PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) - 3 June 2025 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I appreciate your work and that of the Clerks to get some further information on the point. Just so that all Members are aware of the part of “Erskine May” to which I was referring, it says that

“a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.”

I appreciate your comments, but I think that the spirit of the House is quite clearly outlined there. I would like the Minister to publish the document so that Members can have a view.

I would also argue strongly on your last point, although I appreciate that this is a point of debate rather than one of fact, because I believe that the document in question is not a private letter but a piece of correspondence from a key international regulator to His Majesty’s Government. I believe that Members of this House deserve to have all the information available to make informed decisions about a regulator that will be of the utmost importance to football, as well as to this House.

I know that there have been requests to see the letters that UEFA has sent to the Government. As a matter of course, the Government do not share private correspondence, as it would undermine the ability to have open, honest and frank discussions with key partners. It is worth stating that we wrote to UEFA asking whether it would be content for it to be published, but it confirmed that it would rather communications were kept private.

Paragraph 21.26 of “Erskine May” states:

“A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table. The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters”.

“Erskine May” is fairly clear that the Government are not bound to publish the letter, as I have not quoted from it. I refer the House to my earlier comments on the letter.

I thank the Minister for her confirmation of her position. I appreciate her clarification of her perspective, although obviously I disagree with it; that is why I raised the point. I am concerned about this, and I will pick up the point with Mr Speaker afterwards, because there is a general theme here. This is not aimed at the Minister—I have a good relationship with her, and I respect her—but there is an ongoing issue, which has been expressed in this House in recent days, about the Government not being open and transparent with the House in other announcements that have been made.

I say gently to the hon. Member—this is a point that has been made by my hon. Friends behind me—that his Government did not publish any private correspondence from UEFA. There will be letters in existence similar to the one to which he refers. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), whom I like a great deal—indeed, I respect both gentlemen—did not publish those, so I am a bit confused about why the hon. Gentleman is making this very well-rehearsed argument, which is contrary to what his Government did.

It is not well rehearsed—it is not in my speaking notes at all. It is just a general point of principle that this House should be able to hold the Government to account with full information. I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy, so I will get back to the amendments. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have lots of support from Government Members.

Schedule 2 sets out the constitution of the Independent Football Regulator for an initial period when it is first being established, and for subsequent periods thereafter. It contains detailed provisions about the appointment of the chairman, deputy chairmen and non-executive members of the board, and the rules by which somebody may be appointed to the board in relation to conflicts of interest. On conflicts of interest in particular, the Government have left much to be desired, so we seek to correct some serious omissions.

As we have seen in recent weeks, the Labour Government have politicised what was supposed to be an independent football regulator by appointing a crony. That is nothing short of a disgrace—such a disgrace, in fact, that the Secretary of State has been forced to recuse herself from any further part in the appointment of the chair. As I said this morning, that is now a point of independent inquiry, so it is not just my opinion. There is clearly a concern, which is why the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be looking very closely at it.

That is why I tabled amendment 117. As we know, although only because of his revelations at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Government’s appointee donated to the Secretary of State’s leadership campaign. We believe that she did not declare that in line with the ministerial code. We also believe that it was not disclosed earlier. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Secretary of State concealed that information from Parliament? We believe that there was no reference to that donation on Second Reading. Did the Minister know that the proposed chairman had donated to both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? Will she confirm whether she or any other member of this Committee has received any donations from the chairman of the regulator? Is she concerned about what the independent inquiry that was announced yesterday might mean for the future of the regulator, if it is found that the process has been breached?

Those are really fundamental points, because a breach of the process will have direct consequences for a lot of what we are discussing today. It will throw English football up in the air and bring it into disrepute if the first chairman of the regulator is found to have been appointed without the Government following due process.

I understand your point, Sir Jeremy, and will try to stick closer to the amendments as requested, but amendment 117 is about ensuring that political donations are made transparently and up front so that all Members, including Select Committee members, have the information to hand when they are making informed decisions as elected Members of Parliament.

Amendments 118 and 119, which are also in my name, are designed to further reinforce the appointment process for the chair of the board and the expert panel. As I have just highlighted, the Government have made a bit of a mockery of the process already. It desperately needs solidifying, so amendment 118 seeks to prohibit any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the board. I hope that hon. Members understand why I make that point.

In certain civil service roles or other roles linked to the public sector, there are restrictions not only on political interference, but on what can be said publicly and in other aspects of a person’s life. I am concerned about what would happen if, say, Gary Neville—I am not just starting on him, I promise—or Jamie Carragher were suddenly appointed to the football regulator. Would this House be comfortable with those people—again, this is just an example—making comments about the regulation of football while having a commercial interest as a media pundit or commentator? Personally, I would not be comfortable with it, because a range of issues could arise. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that we do not believe that people in those positions should hold media roles.

I am interested to know where the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to; I am not quite sure that he knows, at this stage. He is saying that anyone who has a role with influence in any of these matters should not be a media commentator. Does that go for MPs? I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s ex-colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg appeared as a presenter on GB News while he was still an MP. Is there not a conflict of interest there, or are such conflicts very specific to this one job?

I thank the hon. Member for intervening. As was the case before lunch, I am happy to have this debate in Committee. I should not talk about people who are no longer Members of this House; they are private individuals and are no longer linked to the Government, and they are certainly not part of the Independent Football Regulator. I refer the Committee to my comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about why the independence of football is so important.

I will not get into the jurisdiction of Ofcom and what it is looking at with regard to political people on TV networks, because that is not what the Bill is about. My point is that the chair is an independent person who will be appointed to independently regulate football. Should they have a dual role that includes media punditry, commentary or other media work? We believe that the answer is no. Ensuring that they cannot have such a role would ensure that there are no vested interests in the process.

The hon. Member’s amendment reads:

“No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

It does not state that, if appointed, they could leave that role and take on their role as a regulator, as most people do when they enter a role as a regulator. It says “currently”, so it would essentially prevent anyone who might have that knowledge and understanding from being appointed. His amendment does not say anything about their leaving or resigning; it just says “currently”.

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. There is an important reason why it says “currently”. We are not trying to prohibit people who might have the relevant experience. We are trying to prohibit someone from having the dual role of being on the independent regulator while also being in the media world. That is quite clear; she has just read it out.

It does not say “dual”.

But that is the point that we are making: we believe that that is a conflict of interest. In our debate on schedule 2, we will come on to the definition of conflicts of interest in relation to the board. We are concerned that what a conflict of interest will look like is very opaque.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the football all-party parliamentary group, made an interesting point about the relevant skills and experience of people we want on the regulator, and earlier I mentioned the difficulty of finding a chair who has those skills and that experience and is seen as non-biased. We will also make a point—I give warning—about some of the other appointments to the board. We desperately need clarification on how conflicts of interest will be managed while appointing people who have the relevant skills and experience.

It is dangerous to indulge in hypotheticals, but if an applicant for the football regulator chair role had been integral to the negotiation of broadcasting rights for the Premier League, would they not be conflicted in their duties under the Bill? They would have done something in their former life that could disadvantage certain leagues and certain divisions of the league, and they would be seeking to protect that legacy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting and important intervention. I touched on this concern briefly before lunch. The perception of such a conflict of interest is a particular problem in the choice of chair. I appreciate your comments, Sir Jeremy, about sticking to the scope of the Bill, but there is a broader point here about how the Bill is drafted to ensure that such conflicts of interest do not arise.

As our amendments on this issue make clear, we are talking about people who are currently holding jobs, but we would expect that the interests of any person appointed to a board such as this would not conflict with their ability to make independent decisions. My concern is that that perception, rightly or wrongly—I genuinely mean that—will be applied to future decisions because of the chair who has been chosen and his experience. That is not personal; I am just concerned that that will be a problem for any future decisions.

When I first read the amendment, I assumed that it would apply to somebody who owned a stake in a broadcasting company: a famous podcaster or someone who owned a famous podcasting outlet, for example. I understand why that might be a conflict of interest, but if it is somebody who is commenting on whether a penalty or a refereeing decision was any good, I do not quite understand how that would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps the hon. Member can enlighten me.

That is a fair question. We know how the media works. How can I put this? There is a desire for certain people to make certain comments that might be controversial. Our concern is that such comments could undermine the regulator straightaway. With the amendment, we are trying to be as clear as possible and avoid a headache down the line for the Government, so that the Bill not only covers interests such as shareholdings but ensures that no conflict of interest could arise from working for the regulator.

I think I understand where the shadow Minister is going on conflicts of interest, a subject that the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised, but can he advise me how the amendment would help in addition to paragraph 6(1) and (2) of schedule 2, which in effect says that nobody can be appointed to the board unless there is confirmation that they do not have a conflict of interest? If the conflict of interest test can be satisfied, I am unclear as to why the amendment is necessary.

I am happy to answer the question, and I appreciate how it was put: it was not adversarial, but on a factual point. We are trying to clarify the point. In the Bill, as drafted, it is not clear what a conflict of interest is. The amendment seeks to make a specific example of an area that we think would be a particular problem for the regulator, and clarify what a conflict of interest is in this regard. I hope that that explains the amendment.

With respect, in most areas of professional life, conflicts of interest will have to be declared. There is not an exhaustive list of what might constitute a conflict of interest, because that is almost impossible, so whether there is a conflict of interest is a matter of fact to be tested. I go back to the point that if we start defining what might constitute a conflict of interest, a limited amendment such as this one would have to become exhaustive. I do not see how that could ever be possible.

I appreciate those comments. We will come on to conflicts of interest, and it is a question that I will put to the Minister, because the Committee and the House have to be clear and confident about what a conflict of interest might look like for the regulator. We will come on shortly to appointments to the expert panel. In such appointments, if there are no clear lines of accountability on what we believe to be conflicts of interest, I fear that we could have a situation like the one we have just had with the chair, in which the Government did not feel that there was a conflict of interest, but most people observing the appointment would say that there was a quite clear conflict, given the donations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Labour party. Those are the points we are making, and I am happy to debate the matter further as we make progress. I have given the Minister some extra reading time on what I plan to ask about conflicts of interest.

A crucial point was made about how boards work differently in different sectors, and about whether conflicts are transcribed early on, so that everyone understands what we believe a conflict of interest is. We want to ensure that there are no vested interests in the process and that no one side will benefit from the simple fact that a chair is interested in that same side; that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. By accepting the amendment, alongside our other amendments, the Committee could ensure total independence of the chair of the regulator both from this Government and from industry insiders. That is our objective.

Amendment 114 would make it explicit that there must be a system for the chair of the board to declare their relevant interests. As we have discussed, this needs to be explicit within the Bill because of how the Government have conducted themselves in the appointment process. We have seen that this Labour Government cannot be trusted to run the process properly or ensure that full and proper declarations are made. The amendment would make sure that nobody in this Government’s regulator can avoid being transparent with the public on their conflicts of interest. This amendment has become necessary because of the Government’s actions and their disdain for Parliament and public accountability.

It could be argued that the Secretary of State has hidden her interest in the appointment process to date, especially because she did not declare her interest on Second Reading. This amendment would provide much-needed transparency on the future of the regulator and its chair, whoever he or she may be. I would like to think that Ministers are in favour of full and proper transparency, unless there is something that the Government wish to hide from us. As I said, we found out about the donations only at the last minute, through a declaration made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This House would not otherwise have known. It troubles me deeply, regardless of which parties were involved, that Members made decisions without knowing about the donations.

Alongside amendments 117, 118 and 114, I have tabled amendment 115. As I have said repeatedly, this Government’s behaviour throughout the process has been nothing short of a disgrace. We found out about the appointee’s donations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State only via a Select Committee, and we did not know about them on Second Reading.

Without the appointee’s last-minute admission, we would have been in the dark. We do not know whether the Secretary of State would have been transparent about the donations she received. She has now recused herself, but we must remember that she nominated that person for the Select Committee’s consideration, which is a really important point that I am sure the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will look at closely. We cannot allow this sort of cover-up to continue, as we need a sustainable independent regulator. Amendment 115 would make it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest, as they have been proven to be by this Government.

I have also tabled amendment 116, which would ensure that politics is kept out of football. This debate is making me very uncomfortable as a football fan. I do not believe that politics should be anywhere near football, and it is because of this kind of issue. This has brought football into disrepute, and it is not just me saying that—it is across all the sports pages.

I am concerned about politics being dragged into football, and this amendment would require that the chair is not a member of a political party and does not publicly campaign or demonstrate support for one. It has been drafted in line with other such roles where chairmen are required to be politically neutral. Again, I believe this is common sense, and I hope all Members would support it.

Once again, this is an issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Requiring the chair of the board not to be a member of a political party or to campaign in a political way would protect the integrity of football and the regulator.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. [Interruption.] I am afraid that we have been beaten by the bell.

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I know the Committee is delighted to hear me continue my speech.

These amendments are on the key issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Alongside the other amendments we have tabled, we believe that requiring that the chair of the board is not a member of a political party, or a campaigner for a political party, will help to protect the integrity of the football regulator. As the Bill stands, the Government are allowing appointees to the regulator to hide their political activity from fans and from Parliament, which would undermine the regulator from day one. I urge all Members to accept these amendments with good conscience, or to be prepared to explain to their constituents why they are supporting cronies over clubs and favours over fans.

We are debating a group of amendments that attempt to better the regulator’s independence. The shadow Minister has set out at great length—made even longer by the interruptions —how these amendments would do that.

I think we all agree that the regulator should be independent. It is perfectly open to Labour Members to say, “Hang on a minute, the Bill already does that,” but their interventions and their scoffing from sedentary positions seem to make the counterargument, “Well, when you were in government, you made political appointments to bodies like the BBC and Ofqual.”

Yes.

The Government Whip is agreeing from a sedentary position. “And therefore it is perfectly open to us to make a political appointment to the football regulator.” That is an extraordinary argument.

I do not think it is a case of saying, “Well, you did it, so we’ll do it too.” It was just highlighting the absolute hypocrisy coming from the Opposition Benches.

I obviously disagree with the word “hypocrisy.” [Laughter.] There is no point laughing when dealing with the very serious issue of taking politics out of football. Fans do not want to see us trading arguments about hypocrisy and the BBC; they want to see us working together to keep politics out of football, and that is what these amendments seek to do.

On the amendment about political donations, of course the shadow Minister spoke about the Government’s preferred candidate—that is the environment in which the Bill is being considered. We learned about the preferred candidate’s political donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister only in a Select Committee hearing, after the Bill had already been considered on Second Reading.

My colleagues and I looked at the preferred candidate’s donations to Labour MPs and prepared a list of those that had been publicly filed. The list did not include his donations to the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I am not saying that there was an improper lack of a declaration of interest, but the donations were not in the public domain. It was only at the very late stage of a Select Committee hearing on his appointment that the donations came out, and they came out because he voluntarily gave that information. I commend him for doing so, but this is the problem we have: we are relying on candidates voluntarily declaring donations they have made to the Government of the day—donations that might not otherwise be publicly declarable. Amendment 117 would force such donations to be publicly declarable in order to keep politics out of football.

The hon. Gentleman appears to presuppose that such a declaration would result in a person being turned down for the post. In fact, there was a declaration and the Select Committee still decided that the candidate was a fit and proper person. As could happen in future, this person was found to be suitable regardless.

I am not sure I agree with the hon. Member’s interpretation of why individuals should disclose that they have made political donations. It is not necessarily so that they can be automatically vetoed; it is for transparency, making sure it is in the public domain and making sure the Select Committee has all the information available when it reviews their suitability. This time, the Select Committee relied on a voluntary disclosure. Through amendment 117, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is trying to make that mandatory. It would then be for the Select Committee, other commentators, MPs and the media to draw their own conclusions and give their own opinions on suitability.

The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way again, for which I am incredibly grateful. Could he explain what questions members of the Select Committee are not permitted to ask candidates when they are making these decisions?

Amendment 117 would mandate that a candidate for chair of an independent regulator must declare all their political donations. It would not be merely a voluntary process. I back that, and in the absence of any good reason not to, I urge Government Members to do the same.

Does my hon. Friend remember the case of a referee whose footballing allegiance became public a couple of seasons ago? It caused a huge ruckus because it generated a suspicion that he had been, in some way, partial in the way he had conducted his independent role as a referee, which is not unlike that of the regulator. For football affiliation, read political affiliation. There will be semi-political decisions. Does that not also make the point that the regulator should not be politically aligned?

I have to confess that was not in my mind when I rose to my feet, but my hon. Friend has a good memory. I welcome his sporting analogy, rather than the analogy of Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a job for GB News, which is completely irrelevant to the Bill.

That brings me to another point. I wonder why the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, given that he is chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, tried to widen this debate on the politicisation of organisations. We are talking about football, about sport. It is almost uniquely an apolitical thing, both nationally and internationally. In fact, international sporting bodies are very sensitive to politics. I recall that, in the last 15 years, UEFA—was it UEFA?—tried to ban England players from wearing the poppy on their arms. That was ridiculous, but the organisation saw the poppy as a political symbol.

Football probably stands highest in trying to keep politics out of sport. Associating it with who might have a contract with GB News shows a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of sport.

If we are dealing with the independence of sport per se, does the hon. Gentleman consider the British Olympic Association to be within the ambit of sport? Its current chair, Sir Hugh Robertson, is a former Conservative MP and Minister for Sport. Does this apply to all sports, or just to football?

The issue here is that this is a regulator, with regulatory authority and powers. When we legislate, we should do whatever we can to keep politics out of sport. If there are examples going back over time, we can debate them, but doing that in the context of creating a brand-new regulator for football—one that has never existed anywhere else—would probably be a distraction tactic on the Government’s part. It would not deal with fans’ genuine concern that we should not bring politics into sport. We have an opportunity to do something to deliver that by agreeing to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.

Amendment 116 states:

“The Chair of the Board must not…be a member of a political party”.

Why would anyone disagree with that? It is perfectly open to someone who wants to run to be the independent regulator to resign their membership of a political party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about the word “currently”. Well, “currently” means at the point that someone is appointed, so it is perfectly possible for someone to go through the appointment process before resigning their interests at the moment the Government propose to appoint them. I think the word “currently” deals with that issue, which we possibly agree on.

The amendment also says that the chair must do no canvassing

“on behalf of a political party”,

including in council elections. The hon. Member for Newbury might find it weird—as would I—that someone would want to live without canvassing for council candidates, but that is not much of a sacrifice for someone to make if they want to be the national regulator for English football.

The hon. Gentleman mentions amendment 116, and proposed new paragraph 7A(b) references the fact that the Opposition would not like the chair of the football regulator to canvass for a political party running for the European Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is suggesting some kind of movement to rejoin the EU, or is he suggesting that a Frenchman, a German or someone else from the European Union might become the regulator? In that case, which parties might he like to rule out or rule in?

The Liberal Democrats are always looking for an opportunity to bring things back to potentially rejoining the EU. No, I would not read the amendment as either an overt or a subtle message about a campaign to rejoin. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a non-British national might campaign in Europe for a candidate standing for the European Parliament, but I will not get distracted by all the possibilities. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. The point is that, while somebody is chair of this independent board, they should not campaign for political candidates or for someone to attain political office.

I urge the Government to take the amendments on board. All they would do is further embed the idea of independence, which the Government say they support.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

Taking politics out of this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who said this morning that we should have the best person for the job. I believe we do, and it is not just me. The cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, approved the appointment, because it recognised the strength of the candidate. It could have rejected him, or it could have taken more time and asked for more information—

I apologise, Sir Jeremy; my point was about the principles.

On amendment 116 and the other amendments that relate to political party membership, has this type of concern has been raised before regarding appointments to other public bodies? More than one hon. Gentleman has spoken about how this is football and it is really important—almost as if it is more important than anything else. Was party membership taken into account by the Conservative party, who were in government at the time, when other appointments were made, or were concerns raised through a parliamentary question, a Westminster Hall debate or on social media or any other platform? I think particularly about appointments to the Care Quality Commission, Natural England, Monitor/NHS Improvement, the Consumer Council for Water, the Low Pay Commission and Ofsted—it would be remiss of me not to mention Ofsted. I think we can all agree that those appointments are very important.

I will, Sir Jeremy. It is about precedent. Does the shadow Minister think that this is an issue only for football governance and only for this appointment? As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak noted, current practice for appointments to regulatory bodies and public bodies has been in place a long time. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 strengthens that process and gives clear details of what it looks like. I guess this is a case of “do as I say and not as I did”.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Committee to entertain a semi-hypothetical set of circumstances. I have spent many minutes googling in order to find the only club in the Football League represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—the mighty Bromley, as I am reminded constantly by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I think he said in the Chamber that visiting supporters have started chanting, “You’ve got the only Tory.”

This is a very particular set of circumstances—there is only one. Bromley has done jolly well this season. Let us just hypothetically suggest that they caught the eye of a very wealthy potential new owner, which would bring riches beyond belief. That would come under the strictures of this Bill in terms of change of ownership. Let us suggest that, in carrying out its normal duties, the football regulator questioned, delayed and, finally, denied that change of ownership.

If the football regulator was a paid-up member of another political party and a donor to that other party, does the Committee not understand that the perception would be that part of the reason the regulator had come to the conclusions that it had was political? That is what we are trying to avoid with the amendments. I ask Committee members to reconsider, in order to give the regulator the best possible chance of success.

If people appointed to regulators and quangos have fully declared what they have done, ab initio, that does a lot to dampen down concern about partiality. It would be nice to see the Government select someone for one of these appointments who was not a donor at the last election.

Before speaking directly to these amendments, I want to address the comments made about the chair appointment. I am very aware of the direction that you have given, Sir Jeremy, so I will focus my remarks on the comments made by the shadow Minister and Opposition Members.

David Kogan brings with him a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries. The shadow Minister’s speech had three parts, so I forget when he said this, but he made the point more than once that it is about attracting the right candidate with the right experience, and how that is a challenge. We are confident that David Kogan is the right person. He was found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member who was agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

David Kogan declared his political activity to the DCMS Committee, as the shadow Minister has stated, which endorsed his appointment, adding a further layer of robustness to the appointment process. The donations were declared during the Committee session, as the shadow Minister also stated, and the Committee was sufficiently aware when it published its report endorsing him.

I know we know this, but the Select Committee is dominated by Labour MPs—I want to make that clear. I did not follow the process within it, but a Committee dominated by Labour MPs approved a Labour donor as the independent regulator.

I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that it was a unanimous decision by the cross-party Select Committee. There will have been similar instances in the previous Parliament, so I think his point is somewhat unfair, but it may be a reflection of the fact that he is new to this place.

Reference was made to the fact that we have received a letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will of course co-operate fully with his office. No conclusions have been reached at this stage, and we will completely co-operate. Some points were made about what was said on Second Reading and to the Select Committee. The governance code already sets out the requirements for political donations. Donations in scope of the governance code were provided to the Select Committee in advance of the hearing. The leadership campaign donations fall outside the reporting window and the threshold for declaration; however, they were disclosed to the Select Committee in the interests of transparency, which endorsed the appointment on a cross-party basis.

I completely take the Minister’s point about the unanimity of the Select Committee. In that same spirit, it is worth quoting the Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who said:

“While Mr Kogan’s background and experience make him well-suited for the role, his past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount.

We want to see the new Independent Football Regulator succeed, so it’s crucial that nothing undermines the regulator as it gets up and running. Mr Kogan must give 110% when it comes to reassuring everyone in the game that he is his own man. The Committee looks forward to working with him constructively and holding him to account.”

Imagine how much simpler life would be if someone who did not have that perceived conflict of interest—

I have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I do not have the quote in front of me, so I will paraphrase, but I believe that the Select Committee also praised, or acknowledged, Mr Kogan’s candour and transparency—the fact that he was open with them—and of course the Committee did endorse him. I will heed your yellow card, Sir Jeremy.

The amendment is quite clear that it is not about the individual but the process going forward for transparency on donations. I will not mention the gentleman, but the other question that the Minister was answering before the intervention related to the rules and duties on Ministers and Members of this House. She made the point about disclosure thresholds within the code, but the spirit of the rules makes it quite clear that any perceived conflicts of interest must be disclosed. It is my understanding that that had not happened, which is the point that I was trying to make.

The hon. Gentleman gets ahead of himself; he is somewhat excited this afternoon. That was my second point—I have numbered my points one and two, and I have a third to make. He asked about members of the Committee. It is for hon. Members to declare relevant interests, and when we began the sitting this morning hon. Members did indeed refer to their entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not want to be drawn any further on the details of the process as that would not be appropriate. I have made all the comments I can within the confines of the topic and the yellow card you very kindly gave, Sir Jeremy. I will therefore move on to talk briefly about the amendments.

I will explicitly state that the independence of the regulator is paramount. The Bill is, as the hon. Gentleman said, designed to create an independent football regulator free from any undue political or industry influence. That has always been and continues to be our aim. In the service of that, we have already strengthened the Bill further, now requiring the regulator to establish and maintain a register of relevant interests of members of the board. That already includes the chair, so any further amendment is not necessary.

The definition of relevant interests in the Bill is already broad enough to include political donations if they are relevant to the regulator’s functions. The appointment of the chair is subject to the governance code on public appointments, which clearly sets out that any political activity

“should not…be a bar to appointment”,

as well as the requirements in relation to the declaration of political activity. That point has been well rehearsed; indeed, the Liberal Democrat spokesman made it earlier, as have other hon. Members.

The chair of the regulator is already required to undergo a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing, which we have debated at length. Pre-appointment scrutiny is reserved for the most significant roles, including those where demonstrable independence from the Government is required. The chair and other non-executive members of the board would also be bound by the code of conduct for members of public body boards, which sets clear expectations around political impartiality once in a role. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is robust in ensuring the independence of both the chair and board members more widely. The amendments would not in any substantive manner increase the level of protection in the Bill against undue political influence over the chair.

I turn to the amendments 118 and 119 about conflicts of interest for the board and the expert panel. I reassure the Committee that the Bill, supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest, irrespective of sector. It is also important that the widest possible range of people are encouraged to apply to contribute their skills and experience so long as any and all conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.

Government amendments made in the other place have strengthened those protections even further, and beyond doubt. Paragraph 17 of schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters that fall for consideration by the board, and for that declaration to be recorded. The board member would not be permitted to take part in any discussions related to a matter if they have a significant direct or indirect interest in it.

With specific regard to the expert panel in amendment 119, the Bill already places an onus on the chief executive officer to check for conflicts of interest at the point of making an appointment to the expert panel and on an ongoing basis from time to time. The Bill sets out that the chief executive officer must ensure that the expert panel has all the relevant range of skills, knowledge and experience. The amendment might limit the ability of the chief executive officer to do that, as it would restrict the pool of potential members of the expert panel. It may well be appropriate for the expert panel to have expertise in media or broadcasting, but the amendment would outright preclude that, and so might hinder the regulator’s ability to fulfil its objectives.

All in all, the Bill contains comprehensive safeguards to examine and manage genuine conflicts of interest appropriately. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

I have heard the Minister’s comments clearly and I am afraid that I am not filled with confidence, not necessarily because I doubt what she says or her intentions but because of the proven experience of the situation in which we find ourselves. I appreciate the yellow card, so I will not go fully back into that, but it does bring into question the judgment of Ministers and individuals and whether we can have certainty in these steps and measures. The Opposition think these amendments are not party political at all. We want to ensure that we have transparency and absolute security that whoever is appointed to these positions will act with complete neutrality and independence, and avoid any perception of bias. I will not repeat the arguments of why that is so important for sport and the independence of sport. We will press our amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I do, Sir Jeremy. I am hoping for a different outcome on this one.

Amendment proposed: 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—

“7A The Chair of the Board must not

(a) be a member of a political party,

(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or

(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”—(Mr French.)

This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 138, in schedule 2, page 88, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.”

As always, you are keeping me on my toes today, Sir Jeremy; I thought we were about to vote on amendment 119. We always learn something new in Bill Committees. Amendment 138 raises a serious and growing concern, so I will be very clear about what the amendment would do. We seek to limit the number of employees of the Independent Football Regulator to a maximum of 50. We think that is quite fair. I could have proposed 20, 10 or some other number, but I thought 50 was fair, based on the conversations that we have had with the football world.

Our serious and growing concern is about not just what the legislation says, but the consequences of the way this Government have chosen to structure the regulator. The amendment uncovers and seeks to prevent the key problem with the Government’s regulator, which we believe is purely that it will ultimately put up prices for fans. This morning, the Minister said that her Government have not claimed that the regulator will solve all the problems, and while that may be true, we believe that her regulator will actively create more problems for clubs and for fans. I will come on to the problems that we believe it will cause for clubs later in the Bill, but, to be clear, we put fans first and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

The creation and operation of the Government’s regulator and the burdens it generates will impose a very real cost on clubs. I suspect that will not have a massive impact on the billionaire owners of the big clubs, or the executives, consultants and lawyers employed in the football industry, but it will significantly affect clubs that are already subject to serious financial constraints and those lower down the pyramid.

Let us begin with the principle. I do not believe that anyone here disputes the need to protect the long-term sustainability of English football and the need for English football to be sustainable, even if definitions of “sustainable” differ. However, if the Government genuinely intend to safeguard the game for future generations, creating a vast and costly bureaucracy is not the way to do that—yet that is what this regulator will do. It will increase the costs on clubs, which will ultimately have no choice but to pass them on to fans. That view is accepted by those in the industry that I have discussed this with. This Government have chosen bureaucracy over the beautiful game and its fans. It is the ever-present home and away supporters who will end up bearing the brunt of the costs of this regulator.

Turning to the specifics of amendment 138, last week I submitted a written question to the Secretary of State to ask how many appointments had been made to the shadow football regulator already and how many of those appointed were previously employed in her Department. I know from conversations I have had with the EFL, the National League, the Premier League and the FA that the shadow regulator has already begun to scale up. When my noble Friend Lord Moynihan asked the Lords Minister a similar question in the other place in December, the answer, which was received in January, stated that the number of IFR employees already stood at 38. As it happens, the answer to my written question is due today. Can the Minister save me the trouble of waiting for that response to come through online and tell us here and now how many full-time equivalent staff are currently working on the shadow regulator and how many of those were previously employed in her Department as employees, advisers or appointees?

There were 42 employees as of 1 June; 11 joined having previously been employed by DCMS and two joined having formerly advised DCMS. The answer is due by 6 o’clock today and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives it in writing by then.

I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.

I used to advise businesses on their target operating models, so I understand how to build teams and structures. On what basis does the hon. Member think that the figure of 50 is correct? What work has he done to understand the different structures that will be required? How does he think the aims of the Bill can be achieved with a staff of 50?

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am about to answer that. The figure is based on conversations with the leagues and other regulators already in play. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in the points I am coming to.

We have heard that the number of people employed is 42. Unofficially, before today, I was told that it would be 80. That is the rumour going around the football world, but we have clarity from the Minister that it will be 42. [Interruption.] That is based on conversations with clubs. That is what engagement is about. That is why we asked the question. We are not basing the figure on rumour; I have just asked the question. That number will include civil servants, of course, and, as we have heard, regulatory specialists, policy advisors, analysts, stakeholder engagement leads, public affairs professionals and legal advisors, all of them at considerable expense to the taxpayer in the short term, and at significant cost to football fans in the longer term, as costs are passed on. In our conversations, the industry shared concerns about the scale and cost, especially compared with how football currently operates.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe just made a point about the size of the regulator. I do not think it is fair to quote someone directly when they are not here, or to quote an informal conversation, but I understand from a briefing that was given to the Lords, and a similar conversation that took place with me directly, that a gentleman very well-respected in football—who was key to this Bill—suggested that the work of the regulator could be done with several people. That was his expert opinion. When I suggest 50 people in this amendment, I am being very generous, given what the football industry believes the number should be, the costs and the fact that other regulatory bodies will still be involved in football.

I think we all agree that any regulator, including this one, should be agile, proportionate and just large enough to do its job, but is it really the role of politicians to pluck figures out of the air based on rumour and conversations, and put them in a Bill in a way that ties the regulator to that figure forever and a day? I know it is a maximum figure, but should not politicians stick to the thing that they do best—setting regulation and making the law—rather than trying to specify the detail of individual organisations that have a job to do?

I respect the hon. Member’s comments, but I think that this issue is fundamental to the discussion. The Opposition are seriously concerned about the cost and scope of this regulator, and how that will impact both clubs and fans in football’s delicate international ecosystem, so this issue is pertinent to the point that we are trying to make. The number that we have reached was not plucked out of the air. We had discussions with people directly involved in running football to try to ascertain an appropriate number of employees for the regulator. People in football are concerned about how big this regulator has become, and how quickly, even before the chairman has his feet under the table.

The shadow Minister says that one individual suggested that several people would be sufficient, yet he claims that the figure of 50 is not plucked out of thin air. I ask him again: what modelling has been done, how many departments would be involved, and how many people would be in each of those departments, so that he can credibly stand there and say that 50 is an adequate number?

I am slightly confused. The hon. Member for Dartford is telling me that we should not dictate how the regulator works and how it manages staff, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is saying the opposite. We have suggested a cap, and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on what that cap should be and how many employees she believes the regulator will need. That is important because we are passing a piece of legislation that is the first of its kind, and it will create extra costs for clubs that, as I am arguing, clearly will be passed on to fans. If the essence of the Bill is to protect clubs and fans, we need an honest, open conversation about how big the regulator should be. The Conservatives have tabled a sensible amendment that seeks to cap the regulator’s size in line with how other regulatory bodies in the sporting world work. That is the premise of our amendment. I would like to move on, because I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy.

We are told that, once operational, the Government’s regulator will be funded through yet another statutory levy. That may sound benign but, in practice, it will be yet another financial obligation imposed on clubs, many of which, particularly in the National League and the EFL, are already stretched due to increases in other bills that we have already seen this year. Higher energy bills, national insurance, and employment costs around wages are real costs with which clubs are already struggling.

I am getting used to being interrupted, Sir Jeremy. This is so thrilling that people want to escape as quickly as possible. Before the Division, we were highlighting that clubs will have no choice but to pass these additional costs from the regulator on to fans. As we have explained, we believe that a number of clubs are financially stretched, particularly as we go lower down the pyramid, although that is not always the case, as clubs’ finances differ.

We believe that this cost will go on to fans, by which we mean higher ticket prices and higher merchandise costs. Matchday programmes, concessions, streaming fees and even transport subsidies and loyalty schemes could be scaled back as clubs tighten their belt, and they will be required to tighten that belt even further. This is not just speculation; it is the economic reality that clubs are experiencing, according to their feedback, although I appreciate that economic reality is not always the Government’s strong suit.

This matters because, as those of us who still manage to watch our local clubs know, the cost of attending football matches has already become prohibitive to many families. The idea that we are creating a regulatory regime in the name of protecting fans while simultaneously driving up the cost of a matchday experience is not only a contradiction; it is laughable.

What figure is the shadow Minister using for how much a single full-time employee would cost that leads to the total of 50 in this proposal? What figure is he using to say that this will be economically prohibitive for clubs?

The structure of the regulator is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, so I will not drift too much because I have already been yellow carded by the Chair, to use a football term. However, we have made it quite clear that we are trying to limit the size of the regulator because we are already concerned, and that question about costs is one that I want to ask the Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will come on to this shortly.

The Opposition have been clear that we will not oppose the Bill for the sake of opposition, but like many fans and clubs up and down the pyramid, we are worried about how these bills will be paid. A regulator of this scale, with powers of licensing, enforcement, business model oversight, owner scrutiny, fan engagement mandates and financial analysis, does not come cheap, yet nowhere in the Bill do we see sufficient transparency or constraint on how big this body might grow to be, including how many people it may hire or how heavy-handed it may become. That is our concern regarding scope creep.

Let us not forget that the Football Association already exists, the EFL has its own monitoring tools and the Premier League already has fit and proper tests and financial regulation. This new regulator risks not only duplicating existing efforts but adding an entirely new layer of complexity, cost and compliance for clubs, particularly those already operating on a knife edge. The smaller clubs that are already struggling will, in a cruel twist of fate, be the clubs that suffer the most. When they are forced to divert resources away from their academies, community foundations or stadium improvements to pay for the regulator’s levy, it will be fans who feel it first and the Government who will deserve the blame.

Looking forward, what is the projected headcount of the football regulator over the next three years? What is its estimated operational cost in its first full year? How much of that cost is expected to be recovered from clubs? Will the Minister provide exemptions for smaller clubs or those in financial distress, or will this be another flat levy that hits the lower leagues the hardest?

Good governance in football is vital, but so is affordability, restraint and remembering that every pound extracted from the system is ultimately paid by someone—the fan in the stand, the father and daughter already paying £90 to sit in the upper tier of some Premier League clubs, the lifelong fan who travels to away games week in, week out, and the dedicated fans who create their own podcast to discuss their club’s trials and tribulations. There are lots of podcasts out there, and I could recommend a few. On a more serious note, they are the ones who will suffer, and they are the lifelines that clubs will lose. We are already seeing fans protesting ticket prices in the streets and the stands. We are concerned that the burdens from extra reporting will increase the cost for those fans.

I am a new Member and I was not here for the previous iteration of the Bill, brought forward by the previous Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether the regulator his Government proposed would have been entirely staffed by volunteers? How it was going to be funded? Was there any kind of levy proposed? Please forgive my ignorance.

I am happy to answer that question. I think it is quite clear. The comparison is drawn and it is argued that this is the same regulator as before, but it is not. We clearly have different political opinions about what regulation might look like and how big it might be. These are the questions that we are trying to tease out. We are trying to put a cap in place because we are concerned that what is being proposed in the Bill will significantly increase the size of the regulator and its cost. These are the key points the amendment is designed to draw out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he has concerns about the cost of the regulator, will support it.

It is clear that the Government’s Bill for the regulator is not about lowering costs for fans or improving the experience of football. It is about Government control and intervention into more aspects of our lives. By limiting the number of employees that the Government’s regulator can employ, as those across the industry have suggested, we can make sure that fans are protected and clubs not over-burdened with new costs and regulations, because in football, as in politics, promises are easy but the bill always comes due.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to make two quick points. First, it seems to me that the previous Government were going to impose extra regulation, and there would have been a regulator that probably would not have been run by volunteers. By the logic we have heard today, the Conservatives previously proposed some kind of increase that they worried would put up ticket prices. I do not agree that that is necessarily going to happen.

Secondly, one of the first things that my local club, Cheltenham Town, said to me after I was elected, was, “Please support the Football Governance Bill, because that will make our club more sustainable.” Then I spoke to the Robins Trust, of which I am a member, and it said, “Please support the Football Governance Bill.” If the club and the fans are both saying, “Please support the Football Governance Bill,” it is my duty as their local Member of Parliament to take their word for it that they think things will get better as a result of the Bill.

Cheltenham Town is a League Two club; sometimes, in a good period, they are in League One, but these are not people who are burdened by the concerns of billions of pounds, as at Manchester United. Ticket prices at Cheltenhm are about £20—I think I might be able to get in for £20 for some games. Price sensitivity is probably an issue for Cheltenham Town fans and the club, and they tell me I should back this legislation, so I do not know why, based on that and having heard the arguments made by the shadow Minister, I should change my mind, because there is nothing to suggest that anything has changed between the previous regulator and the newly proposed regulator. The opinions of the club that I serve are entirely clear.

The hon. Member says that both his club and the fans support the football regulator, but they do not know how much it is going to cost or how big it is going to be. They like the purpose of the regulator, but they do not yet know the cost. Is it unfair to set a boundary on some of those aspects in the Bill, so that it does not grow arms and legs and put regulatory burdens on his club outwith their ability to meet them?

We have a fundamental disagreement here on the Bill and the need for regulation. It is clear that the Conservatives have decided that they will now not support the concept of a football regulator. That is a perfectly legitimate political decision. It is also legitimate to point out that that was not their view until a few short weeks ago. It is also legitimate for me to point out that both the club I represent and the fans are telling me that I should support the Bill.

I hate to make a point about political ideology, but sometimes I do. This perhaps is one of those instances when we just have to let organisations decide for themselves. My understanding is that traditionally that has been a Conservative thing. Someone sets up something or there is an existing business, and the Conservatives might say that that organisation can make decisions for itself. The next amendment is about salaries, and I will probably make the same point. Sometimes we just have to let organisations make their own decisions and let the market decide.

If we follow that train of thought and bring it back to what we have been talking about today, which is a regulator, does the hon. Member believe that such a hands-off approach to a regulator is common sense, given the issues of regulation that we now see across our country—issues that the Liberal Democrats often campaign on—which call into question the expanded powers that regulators have failed to act on. Using that same philosophy we should try to ensure at this point in time that this regulator does not end up in the same bad place as regulators in other parts of our economy.

The shadow Minister makes a persuasive point, but I still do not understand why it is right for politicians to say, before a regulator has even been set up, “You may have no more than x employees.” I shall end there.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to address some of the points about the costs. I fear that as we discuss each amendment we run the risk of disappearing down quite a few rabbit holes and losing sight of the Bill’s principle and purpose.

Everyone will have received the submission from Fair Game, a collaboration among the smaller clubs that are concerned about the football pyramid as a whole. Fair Game’s biggest concern is not the potential for runaway regulator costs, although it is important that the costs are proportionate. Nobody is saying, “Let’s have a cast of thousands,” but the shadow Minister has failed to provide any workings-out for his number in respect of the scope and size of the organisation.

The fundamental issue for clubs is not the costs of the regulator and the economics of the bureaucracy. The issue for them is how little the smaller clubs get from broadcasting and attendance, and the fact that the football pyramid is entirely broken. If we fail to remember that in each debate, we will fail to assess and address the points that are being made up and down the country. The shadow Minister keeps referring to the costs of premiership clubs, but the majority of areas around the country do not have premiership clubs; they have clubs in the Championship and below. Those clubs are struggling to make ends meet and to keep going year by year, and they are seeing extraordinary disparities in the entirety of the financial system.

It is worth referring to the disproportionate spread of the costs. The broadcasting deal controlled by the Premier League is worth £3.2 billion, of which 88% goes to Premier League clubs and 70% goes to clubs in receipt of parachute payments. The remaining 5% is then split between the next 138 clubs. I would say that clubs’ futures and costings rest on issues that relate to that, not on the costs of setting up a regulator. If we continue with the argument of not wanting the associated costs, we will not have a regulator. We cannot have one free. It comes down to the fundamental question of whether we do or do not want one. The Opposition currently seem to be going down the route of saying, “We don’t want one.”

The hon. Lady is missing the point of what I said. By adding tens of millions of pounds, which I suspect will end up being the cost of the regulator—the Minister will be able to explain the figure—we are not reducing the cost for clubs but adding further costs. We will get on to distribution—

I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention.

Oh, sorry.

We will come to the distribution of media rights and so on, to which the hon. Lady referred, but that is separate from the problem that we are talking about, which is that if the regulator is too big, it will add to the costs and there will not be as much money to go down the pyramid.

The shadow Minister might be surprised to hear that I understand perfectly well what he said, as I have understood on all the previous occasions on which I have intervened. I am sorry that he does not seem to recognise that I do.

If the clubs had more money in the first place, because the structure of the pyramid and the flow of the finances were right, some additional cost proportionate to the size of a club would not be prohibitive to that club. Therein lies the problem: we fix the issue with the pyramid and then everything else will flow from that, and we can do that only with the existence of a regulator. The regulator cannot exist in isolation. It must have some supportive executive functions to be able to fulfil its roles and responsibilities in this weighty Bill.

Whenever I rise to speak on the Bill, I try to keep the fans uppermost in my mind. We have heard discussion about the potential for increasing costs. That is because the Bill will create a bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that some Members support, which is fine, but it is a bureaucracy and has to be paid for. It is being paid for by a levy on clubs. The amendment is not about whether we support a regulator; it is about whether we support the principle of trying to put some parameters around the cost by putting a headcount cap on the regulator and ensuring that this bureaucracy does not grow and grow over time.

In this country we have had a slight tendency, across Governments of different political colours over many decades, to allow bureaucracies to grow. The Bill would be relatively unique but, I think, strengthened if we put in a cap to ensure that this regulator and this bureaucracy cannot grow without restraint. It would therefore ensure that fans will not be overpaying for an organisation that does not need to grow to hundreds, thousands or whatever number anyone wants to suggest.

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument. The other point that we are trying to make is that the other established bodies of football are still in place and doing other parts of the job. The regulator is seeking to bring in new responsibilities, but it will not reduce the existing costs on clubs of those other regulatory bodies.

I take the point, which is well made. We do not want the regulator to grow and start trying to perform the functions of other bodies that exist, just because it has an unrestricted budget. Who knows what the Government of the day will allow to be spent on it? I heard the representations from Government Back Benchers about the methodology to evidence why 50 is the magic number. It is correct to say that it is not the role of MPs to mandate specific headcount, but putting a cap on it would ensure overarching budgetary control. Although it is reasonable to disagree, it is also reasonable to assert that a regulator should be able to function with 50 paid staff members.

What the hon. Member says is absolutely correct, but the reality is that we do not start with the outcome; we start with the process and the functions. What does the regulator need to do? How is it going to achieve that? How many people are required to deliver those services? Then we get to an outcome. I understand the principle of saying that there should be a cap, but that is just not the way it is done. I have done a lot of advisory work, but I do not know any business that would start with that principle.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham also referred to the principles of business, but the issue is that this is not a business; it is a regulator. That is why it is entirely proper and fair for Parliament to put a cap on headcount to ensure that the regulator delivers its objectives with some sense of constraint. I suspect that there will always be a justification for taking on more staff to dot every i and cross every t, but that should not be what the regulator is about. I take the point, however.

If the number is 42 at the moment, as the Minister says, and the regulator is not yet up and running, might 50 not be an entirely inappropriate number for the work that the regulator ultimately has to do, as set out in the Bill?

I am slightly worried that there are 42 people devoted to setting it up. That sounds like quite a lot to me; it gives me concern and supports my argument for a cap. In response, the Government could come forward and say, “This is the headcount that we expect to deliver the things we want to be delivered,” but I do not think that the Minister is saying that. She will have the opportunity at the end of this exchange—when she resists the amendment, as I am sure she will—to give some assurance that the regulator will not grow beyond a certain size. If she cannot give some indication of headcount, that will ring alarm bells. Those are the alarm bells that the cap seeks to deal with.

The hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think that that is the responsibility of MPs. All of this is really about scaremongering and about creating the idea that there will be a huge cost. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the size of the regulator will be when it ultimately delivers its functions. It is the responsibility of the regulator to manage itself appropriately. Putting an arbitrary figure from a random conversation into legislation such as this is not good practice.

The cap is not a mandatory number. We are not saying that the regulator must have 50 people delivering a set of regulatory powers. It is about trying to impose some sort of control on the regulator to stop it growing and growing. The hon. Gentleman says that we will leave it to the regulator, but what happens when the regulator comes back and says, “We need 250 people”? What if, further down the line, it thinks that the job is a bit bigger than it thought, so it argues for 300 or 400? We can name a whole list of bureaucracies that have grown and grown; NHS England is one such, although I am prepared to accept that the IFR would not grow to the size of NHS England, at least within this Parliament.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. My argument, which I believe he is making too, is that hon. Members should have a say in what the regulator looks like, both now and in future. Our overriding point is that once the Bill has passed, there is no power in it that I can see that gives hon. Members any say over what the regulator will look like. We are trying to put a ceiling on it now so that hon. Members can have a say in the size of the regulator.

The shadow Minister puts it much more succinctly than I have, and I thank him.

The rationale behind the amendment is to keep control over the costs. There will be a levy; it will be football clubs that pay; and ultimately the costs will fall on fans, potentially through higher ticket prices, which we want to avoid. If the Government will not back the amendment, I invite the Minister at least to give some assurances of control over spiralling costs. The headcount of any organisation is one of the key costs.

The hon. Gentleman mentions ticket prices. Some very simple back-of-a-fag-packet maths tells us that even if the football regulator costs £100 million to run, when we divide that by 92 teams and about 40 games in a season, it comes to a matter of pence per ticket sold: something like 20p, 40p or 50p. I could not even get a Mars bar for 50p in the Tea Room. I do not understand why this argument is being made; it really does not stand up to any kind of challenge. I am not a mathematician or a businessperson, but I can do simple division. I can work out that this body will not cost £100 million, £200 million, £500 million or £1 billion a year to run. It is a fanciful argument and the Opposition should put it to bed.

It is rather tempting to make a gibe about Liberal Democrats and back-of-a-fag-packet economic comments, but I will not. If it is as simple as the hon. Gentleman says, then let us hear that from the Minister. Let us hear assurances and guarantees that we are talking about pence, because frankly any inflation of ticket prices beyond pence is unacceptable, given the current prices and the legitimate views of fans about them.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe made the very powerful observation that, in identifying a target operating model, form should follow function. The function has been pretty well defined in the Bill, which rather prompts the question why the Government do not have some idea of the form that the regulator should follow. Without any cap whatever, we would simply be inviting untrammelled mission creep and cost growth. Perhaps the hon. Member disagrees with where the cap has been put and with the methodology approaching it, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the principle that he and other hon. Members should have an opportunity for scrutiny if there is a proposal to grow the budget, the wages or the number of people in the regulator.

It is interesting to note the varied approach across the regulatory network. Do we think that the football regulator will be like the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is pretty important—we all drink water—and does its work with 55 people? Coming in next is the Office of Rail and Road, which has up to 370 people. The Information Commissioner’s Office has 500-plus; information is all around us, so that is pretty important. Not quite topping the tree, but coming pretty close, is the Pensions Regulator, with 900 people.

The point is that untrammelled bureaucracies have a tendency simply to grow. There is no limit on the amount of fan consultation that could be done. A member of the football regulator could be sent down to every fan meeting if it really wanted to convince itself that the club was engaging with the fan base. All the amendment seeks is some measure of control, to give Parliament the opportunity once again to stop this thing growing arms and legs and moving way beyond its intended purpose.

The hon. Gentleman has made the point clearly: he has named a number of organisations that are significantly bigger than the random figure in the amendment. I am not disputing what he says, but the bottom line is that it makes no sense to include an arbitrary figure in formal legislation.

I—

I am sorry to jump in—I am a bit keen. The point that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe makes supports the point that we have made throughout. The political argument that the Government have made is that the objective is to have a light-touch regulator. Does my hon. Friend agree that by trying to limit its size, in principle, we are helping the Government to do exactly what they are promising?

We do not know yet what the target operating model will be. I think the Government can do that work, as they have a pretty clear picture of the functions of the regulator that are envisaged in the Bill. The shadow Minister asked the Minister to give some indication of the limits on money and structure, because we have the powers and the functions. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to hear the Minister’s answers.

I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. I note the irony of him saying he does not want to oppose the Bill for the sake of it, given our discussion today and the fact that the Bill began its life under his Government. I completely understand the intent to ensure that we do not end up with an overstaffed regulator that is not delivering value for money. That is exactly why there are appropriate controls over the regulator’s expenditure.

Proportionality is key to the point about costs. We will have a further debate today or on Thursday about the regulatory principles, which are really important, but the operational cost estimate is between £77.4 million and £106.8 million over 10 years. That was based on the impact assessment signed off by the previous sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry. Those costs have not changed—with the caveat, of course, that that is an estimate.

The Minister referred to an impact assessment based on the previous Bill. Given that there are changes in this Bill, will a new assessment with estimated costs be published for hon. Members to understand?

We do not believe that the changes are significant enough to lead to a significant increase in costs.

Quoting those figures is very helpful. Can the Minister tell us what personnel assumptions those figures were based on?

I am happy to provide the Committee with a copy of the impact assessment. I will address the point on staffing in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

On that principle, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence, who said yesterday that the number of people in the Army would be 73,000?

It is not for us to say. It is an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman outlined how different regulators have wildly different numbers of staff. We do not think that we should set a cap.

Can the Minister give any indication of the sort of headcount she expects of this regulator?

I am not going to be drawn on figures. I will say that we think that the regulator should be as light touch and slim as possible. We do not think that it should be unwieldy and we do not think there should be staff for staff’s sake. It is not for me as the Minister to prescribe a specific number. I do not agree with that. For those reasons, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should withdraw his amendment.

I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and to the answers provided by the Minister. I am concerned that the Government will not publish a refreshed impact assessment because, as I have highlighted, the costs to businesses and football clubs around the country have increased since the impact assessment was published. The regulator designed by the current Government also differs from the previous Government’s. We believe that it is bad practice for Members not to have all the information to hand for a live discussion about the expected costs of the regulator or concise information about what the size of the regulator may be.

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? The Minister said that some indicative numbers for the costs came from the impact assessment for the previous version of the Bill. I asked her what personnel numbers that was based on, because if such assumptions do not underpin the budget, that is as random a number as any.

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The amendment is about the headcount, and he asked the Government, who oppose the amendment, what assumptions they have made for the headcount in their financial calculations. That is a completely fair question for Committee members to ask in this debate. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer, and I do not believe my hon. Friend is either, based on his intervention. Members should have the information on the impact of staff costs. I have set out some of my concerns about what it may mean for fans down the line. I am afraid we have not had assurances that give us any confidence that the Government will seek to cap the size of the regulator. We want to get a vote on the record, because we believe there should be a cap on the size of the independent regulator.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.

(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”

This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.

It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I have not said it in a while—even if you have given me a yellow card. At least in football that does not mean the sin bin, so I can keep playing.

Let me explain why the amendment is important. In doing so, I will stick to the principle of trying to play not the man but the ball. We tabled the amendment to make sure that taxpayers and fans get value for money from the Government—in what would be a first since their election. It would limit the pay of the chief executive of the Government’s regulator to make sure that they are not paid more than the Prime Minister. Who would argue with the principle that the chief executive of a regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country, whatever you think of him or her at the time?

It is a fair amendment that would also ensure that non-executive board members determine employees’ pay, instead of the chief executive by themselves as an employee of the regulator. We believe the Bill will create a conflict of interest if it is left solely to the chief executive to determine pay, as the chief executive would be able to determine their own pay increases as part of the package, unless it was done independently by non-executive members of the board.

I am happy to answer that question, because I believe the figure should be considerably underneath that rate. The amendment would allow pay to go up to the cap, but I am not saying it should be a target. This is similar to the slight difference in understanding about the previous amendment. We are not saying that it should be that artificial figure; we are saying that we believe there should be a cap that is not above the Prime Minister’s current salary.

I disagree with the hon. Member’s interpretation. It is quite commonplace for the chief executive to be the highest paid member of staff in most organisations. In my experience, it would be highly unusual for members of staff underneath the chief executive to be paid more than them.

I am going to stick my neck out here. I have little confidence in the Government curtailing the expenditure of money, but I do have confidence they would not let a football regulator come into existence where every single employee is paid £173,000. I hope that my trust in them is not misplaced.

Well, we will see. All jokes aside, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It would be highly unlikely and deeply unpopular if any member—or especially all of them—of that regulator was paid more than the chief executive, and it would add more to our cost argument.

When looking at the operating model and how pay should be done, one would benchmark against equivalent organisations. What benchmarking has the hon. Gentleman done against the pay of other chief executives? The Prime Minister’s pay is not a good example for that particular type of role.

There is no equivalent to the football regulator. It is the first of its kind. We cannot argue to fans that it is unique and everything else, but then say that it is the same as something else. If it is the same as something else, why are we doing it?

We have benchmarked the figure quite clearly—the hon. Gentleman may disagree; that is what voting is about in Committee—to the Prime Minister’s salary, which we believe is fair. It is fair to the taxpayers, who understand that someone appointed by the Government or by the board to run the independent football regulator established by the Government should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. That is fair and moral.

This amendment is yet another example of plucking a random figure—although it is an actual figure, as has been referenced—and putting it in legislation, which is not best practice. That is why it should not be supported.

I understand the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. We have had lots of attempts at muddying the waters today, but it is Government Members who will have to explain to their constituents and fans around the country why they believe that a regulator should be appointed that earns more money than the Prime Minister. We on this side of the Committee are happy to stand up and say very clearly that we do not agree that that should be the case.

We do not agree that those costs—which we have concerns about, as I have said in debates on previous amendments—should be passed on to fans, as the cost of the regulator ultimately will. That may not be the case for the clubs that have large billionaire owners, but we are talking about the whole pyramid all the way down to the National League. I fundamentally believe that it is our duty in this place to seek to limit the cost of the regulator to those fans.

There is a matter of procedure and process here. I cannot think of another example where a public servant’s salary has been written into primary legislation, either as an actual or a maximum. Does the shadow Minister accept that we would have to have a new Act of Parliament to amend that figure in 10 or 20 years’ time? Surely that is appallingly bad practice.

I disagree. As I have said, we are here today to set the guidance for what we think is an appropriate level of pay. We believe that fans on the street will think that this amendment is fair and proportionate, and that the chief executive of the football regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. He made the comparison with a public servant, which is the point that I am trying to make. If we classify this independent regulator as a public servant—that is another rabbit hole that we probably do not want to go down now—should they be paid more than the Prime Minister, who should be the ultimate public servant in this country?

The shadow Minister talked previously about guidance, but that is not the proposal in this amendment. The amendment would put in primary legislation a figure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, is set in law until Parliament decides to change it—is that not bonkers?

No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman actually makes the point that I have made already, because we believe that Parliament should have a say on what the regulator looks like in future. We have already made the case that the Bill gives unchecked powers to the Secretary of State. The hypothetical situation that hon. Members have referred to, where we come back with another Act of Parliament, would give Members the opportunity to scrutinise what the regulator has done and scrutinise its costs. It would give Members the opportunity to explain to fans around the country why they are increasing ticket prices and other costs. Members should have the opportunity to keep a sensible check on the regulator in future.

I will get back to my comments, as I appreciate that I am testing your patience again, Sir Jeremy. I am sure that the Minister will understand the serious concerns around not only the cost of the chief executive but, importantly, who determines the pay, which is the second part of the amendment.

I hope that the Minister can also answer my questions about the other issues that my amendment brings to the fore today. On paragraph 8(4), why must a non-executive member of the board of the Government’s regulator notify the Secretary of State when they intend to resign from said board? Why do they not need to inform the chairman, deputy chairman or even the chief executive of the regulator? From my experience, it would be commonplace on most boards for someone to notify the chairman of the board rather than—obviously this is a unique situation—the Secretary of State, so the focus of the Bill seems unusual. Does the Minister understand that, once again, that makes it look like a political regulator? By maintaining the legal ties between the employment of non-executive directors and the Government, it is clear that they are not independent of Government, but reliant on Government. Will she clarify why that is the case?

Paragraph 9(b) states that the Secretary of State can remove a board member if they are satisfied that there is a conflict of interest. Will the Minister tell us what qualifies as a conflict of interest and how the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, will decide what meets those qualifications? Would donating to a political party not in government count—or perhaps donating to a political party that is in government? Would having an interest in related broadcasting companies qualify?

Paragraph 10(1) sets out that the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of non-executive members of the board. That gives the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, extensive powers over patronage. Can the Minister tell us how many board members does she anticipate will be needed and how many will be appointed? What will the remuneration per board member be, and what is the total cost of the board’s operation?

Does the Minister agree with the spirit of my amendment that the Prime Minister should be paid more than whoever is the chairman or the chief executive, whoever that may be? Those already large salaries may encourage the Prime Minister, perhaps on the advice of the current Secretary of State, to appoint somebody to the role to make sure they get a good return on their investment into Labour leadership bids.

I will not repeat what the shadow Minister has very ably said, but clearly the amendment goes back to the issue of costs spiralling out of control. Let us remember that the concern is about the pay levels for those appointed. The role has already been advertised, as I understand it, on the Government website at £130,000 for a three day part-time role, which means that pro rata they will be paid more than the Prime Minister. I have a serious problem with that, and I suspect that most fans have a serious problem with this so-called slimline light touch regulator being headed up by somebody who is paid more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friend is trying to bring in some level of cap on pay.

We were not successful in bringing in a cap on headcount, but the Minister could not give us any indication of how many people she expects to be employed by the regulator. The Government are prepared to say that 73,000 people should serve in the armed forces, so it is not unprecedented to give an indication of the number of employees in organisations, which is all this amendment is trying to do. If Government Members are happy for the regulator to be paid more pro rata than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so be it—they will have to vote in that way. I am not happy, and that is why I support the amendment.

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I appreciate the intent to ensure that the regulator offers value for money. That is precisely why the regulator has a regulatory principle encouraging it to be as cost-efficient as possible. There are also countless other safeguards in place to ensure value for money, and we referred to those in earlier debates. For example, the regulator will be required to lay its annual accounts before Parliament, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, for scrutiny.

The regulator will also be subject to pay remit guidance, in the same way as central Government Departments are, to ensure that pay rises are justifiable. That will ensure value for money without sacrificing important operational flexibility for the regulator. On the other hand, a maximum salary for the CEO, fixed in legislation, would leave the regulator unable to adapt to market changes and could leave it unable to recruit and retain the expertise that it needs to effectively regulate.

I understand that the amendment seeks to limit the CEO’s salary to no more than the current salary of the Prime Minister. There would be no way to update that if the salary changed in the future, or even with inflation. It is not a practical constraint to impose.

Does the Minister find it strange that, in this room, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson and a Labour Minister are arguing with the Conservatives about letting the market decide someone’s salary?

I absolutely agree, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson puts an important point on the record.

We expect a significant benchmarking exercise to be undertaken in determining the appropriate level of remuneration for the CEO of the regulator. That should be consistent with other regulators of a similar size and regulatory remit. We believe that an arbitrary constraint would be problematic. Safeguards are also in place already requiring approval for any public sector salary that exceeds £150,000, as per the senior pay controls process.

I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am listening carefully. On the point about markets, we are not talking about the market dictating the level, but Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in for a rude awakening if he believes that this is what the market looks like, if he goes down to the City of London. But on the argument that the Minister is making about the size of the regulator, what is that comparable size? We have tried to get an answer on what size the Government are looking at. So on the point that she just made about the salary being appropriate and reflective of other representative regulators, what is the size of the regulator? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the point about the salary that has been advertised only being a part-time salary, so what are the expectations in relation to that compared with the size of the regulator? That is fundamental to the Minister’s point.

As I have outlined, a benchmarking exercise will be done thoroughly on that. I am intrigued by the mock outrage from the Conservative party, who did not in any way put in a staffing cap or a salary cap when we were in this room previously. To take some examples of other salaries, they are much higher: at the Financial Conduct Authority, the salary is £400,000, at the Competition and Markets Authority, it is £200,000, and at Ofcom, it is £350,000. This is the current salary now but it was not wildly different under the last Government. I did not see them making these amendments to their Bill.

Again, there is this deliberate conflation regarding what I am asking. The Government are arguing that this regulator is light-touch and different from those other regulators, and that the salary has been benchmarked against those at other regulators of a similar size and nature. This is the question I am asking the Minister: what is that other regulator, and how big is it? That determines what is an appropriate level of salary. This is about not only the Government’s arguments and our understanding, but the cronyism argument. I will not go into this but the reality is that a Labour donor is in the process of being appointed to a part-time job on a six-figure salary. Members of the public have a right to know what analysis the Government have done to determine that level of salary on a part-time basis.

I do not know if the hon. Member is wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying or not. I have made it very clear that there will be a benchmarking exercise. I have given a number of examples of other regulators whose salaries are much higher and were so under the previous Government.

Senior pay controls allow the Government to ensure that senior pay is set at an appropriate level to enable the public sector to recruit, retain and motivate the best people, while also ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. That means that if the regulator sought to set the CEO’s salary above £150,000, it would need approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I think they were more confusing than they were an answer to the questions. We have tried to be clear, and I do not mean this disrespectfully. I am not wilfully misunderstanding; I am asking a really clear question about the comparison the Government are making. What does the benchmark look like? That is not a theoretical question; we already know that someone has been appointed, and they used a benchmarking exercise to make that appointment. That is the point I am trying to make: a benchmarking exercise must have already been carried out, if the Government have done their due diligence in making that appointment.

I make the point again: it is the hon. Member’s amendment that would insert a figure. He is lecturing the Government and saying that benchmarking should have been done, but his amendment includes a figure, yet he is saying that he has not done the benchmarking and that it is just a random figure.

To use the Minister’s comment, I think that the hon. Member is wilfully misunderstanding. I have made it absolutely crystal clear that the political argument—what we believe and what the taxpayers and fans will believe—is that it is not appropriate for a regulator to be paid more than the Prime Minister, the No. 1 so-called public servant in the country. That is the benchmark in the amendment.

What I am asking the Government—the hon. Member is conflating this, I think deliberately—is this. What is the benchmark that they have already used to appoint somebody? That appointment—not of the chief executive, but of the chairman—has already happened. That is the point we are asking about: whether the Government have done a benchmarking exercise. They must have an idea of what the regulator looks like, yet we have had no answer to that question.

We on this side of the House will be putting fans first. We will be seeking to cap the size of the Government’s regulator, to ensure that it is nimble and light-touch, that it is not overburdensome and that it does not do what we know regulation can do in this country, which is to snowball and to create more jobs and more duties for itself. We will look to cap it, in the interest of fans and taxpayers.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 89, line 29, leave out “sections 61 and 82” and insert “section 82”.

This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC3.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Government amendments 61 to 63 are technical amendments to schedule 2 that support our proposed changes to the distribution models put forward in other Government amendments. We will get into more detail on our changes to the distribution mechanisms later in the Committee’s proceedings, as they should be discussed in the context of the part of the Bill to which they relate. However, these are amendments to schedule 2, which we are currently discussing.

The primary goal of our changes is to move from a binary, winner-takes-all model to a staged regulator determination, where the regulator will be empowered to design its own solution, drawing from proposals submitted and extensive evidence. I will not elaborate further now; I have met the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I believe, to speak about this. We will be debating it later; it is just the way that the Committee’s proceedings have fallen that means that these technical amendments come now.

I would like to reassure Members that these changes have been proposed after extensive engagement with the stakeholders most heavily invested in the process and following significant scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. We believe that the changes will strengthen the mechanism, making it more likely to deliver a distribution solution that works for football.

The primary function of Government amendments 61 to 63 is to make the board of the regulator, rather than the expert panel, responsible for the design of distribution orders. Both the decision to trigger the process and the design of the final distribution orders are important regulatory decisions that will have a significant impact on the financial landscape of football. The regulator may face criticism or challenge over decisions of such magnitude, and needs to be accountable for them at the highest level. These amendments enable this.

First, amendment 61 removes an exemption to the functions exercisable by the board of the regulator, so that decisions regarding distribution orders can now be undertaken by the board. The amendment is intended to improve the coherence of legislation and to reflect the increased responsibility of the regulator in the design of a potential distribution order.

Government amendment 62 ensures that the board directly takes these important decisions itself, by specifying that it can only delegate those decisions to a committee of the board and not to another entity. That reflects the previous design of the backstop, which we will speak to later. As stated, the decisions at this stage are crucial to secure the financial future of football and to ensure that the regulator can deliver its objectives, particularly regarding sustainability. It is right that these decisions are taken directly by the board.

Government amendment 63 removes the requirement for the CEO of the regulator to establish a committee of the expert panel to undertake the final proposal stage of the distributions mechanisms. Again, that reflects the change from the previous mechanism. It is slightly odd to discuss this outside the backstop, but we will be able to debate that in more detail later on. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that Members will support these amendments, and I commend them to the Committee.

As the Minister set out, Government amendments 61 and 63 are consequential on the insertion of new clause 3, so I will limit my comments on this part, because I agree with her that it would be better placed at that point. However, I want to ask her about a couple of points. My understanding is that new clause 3 replaces what was clause 61, which set out the final proposal stage under the resolution mechanism. Again, I will save my substantive comments on that for later.

Government amendment 62 provides that the board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or of making a distribution order under new clause 4 to another committee of the board. I would like to ask the Minister the rationale for making this change at this stage in the process, given that the Bill has gone through the other place. We had a discussion on Second Reading and, as she just acknowledged, the leagues were not happy with the mechanism as it was designed previously. It is a fair question to ask why the Government are seeking to change this part of the Bill now. Why does the Minister think that the decision on whether to trigger the resolution process or to make a distribution order should be delegated to a committee rather than taken by the board itself?

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. On the broad question of why we are making the change, to be quite blunt, it would be easier not to. We have a big majority in this place, but we spoke earlier about parliamentary scrutiny and we genuinely listened to the debate in the Lords, where there was quite a lot of discussion around the mechanism of the backstop.

It is important to make it clear right now that the backstop is a backstop. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a very succinct speech—it is worth reading—about how the backstop should be a backstop. Understandably, a lot of the debate has focused on the backstop—that is not a criticism—but it is genuinely meant to be a backstop. To be quite blunt, it would be easier not to make the change, but we think that it is the right thing to do. I could understand the previous Government’s pendulum arbitration and why it could be successful, but it was more risky, and that prompts more nerves from stakeholders. I am straying into debating the backstop, which I do not want to do because we will debate it later on.

On the question about specifying that the board can delegate these decisions to a committee, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not changing the way that the backstop can be triggered— again, we are straying into the backstop. There is a set of criteria for when the backstop can be triggered by a league, and the state of the game report must have been written and the regulator must agree with that. That stays the same.

I am straying into a future debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying—he can correct me if I am wrong—that under the previous mechanism it was pendulum arbitration, where party A would put forward a proposal, as would party B, and an expert panel would decide on one or the other, in a completely binary way. This changes it so that there is informal mediation and then a proposal stage. Because the regulator is more involved in saying, “We like that but go and speak a bit more about this,” or, “Seek some more evidence on that,” it makes sense that they do not then delegate that decision. That is the point that I am making, though it is quite difficult to debate this outside the backstop, as I acknowledged in my remarks. I am happy to take his comments away, and when we come to part 4, I believe, and we debate the backstop and the changes more thoroughly, I am really happy to go into more detail.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

Amendment made: 62, in schedule 2, page 91, line 41, at end insert—

“(da) the function of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under section 59;

(db) the function of making a distribution order under section (Distribution orders);”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment provides that the Board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or making a distribution order under NC4 to another committee of the Board.

Amendment proposed: 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, at end insert—

“4A No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”—(Mr French.)

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 94, line 34, at end insert—

“31A (1) The Expert Panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under this Act.

(2) Any decision published by the Expert Panel must include—

(a) the number of members of the Expert Panel who supported the decision;

(b) the number of members of the Expert Panel who did not support the decision;

(c) the reasons for the decision;

(d) the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to.

(3) The Expert Panel must publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph (30).”

This amendment requires the Expert Panel to exercise its functions transparently.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under the Bill, and that any decision published by the expert panel must include the number of members of the expert panel who supported the decision, the number of members of the expert panel who did not the support the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to. The expert panel must also publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph 30 of schedule 2.

The amendment is all about transparency of the decisions made by the expert panel. As it stands, paragraph 30 requires that the expert panel

“must act independently of the Board”

when exercising its functions, without preventing the two-way exchange of information between the board and the expert panel. It is clear, however, that that needs to go further, which is why we tabled amendment 121, which requires the expert panel to exercise its functions transparently. I hope that the Committee agrees that no regulator should hide behind closed doors, and the Government’s football regulator should be no different.

That being said, the Bill lacks detail on the expert panels, and I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the following. How many people does she expect to be on the panels? How many of the panels does she expect to be needed in the first year of operation, and then in subsequent years? What is the cost expected per panel, and is there a specific cap on the cost that can be incurred by an expert panel to the regulator? Finally, how will each member of the panel meet the qualifications of the experience, skill and knowledge we have discussed already, while not incurring a conflict of interest?

To be clear, amendment 121 seeks to ensure that the regulator, a world-first in sports governance, and not in a good way for many of us, will maintain transparency with the fans it is intended to protect and support. We in this House have a great many tools at our disposal to hold the Government to account. It is only right that fans who do not have such tools can see what those deciding the future of their clubs and English football are doing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and my amendment seeks to let the sun shine on the Government’s regulator.

I will address some points on amendment 121 and then respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The Government recognise it is vital that the regulator is transparent and able to be held accountable by Parliament and others. That is why, for the expert panel, the legislation already sets out a number of requirements to publish decisions and give reasons for them.

Transparency in decision making is important, but it is also important that individual panel members can act without fear or favour and that ultimately the regulator as a whole stands behind the decisions it makes. It will also be necessary in some instances for details to remain private for commercial, personal or other sensitive reasons. We absolutely agree that transparency around the regulator’s processes and decisions is important, particularly in football, where fans often complain of being out of the loop. That is exactly why the Bill already contains extensive publication and consultation requirements and the regulatory principle encouraging the regulator to be transparent. However, the amendment goes further and risks undermining the operation of the expert panel. Some details may be commercially sensitive, as I have outlined. Equally, individual panel members should not necessarily be singled out for their contributions to decisions; the panel as a whole makes decisions and is held accountable as a whole.

I am at risk of comparing apples with oranges, but we spoke earlier about the Select Committee. In this place, we will have minorities on Select Committees, and I do not believe that those Members who do not agree have their names published. I acknowledge that I am not comparing like with like, but I make a gentle point about how members should be able to make decisions without fear or favour.

The hon. Member asked some specific questions about the expert panel. For the panel to take a decision, it must form a committee of at least three members. If that decision is appealed, three new members will be needed to form a committee to take a new decision, so the minimum number of members required for the expert panel is six. There is no cap on the maximum number of members as the regulator should have flexibility to react in the event of a high workload. Obviously, different panels may be required for different issues. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Will the Minister give way?

I am sorry; I have just finished.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne just missed the Minister, but if he is minded to intervene on me, I am happy to accept an intervention.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. The Minister admitted that with Select Committees she was not comparing like with like. Would not a better comparison be another big regulator, the Bank of England, where the Monetary Policy Committee in setting interest rates does indeed allow for minority reports, which are helpful to the market in understanding the logic behind those who want rates to go up, go down or stay the same?

My hon. Friend gives an example that I admit I had not thought of. That is a well-made point about transparency and how that works in the City, and about the important role of the Bank of England.

I offer the shadow Minister another example: on Select Committees, as mentioned by the Minister. There may be no formal record of how minority votes go in Select Committees—although the Minister did seem to know the outcome of the appointment decision—but, as sittings are held in public, people can see how different members of a Select Committee respond to an issue.

That is an excellent point. I believe that the people who want to sit on these expert panels and help with the future of football—I assume that is what they will be contributing to—should be able to operate transparently for the ultimate fans. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I will press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Unfortunately, based on the earlier deliberations, I do have something to say. I will try to be succinct and not rehash the debates we have had already, although I am happy to carry on taking interventions, as I have done all day.

I will set out why the Conservative party will be opposing schedule 2. The Government have missed the opportunity to tighten up the transparency of the regulator. Instead, they have allowed it to operate under a shadow, and they have not ensured that it will be transparent to fans, who are the ultimate stakeholders in this process. There is a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes. The regulator is granted broad discretionary powers with limited obligations to publish detailed reasoning for its decisions, as we discussed in the debate on amendment 121. Clubs and stakeholders may be left unclear about how rules are interpreted and applied, undermining confidence in regulatory fairness.

A number of times today, I have made the point that there is to be limited parliamentary scrutiny. Because of the amendments that have not been accepted, there are limits in the Bill on how Members of Parliament can have their say on what the regulator will look like. The regulator’s rules and standards are not subject to the affirmative procedure or meaningful parliamentary oversight.

I know that the Minister did not wish to make any comments, but I am interested in her view and the Government’s view on where reports on the regulator will end up. Will it be at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or, given the costs involved, at the Public Accounts Committee? It is important that Members understand whether they will be at least able to see the reports, even if the Government are not willing to make votes available. There is no requirement to consult publicly before issuing or revising key regulatory frameworks, which again limits external input. We have already brought up the issue of some people not being consulted and others being consulted.

On the opaque appointment and governance structures, we have highlighted the Opposition’s concerns about how the selection process has taken place and how it will take place in the future. We need strong safeguards to ensure that political interference does not impact the perceived and the realised work of the independent regulator. It is a fundamental risk to the future of football and the future of sport.

We believe that the duty to disclose key information is insufficient and that the regulator should be disclosing information on a regular basis, so that Members of Parliament and fans can have clear sight of what it is doing. That is a completely fair thing to ask for. It is not a political request; it is about transparency.

On costs, which we have discussed at length, the Opposition are concerned that we do not have transparency about the cost of the regulation. We are unclear on what the Government’s end goal is for the regulator. We have heard different arguments about what its size may be in the future and comparisons with regulators that I think would scare most of us. Hearing the cost of 900 members of staff should scare all football fans, if that is the direction of travel the Government are going down with the regulator, which is supposed to be light touch.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, just to give her a bit more time. How will Parliament scrutinise the regulator’s spending, as set out on page 96 of the Bill? Can she tell us whether scrutiny will come from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? There is also mention of financial assistance being provided, based on the Secretary of State’s judgment. Can the Minister tell us what the Bill means by “appropriate” and whether taxpayers will be bailing out failing clubs or even the regulator?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. To take the final one first, taxpayers will not be bailing out failing clubs. This is not going to save every single club; to make it very clear, it was never intended to do that.

The provisions in the schedule ensure that the regulator has the necessary structures in place to function effectively and efficiently, with appropriate accountability as a public body, which is an issue that we have debated extensively. It ensures that an agreed and transparent process is adhered to when establishing a governance framework, including its board, committees and expert panel. We have made provision for the regulator to appoint a board observer from the Football Association, and as the national governing body for English football, they will get an insight into the operation of the regulator without having voting powers. Ultimately, the regulator will be accountable to Parliament. As we have spoken about throughout this debate, it will be operationally independent and free from undue political or industry influence. The provision in this schedule is central to creating that framework, and I commend it to the Committee.

As I referenced in the question, I was deliberately trying to be specific because we have not really got into what part 4 of the schedule says. The Minister has just made a point about scrutinising the spending of the regulator. How will Parliament be able to scrutinise the regulator going forward? I am happy to have it in writing, if the Minister does not have the answer on her today. Will it be the role of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Public Accounts Committee or both? Will reports be laid on the Floor of the House, for example, for hon. Members to look at, or in the House of Commons library? That is the question that I am trying to ask the Minister today, and I would appreciate it if the hon. Lady gave us a bit of certainty on that.

I am absolutely happy to do that. It is obviously up to the Select Committees, and they can scrutinise if they want to—it will be up to individual Select Committees to decide. The IFR has to publish an annual report, and there is a review clause in there, too. We are happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail if that would be helpful.

Question put, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football is a central part of its approach to football governance, and to establish and supervise the scheme provided for under section [Neurodegenerative care scheme].”

This amendment places an objective on the IFR to establish and supervise a scheme to provide care and support to those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football (see NC1).

My first Southampton game at the Dell was in 1993. Southampton lost, predictably, to Manchester United. My grandparents and father took me, and playing at the back that day was a man called Kevin Moore. He was one of the greatest headers of the ball that the Football League has ever seen. He would regularly be seen rising above the level of the crossbar and heading the ball downwards into the goal. He did so in the Zenith Data Systems Cup final—that is a reference for the spotters among us.

Kevin Moore is one of a number of footballers whose case has clearly established a link between heading the football and dementia. To balance things up with my friend from Portsmouth over the way, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, there is similar evidence in the case of Portsmouth legend Ray Hiron. The Portsmouth News has done a wonderful public service for us all by reporting on that. Kevin Moore’s brother Dave, told the Daily Mail that

“Kev had great spring and he absolutely loved heading footballs”.

Kevin talked about how he would go to the back of Blundell Park in Grimsby with his friends and head the ball, which was apparently on a string tethered behind the stand. He probably gained a lot of aptitude for heading a football by training like that, and it definitely made him more successful at playing the game as a fierce centre-back. However, it clearly had an impact on his health in later life, and he died in a nursing home aged just 55, which is a tragedy.

Kevin Moore and Ray Hiron are not the only ones; Chris Nicholl was another Southampton legend with a Grimsby Town link. There are also more famous names such as Jeff Astle, Nobby Stiles and, more recently, Dean Windass. They are legends at their clubs and across the country.

What has been clearly established is that heading a football does an awful lot of harm over time to the brain of a human being. We accept that this is possibly outside the Bill’s scope, and we also accept the numbers in the room. However, I rise to speak to amendment 1 because it is really important that, as part of these debates on football regulation—when we are talking about billions of pounds sloshing around the football system—we understand that we could do so much with a tiny proportion of that amount to ease the pain and suffering of these footballers’ families.

Let us face it: the families of Kevin, Ray, Dean, Jeff, Nobby and Chris are around and speaking today, and there will be more families in the future. While it is very unlikely that we will be able to solve the issue with this Bill, it is important that every Member of Parliament with an interest in football takes an interest in this issue. We simply must push to get justice for the families of the footballers we have heard about today, and for those whose family member might suffer the same difficulties in the future.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving amendment 1 so that we can have an initial conversation about this very emotive and important issue facing ex-players, and about the campaigns on these well-known health challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot be part of these discussions because she is a Deputy Speaker, but I have agreed to meet and listen to the group in the Southampton area.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the new clause we have tabled on player welfare, as we believe there are strong links to the arguments made on amendment 1. I will park those for now, as I am conscious that I am close to a red card following my initial yellow card—I will not go too far on that, Sir Jeremy.

Clause 6 defines the core objectives of the independent football regulator as

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs… to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football…to safeguard the heritage of English football”.

Amendment 1 seeks to add another subsection that would clarify this particular issue, and I understand the arguments that have been made.

We have already engaged with some of the leagues on this issue, and I draw the attention of the Committee, and of anyone listening at home who may be seeking assistance and support on this issue, to the funds that are available. I am not taking a particular position; I just want to highlight the existing scheme to support former footballers in this regard, as I think it is very important for those families around the country. My understanding is that the scheme was set up in 2023 by the Premier League and has distributed over £1.4 million to date. If this Bill Committee can achieve anything, we will be performing a good public service by advertising that the fund is available for ex-players to ensure those families can get the support they desire.

I will return to our player welfare new clause, but my understanding is that the drafting of the Bill, however well intentioned, does not look to include either the PFA or the LMA, both of which are key stakeholders in how we protect the rights of footballers and managers, who are under a lot of pressure. I think we all recognise that as politicians, because we have a lot of pressure placed on us in our duties in the workplace. With an increasing fixture list, as clubs look to add more fixtures to be more commercially viable, there is broader concern about player welfare. That is why I am keen to have that debate later in our considerations.

It is key that once this football regulator is established—and we know that it will be established—it considers the welfare of players. It is important that it does that with the bodies that represent both players and managers. I look forward to debating this further, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment for discussion.

To be clear, I was not taking a particular side. I was just explaining that funding is already available. I understand the hon. Member’s point about whether the funding is adequate.

On Nobby Stiles, the footballs that people play with are materially different from the ones that were played with in 1966. I ask in good faith: is the hon. Member leading this conversation to a potential ban on heading the ball in games, or is it just about the distribution of financial support for players?

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham for speaking to amendment 1 and new clause 1. He said that this may not be the right place or the right Bill to do so, and I probably agree with him. Nevertheless, this is a helpful opportunity to acknowledge the issue, and it is timely given that there is a debate on dementia care in the Chamber right now. Until I entered this place, I worked for a national dementia care charity that was looking at the possible link between heading footballs and dementia diagnoses.

This debate is also timely because, almost at this hour as I understand it, an APPG is being set up to look at dementia in sport. While this amendment may not be successful, it is nevertheless very timely. I commend the hon. Member for raising the issue.

I have little more to add, other than to say that I think we should all go away and consider the extremely moving stories told by the footballers’ families. For those of us who saw those footballers during their very best days on the pitch, heading the ball with such vigour, reading those stories brings into sharp contrast what happens to those men after retirement. I therefore suggest that, while the amendment probably will not be agreed by the Committee today, it is important that we keep the discussion going—all of us who have an interest in football—and tell other parliamentarians too.

That is quite okay, Sir Jeremy. I have done a lot of talking today. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment and for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I will explain why we are not able to accept it, but it is important to say first that the safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount.

I am very aware of this issue—I participated in a debate on it in the Chamber in September 2023, and I care greatly about the subject—and the hon. Gentleman, and indeed other Members across the House, spoke very movingly, giving a number of examples of the terrible experiences that footballers and their families have had.

I pay tribute on the record to the work of Football Families for Justice in supporting ex-players and their families. I commend it for its excellent work. Again, I echo the shadow Minister’s comments, as he made an important point about directing people to the fund and making it clear that the money is available.

The Government absolutely agree that this area requires further work, and we have committed to looking at these issues. I do not believe these measures are appropriate for this Bill, but I am fully aware of the importance of prioritising player welfare and ensuring that former players and their families have the support they need.

National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of sports and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, including head injuries. The Government expect national governing bodies to take the health and safety of players as a top priority.

The Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. We heard, at first hand, about players’ experiences and the views of the group on how safety and welfare could be improved at all levels of the sport.

We are considering what is required, including how to support football to come together to address the problems raised. We are committed to supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address those issues, and our officials are in the process of arranging meetings to further explore the issue.

That has hopefully outlined how the Government and I care very much about these issues. I will briefly say why we do not feel we can accept these measures. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for tabling them, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for introducing them—he spoke very powerfully.

The regulator will be a specialist regulator with a precise focus on financial regulation, corporate governance, fan engagement and heritage, as we have heard throughout today’s debates. It will be aimed at addressing the main issues that came out of Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review.

We have heard at length, in this House and the other place, about the importance of a tight regulatory scope focused on the market failures that the industry cannot address itself. Even if we wanted to accept this change, we feel it would open the door to other amendments, and indeed to scope creep, which we do not want. But that is certainly not in any way a reflection of how seriously we take this issue—we take it very seriously. We look forward to meeting and working with campaigners, and indeed with everyone in football, to come to a solution on this issue.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 sets out the regulator’s objectives, which are its primary aims and also the limits of its statutory remit. As clause 7 sets out, the regulator may act only if the action taken, so far as reasonably practicable, advances one or more of those objectives. I will speak briefly to the objectives, and then we can debate them further.

The first objective is club financial soundness—the ability of individual clubs to continue meeting their debts and liabilities even in the face of challenging circumstances, new risks and financial shocks. The second is systemic financial resilience, which relates to the wider financial resilience of English football. That involves issues that, individually, pose a small problem, but that, when aggregated or multiplied, pose a significant threat to groups, clubs and the pyramid as a whole.

The third objective is safeguarding club heritage and the heritage of English football. Clearly, financial collapse is a risk, but so is the potential for clubs to become unrecognisable to their fans and communities. As we know, the Bill grew out of the fan-led review, which highlighted myriad problems facing football in this country. There are a number of areas where action is needed, but not all the problems are for a statutory regulator to fix. We have been clear about the areas where the regulator would need to act; some relate to issues of sustainability, where we believe that the market has failed, or remains ill equipped, to act.

We believe that the three objectives are the right focus. When I talk about the Bill, I always say—and I said it when I opened today—that at a very basic level clubs have to do three things: be a fit and proper owner, have a business plan and consult their fans. Many are doing that, and doing it well, and in that case there will be no need for duplication. At a very basic level, that is what the Bill and the regulator aim to do.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to refer particularly to clause 6(c). When we finally get to the football issues in the Bill, I am sure a lot of them will be about the ownership of clubs and how owners behave. Just in passing, and without going into detail, the EFL has once again taken action against the owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri, for failing to pay the players’ wages. I have said before that he does not have the resources to run the club, but we will come to that later. The other major issue we will come to will no doubt be the financial distribution within football.

However, let us remember why the Crouch review was established. It was actually kicked off and stimulated by the suggestion that there might be a European super league, with certain clubs going off and playing by themselves and detaching themselves from the rest of football. The then Prime Minister got rather upset about that and decided that action needed to be taken. So the review was essentially about protecting the integrity of the established football competitions—the leagues, the FA cup and the League cup.

Clause 6(c) refers to the need to

“safeguard the heritage of English football”,

or the heritage objective. Our objective is to protect the Premier League and the EFL—what has been the English league game and the pyramid for a long period—together with the FA cup and, more recently, for the last 50 years, the League cup. That is the heritage that needs protecting.

I absolutely understand the hon. Member’s argument, and as I said earlier I have full respect for the work he has done as chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. However, a story in the press yesterday highlighted that there could be a breakaway league in rugby union. A lot of the arguments he is making about the creation of the Bill are about why the heritage part is so important. Given that commonality and that we are talking about a similar risk, does he believe that the Government should set up a regulator for rugby?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me down that road; if he did, I am sure you would stop me fairly quickly, Sir Jeremy. Let us stick to the matter in hand and look at the heritage of the game.

It is absolutely right that the Government acted. The Bill, through a clause retained from the previous Bill, acts to stop clubs engaging in competitions that are not accepted by the regulator. That is an important part of the Bill, and it comes from the European super league suggestion. However, there are other developments in the game that I think are undermining its heritage.

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech about the heritage elements of cup competitions, and a genuinely important point about fixture scheduling and how the international teams impact that. We are talking about Club World cups and tours of Asia—we have just seen Man United go straight to Asia. However, to try and spin a positive on the situation—I am not defending certain clubs—would the hon. Member agree with me that it is a good thing that this year the underdogs have won those cups? There is value again in those cup competitions, whether that is Crystal Palace winning a tournament—the hon. Member for Dartford is nodding at that—or Newcastle winning.

And Tottenham.

Indeed. We could keep going. That proves the value of the cup competitions. Many more clubs should take our traditional cup competitions more seriously.

That is a fair point, and it does not happen often enough these days. We can think back to how often the cup is won by someone different, and in past years it has been almost the same teams playing each other all the time. I think Crystal Palace were underdogs; I am not sure that Newcastle and Tottenham can really classify themselves as underdogs. But it was a point well made.

There is a point I want to emphasise and ask the Minister to have a look at. Does she accept that the regulator, with the powers that it has to safeguard the heritage of English football, can look at the impact on domestic competitions and on all the clubs within the pyramid—the clubs that play in the FA cup and the League cup—from other competitions, where the calendar fixtures of a small number of clubs detrimentally affects those other clubs?

I will make my comments brief, because the hon. Member has made a number of excellent points that need to be addressed by the Minister rather than by me. The objectives under clause 6 are the promotion of the financial soundness of regulated clubs; protecting and promoting the financial resilience of English football; and the safeguarding of heritage assets, which is the main point the hon. Member for Sheffield South East just made. He spoke well about how those different issues interlink between clubs of different sizes, and the impact it has on lower league clubs that value the financial benefits of a replay.

I remember, as a Cheltenham fan, when we were in what was League One then, but now is the Championship, going to Bolton, where we lost in Bolton’s new stadium, and going to Coventry where we beat a Premier League team. It is incredible for fans to go to grounds that they would not normally get to experience. We must not lose that aspect of this. There is also the financial impact of the smaller club getting a replay, which is absolutely crucial. Welling United, one of my local clubs, has sadly just been relegated from the Conference South. I remember—I think they had got to round two in the cup a few years ago—Carlisle had come to visit. Welling United fans would never normally have had the opportunity to watch them play that club, or to visit their stadium and see all the characteristics of stadiums at that level and professional players perform there. That is an important part of the fabric and the love of the FA cup, which we all share.

I am talking about the EFL cup as well, but the FA cup in particular is incredibly powerful. I spoke about the soft power asset of English football around the world—people understand the value of the FA cup and what that means for competition across the whole pyramid. We know clubs in the lower leagues play a number of qualifying rounds to try to get to round three when the Premier League clubs normally come in. We must not lose sight of the impact of replays, and I would be genuinely interested to see what the Minister says in response to the point made by hon. Member for Sheffield South East on those.

We had a long debate earlier about what we thought were good ambitions to try to expand the scope of the objectives of the IFR in clause 6, and I appreciate that Committee members have had their say already on whether that is the wrong thing to do. I encourage the Minister, again in good faith, to consider the point about the growth of the game. We are concerned that, as drafted, the objectives of the regulator do not fulfil the potential it could have to try to look at the growth of the game. In other Departments I know the Chancellor has urged Ministers to write to their regulators to ask for growth examples, but at this point in the Bill we can mandate that to be a part of the regulator’s considerations. I urge the Minister to think about that point.

It is a pleasure to once again, and possibly finally for today, serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—but we will see. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for all his work in the all-party group and for his long-standing interest. I completely appreciate his points. I would say that the regulator will have a number of ways to safeguard heritage, including to be able to prohibit competitions, and require consultation on matchday operations. Clause 8 encourages the regulator to engage with both players and fans on relevant matters. The regulator has a tightly defined scope and purpose focused on protecting and promoting the long-term financial sustainability of the game for the benefit of fans and local communities. It will not intervene on sporting competition matters, such as the footballing calendar.

To address the point by my hon. Friend for Sheffield South East about the FA cup and replays, I remember that just as the previous Bill was published, it was in the news and a real debate. I completely appreciate that one could argue that it is very much part of the heritage of the game, but it is also a competition matter, and therefore it is out of scope of the Bill. I will take away the comments by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate Members from across the House for putting theirs on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)