HC Deb 15 July 1975 vol 895 cc1451-62

12.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 13, line 4, after 'conferred', insert 'on the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we taking the amendments together? If we are I should like to reserve our position on the second amendment in relation to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

If the House would like to take them together, I agree.

Dr. Summerskill

These are drafting amendments. In Committee the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked for confirmation of his assumption that the removal of the reference to negative resolution procedure, from Clause 1 of the earlier Bill to Clause 17, now Clause 18, of the present Bill, was a drafting change. That is so, but on re-examining Clause 18 we noticed two anomalies which call for attention. The first is that it might have been assumed that an order of the court under the emergency procedure in Clause 10 would be covered by the provision in Clause 18 (1). This requires an order or regulation under the Bill to be exercisable by statutory instrument. That is not the intention, so the first amendment makes it clear that only orders or regulations made by the Secretary of State are in view.

The second anomaly is that a commencement order by the Secretary of State, bringing the Bill, or part of it, into force would have been subject to the negative resolution procedure. That would be unusual, and the second amendment is therefore designed to restore the normal practice.

Mr. Monro

I have no comment to make on Amendment No. 1. I see the Lords' arguments and accept them.

I am not so clear on Amendment No. 2, in that, at face value, it seems to be a major change from our understanding of the position which, as the hon. Lady confirmed, I raised in Committee in relation to the amendment now on the Order Paper, on the general question why it had been transferred to a different clause.

My understanding of the Bill as it now is, and as it has been discussed three times in both Houses, is that if there were an order under it, we would have an opportunity to pray against it.

I accept that this would not be so in relation to something with the special arrangements, but where, for instance, we are to have in the forthcoming months, or perhaps years, an order relating to English Third and Fourth Division clubs and Scottish First and Second Division clubs, under this new amendment that could be done, so far as I can see, without laying a statutory instrument against which a Prayer could be laid so that the whole House had an opportunity to discuss it.

I am surprised at this amendment and wonder when, and for what reasons, a statutory instrument could be laid and prayed against in the House under the new wording of Clause 18. It refers to Clause 19(6), which gives the Secretary of State power to bring orders into force without discussion in this House.

This is a very important change. All hon. Members interested in the Bill wanted the opportunity of discussing not the designation orders, which will come forward fairly soon, but the future changes in the operation of the measure which will bring in other sports grounds.

Is my interpretation correct? If the Government decide to bring in the English Third and Fourth Division clubs and the Scottish First and Second Division clubs, will there be an opportunity to discuss the order in the House? If not, this is a fundamental change.

Dr. Summerskill

The normal practice is being adhered to in this amendment. We are certain that what is in the Bill as it stands is an anomaly. A commencement order bringing the Bill, or part of it, into operation, would have been subject to negative resolution, which would have been unusual. An order under Clause 19(6) merely brings the Act into force so that designation orders may be made under Clause 1. An order under Clause 19(6) is purely formal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 13, line 10, after 'Act', insert '(except an order under section 19(6) below)'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Order for Third Reading read—

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Monro

This is the end of a long saga, and I am glad that the Bill will, in due course, receive its Third Reading. It will be of great value to spectators and players of many sports in this country.

A similar Bill was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1973 but, because of various electoral reasons, it has taken fully two years to become law. It has been improved during the period of consultation, and clubs will gain from the financial provisions that the Minister of Sport has obtained from the Pools Promoters' Association. Perhaps the Minister can give us more details of the scheme worked out with the PPA.

The key issue now affecting the sports grounds to be designated is when the operative date will be announced. It is to be announced in a period of unparalleled inflation, and when building costs are at a peak. The point has been made in our debates that clubs must have reasonable time to carry out negotiations with local authorities. We must bear in mind that it will be very difficult to carry out ground improvements before August 1976. I hope that reasonable attention will be given to this matter by the Government, because naturally building operations can be done only in the summer months and very little can be achieved during the playing season. Will the Under-Secretary tell us something about the timing? This is of interest to the House but it is also crucial to getting things under way on the grounds themselves.

I hope that the Minister can say a little about the special certificate procedure. Judging by what was said by the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, at column 11 in Standing Committee, it seems that these provisions could come into operation next week. He said that the procedure would be operative very shortly after the Bill received the Royal Assent, and that event must be imminent after tonight. This will not affect football grounds, but it could affect show grounds or other temporary stands and sporting facilities.

Do the local authorities have at their disposal the information required to operate the Bill in the very near future? I take it from what the Under-Secretary said that we might have to have a statutory instrument to bring the designation order into effect. I hope that she can confirm that the local authorities will be able to cope with this situation from the beginning of August.

I hope, too, that she will re-emphasise the grave concern felt by all hon. Members who have been involved in the Bill that local authorities should be flexible in implementing it and that she will give the detailed briefing of the steps that have to be taken. Nobody would wish to tolerate dangerous grounds for a day longer than necessary, and such grounds may require action to be taken in the next few months. Grounds which do not suffer from serious design defects or fire hazards, however, should be permitted a reasonable period in which to put their grounds in order, and that could take 12 months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland kindly and courteously sent me a letter today setting out the views of the Scottish Office on licensing. I welcome what he has to say, because it seems that with the best of intentions the Government would like to see the Wheatley proposal carried out, in that the top tier will be doing the licensing. That is what is later confirmed, and it is also confirmed in local government legislation. It is possible, however, for the top tier to delegate authority to the lower tier. That would be contrary to the wishes of the Wheatley Report. I am not happy about that. However, I must reserve my judgment and hope that it works out better in practice than I fear may be the case, for the very reason that Lord Wheatley wishes the responsibility to be with the top tier and not the lower tier.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes)

As regards delegation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it will be necessary for guidance to go out to the authorities. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. We shall be stressing to the authorities the importance of the Bill. I am sure that bearing in mind the history of the Bill—its genesis, in a sense, being the Ibrox disaster—the local authorities will take their statutory duties very seriously. I have no doubt that they will take into consideration what has been said about delegation. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will find that he is happier than he thinks he is at the moment.

Mr. Monro

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for what he has said but for being here to participate in this debate.

Another point that I must put to the hon. Lady is that in our discussion on Clause 2 we raised the possible difficulty as regards keeping records of attendances at major grounds that are sometimes used for small matches which bring in minimal gates. It seemed unnecessary that accurate records should be kept if only 200 or 300 people attended a schoolboy match or a match at which no gate money was taken. Under the strict terms of the Bill the governing body will have to keep an accurate record. That may cause a lot of unnecessary work and expense. I hope that either through local authority approval or by agreement with the Government there will he a dispensation when only a small gate is anticipated. Towards the end of our discussions in Committee we talked about an economic fee. Have the Government come to any conclusion on what that might be?

It is disappointing that over the past couple of months there has been little publicity about the progress of the Bill. Certainly the large amount of correspondence that hon. Members on both sides of the House had at an earlier stage has died away. The Government must bring home to football league clubs, national stadiums and the other grounds that may be affected, what is ahead of them in the near future. I hope that the apparent lack of interest, in terms of correspondence, does not mean a lack of interest by the clubs and a lack of thought over recent months. The clubs must appreciate that in the near future they will require licences, although whether they are to be implemented before August 1976 remains to be seen. It is no use the clubs sitting back and thinking that they have unlimited time ahead of them.

We all know how long it takes to obtain planning permission and to arrange contracts for the construction industry. Time is not on the side of the grounds which are to be designated. The Government must mount a strong publicity campaign to tell clubs what is in the Bill and what steps they must take in the near future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said a few moments ago that the Bill stemmed, in the main, from the Ibrox disaster and other disasters. The Bill will not prevent with absolute certainty another tragedy, and certainly not a tragedy that arises from hooliganism or provocative behaviour, but it will go as far as is humanly possible to prevent the public being placed at risk. Behaviour inside and outside grounds is a matter for discussion on another occasion, and is perhaps more urgent than some aspects of the Bill, but we wish this legislation well. Interpretation is all-important and the Government bear heavy responsibility to see that the measure is implemented fairly by local authorities.

I hope that the hon. Lady will say a few words in reply to the debate, which no doubt will continue a little longer, since other hon. Members wish to take part. I assure her that we wish the Bill well and hope that its provisions are implemented speedily and satisfactorily.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

During the Second Reading debate the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, announced—rather as though he were a conjurer pulling a white rabbit from his hat—that he had received £650,000 from the pools promoters. All they wanted in return was to conduct a spot-the-ball competition. When the approbation from all sides of the House had died down, I pointed out to the Minister that the competition had been deemed to be illegal.

I sought assurances in respect of the £650,000—which is a substantial sum for sports clubs, but which is a very small sum indeed for pools promoters. I wanted more details about the munificent sum which the Government were to contribute, and the Minister began his remarks in time-honoured fashion by saying: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) sounded so churlish when people who, as far as I know, are conducting a lawful enterprise make an offer of this sort. He ended by saying: I assume that this competition is continuing lawfully. If anybody thinks that it is not he will no doubt take the appropriate action in the courts."—[Official Report, 19th tune 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1799.] Are we expected to believe that the Government are accepting a sum of £650,000 from the pools promoters when they are merely assuming that the competition is to continue lawfully? If the pools promoters follow the course of including in their advertisements the words, "An amount of 25 per cent. or 33 per cent. has been retained for expenses, profit and taxes", it can be calculated that the sum in question is very small indeed.

I wish to remind the House of the illegality of the spot-the-ball competitions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in full flow, but I am anxious to understand to which provision in the Bill he is relating this argument.

Mr. Freud

I was hoping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not ask me that. This was a promise which was made by the Minister. If the Government announce in the House something that seems to all of us to be financial generosity towards sports clubs, we should have a right to know against what this generosity is being distributed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that my generosity has now been fulfilled towards him? He has made his point. As it is Third Read- ing I am obliged, though it may be unfortunate, to require hon. Members to talk about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Freud

As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am constantly bowled over by your generosity, no less today than usual. I shall no longer pursue this argument; I shall simply ask the hon. Lady, taking into account the Second Reading debate and the announcement made by her hon. Friend, to allay the suspicions of my hon. Friends that this is not bribery.

12.41 a.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane (Sutton and Cheam)

I do not wish to detain the House at this early hour of the morning, but before we conclude the Third Reading I should like some clarification of a point that I raised on Second Reading and in Committee. There will be some confusion when the Bill is on the statute book and when the owners of sports stadia are asked to enact the legislation.

The main point about which I ask the hon. Lady concerns the certification of sports stadia with capacities in excess of 10,000. The debate two or three weeks ago largely centred around football grounds. I should like to know exactly what the Government envisage.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) so aptly said, we want flexibility in the enforcement of legislation. There will be some confusion among the sports stadia owners who erect temporary stands and, perhaps, among the cricketing and rugby football fraternities—in fact, the entire sphere of all sporting activities. All the sports stadia owners must be fully conversant with what is expected of them. I hope that there can be some clarification.

I certainly do not wish to criticise the Minister with responsibilities for sport, who led the Government's argument on Second Reading, but there was some confusion both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I hope that the Government will make it quite clear exactly what their responsibilities are for the great temporary sporting occasions and for those other sporting grounds which are capable of holding spectators in excess of 10,000. It is important that that is spelt out for all those people.

12.43 a.m.

Dr. Summerskill

As a result of the careful study which this Bill has received during our earlier proceedings, a number of drafting amendments have been made. These do not call for any special mention except that our thanks are due to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for the two amendments which have just been made on Report. Had he not drawn our attention to a procedural point in connection with regulations and orders made under the Bill, we might not have noticed the anomalies which have now been removed.

The principal change in the Bill is the addition of Clause 13, on civil liability. As my hon. Friend explained in Committee, in moving the addition of this clause, its main purpose is to make clear that the status quo is preserved. Nothing in the Bill, therefore, will affect the existing rights of a spectator injured at a football ground through the negligence of the occupier to bring an action at common law.

I should like to take up some of the specific points raised this evening. First, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the record of attendance. Some concern was expressed in other stages of the Bill that under the provisions of Clause 2(3)(a) the local authority may require records of attendance of spectators to be kept. It was suggested that these were unnecessary where only a small gate was likely. On the other hand, it is a requirement under Clause 2(2)(a) that a safety certificate shall specify the maximum number of spectators to be admitted to the stadium and under Clause 2(2)(b) the local authority may also specify the maximum number to be admitted to any part of it.

The latter provision is particularly important where, for reasons of safety, there must be a strict limit on the numbers admitted to a particular stand or terrace. Records of attendance are important for the purposes of enforcement, but the power to require the keeping of records is exercised entirely at the discretion of the local authority concerned, I do not think that there is any reason why a club should not discuss with the local authority any problem that it may have over keeping records on a particular occasion. This is a part of the flexibility of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman rightly stressed. We shall mention this point in the guidance which we shall be circulating to local authorities on the Bill.

The intention is that local authorities should be able to recover costs by means of an economic fee, but this will vary from ground to ground. We cannot now give a precise estimate. The limit for fees will be prescribed by regulations under Clause 6(1)(b) in consultation with local authorities, and there will be publicity about this part of the Bill.

The Bill originates from the tragic incident at Ibrox Park. In the extensive consultations which followed Lord Wheatley's report, it was apparent that the proposals were fully supported by everybody involved. It is a fitting tribute to Lord Wheatley's work that the Bill so closely follows the principles that he laid down.

I should also like to pay tribute to the football and other sporting organisations, the police and the fire service, as well as all those concerned in central and local government, whose co-operation has resulted in what I believe is a useful and workmanlike Bill. It is also gratifying that the Bill will be supported by the non-statutory guide to safety at sports grounds, based on the technical appendix to Lord Wheatley's report and prepared in close consultation with the local authorities and the football authorities, among others.

Two similar Bills have not survived. We are grateful to the Opposition for the helpful and constructive way in which they have dealt with the present one.

Putting the Bill on the statute book will not automatically ensure the safety of football or any other sports grounds. The Bill is merely a means to an end. Vigorous action will be needed by the clubs and by central and local government alike to ensure that the purposes of the Bill are realised. I am sure that our publicity will help. Our intention is to bring the Bill into force as soon as possible, so that local authorities will at once have available to them their emergency powers, and so that my right hon. Friend will be able to make the first designation order as soon as the necessary consultations with the local authorities, the football authorities and the clubs concerned have been completed.

Local authorities have been kept in touch with the Bill throughout, and training seminars are already arranged for local authority representatives. They will be advised about all the provisions of the Bill once it is on the statute book.

Thereafter, it will be for each designated club to work in close co-operation with its local authority, so that all steps essential to the basic safety of spectators arc taken as soon as possible. Even where football and other sports stadia are not designated under the first order, I hope that the clubs or organisations concerned will take an early opportunity to consult their local authority on a voluntary basis, so that, for example, there may be forward planning for the occasional events when large numbers of spectators may be present.

I am well aware that the additional expenditure likely to be incurred by football clubs in respect of safety requirements under the Bill has been a matter of deep and continuing concern for everyone concerned. This is a problem to which the Government have been giving serious attention. That is why we have been concerned to ensure that the Bill will be flexible in operation and why we have taken the opportunity to introduce certain tax concessions.

We believe, in spite of the doubts which have been expressed, that the provisions of the Lotteries Bill will be of considerable help to the clubs. Indeed, the Government had the football clubs very much in mind in introducing the Lotteries Bill. The proposed increases in the present limits on turnover and prize money will enable the clubs to run lotteries on a scale estimated to yield an extra £2 million to £3 million a year. That estimate is based on present revenue, and the Football League clubs have accepted it.

Another considerable source of financial help will be the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, which, as my hon. Friend explained at an earlier stage, is being set up by the Pools Promoters' Association and is expected to have an initial income of about £650,000 a year.

Mr. Freud

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dr. Summerskill

I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Freud

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to raise a subject which I tried to raise and on which I was ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It was a long time before I ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order. The hon. Lady will no doubt confine herself, as I asked the hon. Gentleman to confine himself, to the matters in the Bill, which means that she will not be able to answer the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Summerskill

Perhaps I may answer the hon. Gentleman after the debate, if he will see me later. I have a very good reply to his point. You are quite sure that I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Once my attention is drawn to it I must play to the whistle and observe the rules. I am afraid that the hon. Lady must confine herself to what is in the Bill.

Dr. Summerskill

The Bill provides the basic plan and the necessary statutory powers. As I have indicated, there are some financial means available. What is now needed, however, is the will and determination of everybody involved to see that safety at football grounds and other grounds reaches as quickly as possible those standards which will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the danger of another Ibrox disaster is finally removed.

Mr. Freud

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the passing of the Third Reading is conditional upon the Pools Promoters' Association chipping in with £650,000, is it really not in order to raise this subject?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The passing of the Bill is conditional upon nothing but will of the House of Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    c1462
  1. ADJOURNMENT 11 words
Forward to