A former Labour cabinet minister has accused opponents of an independent football regulator of lobbying on behalf of the Premier League and trying to “filibuster” its passage through the House of Lords.
Lord Blunkett said peers who were against the Football Governance Bill were talking it out, as it reached its fourth day in committee, and taking briefings from the Premier League.
The Bill would introduce a regulator with wide-ranging powers that would oversee the top five leagues of the English men’s football pyramid.
Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary in Tony Blair’s Labour government, said: “I hope that we won’t spend an hour on this particular group (of amendments).
Overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point fans, millions of fans out there, might actually learn what's going on with the filibuster that's taking place in this house. And when they do they will be very angry
“Having sat through parts of committee one and two, I have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as I have heard on the previous groups, including ‘what is a definition of football?’, ‘What do we mean by competition?’ and even ‘what is fairness?'”.
He added: “It is quite right that we in this house should scrutinise, should raise legitimate arguments, should be able to challenge a Bill of this sort.
“But I do say to the Premier League and those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three committee day stages, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point fans, millions of fans out there, might actually learn what’s going on with the filibuster that’s taking place in this house.
“And when they do they will be very angry.
“The Premier League with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying supports, and they are very good indeed, need to just reflect on whether this filibuster and what is being done in this house is benefiting them. I think not. Sometimes overdoing it can actually be detrimental.”
Lords have been discussing proposed amendments to the Bill for four days, and still have hundreds of potential changes to debate.
My suggestions for amendments are in a way to assist the Government to make this Bill work better, to avoid the unintended consequences that we all keep warning about and all keep fearing of
Peers have already had the length of their contributions limited, and warned not to repeat points made by others.
There are only two more days scheduled for the upper chamber to debate the amendments.
Opponents defended their speeches, saying they wanted to properly scrutinise the Bill that could fundamentally change football in England.
Crossbench peer Baroness Fox, who spoke against amendments that would introduce diversity requirements for football clubs, said: “I have no idea if there is filibustering going on, (or) if everybody on this side of the house that I haven’t spoken to is in the pockets of the Premier League, but I feel there’s a sort of gaslighting going on.
“I take this Bill seriously. I’ve read as much as I can. Nobody from the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should you want to know, written my speeches or talked to me.
“There’s a lot in this Bill to get ones head around and try to speak to.
“If there’s a repetition that’s going on in his debate, it’s the constant people on the other side saying that anyone who is scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is not true, certainly not of a wide range of us.”
The Bill will have its second reading in the House of Lords on November 13, ahead of its return to the House of Commons for its third and final reading, that would see it become law.
West Ham United vice-chairman Baroness Brady, who has been a major critic of the powers that would be given to the regulator, said: “My suggestions for amendments are in a way to assist the Government to make this Bill work better, to avoid the unintended consequences that we all keep warning about and all keep fearing of.”
Conservative peer Lord Markham, who has proposed amendments to the Bill, said: “I’d like to say for the record, and I’m sure I speak for all of the contributors to these debates, that I am making these points because I care deeply about football and about what’s best for football.”
