My Lords, I am grateful for the thought that noble Lords have given to the amendments in this group and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for tabling them so that we can consider them. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly said, one of the first things that people do when they receive a new government Bill is to go through it and look for the “mays” and the “musts” and consider why they have been put there and what the counterargument would be if the other word were used.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who have brought their professional and personal backgrounds and their qualifications to the scrutiny of this. Like them, I think that we must be careful of being too prescriptive here and of limiting the role of the professionals we are appointing, particularly as this is an independent regulator. We want it to act independently and have a bit of professional discretion. However, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have an important point that motivated them to bring the amendments, which would limit the discretionary ability of both the independent football regulator and its chief executive officer in cases of misconduct or where an individual is not able to perform his or her duties, whether they are a non-executive director, an executive director or a member of the expert panel.

Clearly, if this new regulator is to enjoy the support of fans and the businesses and clubs that it regulates, it must uphold and be seen to be upholding the very highest standards. It is good to pose the question of whether this discretionary power should be written in the Bill as it is. The discretionary power as written would allow the independent regulator the ability to keep an individual in place, even in cases where he or she is guilty of misconduct, has a conflict of interest, has failed to provide appropriate information to the chief executive or is unfit, unwilling or unable to carry out his or her functions. That is quite a serious list of reasons, so I can see why the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have posed this question to the Committee. While I share some of the scepticism that my noble friends have set out, I am more sympathetic than might be expected.

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could, if she is able to engage with the hypothetical in those scenarios, give some examples of where she thinks it would be appropriate for somebody guilty of misconduct or a conflict of interest to carry on. It is hard to envisage scenarios which would fit those circumstances. I am not sure that it would serve the best interests of the regulator or football if they did. In many other sectors, regulators have similar discretionary powers to come to a judgment on matters such as this. We have talked in previous debates about the Financial Conduct Authority, which has similar discretionary powers. There may be a case for the regulator to have higher standards than we have imposed on previous regulators. Given the power of football to set an example and capture the imaginations of so many people, I wonder whether it ought to be held to a higher standard in the public eye than perhaps we have set out in previous legislation.

Similarly, if a member of the expert panel is demonstrably not able to carry out his or her duties effectively, why should the chief executive have the option to retain him or her? It might be more appropriate to require his or her removal, ensuring that the panel remains fully capable of discharging the duties that it is given under this Bill.

The essence of the argument boils down to ensuring that the interests of football come first and are best served by the Bill. Clearly, fans of football will not be able to scrutinise the intricate details of the new operational framework of this regulatory regime as we can in this Committee. However, they will notice the effect of it, the outcomes and whether the independent football regulator is acting decisively, impartially and transparently when faced with the inevitable challenges when discharging its duties.

If the Government adopted some of these amendments or changed the Bill to meet in the middle, it would send a clear message that the regulator needs to be bound by law to hold itself to the same high standards that it is expecting of others. An alternative would be for the regulator to follow a lower path, which we would not want to see. We spoke previously about the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services, which looked at how the Financial Conduct Authority has been discharging its duties as a regulator. That cross-party report highlighted a “defective culture” within the Financial Conduct Authority, with staff alleging a toxic environment which discourages challenges to management. One former member of the FCA described the culture as

“the worst staff culture I have ever experienced in nearly 40 years”.

Another said that the organisation’s internal structure was characterised by “arrogance” and a lack of accountability.

It is important to dwell on words as small as “may” and “must” and to think about the message that this sends to the regulator on the standards that we want to see it upholding as it discharges its duties—and the standards that it is seeking to impose upon the sport at the heart of these debates. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for giving us this opportunity and giving the Minister the chance to respond.