took the wording that the Government used in the Explanatory Notes and sought to put that in the Bill. If he finds that rambling, it may be that the Explanatory Notes are as well.

The point I was making was that the wording was appropriate for the Explanatory Notes but not for the Bill.

I thank the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Hayward said that he did not much like it either, but it is helpful that my amendment has been grouped with the other amendments, which are seeking to give a bit more precision than the two short lines that are in the Bill. As I said in moving my amendment, my contention is that they do not go far enough to define what “sustainability” means in practice, which will be important for the regulator looking at it.

I am grateful to my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Markham, whose Amendment 13 proposes a few tangible benchmarks through which sustainability can be measured. It suggests inserting criteria, including increasing TV viewership, increasing match attendance, improving international sporting competitiveness and increasing the overall income generated. They are all very tangible and specific. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will prefer them and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them when she responds.

Criteria such as those would provide a far more accurate and reliable understanding of the sustainability of English football. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, we all want to make sure that we are helping to deliver that with this Bill and to give the regulator the clarity that it needs to uphold it. The Premier League’s television exports alone were worth £1.4 billion in 2019-20. If the Government are serious about growth and supporting the success of Great British success stories, the regulator must ensure that that growth trajectory goes only upwards. By basing the standards of sustainability on objective metrics, such as those that my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude have tried to set out, football would surely benefit, and the regulator would have the clearer frames of reference that I think we are looking for.

As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, there is competition from a growing number of countries that are snapping at our heels. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us, there is no divine right for football to continue to exist in the way that it does in this country. My noble friend Lord Hayward pointed out some of the sporting fixtures that have happened this weekend. I enjoyed the Qatar Grand Prix, although I thought that the 10-second penalty for Lando Norris was rather disproportionate, especially since no safety car and no virtual safety car were deployed. I mention that not to take us on to another sport but to point out the difficulties that happen when a regulator—in this case, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile—makes curious or contentious decisions.

Through the amendments in this group, we are seeking to give a clarity of purpose to the regulator, so that it can focus its important work on delivering the sustainability of English football in a way that matches what the Government have set out in their Explanatory Notes. For all the differences that have been expressed, I think that we are all united on that. But it is important that we give this extra precision and clarity, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham, for tabling their amendments and for the thorough discussion we have had. I look forward to the ongoing discussion on many of the points raised as we debate the Bill.

We do not think that the Bill, which is largely the same as the previous Government’s version, is flawed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, suggested; nor do we think it leaves a lot to be desired, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, suggested. We also do not think that it is an overreaction of the nature that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, suggested. Indeed, we think it is what fans are looking for and what will bring sustainability to the game. I will get on to the definition of “sustainability” shortly.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, adds further detail to the definition of the sustainability of English football. I am pleased that he noted the definition on page 2, which does indeed define sustainability in the Bill. All the aims of the amendments are laudable. However, I assure the noble Lords concerned that the detail that has been added, in particular by Amendment 7, is largely implicit in the current definition of the sustainability of English football. So, while the noble Lord might suggest that the definition is, in his words, short and unsubstantial, I would argue that it is sufficient. The wording is that which was adopted in the noble Lord’s Government’s iteration of the Bill.

However, I am pleased that noble Lords feel strongly enough to debate this issue further at length. Definitions are important and, as noble Lords have noted, the additional detail is already included, almost word for word, in the Explanatory Notes. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, stated in relation to the approach taken by the previous Government, the precise purpose of the Explanatory Notes is to provide this sort of additional illustrative detail about the intent behind the legislation. I hope that this reassures noble Lords.

On Amendments 12 and 13, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham, the noble Lords have raised several areas that they wish to be included within the Bill’s definition of the sustainability of English football. At Second Reading we heard from a number of noble Lords, including many on the Benches opposite, about the need to keep this Bill proportionate and avoid mission creep. These amendments would in the Government’s view do exactly the opposite. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, highlighted, these amendments would significantly expand the scope of the regulator and put in place a much more interventionist regime than this Government or the previous Government proposed. The regulator would be required to become actively involved in issues such as overall match attendance. It is unclear how a regulator would achieve this without directly intervening on issues such as ticket prices. I am sure that is not the noble Lord’s intention.

Football does not have a growth and success problem. What it does have is a sustainability problem. That is precisely why we are setting up the regulator with that specific purpose. However, I agree that the regulator has a responsibility to make sure that it does not get in the way of that success. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, I stress that this is exactly why we have put measures in the Bill to ensure that the success of English football is well protected.

In relation to the discussion between the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Maude, as part of its general duties the regulator must have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs and investment in football. Actively pursuing these outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry, but the regulator is legally bound to have regard to their importance while it delivers sustainability.

On paragraph (f) in Amendment 12, I assure noble Lords that the regulator’s backstop mechanism is designed to be used only if an industry-led agreement on the distribution of revenues has not been agreed by competition organisers. I understand that a number of noble Lords have a preference for an industry-led solution. This is also the Government’s strong preference, and the backstop process is designed to facilitate this. However, we also understand concerns regarding slow progress and the inability of the industry to reach a suitable agreement. As noble Lords are well aware, there is currently an impasse. Discussions have been ongoing for five years. As a last resort, allowing the regulator to intervene will be better for the sustainability of English football. If football cannot or will not deliver a solution, the regulator will.

For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments and ask that they do not press them.

I hear what the Minister says and I am grateful. However, she will have read the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report dated 22 November. We know that sustainability is not explicitly defined. We know that fans are not explicitly defined. As was said on our first day in Committee,

“the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill … The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of ‘specified competition’. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear

Does she not agree that this is why it is important to tighten up that situation—that lacuna—in the Bill, so that the regulator has a firm sense of direction in how it proceeds?

That is a matter that I am sure we will discuss at greater length when we come to a longer discussion on secondary legislation, but I am happy to talk to the noble Lord outside this Chamber at further length.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. There were two things that I scribbled down as she said them. The first was that the definition—the extra detail of sustainability—is implicit in the Bill. That really gets to the nub of the debate we have just had. We think leaving it implicit for the regulator causes some problems. If the wording—albeit not to the preference of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—is something that the Government are happy to set out in the Explanatory Notes, why can we not make it a bit more explicit in the Bill to give the regulator more clarity? That is what the amendments in this group have sought to do, and the Bill would benefit from being made more explicit rather than left in the implicit way that the Minister set out.

The Minister also said that the regulator is being set up to deal with football’s sustainability problem, and that football has no growth problem, at least at present. Our concern is that seeking to address the former problem in the way the regulator goes about its work, particularly if it is left to do it implicitly, risks football’s continuing success in the growth category and in other ways. That is why we have given this such detailed scrutiny. However, I am grateful to her for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 7.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendment 7A not moved.