Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government (1) how, and (2) when, they plan
to respond to the recommendations of the Fan-Led Review of
Football Governance, published on 24 November 2021.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper, and refer to my football interests as declared
on the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have endorsed the principle
that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure
the future of our national game. We are working swiftly to
consider the recommendations of the fan-led review and to
determine the most effective way to deliver an independent
regulator. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State
committed in another place on 3 March to bring forward the
government response as soon as possible. This will be issued in
the coming weeks.
(Lab)
My Lords, that is an encouraging Answer, but can I press the
Minister on when we might expect to see the Government’s response
to Tracey Crouch’s excellent report, and whether he can give an
undertaking that the legislation which will be necessary to
establish the regulator will be included in the next Queen’s
Speech? Football fans have waited a very long time for some
action, and as Mr Huddleston, the Sports Minister, said to the
DCMS Committee last week:
“We recognise there are failures in the structure and governance
of English football and the fan-led review is pivotally important
because it will contain an independent regulator.”
of Whitley Bay (Con)
First, I wish the noble Lord a happy birthday. I am afraid I
cannot give him a birthday present of anticipating what might be
in the gracious Speech, as I am sure he will understand, but I
certainly agree wholeheartedly with my honourable friend the
Sports Minister. The primary recommendation of the review is
clear and one that the Government have endorsed: that football
requires a strong independent regulator to secure the future of
our national game. As I say, we are working quickly to determine
the most effective way to deliver that and to see the powers that
it may need. Football has had too many opportunities to get its
house in order but has not done so. Without intervention, we risk
the long-term future of a game which is enjoyed by people across
the land.
(Con)
My Lords, I reiterate the support that the noble Lord gave to
Tracey Crouch and her excellent report the other day. Can I ask
the Minister about Chelsea Football Club? While it is imperative
that Roman Abramovich is punished and sanctioned, it is also
important that ordinary Chelsea fans are not too heavily
penalised.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I agree with my noble friend on both points—first, in commending
the work of in leading the fan-led
review, which of course was a manifesto commitment from the
Government. My noble friend is right: we must punish individuals
with links to the Putin regime. The sanctions we have announced
in this and other areas will target the assets and lifestyles of
those implicated, but it is right that we have a safety net in
place to protect the sport, the club and the fans from
irreparable damage that would prevent the club from
competing.
(LD)
My Lords, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to
assure the House that the Government are going to make sure that
the big professional football clubs and other clubs, which are
community assets and part of the social structure, are actually
protected? At the moment, they are literally used as a football
by financial institutions; they are seen as merely a business.
Can we make sure that when we have some reform and change in this
area, the fact that they are more than that to most people is
recognised at a fundamental level?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes the very pertinent point that football clubs
are rooted in their communities and are community assets. That is
why we are very glad that the review by Tracey Crouch was
fan-led. We are very grateful to all those who took part in it;
we will set out our response in full having given it the thorough
consideration it deserves.
(CB)
My Lords, I am a Liverpool, not a Chelsea, fan. We all support
sanctions designed to bring an end to Russia’s acts of sheer evil
in Ukraine, but it is surely not right that Chelsea’s fans,
players and operational managers should be directly affected by
sanction measures while they await new owners. Will the Minister
urgently review and remove these purely sporting constraints?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, given the significant impact that sanctions would have
on Chelsea Football Club and their potential knock-on effects,
Her Majesty’s Treasury issued a licence which authorises a number
of football-related activities to continue at Chelsea, including
permissions for the club to continue playing matches and other
football-related activity, which will in turn protect the Premier
League, the wider football pyramid, the loyal fans and other
clubs. The licence allows only certain explicitly named actions,
to ensure that the designated individual cannot circumvent UK
sanctions. However, we are meeting daily with the club and
football authorities to discuss further amendments to the licence
should they be necessary.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as director of Carlisle United.
As the Minister has recognised, English football is in a mess. A
new study by Fair Game has come out showing that over half the
top clubs are technically insolvent, yet clubs in League One and
League Two are surviving on a 1.2% handout from the Premier
League. Will the Minister commit that the widely recognised
Tracey Crouch proposals will be endorsed by the Government before
the end of this season in six weeks’ time?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Tracey Crouch’s review recommended that football should
seek to resolve distribution issues itself. The Government have
written to football authorities to ask how they intend to do
this; we have received responses and will address this issue in
our response to the review.
(Lab)
I welcome much of the report, but does the Minister recall that
the Prime Minister, when he was Mayor of London, was very
concerned about domestic abuse that arose after football matches
where drinking had taken place? Recommendations 42 and 43 of the
report are that there should be experiments in reintroducing
alcohol into these leagues, which had been banned since 1988. Can
he tell me why the Government have changed their view?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I advise the noble Lord to await the Government’s response to the
fan-led review, in which we will deal with all its
recommendations.
(Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Lord come back to ground ownership and
the problems that have occurred when grounds have been sold off?
The review recommended a golden share to be held by a community
benefit society—in other words, supporters of the club—to have a
veto, essentially, over such ground share sales in the future.
Are the Government sympathetic to that?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid I cannot anticipate all the areas of the review to
which we must respond, but I repeat that football has clearly
proven unable in the past to reform itself and deliver the
changes needed. It is clear that current oversight of the game is
not up to solving the structural challenges and that action must
be taken. That is why we welcome the review and will respond to
it in detail.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, some of us said at the time that it was a complete
disgrace that Putin could use the World Cup for propaganda
purposes. It is completely unacceptable that Qatar was able to
bribe its way to hosting the World Cup this year, with its
appalling record on human rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights and
the way it has exploited labour to build the stadia. While I
recognise the Government’s case for reform of the domestic game,
do they agree with me that the international institutions running
football need urgent reform as well?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The suitability of football club ownership was an important part
of the fan-led review, and we welcome recognition from the
Premier League that current tests are not sufficient. The fan-led
review is about future-proofing the system, both domestically
and, as the noble Lord says, in the international leagues, and we
will set out our response to all these issues in full.
(Lab)
My Lords, the takeover of Newcastle by a consortium with links to
the Saudi regime prompted questions about the appropriateness of
the current fit and proper person test for owners and directors,
and Mr Abramovich’s recent hasty attempts to sell Chelsea also
raised concerns about due process. Can the Minister give us some
confidence that these issues will be dealt with when the
Government issue their response to the excellent Crouch
review?
To pick up a comment made by the noble Lord who preceded me, the
Premier League confirmed recently that it is looking to add human
rights components to its assessment of prospective owners and
directors. Do the Government support such a change? If so, what
discussions have they had with other football stakeholders,
including the FA and the EFL?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I say, the suitability of club ownership was an important part
of the review. The review is about future-proofing the system,
and that is why we are considering how to enhance the owners and
directors tests to ensure that football has only suitable
custodians. It is difficult to look back retrospectively at
individual cases, but we are determined to get this right, and we
are discussing the matter with people across the football pyramid
to make sure that we do so properly.
