OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ALCHOHOL, CONTAINERS ETC, AT SPORTS GROUNDS (Hansard, 22 July 1985)

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert— 761 (3) This section applies to any article capable of causing injury to a person struck by it, being—

(a) a bottle, can or other portable container (including such an article when crushed or broken) which—

(i) is for holding any drink, and

(ii) is of a kind which, when empty, is normally discarded or returned to, or left to be recovered by, the supplier, or

(b) part of an article falling within paragraph (a) above; but does not apply to anything that is for holding any medicinal product (within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968)."

§ Mr. Shaw
These amendments relate to the types of container which people will be prohibited from taking into football grounds and from possessing in any area of the ground which has a direct view of the pitch. In Committee, a number of hon. Members thought that our definition was too wide. Particular concern was expressed because articles such as thermos flasks and scent bottles would be prohibited. By these amendments, we have sought to narrow the definition so that only those containers which are most likely to be used as missiles are prohibited.
As compared with clause 2(3) the amendments limit in two respects the containers caught. First, only containers for drink would be caught. Clause 2(3) catches containers of liquid. The effect of this is to free such items as scent bottles and deodorant aerosols. Secondly the amendments would catch only containers which are normally discarded when empty, or returned to the supplier. This would decriminalise—if that is the word—such items as thermos flasks and babies' bottles. We are catching cans and most bottles, and glasses of the type normally provided in pubs and bars. These are the containers most commonly misused. I hope the House will welcome the restrictions embodied, and the revisions made, in these amendments.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
I welcome the attention the Lords gave this matter. It may seem trivial but it is important to many people who enjoy attending various types of sports fixture. My noble Friend Lord Harris did excellent work on the Bill and described the problem of the small boy with a soft drink at a cricket match. Small boys have attended cricket matches and had bottles of squash for many years and I hope that they will long be able to do so. The Minister said that we are considering people carrying a drink container at a football match, but we are not. The amendment is about people carrying drink containers at any type of sporting fixture that Ministers might decide to include in the scope of the Bill. I appreciate the care that the Lords gave this matter precisely because the Bill goes so wide.
It has been suggested that the other place should not have given the Bill such detailed consideration, but that the consequences of the parties in this House ensuring that the Bill had a smooth passage ought to have been that the Lords gave it no attention or only minimal attention. I refute that view and the suggestion, which appeared in some of the public prints, that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), by having a valuable meeting with the Home Secretary, committed themselves to every jot and detail of a Bill that had not then been printed.
One of the features that bears on the amendment, but which was not in the Bill as it was then described, is the ease with which the Bill can be extended to any other sport. It could cover sports that take place during much longer periods of time than football matches, such as 762 whole day race meetings, athletics meetings and cricket matches. Moreover, the Bill could apply to sports that are generally attended by whole families, such as speedway.
Only a motion under the negative procedure is required to extend to any other sport the provisions concerning containers. Under that procedure, there is no guarantee that an hon. Member or substantial group of hon. Members can secure votes, or even a debate, on the matter. There is usually not too much difficulty securing a debate in Committee on a prayer, but such debate does not give rise to a vote on the Floor of the House. It is therefore open to a Minister to extend the Bill to any other sport by a procedure which offers no guarantee of a vote. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends remain worried that the Bill is couched in such wide terms as to open up such a possibility.
The way of life of people who attend longer lasting sporting events could be affected, and there are problems concerning sponsorship of sports grounds by companies involved with alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks. It would be helpful if the Minister could affirm that the only problem of which the Government are aware concerns football. The ease with which the Minister spoke of the Bill applying only to football enables us to read the minds of Ministers, but the wide powers involved have understandably given rise to anxieties in sports such as cricket, racing, speedway and rugby league, where there are no crowd control problems and nobody throws drink bottles about. The normal peaceful watching of sport should be allowed to continue without interruption or the threat of it.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)
Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I am glad that the Government have decided that the amendment can be accepted. When we last discussed the matter, I expressed considerable anxiety on several scores. The first was that the Bill would be extended to a variety of sports such as cricket. I tabled an amendment which suggested that the Bill should be extended only by affirmative resolutioh. It received the support of the Liberal party—it is perhaps the first time that I have ever had its support—but, unfortunately, it was not selected.
I also expressed doubt about the desirability of prohibiting such a wide range of containers, which would have included thermos and hip flasks, as they might also be prohibited at cricket matches. I welcome the amendment. It reduces the scope of activity which is rendered criminal, and I favour that. I still regret that the Bill is couched in such wide terms, but the Government's acceptance of the amendment is welcome and I congratulate my hon. Friend on having done so.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
With the leave of the House, may I say that my right hon. Friend has no intention at present of designating grounds or sporting events other than those which are associated with association football and which have been so described. However, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, there could be an occasion when action might have to be taken fairly speedily should there be a further outbreak of the type of crowd violence that has given rise to the Bill.