Lord Blunkett:

Moved by Lord Blunkett

54: Clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—“(d) to ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively.”

I rise to move Amendment 54 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to speak to the associated Amendment 159, which relates to Schedule 5 and the role of the regulator in relation to the code of practice.

I hope we will not spend an hour on this group. Having sat through parts of the first two days in Committee, I have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as I heard on the previous groups, including on the definition of football, what we mean by competition and even what fairness is. Well, I know that fairness is not the argument about whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pays his due share towards a piglet pie at Brighton’s football ground.

What is this all about? It is quite right that we in this House should scrutinise, raise legitimate argument and challenge a Bill of this sort, but I say to the Premier League, and to those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three Committee days, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point millions of fans out there might learn what is going on with the filibuster taking place in this Committee and, when they do, they will be very angry.

The Premier League, with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying support, needs to just reflect on whether this filibuster and what is being done in this Committee is benefiting it. I think not—sometimes overdoing it can be really detrimental.

My Lords, I have no idea whether there is filibustering going on, nor whether everybody on this side of the Committee who I have not spoken to is in the pockets of the Premier League, but I feel there is a kind of gaslighting going on. I take the Bill seriously. I have read as much as I can. Nobody in the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should the noble Lord want to know, nor written my speeches or talked to me.

It is just not fair. There is a lot in the Bill to get one’s head around and to try to speak to. If there is repetition going on in this debate, it is people on the other side constantly saying that anyone scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is certainly not true of a wide range of us.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that if you do not have the hat on, you are not wearing it. It is not an individual I am talking about.

I would like artificial intelligence or GPT to do a word count of exactly what the Benches opposite have said over and over again over the last three days in Committee. I started to do that again this afternoon. There were the same phrases, the same arguments and the same resentment all over again about the idea that we should regulate.

Bear in mind, this whole issue came out of the report of a former Conservative Sport Minister. It was subject to a White Paper by the previous Conservative Government in February 2023, and legislation was then drawn up by the Conservative Government. After all that further scrutiny and debate outside, we are now debating it under a Labour Government—ho, ho, ho.

Let us be clear: get this wrong and it will not be the Premier League that loses out; it will be a pyramid, which by its very nature is built from the bottom. Without the rest of the EFL and beyond, we would not have a Premier League. You could ring-fence the 20 clubs, which is what some of them would like; I am sure it would be fantastic for the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, to know that West Ham would never be relegated. I would love Sheffield Wednesday to never be relegated ever again. In fact, I ought to declare a reverse interest: my family and I sponsor a member of the Sheffield Wednesday squad, Callum Paterson. My only resentment is that the manager does not put him on the field often enough. There we are, Saturday after Saturday—and, these days, Sunday after Sunday—seeing competition working and seeing the struggle that is going on.

My amendments are about this: in company law, we expect a degree of governance—this is called the Football Governance Bill—and we do so as a safeguard for everyone. In the case of competition generally, it is about customers and shareholders; in this case, it is also about the fans, who are also the customers. We need a sensible governance structure—these are exploratory, probing amendments, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench will undoubtedly respond—so that we can get the balance right.

I believe that good governance is a protection not just for the fans but for the owners. It protects the owners from unwarranted attack, bearing in mind that in the Championship, League One and League Two, £450 million is being pumped in, this season alone, to ensure that clubs do not go bust, because they do not have the mass revenue that the Premier League has because of its sheer brilliance on the field and in negotiating television rights and the like.

We need the proper governance that you would expect in any well-run business so that the owners are protected from undue attack and the fans know that the club is being properly run, and you cannot have a representative of the fans without a proper governance structure. It is as simple as that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that, because I am determined that we do not go on until 3 am or into Christmas, I will leave it at that. It is as simple as the amendments outline: we need a code of practice that everybody understands and that they can adhere to, so that on a weekend or an evening we can get the kind of game out there that the fans deserve.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 157 in my name; I am grateful to those who have added their names. It seeks to add to the governance requirements for licensed football clubs that there should be at least two independent non-executive directors appointed to their main board. The remit for these directors should follow the definition set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code developed by the Financial Reporting Council. I thank the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust for its support for me in putting this amendment together.

As your Lordships know, independent non-executive directors bring independent expertise, scrutiny and accountability to a board, and would have a key role to play in upholding the principles of the Bill around financial sustainability and supporter engagement. I had a quick look and noted that Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club have several independent non-executives; West Ham are reported to have a couple; Liverpool have solely Kenny Dalglish; and Arsenal have simply the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham.

I think we should have more than just the one. The appointment of independent non-executive directors, and their role in advising and scrutinising a club’s financial position, can be an effective check and balance. It is likely to mitigate the need for an independent regulator to intervene regularly, as more issues will be successfully addressed through the accountability that independent non-execs provide.

They can also safeguard the interests of the association’s stakeholders and membership, as the code sets out. In this case, that means supporters. The UK Corporate Code sets out how independent non-execs have a role in overseeing effective engagement with stakeholders. In the case of football, this would of course be adopted to cover supporters and would really help to develop progress on the requirement for effective fan engagement by providing independent senior voices who would play a key part in ensuring effective dialogue with fans.

In that vein, the DCMS requires all national governing bodies for sport to appoint independent non-executive directors to their boards, as set out in the sports governance code. So I ask the Minister to set out provision for independent non-execs on the face of the Bill, or give us reassurance that the regulator itself will bring forward requirements around this issue in the governance code that it will produce.

I would like to support absolutely these amendments. I say for the record—and I am sure that I speak for all contributors to these debates—that I am making these points because I care deeply about football and about what is best for football. I think these amendments absolutely do that.

I have many examples of sitting on boards as an independent non-exec director; they are absolutely the sort of people we want, making sure that a club is putting forward appropriate business plans that are sensible, and sometimes taking a risk—risk appetite is in these amendments—but with the right approach to doing so. Having that balance on the board, of owners, supporters and independent, wise heads, has got to be a sensible thing. With that in mind, I offer my support for the amendments.

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 54, 156 and 157. I apologise to your Lordships for not being here on the previous day of Committee but, as chair of Sport Wales—I declare my interest—I was chairing a meeting of Welsh governing bodies of sport.

In my time involved in sport, I have sat on a number of different sports bodies, including British Athletics, where intimate knowledge of the sport is really helpful, and the Olympic Park London Legacy Development Corporation, where wider knowledge of a range of sports makes a difference. I put my name on these amendments because I sat for two years on the board of Yorkshire County Cricket Club and was interim chair for nine months. As part of that, I was challenged occasionally on whether I knew the laws of cricket and how dare I put my name forward for this. But I was not there as an independent non-executive to umpire a game; I was there to bring good governance to the county.

Bringing that jigsaw of skills is really important. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, there is a sports governance code. Olympic and Paralympic sport have benefited greatly from having this. It is about bringing that expertise, accountability and scrutiny. For me, it is about setting the tone for the whole pyramid of the game, and how that feeds up to the Premier League. If we do not get this right for the pyramid, we do not get it right for the sport. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 249, laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Regrettably, I was not able to participate at Second Reading, for which I apologise. I declare an interest as an enthusiastic football fan and supporter of West Ham United since the days of Bobby Moore and Geoff Hurst—which dates me a bit.

Clause 20 of this Bill introduces corporate governance duties with regard to equality, diversity and inclusion. Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, would create an additional duty on football clubs to produce an annual report detailing the club’s diversity and inclusion strategy. This sounds in theory like a good thing. The problem here is that the Football Association’s idea of diversity and inclusion seems to be to promote some forms of diversity while silencing—even excluding—others.

The current approach at the FA punishes and excludes one particular group: women who object to male inclusion in the women’s game. Noble Lords have previously spoken in this House about the 17 year-old girl who was disciplined and suspended for asking a male player on the pitch in a women’s game, “Are you a bloke—a male player in a women’s game?” She was suspended. That is not inclusion.

Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, proposes that the corporate government statement must include a club’s plan to improve the diversity of season ticket holders, staff and senior managers. The FA’s investigations unit helped Newcastle United Football Club collect personal information about a lesbian fan which resulted in her suspension by the club from attending matches because someone at her club did not like her social media posts. This behaviour by the FA and the club is not inclusion.

Both examples show intolerance of what are called gender-critical views—that is, the ordinary scientific and common-sense understanding that there are two sexes, that human beings cannot change sex and that sex matters. Those are mainstream views and they are critical to ensuring fairness and safety in sport. People who hold and express them are protected against discrimination and harassment on the basis of belief by the Equality Act 2010, but the FA is punishing female players and fans for expressing these views.

Through its partnership with Stonewall, the FA has made its campaign one of intolerance, disallowing the expression of any views other than the mantra of “trans women are women”. When diversity and inclusion is defined by more tolerance, I shall welcome it. If we compel English football to pursue more of this so-called diversity and inclusion, it will be at the further expense of women and girls.

What is the solution? The solution is to stop talking in vague terms about diversity and inclusion and have the courage to talk about the groups who need to be included: women and girls, gay men and those who are disabled. Let us have less of the thought-policing and more genuine inclusion. Until we can do that, we must oppose the further imposition of vague diversity and inclusion requirements, because they are anything but inclusive.

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 156 in particular, I want to address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. There have been 51 clubs in the Premier League since its inception, and there are no permanent members of the Premier League. The Premier League is responsible. It works in a way that looks after the entire pyramid, with its £1.6 billion voluntary redistribution, and it is that money that powers the entire Premier League.

I have spent 32 years—almost all my career—working in professional football across the Football League and the Premier League. My suggestions for amendments are, in a way, to assist the Government to make the Bill work better and avoid the unintended consequences that we all fear and keep warning about.

Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, concerns inclusion and diversity among season ticket holders in the corporate governance statement. I want to say at the outset that diversity is undoubtedly a critical issue in any industry, and football is no exception. Clubs across the pyramid should and do strive to be welcoming and inclusive spaces for all. However, with respect to the noble Lord, the amendment makes a profound and dangerous error. It proposes to involve the regulator in micromanaging some of the most fiercely prized and deeply personal relationships that football clubs hold: their connection with their season ticket holders.

Season ticket holders are the beating heart of football clubs. They are not just customers; they are custodians of the club’s heritage and identity. They represent generations of loyalty, support and community spirit. To suggest that the club should be required to actively manage and engineer the diversity of this group fundamentally misunderstands the organic and deeply embedded nature of these relationships. It risks turning something sacred and delicate into a crude tick-box exercise. For what purpose? To satisfy an external regulator’s misguided notion of progress. I cannot stress enough how risky that would be. It is yet another sign of the scope creep and dangers that lurk in the Bill.

I am not saying that football does not have a role to play in promoting diversity and inclusion—it absolutely does, and clubs up and down the country are already leading by example in the brilliant work that they do every day in this regard. But these initiatives arise from the clubs themselves, born out of genuine commitment and not fear of regulatory overreach. That is how to foster real, lasting change—not by imposing quotas or forcing clubs to meet arbitrary targets but by working with them to build on the good will and trust that they already share with their communities.

If the regulator were ever to presume to dictate the composition of season ticket holders, even indirectly, that would be a terrible precedent. Where does it end? Will clubs be told whom they can and cannot allow into their grounds, based on diversity metrics? That would not promote inclusion; it would undermine trust, alienate fans and drive a wedge between clubs and their most loyal supporters.

The regulator’s role as envisaged by the Bill is supposed to safeguard financial sustainability; it is not a social engineering body. It has neither the expertise nor the mandate to wade into matters as sensitive as the make-up of a club’s fan base. Football is inherently competitive; clubs live and die by their ability to attract and retain fans. A regulator forcing their hand on this front is just not necessary and is completely counterproductive. Clubs are not perfect, but they understand their communities better than any regulator ever could. Let us not risk eroding that bond.

I hear what the noble Baroness says about diversity. This weekend, a West Ham player, Antonio, had a terrible car accident and is in hospital now. If you had seen some of the vile and disgusting comments on social media about the player and the club, you would begin to understand why we need diversity.

I have just looked it up, and the dictionary says that diversity is

“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations”, and that

“equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake”.

I do not have that rosy picture of football supporters. I lived through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and heard the chants at various football grounds, which we cannot now repeat in this Chamber. Things are getting better and more acceptable, but it has not gone away. We need diversity to be brought to the fore.

As for the idea that we can just let the clubs do nothing and let this evolve, that just will not happen. We need to make statements. We need, via the regulator and via some of these amendments, to enshrine things in a regulator’s role. What is wrong with having a diversity report that a football club would produce once a year? It is not a tick-box exercise; it stops comments being made about certain footballers about gender, colour, creed or whatever. The more we can introduce that and embed it into football, the less vitriolic nonsense we will get. You still hear it, even on Sky, when they then say, “If you heard anything you shouldn’t have heard, we apologise for that”. That is what you get as an answer—but it needs stopping. These kinds of amendments are needed to enshrine in the regulator the ability to say to clubs, “You will give that report and commit to doing all those things around what diversity means”.

I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the West Ham player, Michail Antonio. It was a real shock to me on Saturday when I received a call from the police about his car accident, but I am pleased to report that he has had an operation and is recovering well. I take the opportunity to thank all the NHS staff and all the emergency services, including the air ambulance and the firefighters who cut him free from his car.

I agree with the noble Lord that the comments footballers are subject to is a terrible shame. It is absolutely horrific and that is a problem with social media. Clubs themselves do everything they can. At West Ham, we have the highest standard of equality and diversity; you cannot be awarded any higher standard than we have. We take it very seriously and that feeds down through our entire club. I thank him for making those comments. Football is trying to deal with those things, but there could be help from other places. We know about the Online Safety Act and that could really help.

My Lords, I support Amendment 157. I declare an interest as a Premier League season ticket holder. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present during previous debates on the Bill, but I have endeavoured to keep up with its progress.

This part of our discussion seems to overlay lots of different and very complex issues, piling them all into one or two amendments. As I speak to Amendment 157, I will try to focus on governance and having independent, non-executive directors on boards, which is absolutely essential when looking at this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has pointed out, there is this idea of football clubs being not just a business or a commercial entity, as other commercial entities are. They are also considered to be community assets, so there is a wide range of stakeholders involved in the promotion, adoration, despair and all the other emotions that go with being a football fan. As has been rightly pointed out, it almost defines something about England.

It is therefore important to try to ensure, as far as possible without being too prescriptive, that we have independent non-executive directors on boards because of the accountability. At the moment, I think many fans feel that there is no accountability. I take on board a lot of the points made about how progressive and determined clubs are to counter the horrible things that happen online and elsewhere, but clubs have also not been terribly successful in changing the faces that sit around those boardroom tables. If we look at reviews such as Sir John Parker’s review of ethnic diversity on boards, there has been some improvement in some sectors. I would gladly be persuaded by those who know better if it is the case that diversity has been increased around those tables.

That is just one part of it. To me, this feels like a move for basic good practice. We have the Nolan principles and we have guidance from the Institute of Directors. All those kinds of guidelines need transparency and people to speak up for them who do not have an interest in a particular way on those boards.

My Lords, I have not had the chance yet to speak to my amendments but I am grateful to other noble Lords for participating in the debate and making their comments and views well known. I am slightly disturbed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has rather overinterpreted my Amendment 156. I was not aware that I was in favour of imposing quotas, but it is an interesting point.

Amendment 156 is there simply to raise the issue of ensuring that in corporate governance, football clubs are obliged to improve the diversity within the club, not just among season ticket holders but among staff and senior managers. We have made great progress through football and its barrier-breaking approach to the world of sport over the last 30 or 40 years. I can remember some pretty unpleasant scenes at football grounds when I first started watching football seriously. Gladly, those have become much less frequent but there is a real and genuine issue about representation, particularly of black players then not getting opportunities in off-field representation at all levels of management.

I have received a useful briefing today from the Black Footballers Partnership, which points out exactly that. Only two of the current 92 league managers are black, despite black footballers making up 43% of the players. The Black Footballers Partnership data shows that despite achieving 14% of all FIFA pro licences and one in four of UEFA licences, black players secure only 4% of the coaching and other managerial roles. There is clearly something not right there.

It is important that clubs are obliged to think through some of these issues. Quotas may or may not be the way to do it but we have opportunity here for football to think about improving the levels of diversity, not just in football management but in all management positions and other roles within the clubs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, clubs have led the way and have played a really startling and dynamic role over time.

With this amendment—and I am grateful to those who have signed it and spoken to it—I am trying to get football to begin thinking more widely about diversity in its broadest sense so that in the future it is just part and parcel of how it should be. I guess the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, would think that this is regulation creep, but I do not see it that way; I see it as setting standards for the future. Football has a proud reputation, and it is one it should build on.

In this amendment, we are seeking to encourage football to build on its reputation, because that is what needs to be done to make the world of football more inclusive and better reflect the society in which it is located. If we can do that, I think the values of football—competition and solidarity—will be much better represented. It would add to the fairness and equity that is there within a very competitive game.

My Lords, I think the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, posits diversity as something you cannot possibly be against. Of course, we are all against prejudice—I hope—and that seems very commonsensical. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point that he tabled this amendment so we could have a proper discussion about diversity.

The problem for me is that diversity, in the context of governance of organisations, is already established across a wide range of organisations. I am afraid it has not been for the good of those organisations. I will address the problems of diversity as a bureaucratic intervention, especially in the hands of a regulator, and why I think it will not be good for football. That does not mean I am implicitly on the side of people who are racists or not interested in equal rights or fairness.

It is important that we have some perspective here. We might note that there are 64 different nationalities represented in the Premier League, as well as a myriad of religious denominations. For players in all the different football teams across the league, that is surely proof of meritocracy—rather than box-ticking diversity schemes—that provides the riches of talents, that is colour-blind and that is not interested in people based on their characteristics.

I also think we have huge diversity in fanbase, and it has not needed a regulator to organise schemes to ensure that English football is loved by hundreds of millions of people of all shapes and sizes, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds across the globe. Meanwhile, female fans, players and popular momentum are propelling women’s football into the limelight. Therefore, I do not think that football is an example of a pale, male, stale institution that is waiting for a regulator to sort it out.

Both the amendments I am concerned about, Amendments 156 and 249, mention the clubs’ employees and monitoring and reporting on staff diversity. But I think we need to take heed of some of the negative lessons from other workplaces, particularly the public sector. Whatever the intention, too often an over-preoccupation with diversity is less likely to create more fairness for staff but does create an explosion of jobs for human resources—HR—apparatchiks, who manage the diversity and inclusion schemes that we set up.

It is worth noting that Britain has one of the largest HR sectors in the world. It is one area of growth that somebody somewhere might be proud of, although I am rather in despair at it. According to the British Labour Force Survey, there was an 83% increase in HR jobs between 2011 and 2023. As journalist Lucy Barton pointed out, that means that HR workers currently outnumber NHS doctors three to one. Let that sink in. A lot of this growth is due to job creation in relation to EDI demands. I do not think we should go ahead with these amendments on diversity and inclusion but, if we do, I propose some sort of cost-benefit analysis. The salaries needed for the hours and hours of paperwork that the regulator will be checking that the clubs do could be incredibly financially burdensome—even crippling—on many clubs.

The problem is not just money and resources. The growth of HR in today’s cultural climate tends not to be a neutral act. It comes with the baggage of political ideology, if we are honest about it. Civic Future has explained that HR has moved from responding to an organisation’s needs to shaping them. We need to be careful what we wish for here. The aim might be to reduce discrimination, but often it is just a green light for increasing discrimination complaints, claims and even lawsuits. Data from employment tribunals show that there has been a significant rise in cases brought using the Equality Act during the 2020s compared to the 2010s. That is proof not that discrimination is being tackled but that overzealous organisations, acting either because they have these HR people in or because some regulator is breathing down their neck, get it wrong.

Just this weekend, we found out that the security services have said they will not recruit white British students to their internship schemes. Already people are talking about going to court because that is racist, discriminatory and unlawful. By the way, their justification is diversity. It is exactly the same as what happened with the RAF last year, which was forced to apologise when it emerged that it was unlawfully discriminating against white, male recruits. I also remind the Committee of the landmark case of Maya Forstater, who lost her job for expressing gender-critical views, all in an attempt to be inclusive of a trans employee. Her employers ended up breaking anti-discrimination laws in firing her.

For all this talk of tackling discrimination and creating more diverse workplaces, in this case in football clubs, we never tackle the lack of diversity of opinions. That question is never raised. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that if you are a female football fan who expresses a gender-critical view then you might end up getting disciplined by your football club. You have to query all the time what these words mean and what exactly is happening here. Too often when football has entered into the political arena—which is why I do not want it to—it adopts a homogenous worldview such as that which took hold at the height of the embrace of Black Lives Matter in the middle of 2020, when fans who were less than keen on the “taking the knee” gesture that some players endorsed or were sceptical of BLM’s anti-white “defund the police” policies were then denounced as racist.

Just ask Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi, who was reprimanded for wearing a rainbow armband declaring “I love Jesus”, apparently transgressing the FA’s rule not to use equipment to promote political, religious or personal slogans. But what are those armbands promoted by the Premier League if not a blatant partisan campaign slogan for inclusion ideologies? Over the weekend, it was announced that the FA is facing legal action over its Rainbow Laces campaign and claims that the annual show of cheerleading for LGBTQ+ interests breaches the governing body’s ban on political messaging. This has nothing to do with people, by the way.

It is very important that we do not naively say, “Oh, we just want diversity and fairness. What’s wrong with that?” There is a political campaign behind some of this, and we have to be wary of introducing it into football with the full force of a regulator.

I also want to query how equal opportunities will be monitored. Definitions of protected characteristics are increasingly unhelpful. I mentioned the Civil Service. In an excellent article in the New Statesman, former senior civil servant Pamela Dow used the example of graduates ticking the disability box on their application to the Civil Service Fast Stream. That meant that they rose from 11% in 2014 to 23% in 2020, perhaps because it allowed candidates to skip an assessment stage, therefore possibly incentivising them to disclose. When we say we want to report on and monitor diversity and to know who is who, can we at least have a question mark about what is being measured? Therefore, regardless of what it means, the Civil Service now has no idea how many people are blind, bipolar, using a wheelchair or with a self-diagnosed ADHD or anxiety question. I do not think those sorts of statistics are helpful. I am worried about just taking on board mandating it and box-ticking, and therefore actually not doing anything for people with disabilities.

I am especially disturbed by the explicit mention of monitoring the diversity make-up of season ticket holders. We have constantly stressed that teams are very important to local areas, but what if a locality has a majority of white citizens? Will it fail some diversity test if the majority of season ticket holders have the wrong skin colour? If there is a large percentage of local residents from south-east Asia who do not choose to attend football matches, but who might be passionately engaged in another sport, will they be dragooned into the ground? It is a wrongful assumption that these local residents are not interested in football because of some implicit bias on behalf of the club. Will Spurs be in trouble if too many of their season ticket holders are Jewish—disproportionate to the ethnic or religious demographic breakdowns of the ground’s vicinity?

I will pause here—and I am glad the Chief Whip is not in, because I know I will get in trouble—to say a shout-out to the fan activists. My final point is about the Spurs fans who are valiantly publicising the plight of Spurs-mad Emily Damari, the one remaining British citizen held hostage in the terror tunnels. There is heroic solidarity from them. She is one of us—bring her home.

My Lords, I am a little bewildered by the direction of the debate. Some of these amendments have been put to tease out the issues. My general commentary would be rather different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who seemed very unkeen on the tremendous work being done across football by the clubs, which I commend. Indeed, I do not just commend it; I can quantify it. I reference my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as the Government’s adviser on anti-Semitism, then and now. I am particularly impressed by the first ever programme of anti-Semitism training in football, which was launched two years ago. There were a few eyebrows at first, with people asking, “What is this?” In two years, two-thirds of English football has volunteered to be trained. Significant numbers are having their academies trained and some are having players, the board and staff trained. It is particularly interesting and valuable that the biggest single piece of training in the city of Leeds—ever—was the training of Leeds United stewards under this programme.

I am delighted that Liverpool Football Club will be one of many clubs starting in the new year. The list of engagements on this in the first quarter of next year is quite formidable—but there is space for more. This is a success in football, because of what it said to the small number of Jewish players, Jewish staff and Jewish fans: you are valued here.

Just last week, I was at Leyton Orient, where the Jewish supporters’ group sponsored the match against Bristol Rovers. Leyton Orient outperformed anything they had done this season as a response. There will be the first-ever Hanukkah events at Fulham Football Club and at Leeds United Football Club. Other new groups are being formed. Other groups have existing events around Hanukkah and Holocaust Memorial Day. This is a positive, and it is not to the exclusion of any other group. Indeed, we find that other small groups of people who perhaps do not see many people like themselves in the stadium, on the pitch or in the club also welcome it. I have seen clubs embrace that as well. If I was running a club, which I have no desire to do—sometimes I would like to influence one or two of the footballing decisions, but would not we all?—then I would want my club to do that and welcome it. I would call it a good business plan.

On the whole question of diversity, one of its weaknesses and the reason why I tabled an amendment, just to tease out what the Government think—not because I think this is a good regulation necessarily but it should be good club business—is that there is a deficit in the number of black players getting into the better coaching and managerial jobs. That is clearly to the detriment of our national game. Their talent is not being used. How that is captured and by whom is, of course, important, but from a business point of view it is a competitive disadvantage if a large group of participants in the game are then not getting into the coaching and managerial side even vaguely relative to the numbers who participate as players. It is clearly a weakness, and whichever clubs are best at addressing that will have a competitive advantage. I am interested in teasing out and listening to the Minister on how we can help football to grab that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the overall picture is that football is full of EDI officers. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them over the last two years —indeed a majority in English football. They are excellent people doing brilliant work. They are out doing work in the community as well, supporting young players from a range of backgrounds. They are a key strength in the clubs and in the clubs’ business plans, as well as in the communities. They should be commended. The more we can encourage that by whatever means, the better we will be doing our job.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He is a man of great good sense and pragmatism. In fact, I could have agreed with most of what he said but, unfortunately, on this occasion I will not agree with his amendment.

First of all, I will go back to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I agree with. It is very sensible, and the Minister would be wise to accept it. But his preamble was simply wrong. It presupposes that external forces are exerting inappropriate pressure on this side to make cases in their favour, which is completely untrue. I say that because we on this side are merely going through the proper process of scrutiny and oversight, which is our job, to test the efficacy or otherwise of the Bill. Remember: we had a general election, and we have a new Administration, a new Bill and a new Opposition. Therefore, we are quite within our rights to challenge the Bill on its face.

I pray in aid figures from the past few years about the number of Committee days given over to various Bills in this House. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had 17 sitting days. We have six. The Children and Families Act 2014 had 12 sitting days, and the Localism Act 2011 had 10. There are a number of examples. Much as I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I respectfully disagree with him.

I move on to the specific issues of, particularly, Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann. These are two quite insidious amendments; I find them quite Orwellian, actually. It is not that we do not trust local football clubs to do the right thing in terms of community outreach, working with their community and improving equality and diversity, but noble Lords are being asked to put those powers into a regulator that will develop a national template. Whether, therefore, you are Bristol Rovers, Brentford, Brighton and Hove Albion or Bradford City—to use some alliteration—you will be told what you have to put in place in terms of your EDI policies, which I do not think is right. It nationalises corporate philanthropy and community outreach. It is also a displacement activity, because it presupposes that that work is not already being done.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on the Government’s issues around what the Premier League is doing at the moment, and he had a point. In fact, I think he proved the point we made on our side on the previous group of amendments. There is, however, a huge amount of work being done. Today, 90 clubs across the Premier League, English Football League and National League work with 36 police forces to provide young people with access to free weekly football sessions and education workshops in safe and supportive community environments.

There have been over 1 million hours of free Premier League Kicks sessions since its inception, engaging more than 522,000 participants. This season, 90 professional football clubs across the Premier League, EFL and National League are supported to run weekly sessions to help young people to achieve their potential; 38% of attendees are from ethnically diverse communities and 25% are female. There are 4,900 delivery venues across England and Wales, and more than half are located in the most deprived neighbourhoods. There are 21,000 volunteers, and 20% of the workforce are former participants. There has been £81.6 million invested into the programme through the Premier League Charitable Fund.

The issue, therefore, to paraphrase my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, is: what question are these amendments answering? Given that there are already quite significant legal powers through the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation to discourage direct discrimination, this circumscribes and undermines the capacity of local clubs to make local decisions to help, for instance, white British boys who are disadvantaged, disabled youngsters who are disadvantaged or lesbian women who are disadvantaged, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lord Reay.

Imposing that top-down approach is well meant—the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam, Lord Blunkett and Lord Mann, were wise, sensible and well meant—but we must remember that these are powers that we are giving in a very permissive Bill to an independent football regulator. They are powers that, I believe, have the potential to be misused. More importantly, there are powers already in place for local clubs to use at the grass-roots level to improve lives in the local community. For that reason, I oppose those particular amendments.

My Lords, I support Amendment 54 with regard to the governance of clubs. I am sorry that I could not take part at Second Reading, but I have been present for a significant part of Committee. I have been a season ticket holder at either Sunderland or QPR for most of my life, and I now have three season tickets at QPR for myself, my son and grandson—I fear what I have done to both of them, but that is another problem.

In 2005, I undertook a report for the Football Association on its governance. Quite a number of important proposals that I made were carried out, but I am afraid that some were not. I sometimes think that, if they had been, there would have been for the Bill that we are having to spend so much time on now.

As far as experience goes, I was a member of the board of QPR for a few years and I have been the chairman of a bank. For me, there are some interesting similarities between football and banking: both are rather risky activities. The risks in football are about the performance of the team, the loss of value of players, either because of form or injury, and the risks involved in promotion and relegation. From my observation, and experience at the time, the biggest risk to clubs is overreaching; it is about taking too much risk. They are very often funded by owners or directors. Things go downhill and the directors then want their money back, if it was in the form of loans, which forces clubs into selling players at a loss.

The banks have a prudential regulator and I accept that there is a clear need for some body that has oversight for football as well from the point of view of prudential regulation. The point was made earlier that it is no good coming along once problems have emerged. You need systems and processes in place that monitor areas of activities where risks lie.

I am a great supporter of requirements of good governance in all kinds of organisations. I have sat on many boards, and I have seen good boards and not so good boards. There is a great deal of difference. It is significant to me that, when I was involved in banking and dealing with financial regulators, they placed great emphasis on the quality of the board in overseeing what was going on and particularly the risks it was undertaking. It seems to me to follow naturally that there should be the same requirement for the football regulator with respect to clubs.

I add—it is not for today—that I looked at the requirements and some of the governance issues that have been suggested for the regulator, but I am not sure all would pass the standards of good governance. For example, the exclusive role of the chairman in choosing the chief executive seems slightly odd for a body that has non-executive directors as well as a chairman. But I very much support this amendment.

My Lords, I rise to question Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lady Grey-Thompson. It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because it is a reminder to us of how much experience we have here, from a board director of a Premier League football club to regular supporters and, in the noble Lord’s case, the holder of three season tickets. I pay tribute to him and his long-suffering son and grandson.

The point that I want to make about Amendment 156 is about season tickets. I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would argue against diversity in staff and senior managers. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made the good point that about 40% of Premier League players are from a BME background, but that that does not continue into senior management. That has been the case for a long time and there is clearly more work to do on that.

However, the first part of Amendment 156 talks about

“the diversity of season ticket holders”.

When I saw that, I was worried about the law of unintended consequences. How on earth do you sort out that issue? For season tickets for my team there is something called supply and demand. There are several options for having a season ticket at Manchester United, as there are at other Premier League clubs, but how do you work it out? There is a waiting list, because of supply and demand. Several thousand people are waiting to become season ticket holders, so can the Minister advise the Committee how this amendment would be looked at?

There are a limited number of seats at a ground: in the case of Old Trafford, there are 75,000 seats and a waiting list of 10,000. I have had a season ticket for many years. Recently, they changed where you could sit at Old Trafford. I was unsure for a while whether I would have a ticket for where I moved to. I was told that there was no guarantee that I would have a ticket, which, as you can imagine, was quite distressing for somebody who had been a season ticket holder for many years. As it turned out, I was lucky enough to have a ticket, in the way that several thousand were not.

There is also the option of a league match ticket book. That enables me to go to Premier League games only. There is the cup option—the FA Cup, the Carabao Cup and the European Cup options. There is also a ticket forwarding membership of £20. I mention that because, if you are looking at diversity, you may not be able to get a season ticket holder, but if you want to go and see a Premier League club, becoming a member gives you access to get a ticket. It might not be your favourite Premier League game against your local opposition or any other club in the Premier League, but anybody could apply, become a member of their local club and should be able to get a ticket for a cup game. It may not be a Saturday or a Sunday; it may be a midweek game. Diversity is in evidence at Premier League clubs. For example, accessibility for disability has been there in many clubs for many years. When I sit there before kick-off at Manchester United, I see significant diversity around me. What surprises me is the people who fly around the world to see their team play, as they do for so many other Premier League clubs.

The Premier League is the best premier league in the world for a good reason. It attracts diversity by that very principle. I would be interested in how the regulator would ensure diversity of ticket holders. I say yes when it comes to staff and senior management—I do not think anybody could disagree with that. However, it is complicated, and so much to do with this Bill is the law of unintended consequences. You cannot tell people who have been on waiting lists for many years that they cannot become a season ticket holder because of some diversity report from a regulator.

My Lords, I support Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I shall speak also to Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which has a lot to commend it.

Before I comment briefly on those three, I want on the record to thank the Minister. We met this morning. We are fortunate in this Committee to have a Minister who is patient, engaging, professional and, unquestionably, inclusive in her approach to many different amendments and many different views that are expressed throughout this Chamber. When she consistently says how much she is enjoying this, some of us might question that, but there is no doubt that if she is, she deserves to, because she has the respect of the Committee and certainly my respect for the way in which she has engaged with us.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have many decades of respect. I was completely in agreement with 50% of what he said today, but I caution him in labelling a large number of Members of this Committee as purely spouting the views of the Premier League, trying to talk this Bill out or, more importantly perhaps, breaching the admonition from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that because both Front Benches supported the Bill, we should not scrutinise it. He will know that for many decades I have been a passionate and independent voice for sport. My own deeply held view is that the autonomy and self-regulation of sport worldwide, be it in the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, UEFA or any number of international sporting bodies, are essential to the success of sport and ultimately those who participate in it.

So I hope the noble Lord will understand that, from that perspective at least—going far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the benefits of light-touch regulation—I have deep reservations about state regulation, or even state-influenced regulation. I do not think I have ever seen a Bill that applies to sport with some 125 pages and 98 highly prescriptive clauses detailing the way in which a regulator would work, or indeed the powers granted to the Secretary of State to influence and control a sport. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have genuine concerns. If we have state-influenced and state-controlled regulation through secondary legislation, and also on the face of the Bill, we will be in danger of finding ourselves in conflict with the UEFA regulations that monitor its competitions, FIFA’s regulations and the International Olympic Committee’s regulations, should we wish to submit for entry a team, either men’s or women’s, to the Olympic Games. That is what concerns me; I have a genuine reservation about it.

I point out to the noble Lord that the whole point is that this regulator is independent. Obviously, it is influenced strongly by government decisions, but it is independent. Surely, many of the concerns that the noble Lord is expressing—as, indeed, is the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—are answered by the appointment of a sensible regulator who will act in a proportionate manner.

I only wish I could say to the noble Lord that that is what we have in front of us. Had we had the opportunity to sit with him and explore each and every clause as we have gone through this, we might have been able to say so, but that is not the case. This is not light-touch regulation. This is not even regulation that you find in the Companies Act.

Let me give the noble Lord a quick example; I risk admonition for repeating a point that I made earlier, but I will make it very quickly indeed. When you give powers to the regulator to explore not just the controlling influence of a football club but those who “significantly” influence a football club, those are very different roles. You have “controlling” in the Premier League; you have “significant influence” in the Bill. Significant influence can reach back as far as the Crown Prince, who has significant influence over the PIF, which owns Newcastle, whereas, by definition in this Bill, he does not control that club, nor would the Premier League investigate him on that basis.

So it is reasonable to accept the noble Lord’s premise—I wish it were true that this is light-touch regulation—but, in reality, this is incredibly intrusive, highly detailed regulation. It goes further than the regulation I put in place in 1990 when I was the Minister responsible for water privatisation and we were setting up Ofwat. That was light-touch regulation in comparison with this extraordinarily detailed Bill. That is the most important point driving my concern about unintended consequences—what some people call the “mission creep” of regulation.

I turn to the amendments. Given that we are going to have a Bill for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said—there is all-party support for having legislation of this kind—we may as well get it right. There is real merit in looking at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—backed so eloquently, as ever, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would

“ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively”.

I hope that it would not be just regulated clubs. I hope that all clubs in all sports would do that, because the benefits of having both executive and non-executive directors is well known to those of us in sport—not least in the British Olympic Association, which I had the privilege of chairing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has widespread support in this House for the work he has done on anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism training. I am glad that he tabled his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to thank him on behalf of sport and on behalf of football. That work has been absolutely critical; I say this not just as a fellow Leeds fan but because, across sport as a whole, it is vital that we put equality, inclusion and diversity right at the top of what we do.

We are expected to do that outside football. I have an interest to declare as the chair of Amey, which has some 13,000 people. Almost the first thing that I did as chairman was set up an ESG committee immediately beneath the board and chair it so that I could ensure inclusion and diversity were right at the heart of our policy and were in the DNA of everybody who worked in that organisation. I do not believe that that is different from sport and I do not believe that that is different from football.

So, if we are to have legislation—which, as noble Lords know, I regret—let us get this right and listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said in the first 50% of his speech, and to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mann. There is real merit in the Minister taking this away and thinking about what we would expect to see from the regulator in this context.

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I am afraid that some of the comments that have been made have obliged me to do so.

However, before I come on to the amendments and the comments made in the speeches, I would just like all your Lordships to look around you. We are talking about equality, inclusion and diversity. What proportion of this Chamber is disabled, non-white, gay or lesbian? The answer is: very, very few. It is a compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that she is a great example of what women can achieve at the top of the football tree, and that we have a female Minister responding. But I stand here, as I said in my first speech to this Chamber, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club. It celebrated its 29th anniversary only just under two months ago and will celebrate, I expect, its 30th anniversary next 1 November.

I find it utterly unacceptable to suggest, as has been suggested, that we should not tackle the question of trans individuals in society. I am proud that I did a podcast the other week with a member of my club, who himself has undergone the process of moving from female to male. He is proud of having done it. There are issues that we have to address in society, as well as issues that we have to address in sport. I believe that on occasion it is appropriate to put things into legislation as an “encouragement” to people to behave in a certain way. It is all very well saying, “Well, we have the right policies and we’ll do it all right”, but I come back to this point: look at this Chamber.

I have not taken any guidance, as Lord Blunkett suggested, from the Premier League, and in fact, on a previous occasion in Committee, I made the point that actually the Premiers League, for all its right efforts, was not messaging correctly. I believe that that is the case here. In rugby we have had openly gay World Cup final referees and a captain of the Welsh rugby team, but we have no openly gay, top-level professional players at the moment, as far as I am aware. But football is behind the times despite the best encouragements from individuals, and it is therefore well worth while asking the question of the Minister and of the regulator, “How are you actually going to tackle these issues?”—because issues they remain.

I will conclude on the observation in relation to Rainbow Laces. Rainbow Laces has been adopted by sport throughout as a means of messaging to people as to how they should behave to other minority groups. They must continue to do so. It is not a political gesture; it is a gesture on behalf of society as a whole to other parts of society. I believe we have achieved so much, but we could achieve so much more.

Maybe the noble Lord and I can have a fruitful conversation outside this debate. For today’s purposes, does he understand that in a discussion about inclusion and diversity, women are concerned about women’s rights and women’s equality? Among women footballers and the parents of young girls they are encouraging to get involved in women’s football and training and so on, there is great discomfort, as the tennis guru Judy Murray said at the weekend. Will he acknowledge that this has nothing to do with individuals? It is to do with the political approach. At the moment, women do not feel included or represented in football because this issue is put to one side, and therefore everyone talking about EDI and all the rest of it is just a slap in the face.

I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, expressed the hope that we would not take another hour dealing with this group of amendments. We have taken well over an hour. I find this debate very odd because we all seem to agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are of enormous importance in football. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, rightly spoke of the great efforts that West Ham in particular has made and the great results. Many other clubs have done the same. I would be astonished if a Bill dealing with these matters did not require the independent regulator to look at equality, diversity and inclusion and to have broad powers across the scope of football to do so.

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who knows how much I respect him, that I have had no contact at any point with the Premier League, unless you count occasionally buying a ticket to one of the member clubs. Far from filibustering, my intervention on the previous round was the first time I had spoken since Second Reading, and I kept it to about four minutes. I opposed this Bill very strenuously when it was proposed in the previous Parliament. I am sure he will allow that it is not exactly the same Bill. It has been beefed up in various ways, and those ways need scrutiny.

One of the ways in which it has been beefed up, even short of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in strengthening the EDI provisions. I have to stand back and ask whether it is proper for a regulator to tell private clubs what kind of people should be their ticket holders. Is there not a basic principle of proportionality and property here that says it is in your interest to have as many ticket holders as you can, and it is in their interest, if they are interested, to come? Does that intersection of who wants to come and how much they are prepared to pay not represent the right place in a free society? We are not some autocracy where we impose values on free-standing organisations.

In our present mood we sacralise the values of EDI but tomorrow it may be something else, and that would be equally wrong because there is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as a private space, and that is an essential building block of a free society. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—he will correctly me if I get this wrong—says it is shocking that only 4% of senior management positions are held by black people. According to the 2021 census, the proportion of black people in the UK is 4.0%. In other words, without any intervention, without anyone telling them what to do, we happen to have an exactly representative number. But even if that were not the case—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying, there is a much higher proportion of black players in Premier League clubs—surely that is meritocracy. Why would it be the business of government to try to bring that number into line with the population?

Does the noble Lord not think it is rather odd that in a sport where something like 43% or 44% of the players are black, very few of those players make it through into management positions in those same professional leagues? Does he not think there is something slightly amiss there?

The figure that is out of whack with the population is the number of players, not the number of managers, which is exactly in line with the population as a whole. The noble Lord may have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with that because it is plainly meritocratic. Clubs are interested in winning, so they pay people who are going to produce the results that they want on the pitch. If their fans are not happy with it, they stay away. That is how the system works and why, frankly, I think the whole Bill is wrong. I realise I have lost that argument, but we are not some insecure South American junta that has to tell private clubs what to do and appoint commissars over sport.

I do not want to be accused of filibustering this one, and I have gone just over three minutes, so I will finish by saying that if we are to have this wretched regulator, let us at least make it as proportionate and as in line with the rest of our law as possible, on which note I will support the rest of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, because it seems quite sensible to bring any regulator into line with the usual standards of corporate governance.

My Lords, we did not quite give the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the debate of under an hour that he hoped for, but I note, for the benefit of the Government Chief Whip when he comes to read the Official Report, that this group is composed entirely of Labour Back-Bench amendments. We have heard the arguments and motivations for tabling the amendments advanced by noble Lords who did so; we have tested their arguments and examined the intended and unintended consequences. That is the work of this Committee, and I am glad we have done it. We had a fruitful and useful debate with quite a lot of agreement between noble Lords about their anxieties and some of the problems that we want to solve, but also some shared anxieties about the problems that might flow from the way in which the noble Lords who tabled the amendments propose doing so.

I start on a point on which I think we all agreed and add my strong support for the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and those who signed them, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about independent non-executive directors. They are sensible and constructive amendments. One reason we have been moving quite slowly in this Committee is perhaps, as is often the case, that the Government have listened to the debate and rejected all the amendments tabled so far, urging noble Lords to withdraw them and saying that they are not necessary. Amendments 54 and 157 are good amendments on which to break that trend; there was clear support for them from across the Committee, including the Cross Benches. I hope that, even if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendments as drafted, she will in this case look at how we can strengthen the oversight of the work of clubs through the work of independent non-executive directors.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his contribution and the support he gave to amendments we have previously discussed about the independence of the chief executive and the way in which they are appointed. There is some valuable stuff there for the Government to take away. It is very much linked to the broader debate we have had about diversity. If we can get the non-executive leadership of clubs right, then, as well as improving the scrutiny and accountability of the work of those clubs, we will add to their diversity—not just the diversity of the personnel sitting on the boards but the diversity of thought and the open-mindedness to make sure that the clubs are continuing the work that noble Lords have rightly pointed to. That includes making sure that they continue to be open, inclusive and growth-focused, concerned with attracting new fans to football and making sure that talented people, whoever they are and whatever their background, are able to rise as far up the football pyramid as their talents will take them. I hope the Minister will look favourably on Amendments 54 and 157.

Like other noble Lords, although I appreciate the motivations behind the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, I am worried about some of the consequences that might flow from it and the way he proposes it. That is not to disagree with what other noble Lords have said about the important issue that he raises, or to lose sight of the huge progress that has been made. I was not around in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, of which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us, but the behaviour of football and football fans and clubs in those decades was often not to the credit of this nation. We should be very proud of the strides that football has made, voluntarily, through the work of its fans and the people who operate the clubs, in being a more inclusive and welcoming environment open to the talents of everybody.

I know why the noble Lord has probed this area. He wants the work that is undeniably still needed to build on that to continue. Like other noble Lords who have probed it, I worry about some of the practicalities and where his amendment, as worded, would take us. There is a material difference between monitoring the diversity of a workforce and the diversity of a fan base and season ticket holders, as I think the noble Lord would acknowledge. I would particularly be concerned about asking fans and ticket buyers to disclose quite sensitive information that they do not presently share with the football team of their choice about their religion, ethnicity, sexuality and so forth. I am not quite sure how, for season ticket holders, that work would build on things.

Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, gives me the opportunity to echo the thanks that my noble friend Lord Moynihan expressed to him for his work on tackling anti-Semitism, not just in football but more broadly. I was in Downing Street when he first took on the role as the Government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, so I have seen the work that he has done in a number of spheres to tackle prejudice in that area.

Noble Lords will undoubtedly agree that diversity and inclusion in the workplace can be of benefit not just to staff but to an organisation corporately. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, expressed that this was a probing amendment to see what the Government’s view was and to highlight some of the work that football does. He is right to do so, particularly on that last element, because clubs across the football pyramid have a number of strategies and are doing great work in this area through their own volition. Arsenal, for example, have had a diversity, equality and inclusion plan called Arsenal for Everyone since 2008. Arsenal did that by themselves; they did not require a regulator to force them to publish a plan.

Article 27 of the UEFA club licensing regulations, which detail the standards that clubs must meet before they can participate in a UEFA competition, contains social and environmental sustainability conditions. It states that:

“The licence applicant must establish and implement a social and environmental sustainability strategy in line with the UEFA Football Sustainability Strategy 2030 and relevant UEFA guidelines, for at least the areas of equality and inclusion, anti-racism, child and youth protection and welfare, football for all abilities, and environmental protection”.

That is a wide-ranging list of good causes for it to encourage people to think about. There is not exactly a lack of corporate governance requirements in this area already placed on clubs, and noble Lords have pointed to a number of highly commendable initiatives to build on our work here.

I was in your Lordships’ House on Friday when the noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke in the archiepiscopal debate that we have in the run-up to Christmas, led by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. He warned against the temptation to reach for the legislative lever in every instance to drive forward good work. This is an area where a lot of great work is already being done, to the credit of people in football. I would be wary about measures that are too restrictive or prescriptive that would cut against that.

I will not go into the details of the lively debate that my noble friend Lord Reay and others had, other than to note that these are issues which are not party political; they were raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. My noble friend Lord Hayward’s intervention reminds us not just of his long-standing and pioneering role in championing inclusion in sport but of the fact that these are complicated matters that sport and so many parts of society are grappling with. I do not think that writing something into this Bill in the way that is envisaged would help that, but I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a detailed debate on this. It has been useful, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I thank my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Knight of Weymouth, Lord Mann and Lady Taylor of Bolton for tabling these amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for the role she has played in supporting some of the amendments. It has been useful to have the discussion. The debate is a reminder that, at times, players are often at the brunt of quite a lot of unpleasantness, not least on social media.

I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee will join others who have spoken about the dreadful accident that took place at the weekend involving Michail Antonio, and wish him a speedy and full recovery. I cannot imagine what it was like to take the phone call that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, had to take. Our thoughts are with him and his family and colleagues.

Good corporate governance is the bedrock of any well-functioning business, and there is agreement on this across the Committee. However, the Government believe that this has been lacking at some clubs to date, and that is why it will be an important part of the regime.

I begin with Amendment 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. While I agree with the intention, I assure my noble friend that ensuring regulated clubs have good corporate governance is already well provided for in the Bill; for example, the mandatory licence condition requiring clubs to report against a new corporate governance code for football clubs. We do not feel it is appropriate to add this level of specificity to the regulator’s objectives. As my noble friend made clear, good governance protects fans and owners. Good corporate governance will contribute to a club’s financial soundness, which is already captured within the objectives in this clause.

Amendment 156, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 249, from my noble friend Lord Mann, concern equality, diversity and inclusion. I strongly agree with the principle of these amendments that clubs should be more transparent with regards to equality, diversity and inclusion. However, I believe that Amendment 249 is not necessary. As part of the corporate governance statement mandatory licence condition, all licensed clubs will already be required to report on what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion. The Bill specifically includes equality, diversity and inclusion in its definition of corporate governance. We therefore expect to see recommendations about equality, diversity and inclusion in the regulator’s corporate governance code.

On Amendment 156, as I have outlined, clubs will already be required to report on what action they are taking on EDI. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned important examples of where clubs are already taking action. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on my noble friend’s contribution, particularly as it relates to anti-Semitism. I also agree with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in his contribution.

Reporting on the diversity of staff and senior managers would be typical of how these types of transparency measures work. However, regarding the point on season ticket holders, we do not feel that it is the regulator’s place to act here. As a financial sustainability regulator, the regulator’s interest in equality, diversity and inclusion is that it contributes to good corporate decision-making, which in turn makes clubs more sustainable.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that, beyond this, it is not for the regulator to get involved in the diversity of a club’s fan base. A club might like to take note if its fan base does not represent its local area. Some examples of clubs reaching out to communities have been mentioned by noble Lords in the course of the debate. There are already actions being taken on fan diversity by clubs, competition organisers and wider stakeholders.

In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we think that EDI reporting is a good thing. A lack of basic good corporate governance threatens the sustainability of football clubs. We have seen in the past crises at clubs that may have been avoided with some simple improvements to how the club was run. That is why the regulator will introduce a new football club corporate governance code. The regulator will work with the industry to design the code and will support clubs in applying it, in addition to encouraging best practice.

The requirement for clubs to publicly report against this code is designed to increase transparency, scrutiny and accountability. Clubs will have the flexibility to interpret the principles of the code and explain how they have applied them to suit their individual circumstances. We are clear that the regulator will not prescriptively micromanage each club’s board. That is not its role, and would cause a significant burden to the regulator itself and to clubs.

Amendment 157, in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, seeks to add a further limb to a club’s corporate governance reporting by explaining how it meets the standard of the UK Corporate Governance Code in relation to the appointment of non-executive directors. I thank him for raising this issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for illustrating why a range of skills—what she referred to as a jigsaw—helps in delivering good governance.

I hope I can reassure your Lordships’ House that reporting against the UK Corporate Governance Code will not be required, as the independent regulator will develop its own code. That will no doubt take inspiration from existing codes, including the UK Corporate Governance Code as well as others, such as A Code for Sports Governance and the Wates Corporate Governance Principles for Large Private Companies.

Crucially, though, the independent football regulator’s code will be bespoke to football clubs in the football industry and will be produced in consultation with the FA and other stakeholders. Many of the basic principles of good governance are universal, but football clubs are, in so many ways, unique businesses. That is why we believe that a football-specific approach to the UK Corporate Governance Code is preferable here. We do not expect that mandating clubs to report on the process of appointing their non-executive director would necessarily be appropriate, as the code should be principles based. I am happy to meet my noble friend and others to discuss this further, should they find that helpful.

That brings me to my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s other amendment in this group, Amendment 159. As I just touched on, and in response to my noble friend Lord Knight, I reassure my noble friends that we expect that the regulator’s code will include recommendations related to executive and non-executive directors. I also assure my noble friends that providing clubs with guidance to ensure that they have an appropriate governance structure is at the heart of the Bill’s existing corporate governance provisions. We have not listed in detail what the code must contain, as that should be for the regulator to determine in consultation with the industry and perhaps informed by its “state of the game” report.

In designing the code, we expect that the regulator will draw on established corporate governance principles. That is unlikely to include quotas in the way that my noble friend’s amendment suggests—that would be a level of micromanagement that we do not think appropriate here—but good corporate governance principles will be front and centre.

On Amendment 158 by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the Government agree that the corporate governance code should cover a club’s decision-making process. Within the definition of corporate governance in the legislation, we believe the wording already appropriately covers that. Paragraph 7(2)(b) of Schedule 5 states that corporate governance includes

“the manner in which the organs of the club conduct themselves”, and paragraph 7(2)(c) states that it includes

“the requirements imposed on organs of the club”.

That would cover a club’s decision-making process. As part of the code, we expect the regulator to produce high-level principles and what a good decision-making process should look like for clubs.

I would be happy to meet my noble friends to discuss these matters further. I hope they are reassured by the reasons that I have set out and will not press their amendments.

I am grateful to my noble friend and I hope to be able to converse with her before Report, purely on the grounds that if you do not have a governing body that consists not only of non-execs, which I note my noble friend Lord Knight’s amendment alluded to as well, but also officers who are the executive directors of a board then it is difficult to progress. There has been unanimity today from all sides of the Chamber in relation to the direction of travel.

We are now two and a half hours or more in, so I will have to follow my own strictures in being very brief. I make it clear that I accept that scrutiny is crucial.

On diversity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is a real difference between woke gesturism and downright silliness and a genuine commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. We must be able to make that distinction, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, did so very well. I have to say to him that I had aspirations when I was very young to be the first blind football manager, but it was pointed out to me that I might be better being a referee so that when people shouted, “Get a guide dog!”, I could say, “I’ve got one already”.

It is nice that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raised the issue of Michail Antonio, and I am pleased that I had alignment with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this. Michail Antonio once scored a crucial goal with a dislocated collarbone, and we will never forget that. I wish him well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.

Amendment 55 not moved.