Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Swallow and Oliver Dowden

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Wherever I have been in the world, whether it is in Hertsmere or at the United Nations, I am always asked two questions: “When did you meet the late Queen?” and “Which football team do you support?” Such is the strength and reach of English football.

As I have said to this House before, English football is a cherished cultural and soft power that ranks alongside our greatest museums, galleries and stately homes. Indeed, I saw that again this Friday at my brilliant local club, Boreham Wood FC, led by the indefatigable Danny Hunter. Three generations of his family have sustained that club, sustaining community life, providing education, nurturing us through covid and facilitating the next generation of stars to rise all the way to the top of the premier league. I did not hesitate to act when English football was threatened by the rapacious greed of the proposed European super league, which would have deracinated six of our greatest clubs. It is in that resistance to the ESL that the roots of this Bill lie. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, threatened a “legislative bomb”, which resulted in us bringing forward the governance review led by my excellent former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch.

In our consideration of this legislation, I caution that English football survives on cut-throat competition in which the rewards for victory are high and the costs of failure are equally high. It is also dependent on significant levels of global investment. Well-structured investment is not a threat to English football: it is one of its great strengths. I could list many examples. We have Manchester City, which is backed by the Abu Dhabi United Group and which has posted record revenues of more than £700 million and profits of £73 million based on solid equity, not risky leverage. That is exactly the sort of leverage that is demanded. Likewise, Newcastle United’s new ownership, led by the Public Investment Fund, has brought more than £300 million of fresh investment without debt, so we have a thriving team and jobs created, with silverware returned. Beyond the premier league, we have seen what the injection of funds at Wrexham has done for its extraordinary ascent through the league. And at Tottenham Hotspur, their fabulous stadium is now expanding to include things like the Eubank-Benn masterclass at the weekend.

This all leads to the core question before the House, which I have very little time to address, but I will try to make my point succinctly. There is undoubtedly a case for regulation. The pyramid is not working, with £100 million for TV rights at the bottom of the premier league as opposed to £4 million at the top of the EFL. We need to address that—it is not sustainable. Likewise, the movement from the national league to the EFL is something that we need to expand, as exemplified by the 3UP campaign. However, before we go down this path, we should look at how circumstances have changed in the past year. Look at the change in the global investment environment, principally as a result of instability in the US, and at the national insurance hike faced by every club up and down the country. Is this really the right moment to proceed with further regulation?

Based on my 20 years’ experience in and out of government, I caution the House that when a regulator is created, however benign the intention, a self-serving bureaucracy always seeks to expand its scope over time. That will be the case for this piece of legislation, and this regulator will be on the front and back pages of the newspapers every single day. We have already heard arguments from Lib Dem colleagues for expanding the scope of the regulator before it is even up and running. In this changed environment, and given measures such as the backstop and its application to the pyramid and to parachute payments, I think there remains a window in which we can threaten this kind of regulation but not actually introduce it, because I fear the damage it will do.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I regret that I cannot give way. For the reasons I have described, I will be voting accordingly at the end of this debate.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Peter Swallow and Oliver Dowden

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then Government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two Houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.”

The British constitution is not codified. One might not choose to craft such a system if one were establishing a new country from scratch, but we are proud to be an old country. The checks and balances of the House of Lords—its tried and tested conventions—work. The House of Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber. That is the key point: this elected House has primacy. Of course, the British constitution does—and should—continue to evolve, but we should fix only what is broken and be cautious about rushing into change. Our evolution should start with questions of efficacy, not optics. We should be guided by the wisdom of past generations, and the continuity of history and tradition. As Edmund Burke wrote:

“We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors.”

The Paymaster General has described the excepted peers as “out of step” with modern Britain. Like the Blair and Brown Governments, this Government seem obsessed with change for change’s sake. We have seen it all before. We have seen this rebranding spun to give the impression of progress: the Law Lords replaced with the Supreme Court; the Lord Chancellor’s Department aping the US-style Justice Department; even Her Majesty’s Stationery Office recast as the Office of Public Sector Information. At best, it is cosmetic; at worst, it risks irreversible damage. As we saw with the changes to the House of Lords’ judicial role, rushed constitutional change leads to unintended consequences. We should, therefore, proceed with caution.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The role of hereditary peers in our democratic system is a bygone relic of a less democratic age. May I ask whether that is why the shadow Minister feels such an affinity for it?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I join the Government in paying tribute to the hereditary peers. The argument that I will elucidate in my speech, as set out in the amendment, is that if this Government are committed to reform of the upper House, they should consider all the consequences of that reform, and this House, and the other place, should have ample opportunity to consider it properly.