My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 42 and to speak to Amendments 45, 47 and 49, which are grouped with it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham who has put his name to them. These amendments seek to provide greater guidance on the operation of the expert panel that will be established under the Bill to ensure that those who are involved in the panel and its work are limited in number, do not have any broadcast interests, are limited in pay and must exercise their functions transparently. These amendments reflect our commitment to ensuring robust, transparent and impartial governance for football to safeguard the integrity of the game. I will speak now to Amendments 42 and 45 and say a bit more about Amendments 47 and 49 in my winding speech.

Amendment 42 would limit the number of members on the expert panel to no more than 20. The Bill already specifies no fewer than six, but the amendment would insert the words “or more than twenty”. It is in our view a sensible and pragmatic measure. Governance structures function best when they strike a balance between having diversity of experience and opinion and having operational agility and efficiency. By setting this range between six and 20, we think we can help to ensure that the panel is large enough to encompass a breadth of expertise while avoiding the pitfalls of having an unwieldy and bureaucratic decision-making body.

We have heard about a lot of the similarities between this Bill and its predecessor that was looked at in Another place in the previous Parliament, but this is another instance where the Government have decided to make some changes to the Bill. When I was going through it comparing the previous version to this one, this change perplexed me more than others. When the Bill before the previous Parliament was introduced by the Conservative Government, we capped the membership of the expert panel at 20. Will the Minister explain the policy rationale behind making this change to the Bill and removing the cap?

In football governance, clarity and focus are surely paramount, so this amendment that in effect takes us back to the previous Bill is, as noble Lords might expect, in keeping with Conservative values of efficient, streamlined and effective governance and will ensure that the expert panel is equipped to make sound decisions without succumbing to the inefficiencies of an excessively large committee. I hope these arguments will resonate with noble Lords whatever their political allegiances.

Amendment 45 echoes the debate we had previously on conflicts of interest relating to the chairman of the panel and would prohibit individuals with current media interests relating to football serving on the expert panel much in the same way as my Amendment 36, which we looked at earlier. I do not think we need to rehash the philosophical arguments behind that. I hope that the Minister will dwell a little on the need to make sure that we ensure impartiality for members of the expert panel just as much as we would for the chairman.

Football is a sport that attracts passionate commentary and debate, particularly across the media. While, as we heard previously, live perspectives are invaluable in their own right, the work of the expert panel must remain beyond reproach. Again, I worry slightly that people with active media roles could risk stumbling into conflicts of interest or, at the very least, the perception of them, which could undermine the important work of the panel and its credibility.

My Amendment 47 would introduce a cap on remuneration for members of the expert panel—in this case, limiting their annual pay to no more than £91,346. Again, that is not a round figure but takes by way of comparison the current salary for a Member in another place. While it is an illustrative number, not a precise and scientific one, I hope it is a way of probing the Government’s thinking about what their expectations are for the remuneration of members of the expert panel. I know that matter is to be decided, but if the Minister could give us a ballpark figure then I think the Committee would find that useful. As we progress through our scrutiny of the Bill, if such decisions are able to be taken then it would be useful to know them so that we can factor them into our thinking.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether the Government would be open to considering a cap on pay for members of the expert panel—whether or not we specify a particular number in the Bill—to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent prudently. Again, not only would that argument land well on this side of the House; hopefully, it would resonate with all those committed to fiscal responsibility and using public funds wisely.

We do not believe that governance roles, even in football, which is a multibillion-pound industry, should command excessive salaries. We want people who are motivated by a genuine desire to improve the sport, not those who are simply seeking generous compensation. While I took on board the points made by the noble Lord, Londesborough, about the payment of the chairman of the panel, it is important that we ensure that compensation remains proportionate to the role and responsibilities that the panel members will be undertaking. By setting a clear cap, we would be able to make sure that we were getting value for money while still attracting highly qualified individuals to serve the challenge that the noble Lord set us in the discussions earlier.

The amendment seeks to make sure that public resources are used judiciously while providing adequate compensation to attract the skilled and experienced people that we need to serve while trying to avoid the risk that remuneration for these roles would escalate unreasonably, particularly in what is already a very high-profile sector. None of us wants to see the public trust in the independent football regulator undermined if panel members were perceived to be doing it simply for the disproportionate pay. I hope that is something we could avoid.

The amendment seeks to emphasise that fairness and restraint are just as important when it comes to governance as they are in the game itself. It seeks to reflect the fact that the new independent football regulator is a body intended to regulate football for the benefit of fans, players and communities across the country. That echoes the spirit that football is not just a game; it is a cornerstone of our national life and an important force in communities across the country.

Amendment 49 would require the expert panel to exercise its functions transparently. Transparency in decision-making is fundamental to good governance. The amendment would introduce measures ensuring that not only were the expert panel’s decisions publicly accessible but they were accompanied by the necessary context, so that people following its work could understand how it had reached the decisions it had.

That level of detail would ensure that decisions are seen not as obscure or opaque but instead as reflecting in a positive way the breadth and diversity of opinion among the people appointed to the expert panel. If we were to do that, we would not only strengthen public trust but encourage a culture of robust debate and accountability among panel members as they discharge their duties.

Moreover, proposed new sub-paragraph (3) would require the publication of records of committee meetings, as per paragraph 30. That provision is important, because it would ensure that the broader discussions and deliberations leading to a decision can be preserved and made accessible to the public who watch on. They would provide a valuable insight into the panel’s reasoning and ensure that football fans can fully understand the nuances and trade-offs involved in the inevitably complicated decision-making process.

I hope the Minister will look at the amendments in this group with these points in mind. I beg to move Amendment 42.