Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:

Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

37: Schedule 2, page 85, line 37, at end insert—“6A “(1) Any person appointed to the Board must agree to appear before any relevant Parliamentary Committee.(2) A relevant Parliamentary Committee is any Committee of the House of Commons, or House of Lords, or of both Houses, which has notified the Secretary of State, in writing, that they have assumed the function of scrutiny of football regulation.(3) Any person appointed to the Board may not take their position unless they have been approved by a resolution of each relevant Parliamentary Committee.”

My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 37, I will speak to my further amendments in this group, Amendments 38 and 123. In the letter which she kindly sent to the Committee earlier today, the Minister displayed her familiarity with and affinity for Erskine May and, even if I did not have unbridled delight as to the contents of the letter, I was pleased to see this reference to one of our great constitutional experts and authorities on legislative procedure.

In that spirit, I would like to quote another revered expert on constitution matters, the great AV Dicey, who expounded that:

“The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.

In more recent times, the Constitution Unit at University College London has set out particularly relevant arguments for the importance of parliamentary accountability. In its 2023 briefing Parliamentary Scrutiny: What is it and why does it matter? the unit rightly said that:

“Government accountability to parliament is central to our democratic system”.

I think this all demonstrates that the right of Parliament to oversee and hold public bodies to account must be upheld dearly as well.

This new regulator, which we are bringing about through this Bill, will at the start of its existence have recourse to public funds. It is crucial that any body which has funding streams derived from the taxpayer at any point should be accountable to and scrutinised by Parliament. That is what Amendment 123 requires.

Amendment 37 seeks to ensure that any person who is appointed to the board of the regulator must be approved by a parliamentary committee, and Amendment 38 requires the chief executive to appear before a parliamentary committee at least once a year if they have been so invited. This ensures that anyone who is going to be holding any formal position in this new regulator can be scrutinised by parliamentarians before they can be appointed.

Following on from the debates in the two groups that we have just had about conflicts of interest, it may be that rather than setting it out in the Bill, as the probing amendments sought to do, the parliamentary oversight that we could bring about this way might be able to give us the reassurances we seek that the people who are given these awesome new responsibilities are doing so without conflicts of interest or the pressures on them that we wish to resist. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, which I think are very helpful because they will help to tease out one of the real challenges at the heart of this Bill—how to achieve the right balance of proper oversight with the absolute necessity of delivering regulatory independence. We should, of course, acknowledge the natural instinct to ensure democratic accountability of any new regulator. Given the cultural and economic importance of football to our nation, Parliament should rightly maintain some oversight of how this new body exercises its considerable powers.

The question “Who regulates the regulator?” is beginning to be asked more and more often, not least in relation to the many clear failings of UK regulators, and rightly so. However, I believe we must also tread with real care here. Football’s international governing bodies, UEFA and FIFA, have clear provisions against state interference in the game. While their primary concern has historically been direct government control of national associations, they could well choose to interpret these provisions more broadly. We have already seen their willingness to act even in response to the mere creation of this regulator, and we have seen the Government’s instant removal of a Clause in this Bill relating to foreign and trade policy. This tension means we must achieve a delicate balancing act: too little accountability and we clearly risk regulatory overreach; too much involvement of the state and our democratic institutions and we risk creating leverage that could be used against English football’s interest.

I have already spoken about some of the risks here. If Select Committee oversight and IFR responsibility to both bodies was seen as political interference, it could feasibly create that leverage we have warned about whereby clubs participating in European competition, or even England’s tournament participation, is put in jeopardy. We have already seen concerning signs of how these tensions might play out. In just a short time since this Bill’s introduction, we have witnessed numerous attempts to expand the regulator’s scope from environmental sustainability to ticketing prices and kick-off times to corporate responsibility requirements. I am concerned about how this pressure might intensify with direct parliamentary oversight.

Members of the other place, responding quite correctly to constituents’ concerns, might press the regulator to intervene in broadcast arrangements or ticket allocations, or elements that go to the heart of competition tools that should be reserved for the leagues. Select Committees could demand action on issues far beyond the regulator’s core financial sustainability purpose. Each Intervention, however well intentioned, risks creating exactly the kind of state interference that could threaten English football’s international position.

We have seen this pattern in other sectors: regulatory mission creep that is driven by political pressure and external events. Football’s unique international framework makes this dynamic particularly dangerous. Every expansion of scope and political intervention creates new vulnerability to UEFA and FIFA leverage. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she responds, could explain how the Government intend to manage these competing demands. How will they maintain appropriate accountability while preventing political pressure from expanding the regulator’s remit? How will they ensure that parliamentary oversight does not become a backdoor for state intervention in football’s affairs? What safeguards will protect against the regulator being drawn into issues that should remain matters for the football authorities only?

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this issue has been directly discussed with UEFA and, if so, what its view is on how the IFR’s independence should be preserved in this respect. It seems clear that without comprehensive assurances on every single aspect of the IFR and how it will operate, we risk inadvertently subjecting English football to permanent external control. The irony of creating this leverage will be quite incredible. In seeking to protect our game through regulation, we must not end up permanently compromising its independence and losing control of English football for ever.

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, started speaking, I thought that we were going to have a first. She started off by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on some points that I would agree with him on. Then she went totally against that and said that a Select Committee might be too interfering. I point out to her that the Select Committee that covers DCMS has, for many years, talked about the problems in football such as ticket pricing and the timing of matches. That has not impinged in any way on any international arrangements.

We have to make a clear distinction between Parliament and the Executive, because we are not talking about state control or government control. What we are talking about in this Amendment is a proper accountability for any regulator. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I have the privilege of chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee of this House. We had a report about who regulates the regulator, so it is strange that the noble Baroness should use those words. This is not about regulating the regulator; it is actually about holding regulators to account. Both Houses have a very important role to play in making sure that regulators are held to account by Parliament.

I go further: if some of the regulators had been held to account more closely by Parliament in recent years, we would not, for example, have the crisis that we have today in the water industry. There has been a failure of Parliament to hold regulators to account.

My Amendment 89 is not grouped with these amendments but covers very similar points and the same principle. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that Parliament will have a role to play in holding all regulators to account, including the independent football regulator.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. Her words are born of great experience—not just the dark arts of the Whips’ Office, I know, but many years of speaking up for her constituents in the other place. I think she ended up agreeing with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

I support this Amendment because of my experience of four years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place. I had the great privilege of serving under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge of Barking, who was a superb chairman. That is not to take away from the work of Meg Hillier, who recently did an excellent job in that role.

My point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned the Division between the Executive and Parliament. Our worry on this side, and the reason we put forward this amendment, is that we see too many powers being vested in the Executive and Parliament having too few.

The experience of my time on the Public Accounts Committee was very instructive. Yes, we had the big ticket showdowns with Starbucks, Amazon and others over tax, but quite often the unglamorous work of the committee—two reports and two meetings a week, backed up by 800 people in the National Audit Office—was to get into the minutiae and the granular detail of how the regulators were performing. Your Lordships will know that we very rarely had sitting Members of Parliament, whether Ministers or others, before us. We often had Permanent Secretaries there and often gave quite a hard time to regulators for failing in their duty. I am honest enough to admit that there were of course some significant failures in the previous Administration —Ofwat being one, along with the Financial Conduct Authority and others.

My other reason for rising to speak is in response to the very helpful letter to my noble friend Lord Hayward that the Minister sent yesterday. It throws up a number of questions that a parliamentary committee would address in the course of its deliberations on this new independent football regulator. For instance, it is quite unclear at the moment what the exact cost of the regulator would be. The letter says:

“We cannot know the exact costs of the Regulator until legislation has been passed”.

It bears repetition that this is a hugely consequential, epoch-making Bill in the enabling powers it vests in Ministers. An appropriate parliamentary committee will therefore need to look at that.

Another issue is the safeguards on and proportionality of

“the Regulator’s levy and cost to businesses”.

That would be one of the key areas on which a parliamentary committee would seek to interrogate the new independent football regulator.

Since my noble friend is referring to a letter that was addressed to me, I assure him that in the debate on another Amendment I shall return in far greater detail to this letter, not least because the first heading of the letter refers to “Exact cost”. I never asked for exact costs. I preferred to use the word “probably”.

Your Lordships and I can rely on my noble friend’s forensic interrogation of the letter and the Bill generally. I know that we will come back to this issue.

I mentioned proportionality and a final example is the framework document, which has a strange description on page 2 of the letter. It says:

“DCMS as the sponsor department will agree a ‘framework document’ with the Regulator”.

It will be up to a parliamentary committee to look at what the point of that framework document is and whether its delivery by the regulator is efficacious. We need to know about the accounting officer. We need to know about the role of the National Audit Office and how it will intervene and work with the department, the regulator itself and any parliamentary committee. The levy, the proportionality and the cost are all areas where Parliament has a very important role to play.

I think we have reached the turning point in trusting regulators to discharge their duties without appropriate and close examination by legislators. That is our job and the job of those elected in the other place. Because the weather has changed for regulators, we no longer implicitly trust them to be full of experts and to do their job effectively. As my Right Honourable Friend the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said, “In God we trust, everyone else bring data”. I am not just looking at the right reverend Prelate when I say that. The serious point is that we need to see that the regulator is doing its job. We cannot rely on just undertakings and assurances. We need the proper statutory function of a committee to oversee the work of the regulator. On that basis, I warmly support my noble friend’s excellent Amendment.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jackson and to support the three amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. I spoke a few days ago about how the Premier League became so successful, so popular and such an enormous contributor to the soft power of this country around the world, as well as to our finances in the many billions of pounds of taxes it pays. I spoke about the very delicate nature of entrepreneurial activity and the danger that comes from overregulation.

As noble Lords will know, I am not keen on the whole idea of this regulator—particularly one that is given so many powers in such an enormous Bill. But there is only one thing worse than a regulator given many powers and that is one given untrammelled and unscrutinised powers. Therefore, if we are to have this regulator, it is absolutely crucial that there is sufficient scrutiny of what it does.

We know that regulators like to regulate. People who are attracted to the idea of supervising other people like to get really involved and talk about what they would like to happen and how they can make that happen. They want to have the powers to make it happen—and preferably without scrutiny. I do not know how many Members of this Committee have had the experience of many years of scrutiny by regulators who decide, “You’re a wrong ’un and we’re going to go after you”. The process becomes the punishment.

And as many noble Lords have asked already this evening and earlier, who is going to come into this game? Who is going to apply their entrepreneurial flair if they believe that an untrammelled and unsupervised regulator is going to be able to second-guess everything they do, consider their fitness and will be able—from what we were told earlier—to reach into their funds and, through the backstop, extract them for whatever purpose, unchallenged, unsupervised and without any scrutiny. I submit to noble Lords that these amendments, if we are to have a regulator, are absolutely crucial for the regulator’s good functioning and for the future success of this wonderful part of our economy.

On these Benches, we broadly support these measures. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, because he speaks his mind and I like that. There is no ambiguity in what he is trying to say; he just says it. That, to me, is refreshing.

In supporting the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, with respect, we do not need Erskine May or Burke. It should be common sense to us that the regulator must be accountable to Parliament. We are the heart of democracy and the social fabric of the country, and we are funding it. So, if there were an overwhelming reason why the Government did not want this, I would find it unfathomable; the regulator should be accountable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, was passionate in what she said, and I understand the pitfalls she can see coming, but this is really about regulation and accountability. That is the fine line that we draw. We are not overregulating but we need that accountability. I suppose it is about scope and the number of times we may be calling people, and which Select Committees can call them. I would suggest it should not be just any Select Committee; it should be pertinent to the business.

The Government will ask that the amendments be withdrawn today, but could they commit that this will be somewhere in the Bill? Without an agreement that the regulator will be held to account by Parliament and will report to Parliament, this group of Peers—the small and happy band that we are—will be less than supportive of not supporting this, if that makes sense.

My Lords, building on what was just said—this comment is not particularly for the Government but is perhaps a reflection for both Houses—as this will be a completely new regulator, there should potentially be a committee of both Houses, unusual though it may be, with representatives from both sides. It might be quite useful for a committee to be set up to look at this regulator, not least because of all the issues we have been discussing, as it is something completely new.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The Industry and Regulators Committee, with outside organisations such as the Institute for Government and others, has looked at what might be appropriate going forward. There is a real concern that we do not have a drumbeat of accountability for all regulators, so some new mechanism might be appropriate, potentially even in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.

My Lords, perhaps I could have a clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that he had lots of experience of regulators. He referred to the Online Safety Act and ofcom and his dealings there. I found it incredibly unhelpful to be constantly told by Ministers at that time that something was not up to them, it was up to Ofcom, even when we were making a decision about what the Ofcom regulator was going to do.

There are times when it feels as though Governments of any political stripe can outsource authority to a regulator. They tell the regulator what to do and then, when you try and hold somebody to account, the Government say, “Oh no, it’s the regulator that makes that decision”. So it actually removes any accountability. I am very keen on a mechanism for accountability and I am very anxious that, when we constantly stress that they are independent, arm’s-length regulators, that can be a way of avoiding any kind of political accountability.

However, I am also sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the kinds of things you can imagine happening if there is accountability at Select Committee level. I want accountability and I can take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said about the forensic way that Select Committees can hold people to account. That sounds very positive. But it depends which one it is and who is on it. I can imagine the political fads of the day. You can imagine a Select Committee saying, “Why aren’t you doing more on”—my favourite topics—“EDI or the environment?” or “Where’s your environmental target? You’re not doing enough on that, are you?”

We have to be quite precise about the principle. On the one hand, there is the very important principle of parliamentary accountability. On the other, we also have to ensure that that does not become political interference, because it could. There could be a kind of pressure from Parliament for the regulator to adopt political priorities rather than football priorities.

We have had three days of debate and it is fantastic that we have an outburst of consensus. On all sides of the Committee, we seem to agree that we are putting a lot of trust in this regulator. We have had long and thorough debates about what its objectives should be. I come back not to Erskine May or other writings but to the Gorbachev and Reagan saying, “Trust, but verify”, which I always remember. There is consensus around the Committee about how vital parliamentary scrutiny is for what we think is such an important role. I hope that, when the Minister responds shortly, she will take on board the consensus view of the Committee and respond positively.

I will briefly encapsulate some of what we have heard and respond to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. She is right: it was a chastening experience to stand at the Dispatch Box as a Minister and repeatedly have to say that something was a matter for the independent ofcom, the independent Arts Council, the independent board of the BBC, or the Betting and Gaming Council. There are good reasons why many of those organisations are independent of government, and that independence should be carefully guarded. However, given the additional role that Ministers in this House have, and in providing parliamentary scrutiny, the distinction that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, makes between the Executive and the legislature comes to the heart of it.

I am grateful to my noble friends on these Benches for expressing some of the concerns that they would raise if they were on a parliamentary committee overseeing the work of this regulator. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reminded us, the concerns could go in all directions, and that is the beauty and importance of parliamentary accountability. This is an important regulator doing hotly anticipated and important work, and I am grateful for the consensus, which my noble friend Lord Markham points out, on the need to find a way to make sure that it can continue to be accountable to both Houses of Parliament.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, which relate to the transparency and accountability of the regulator. The discussion was interesting, and I found my noble friend Lady Taylor’s expertise on this matter particularly helpful to our debate. I look forward to discussing this further with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, raised some interesting points. I stress that the Government recognise that it is vital that the regulator is transparent and able to be held accountable by Parliament and others. A number of provisions in the Bill already ensure this. The exercise of the regulator’s functions will be reviewed in the regulator’s annual report. The Secretary of State and Parliament will be able to scrutinise these reports, which will be laid before Parliament. The regulator’s chair and non-executive directors will be required to go through the public appointments process, as is appropriate given the weight of the role and responsibility for other appointments to the regulator. The chair of the regulator will already be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny with the relevant parliamentary Select Committee. However, as far as I am aware, there is no precedent for board members to be expected to go through such an extensive process as the chair is expected to, and neither has the relevant parliamentary Select Committee sought this. We therefore do not think that such a requirement is proportionate or necessary.

The regulator will be expected to work alongside the parliamentary process, which already allows committees to compel witnesses to attend. If a committee wished to invite a relevant member or the chief executive to appear before it, the Government would certainly expect them to fulfil this. These amendments would set an unprecedented and rigid approach to committee invitations that we do not feel is appropriate to place on the regulator. It would also not be appropriate for the Government to dictate to parliamentary committees who should appear before them—that is surely a matter for committee members themselves to determine.

Almost all of Amendment 123 dictates various actions in relation to parliamentary committees: who should appear before them, what they should scrutinise and when they should do so. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that parliamentary committees are quite able to take these decisions themselves and do not need the help of any legislation to do so. On the expert panel, the legislation already sets out a number of requirements to publish decisions and reasons for them. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendments and ask that he withdraws Amendment 37.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I recognise many of the lines she uttered; I have uttered those and similar on previous Bills. For me, the most important contribution was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who has given greater thought to this over a long time.

The Minister is right: it is not for the Government to tell parliamentary committees whom to call as a witness and how to do it. But there is a growing concern that there are so many ways in which the Government have devolved power to powerful regulators that can accrue—in the way that the Bill achieves—new powers or go in new directions through secondary legislation that does not get the sort of scrutiny that we are giving the Bill at the moment. Perhaps some broader mechanism needs to be found for looking at the work of not just this regulator but regulators in general. As I say, that was a feeling that gnawed at me when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. We will probably not crack the answer as we look forward to a well-earned dinner break, so, with gratitude to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Amendment 38 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.21 pm.