HL Deb 17 July 1985 vol 466 cc751-72

3.36 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 2 [Offences in connection with alcohol, containers etc. at sports grounds]:

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 21, after ("viewed") insert— ("(other than an area to which an order under section 3 of this Act applies)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 9. Perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 21, after ("viewed") insert ("unless that area forms a completely separate and closed section of the ground as provided in section 3(3) below"). Amendment No. 6: Clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (3). Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("unless that area forms a completely separate and closed section of the ground where direct contact with those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event; it will be a condition of any licence granted to such a part of the premises that any intoxicating liquor sold, supplied or consumed is in conjunction with a meal in those premises, and that intoxicating liquor shall not be sold, supplied or consumed from a period within thirty minutes of the commencement of the sporting event and until thirty minutes after its conclusion.").

These amendments cover the general problem which was discussed at great length at Committee stage—the question of whether private boxes, or suites as they are called, at these football grounds shall be allowed to continue in their present form and to serve alcohol during particular periods. At the Second Reading and Committee stages, the Government expressed doubts as to the validity of the argument that the clubs involved would suffer serious financial hardship if the Bill as it is now written becomes an Act.

I have to express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister here and the Minister of State in another place accorded some of us a meeting on Monday morning to discuss that and other problems; but I think that this was the most urgent one. I was a little disappointed that more was not offered at that meeting. I think that at the Committee stage the Minister said that if there was evidence that the clubs were being adversely affected he would attempt to put the matter right in a public order Bill to be introduced in the next Session. I do not know of any Minister who can guarantee that he will get a slot for anything for which he is responsible in the next Session of Parliament. I know well the competition between the different departments and different Ministers for Bills. In fact, the Minister from another place referred to that Bill or this Bill as a piece of not so profound or important legislation. During the Second Reading and Committee stages both here and in another place it was said that the clubs concerned would stand to lose approximately £4 million. I do not believe that that figure has been legitimately challenged. There was not much time, although we were grateful for the extra day that was given at the instigation of some of the Peers sitting on my right. What is worrying me is that so far the Government do not appear to have any intention of conceding any of the main matters about which we have been particularly worried. To me it seems odd for them to give an extra day and keep saying, "No". They could have kept saying, "No" on just one day and that would have been it: game, set and match.

I have, as I know have other noble Lords, taken the trouble to try to obtain some further information on what this would mean in financial terms to football clubs. I have received a copy of a letter. It will not take me long to quote these figures. I think it is necessary to quote them in an attempt to prevent what I think is a serious and quite unnecessary mistake being made. I have been sent a copy of a letter from the Crystal Palace Football and Athletic Club. It was sent to Mr. Bernard Weatherill, the Speaker in another place; Mr. John Moore, a Minister at the Treasury; and Sir William Clark, who I think is the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench finance committee in another place. With the leave of the House, I shall quote it: The publication of the above Bill prompts me to seek your assistance in setting aside the restriction on the consumption of alcohol in Executive Boxes from which football matches can be watched. It is our view that such restriction if enacted will lead to financial disaster for those clubs, like ourselves, who have invested very large sums in the drive to provide better facilities for supporters. Here at Selhurst Park we do not have Lounge Bar(s) to support the Executive Boxes and our facilities were financed from Brewery Loans and there will be ever-increasing pressure for such loans to be repaid with the severe cutback in barrelage. For three seasons now Crystal Palace have NOT permitted the sale of alcohol on the standing areas of the ground yet there has been no re-action at all by the supporters in these areas to the fact that Box Holders have this facility—indeed the private boxes (executive boxes) have 'smoked glass' and it is not readily evident that drinks—alcoholic or otherwise—are being taken whilst matches are in progress. We do beg the House to re-consider this aspect of the Bill—the football industry faces enormous problems in this upcoming season—such a restriction will only compound the difficulties. Your support in this respect will be gratefully appreciated. Yours sincerely, R. G. Noades

Mr. Noades is the chairman of Crystal Palace football club.

I should remind noble Lords who are perhaps not as familiar as some of us with the way in which soccer is financed that the clubs are already suffering grievous losses as a result of the total banning of English clubs from Europe. I have received a similar letter from Leeds United, which is the local club in the area where I live. In order to try to reinforce the argument, I say this. I do not accept for one moment the point that was put forward by the Minister: that the people on the terraces or in the stands where drink is being sold will be outraged or angered if they look backwards to the boxes, which may have smoked glass frontages, and become upset about not being able to have a drink. It must be a very bad game if they are going to look backwards. I should think there would be a worse reaction if one banned drink and then attempted to bring it back, to, as it were, reintroduce a privilege.

3.45 p.m.

I understand that there were 32 clubs considering this kind of executive box. They ranged from Derby County, which raises £80,000 per year from its boxes, to Spurs, which I think is the top one, with £500,000 a year, and, I understand Manchester United, which has also something around that figure. It was obviously impossible in the short time available to contact 32 clubs. As other noble Lords know, our facilities for doing such a thing are very restricted indeed. However, I received a feedback from a number of clubs, I think it was 16. They all followed the same theme. Derby County has 20 boxes, eight of which it will not renew if the Bill goes through as it is. The rest are already tied up in contracts; but due to response received from boxholders, these will have to be revised. They say that a major financial loss to them is anticipated.

Norwich City was a small club but is now trying to survive and establish itself in the big time. It has 20 boxes and it is expecting a number of cancellations, although this will also be due to the fact that they are going down to the second division. They say that they expect serious losses because of this Bill. Chelsea football club has 32 boxes, not all of them sold. The majority of boxholders are awaiting decision on the alcohol ban. Aston Villa and Ipswich say the same thing, as do Leicester City, Queen's Park Rangers, Nottingham Forest, Sunderland, West Brom, Birmingham City and Wolverhampton Wanderers. They all say the same thing in different dimensions. It will be a serious blow to their attempts to finance football and carry out other improvements at the grounds—improvements that everybody thinks are so desirable.

I have obtained a copy of the report to the Belgium parliament of what took place in Brussels. I do not intend to go into the details of it here, but I shall refer to it at Third Reading. It has been said before that judgments made in haste are very often very bad judgments. When I quote this report, we shall have to consider whether or not we are making a judgment in haste which it would be better to reflect on. It frightens me to death to think that people are talking of the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, lasting five years. I should have thought that the least we could have done for football and the clubs as a whole is to say that these provisions should last for one season and then be reviewed, because nobody knows what general effect they will have.

I am in favour of most of what the Bill says about the prevention of the carrying of alcohol and matters of that kind. However, during the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke at some length on this very question that I am addressing to other noble Lords by these amendments. I have just read out the statistics. No doubt in another week's time I could have obtained the rest of them from the other remaining clubs of the 32. However, I have produced to noble Lords a 50 per cent. sampling of those 32 clubs. They all say the same. I think it would be becoming of the Minister at this stage if he could give this matter some sympathetic consideration before some avoidable and very serious damage is done to the national game in this country.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, as I understand it, we are at the moment discussing together in one group Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, with the exception of Amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 1 and 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, are really a pair that go together. Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are a similar pair in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and myself. They are for practical purposes identical, except for a matter of drafting, with Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. The difference in the drafting is unfortunate. It is due entirely to the somewhat phrenetic haste with which this Bill is proceeding through both Houses. It has made it difficult for consultation between noble Lords to be as complete as it might otherwise have been. Therefore, I am very happy to support in principle the approach which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, makes in his amendments, Amendments Nos. 1 and 6.

There are also, as an alternative pair of amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 in the names of my noble friend Lord Harris, the noble Lords, Lord Mulley and Lord Monson, and myself.

Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 21, after ("viewed") insert ("unless it is an area to which the public do not have access, whether on payment or otherwise, and which is not overlooked by other spectators"). Amendment No. 7: Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end insert ("unless it is an area to which the public do not have access, whether on payment or otherwise, and which is not overlooked by other spectators."). These amendments represent an alternative approach to precisely the same problem that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has dealt with. It is unusual to put down in one set of names two alternative approaches to the same problem. It had to be done in this case because of the fact that Third Reading follows Report stage straightaway. My hope is that after we have debated these two alternative approaches, it might be possible to say (because I have retabled both approaches for Third Reading) that if the Government give a favourable welcome to one or other of these approaches we should proceed on that basis at Third Reading.

If the drafting is faulty—I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not take up time by pointing out where it is faulty. If the drafting is faulty the principle could be accepted by your Lordships on Third Reading. The Bill has to go back to the other place anyway because there are already Government amendments in it. Any purely drafting matters could be put right at that stage.

The real problem that is attacked by the Bill is that of spectators obtaining drink outside the ground, arriving the worse for drink or, in many cases, drunk, and often taking drink inside the ground with them in order to get even more drunk. Those problems are dealt with in earlier clauses of the Bill. They are not the subject of these particular amendments. These amendments really concern the question of drink obtained inside the ground from licensed premises. It is here that the Scottish precedent, about which much has been said on previous occasions, is not really relevant. Not many of the Scottish grounds, I understand, have licensed bars on the premises.

It is of some interest to note that at the recent cup finals in May at Hampden Park, which has no licensed premises, and at Wembley, which has, a rather higher proportion of the crowd was arrested at Hampden Park than at Wembley. This indicates perhaps that the question of licensed premises inside the ground is not really the crux of the problem. Indeed there is, I believe, no evidence to support the general proposition that it is the use of licensed premises inside the grounds that contributes substantially to drunkenness and to violence. That is caused by drinking before the match outside the ground and by drink being brought in.

In those circumstances, what these amendments, in their own way, query is the purpose or the wisdom of the Government's seeking to ban the use of alcohol, the sale of alcohol, at licensed premises particularly where they are premises—the ban applies specifically to this—from which the event may be directly viewed, the wording used in Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill. That hardly applies to licensed bars in the ordinary way. There is, I believe, a bar at Fulham which meets that description. Otherwise, as a general rule, there are very few grounds in this country with licensed premises from which the event may be directly viewed, except for the sponsored boxes about which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has spoken. This is really the issue in these amendments.

Your Lordships will know that there are these boxes provided for companies, usually to entertain their guests or staff. They are completely secluded, completely cut off. Drink is available in them but, so far as is known, there has never been any record whatever of any single person in one of these sponsored boxes taking drink that led to his being a trouble to anyone. Yet it is those boxes that will be prevented from being used for that purpose under this part of the Bill. We would suggest that this is totally illogical. The purpose of the Bill is quite obviously to minimise the possibility that violence may be increased at football matches as a result of the consumption of alcohol. No one suggests that this is the case with the sponsored boxes. It is therefore difficult to see what is the case being made for their banning in this way.

The Government case has been put on two different bases at various times. First of all, they have said that if other spectators could see into the sponsored boxes and see people having a drink there, they may have a grievance which might in some way give rise to violence. It is, I think, a somewhat far-fetched argument. Indeed, in the way that the Bill has been drafted by the Government, the test is whether the event may be directly viewed from the box. It follows that it would be only the players who would be able to see what was going on in the boxes. I venture to assume that they would have other things on their minds at the time. It is a slightly far-fetched argument.

However, if there is anything in it, I hope that it is met by Amendments Nos. 2 and 7, under which it is made clear that in order not to be barred the box must not be overlooked by other spectators. I do not believe that many of the boxes at football grounds are overlooked by other spectators. If some are, it is a simple enough matter to put in one-way glass to deal with the matter.

The other objection made on occasion by those seeking to support this part of the Bill is that it is in some way inequitable that there should be people in private boxes able to have a drink while people in the public stands are not able to have a drink. That seems to me, if I may say so, to be egalitarianism gone mad. There are people at football matches who pay more money to sit under cover so that if it rains they do not get wet. No one complains about that or suggests that it is unfair to people standing or sitting out in the open. People sit opposite the halfway line to get a better view rather than pay less money to sit near the corner flags and get a rather poor view. It is, I suggest, a totally false argument to say that there is anything inequitable about arrangements of this sort. It would be insulting to the intelligence of the average spectator at a football match to suggest that he would regard this as being in any way inequitable.

In those circumstances, there are these two pairs of amendments. The effect of the first approach, that of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and myself, in Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 6 is to say in effect, "Let us leave the whole matter to the justices". The justices are aware of the local conditions. The justices have the power in Clause 3 of the Bill to license such parts of the ground as they think appropriate. Let that include the executive boxes. At the moment, they are specifically excluded because of the way the Bill is drawn. Let the justices look at the conditions and the records of the various clubs. If they are satisfied that there is absolutely no danger of any harm to the public, let them license those parts of the premises should they so wish. That is the first approach set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and myself.

The second alternative, as I have indicated, would be to exempt altogether from the operation of the Bill those areas to which the public do not have access, whether on payment or otherwise, and which are not overlooked by other spectators. That would have the effect of removing the sponsored boxes entirely from the purview of the Bill. I hope that one or other of those approaches will appeal to the Government after reflection on the matter. I say at once that I do not urge this simply because the Government's present proposals are illogical. If one was to argue against a Bill every time it was illogical, there would be very little time left for doing anything else.

The illogicality is troublesome in this case because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, illustrated so forcefully, it may strike a very real blow at some of the most successful football clubs in this country. And our successful clubs are among the best football teams in the world. Many of those clubs are already suffering a crippling blow financially as a result of being barred from Europe. Many of your Lordships may feel that although the spectators should certainly be barred from Europe, there is not much sense in barring either clubs or players who had absolutely nothing to do with the disgraceful violence in Brussels some weeks ago. They are suffering that crippling financial blow.

To add to that the further crippling blow which there will he if the Bill is left unamended and in its present form would destroy the financial basis of our most successful clubs. It would make it difficult for them to police the grounds satisfactorily, to keep their grounds up to date with all the modern facilities that are required, and to maintain themselves as first-class football clubs. In those circumstances, I hope that when the noble Lord the Minister replies he will indicate that an approach either on the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and I have put forward in the one pair of amendments or on the alternative line proposed in Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 might be acceptable to the Government.

4 p.m.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the board of directors of Wembley Stadium. I was unable to be here on 11th July, but I read the debate on that occasion and I have read what was said in another place on 3rd July. First, I found myself deeply concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in speaking on the Second Reading debate, singled out Wembley for special mention as if in some way Wembley was one of the worst places for rowdiness and crowd misbehaviour. The noble Lord's honourable friend the Minister of State did the same thing in the other place. We do not have any problems of this kind at Wembley Stadium and we have had only one isolated problem of this kind, which arose about 10 years ago. Therefore it was rather hard on us to be singled out for special mention as one of the places to which this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will immediately apply.

Following the line of argument of the two noble Lords who have just spoken, at Wembley we also have good relations with the local licensing justices, who know the situation at Wembley and who would immediately take note if rowdyism and misbehaviour were to grow up there, and would, on a future occasion, refuse our application for special licences.

What is all this about? This has now become a very difficult situation for organisations such as my own. It has become a matter of over kill; it has become collective punishment. It has developed into a sort of blanket disadvantage for everyone on the basis of serious, yes, but isolated incidents at particular places. It should not go as far as this. The licensing justices have the perfect responsibility in this matter in cases like Wembley and, if we deleted subsection (3) of Clause 3 as is proposed in one of the amendments, could be left to deal with the matter. I would suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has indicated, that is the best way to proceed.

In the debate so far there has been mention of executive boxes. I shall not go over that ground, but at Wembley we do have a glass-fronted restaurant, which is a precisely similar situation. At any one time during the games that are taking place at Wembley 200 people are seated there able to go about their meals in perfect peace, with a glass of wine in their hands. Bearing in mind all the people who are on the terraces in the normal way and who have always seen that taking place, what possible incitement to vandalism or misbehaviour can that be? It is quite monstrous to punish Wembley together with other places in this way when, first, we have done nothing wrong, know how to control our crowds and have a good relationship with the licensing justices and, secondly, when over the years the public on the terraces have been accustomed to seeing all this without raising the slightest objection?

I should like to make one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that there were two batches of proposals: one to delete subsection (3) of Clause 3 and another which talks about executive boxes more directly by referring to places which cannot be seen from the terraces, and that is the burden of the noble Lord's amendment. However, there is also my Amendment, No. 8, which I think is better than the amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder.

Amendment No. 8: Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end insert— ("(unless that area forms a completely separate section of the ground where direct access to those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event)."). My amendment says that it should be perfectly possible for a place like the Wembley restaurant to go ahead, provided that we close it off from direct access to the terraces. Why must it be out of view, as is stated in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder? I do not accept that at the Wembley Stadium we somehow need to pull curtains down over the glass-fronted restaurant in order to please anyone. I would say to the noble Lord quite bluntly that my Amendment, No. 8, is a much better amendment. It simply says that, in effect, the licensing justices can give permission for drinking in such places as our glass-fronted restaurant so long as it is: a completely separate section of the ground where direct access to those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event". If it would help, we would gladly close all the doors where there is any access between the restaurant and the terraces.

There is, therefore, a third alternative to which I draw the attention of the House at this stage. I have stated my own preference, which, as I said at the very beginning of my remarks, is to delete subsection (3) of Clause 3 and to let the justices decide. They are perfectly competent to do so. They do it all the time in cases like Wembley, and if trouble were ever to arise in the future, everyone would know that next time the justices would never get anywhere near offering a licence. Is not that the best punishment and is not this the best way in which to go about it?

Lord Mulley

My Lords, very briefly I want to support the principle of the amendments, and I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and his colleague the Minister of State for so kindly making themselves available to discuss these problems as a way of mitigating the difficulties on the very tight time-scale of the Bill. My own preference, by way of amendment, is to leave the matter to the magistrates, who can look at the merits of a particular case and decide in all the local circumstances.

However, I fully support the case that has been deployed on behalf of executive boxes, which is really a matter for the successful clubs, and one would not wish in any way to damage their success. But I venture to add two points to the debate which have not so far been mentioned.

First, we must recognise that, although the Bill is clearly and understandably directed at Association Football—soccer—it is so drafted that it could apply to any sport. For example, it could apply—I hope to goodness it never does—to Lord's Cricket Ground, which would raise quite a number of other matters. I believe it is essential to remove from the Bill the reference to the "direct view" of the event. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, very persuasively and forcefully said, the only people who would be able to judge what was going on as a result of that would be the players or performers themselves, and we would certainly hope, although sometimes one may wonder, that they were concerned with more important matters. That is my first point.

The second point concerns a problem which has not been mentioned, which is that the intention—I think wrongly in the first instance because there is no evidence that disorders of the character with which we have been concerned occur—is being extended to the Third and Fourth Division clubs. Many of these clubs have attendances of only 1,000 or 2,000 spectators, derive a little money from the sale of alcohol, and possibly have bars—I think this applies in one or two cases—where it could be argued that there is a view of the ground through an open door or something of that character. As a result of the designation under the safety of sports grounds legislation, these clubs are being faced with the most enormous bills. With an average attendance of perhaps 2,000, the average cost of complying with the law will be over £200,000, and many of these clubs will disappear from football altogether, with the consequence that that is bound to have on the more successful clubs, which very often are glad to have players who had their first playing experience in the lower divisions of the Football League. We do not know that the Government may not extend it even beyond the Third and Fourth Divisions.

I hope that at least that is a point to which further consideration can be given. The Government have saddled them, as they feel they must—I think perhaps mistakenly at this stage—with these enormous bills, without any financial help from the enormous revenues the Government get from the football pools levy, and I do not know how they are going to cope. Adding this further burden is something about which I hope there can be some reflection. That is not in the statute, but it is a matter for the Secretary of State to consider after the Bill becomes an Act. I hope, for these additional reasons, that the Government may think again about this direct viewing, which I am sure will have a bad effect on both the successful and the less successful clubs.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, I am sorry to prolong this debate but I feel that I have a duty to support these important amendments from long personal experience. I have been watching football on and off—rather more on than off—at Old Trafford since 1924. On those occasions I have sometimes watched in company with my noble friend, and therefore I can confirm from first-hand experience every single word that he has said to your Lordships' House on these amendments.

When I look at this extraordinary Bill I find it difficult to believe that those who drafted it have ever seen a football match, although I am prepared to believe that perhaps they have heard a football match described. I feel convinced that had they been on one of these football grounds regularly they could not have failed to be aware of the truth of the wise words of my noble friend Lord Wigoder; namely, that the problem is not the sale of alcohol on the grounds.

Noble Lords who have sat on the terraces know very well that it is almost impossible to get a drink, so long is the queue at the bar. The problem is alcohol brought into the grounds. The alcohol is brought in in the stomachs of some of the fans, in the bloodstreams of many of the fans, and in the pockets of the fans. It is not alcohol bought on the grounds which causes the trouble. It is right to remind noble Lords, in connection with the trouble which caused this Bill, the disastrous and horrifying events in Brussels, that on that particular ground no alcohol at all was for sale. In other words, had this Bill applied to that disastrous match between Liverpool and Juventus, it could not have made a scrap of difference to what actually happened. We ought to bear that closely in mind.

Much has been said about the executive boxes. I am aware of them and I am bound to say that I have watched a match from one of them, as a result of the courtesy and generosity of one of Lord Glenarthur's noble friends, who I know pays a great deal of money for one of those boxes at Old Trafford. Once he invited me to share it. It was very enjoyable, but I personally prefer to be on the terraces, where one feels at lot more involved in events. The fact remains that the executive boxes at Old Trafford are on top of the cantilever stand and nobody at all can see into them, not even the players.

The amount of money involved is considerable: as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, rightly said, something in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a million pounds. I am not suggesting for a moment that the passing of this Bill unamended would bankrupt most of our major football clubs. What I say is that undoubtedly it would cause them severe financial difficulties when they already have other difficulties with which to contend. I have been calculating in my mind which particular players Manchester United would have to sell in order to make up this deficit. I have made up my mind, but I think I had better not mention any names.

The point has also been made that it is somehow inequitable for people in the executive boxes to be able to have drinks, whereas other drinks are not sold elsewhere. I think this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. To my personal knowledge, two of the grounds which have these executive boxes have food, drink, and waiter service throughout the whole evening, often after the match, so that those attending the match can wait until the crowds have gone before they get their cars out and drive home, or go home on the bus, or whatever. Two of those grounds which have executive boxes do not have any bars at all otherwise. There has never been any complaint about inequality at those particular grounds. The comments have merely been gratitude for the additional money which has flowed therefrom to the particular clubs.

I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will give a favourable response to at least one of these amendments, or perhaps to the whole collection, and somehow or other meet this point. The problem is drunkenness up to a point, but there are many other factors which have to be dealt with. However, I assure noble Lords from my experience that the drunkenness I have seen occasionally playing a part in some violence on the grounds has arisen from drunkenness brought into the ground, or from drunkenness arising from drink which has been brought in, and certainly has not been purchased on the ground. I repeat that had this Bill in its entirety applied to the disastrous match between Liverpool and Juventus it could not possibly have made a scrap of difference to what happened. I hope we shall get a favourable reply to at least one of these amendments.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I rise only because every speaker so far has spoken against the present provisions of the Bill and nobody has risen to put any other point of view at all. That is the sole reason for my rising. The logic of this Bill has been attacked. But I must say that for sheer illogicality in one part of his most interesting speech the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, takes the prize. He was arguing, as I understood it, that drink on the football ground is no part of the problem because very little is consumed. He used as his argument the sentence which I shall repeat: "So long is the queue to get drinks that it is impossible to get one". Presumably if so long is the queue, there are many people endeavouring to get drinks. I am not saying that they ought to be blamed for that—

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am sure that the noble Lord misquoted me inadvertently. What I said was that it was very difficult to buy drink. I did not say that it was difficult to get it, or bring it in, but it is difficult to buy it, which is a rather different thing.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I think when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will wonder whether part of his ancestry was Irish. I assure him that I took down what he said, and he talked in terms of the queue being so long for drinks that it was impossible to get one.

Now may I get on with the serious part of the argument? We have to view the whole of this against a very real background. This is not a Bill that has been brought in because somebody has suddenly thought in terms of, "It would be a good idea if we did something about drink in various places, including football grounds". This Bill was brought in, and came from another place, with a feeling of a national emergency that something has to be done to stop a complete cancer in our life—violence. That is, violence all over the place, and certainly violence on football grounds.

Some moving speeches were made at Second Reading. One of the most moving came from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who went back to the days of his youth—which I assure him are not far removed from his present age—where he recollected that he went to matches with his family. It was a family gathering which used to go to football matches. Then I remember he said: "I wonder whether my children would listen to me, but if they did I would tell them not to go now." Is that not a national emergency in a great game that we gave to the world?

I understand that the noble Lord. Lord Harris, was agreeing with my remarks?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, it always gives me pleasure to agree with the noble Lord. I was just wondering whether the fact that Lord Wigoder's children could not go to a match constituted a national emergency.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I would have thought that it was an emergency on the Liberal Benches if anybody was prevented from doing anything other than vote Liberal.

This Bill is against a background of something having to be done, and being seen to be done, to deal with this evil. All of us hope that this will be a short-lived Bill and that we shall be able soon to say that things are so much better than we need no longer have these provisions. But while we have them we have to do two things: first, we have to see that one part of this problem which nobody has ever argued was more than a part—namely, the drink problem—is dealt with and it is dealt with equitably (I use the word advisedly). I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and to all my noble friends who have spoken and who have adopted another view, that it is not a proper comparison to talk in terms of some people buying seats over which there is a cover so that they can be protected from the rain and other people who pay a lower price. That is the fortuitous event of climate against which some people feel they need protection and others do not. What is happening here is that there is a rule of law which is that by virtue of an Act of Parliament there will not be drink on sale and if people bring it in they will be committing a crime.

To me it is inequitable. That is not what the Bill says, but I said it on Second Reading and it is an individual view. I believe that everybody should be treated alike. When I hear of the loss to football clubs of revenue, nobody pretends that it is a loss of revenue that they receive from selling drink. I understand that there must be some loss but I think we are being given an exaggerated view. The loss of revenue is supposed to come from people who are supposed to be watching a football match and who say that they know they can get food and non-alcoholic drink but if they are told they cannot get alcoholic drink during certain hours while they are watching the football match then they will not be there. I should have thought that football could do without such people.

Having said that, what does one do if one does not want football clubs to suffer some sort of loss, whether it be a great or a lesser loss? We can do one of quite a few things. To see how many alternatives there are we only have to look at the amendents on the Marshalled List for consideration. There is not a single amendment: alternative methods are sought.

Unless drink is banned from the whole ground during certain hours—personally I was in favour of that at Second Reading, not because I am against drink but because I thought it was fair—provided people do not become inflamed by the injustice of seeing certain other people able to get drink when they cannot, merely because they are not in the executive boxes, possibly that is the best compromise.

I end my few remarks by saying that I so much hope that these provisions will not have to live for very long, but that obviously depends upon the experiment that we are carrying out. I repeat that it is being carried out in an emergency, and a national emergency. But we have to compromise. Maybe the Bill as it stands is the best compromise we can get.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, from these Benches will your Lordships allow a brief intervention in support of the Bill? It will be brief because I am able to say that I agree with every single word and sentence that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, without any qualification whatsoever. The point is not whether this Bill could have prevented what happened at Brussels. No Bill as such could ever have prevented what happened at Brussels. It is common ground that there is a serious problem. The only issue is how we deal with it.

I ask your Lordships to consider whether the interests of football and the football clubs would be truly served if Clause 3 was deleted and everything was left to the justices. Would this be seen by the international organisations with the banning powers as an adequate response?

Furthermore, the amendments are, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has observed, a little confusing because Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, are I think—I seek clarification—in direct conflict. Amendment No. 6 alters the structure of the Bill and Amendment No. 8 merely adds an important qualification. Amendment No. 6 will remove that measure of flexibility which is so desirable to enable the Minister to designate under statutory instrument under Clause 9 and to revoke such designation. Amendment No. 6 also brings the Act into immediate operation, which the structure of the Act as at present devised does not.

Then we come to the exception and to the problem of what we see through the dark glass of the directors' box. I shall not weary your Lordships with such matters. The problems of definition are far too difficult if we run along that road.

Lord Monson

My Lords, to pick up a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so long is the queue of Cross-Benchers trying to get a word in edgeways that more often than not they need a drink more than most!

As the Marshalled List indicates, I support most of the amendments in this group. The Government's basic reservations, as I understand it, are that acceptance of these amendments would lead to such resentment and envy on the part of the compulsorily teetotal masses that violent reactions would ensue. On llth July the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said: if spectators who were not allowed to drink and could see other spectators drinking freely in private boxes, it would be an annoyance for them".—[official Report, 11/7/85; col. 402.] With respect, I believe this to be a flawed argument which does not accord with the reality of everyday human behaviour. Let us imagine the case of a relatively impoverished student who decides to treat himself to a three-course meal. In his university town he has the choice between, on one side of the high street, a licensed restaurant which has a pleasant decor and linen table cloths and where a three-course meal can be obtained for, say, £4.50 and the customer can order a carafe of wine or a bottle of beer or cider. On the other side of the street is an unlicensed restaurant or cafe with much simpler decor, but where much the same sort of menu can be obtained for only £2.50, but the customer will not be able to drink anything stronger than a glass of water or a soft drink.

Because of the state of his finances our student opts for the unlicensed restaurant. Should he still crave a beer after his meal he will have to take himself off to a supermarket or off-licence, buy a can of beer and drink it on a park bench. In other words his financial position does not permit him to enjoy beer with his meal as ideally he would have wished. No doubt this is mildly annoying, but does anybody seriously believe that his anger at this state of affairs would be such that he would immediately sally forth and vandalise half a dozen telephone kiosks? Surely not, my Lords.

As I said, I think the Government's basic proposition is flawed, but in case there should be anything in their arguments, Amendment No. 2 surely provides every possible safeguard.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, I wonder if I may say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, extolled the virtues of Wembley rather too much for my memory. The last time I went to Wembley, I thought I was being rather good in providing a ticket for my driver. When I got back after the game and joined him, I expected thanks from him and a few words on how much he had enjoyed the match. He told me that he had had two cans of beer poured over him because he was not a supporter of the right team.

I take part in this little discussion because I was one of those who was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others for believing that it would be wrong to differentiate between the supporter on the terraces and the superior guest in one of the separate boxes. I do not believe—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Mishcon in this—that there is anything to be ashamed of in trying to be fair between one section of our fellow creatures and another. But I have listened to the argument and I have considered the matter further and I believe that it ought to be possible for the Government to accommodate the sort of principle that has been expounded by those who put forward these amendments.

I again agree with my noble friend Lord Mishcon when he says that we are faced with an emergency. But I do not believe that this Bill matches up to an emergency. It is based on an illogicality; it is a small-minded Bill dealing with a small part of the problem that we are faced with. For my part, I simply say this. I do not believe that the apparent illogicality of allowing the entertainment to go on in these boxes would affront my sense of fairness. But, as I say, I hope that the Government will make an effort to meet the various real objections that have been made.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, in discussing these amendments your Lordships have shown an understandable concern about the financial effects on football clubs of the ban on drinking and the sale of drink in private boxes and restaurants from which the game may be directly viewed. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, expressed his concern forcefully in Committee last Thursday and he referred to other discussions which had taken place on it. I rehearsed the Government's view about this difficult issue very fully in Committee the other day and I do not propose to cover all that ground and weary your Lordships for too long today; but some noble Lords have expressed doubts as to whether the distinction drawn in the Bill between areas with a direct view on to the pitch and areas without a direct view on to the pitch is a logical one.

I believe that it is logical. The Scottish Act—and we referred to the Scottish Act at length last week—is a precedent in that it bans alcohol and controlled containers from all parts of the ground, public or private, from which the event may be directly viewed. In any consideration of this Bill, we must bear in mind the parenthood, so to speak, of the Scottish Act in relation to this Bill.

The Association of Chief Police Officers tell us that the possession of alcohol, the possession of cans and bottles on the terraces, causes more trouble than in other parts of football grounds because that is where the troublemakers pour the beer (as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, described) over each other and throw their cans and bottles at other spectators or on to the pitch. It seems to me entirely sensible to say that if any drinking is to be permitted at football grounds it should be confined to places where it is least likely to cause trouble; and that, of course, is well away from the stands and terraces.

It has been argued with strength that there is no need to apply the restrictions in the Bill to private boxes because the occupants of these boxes are not hooligans—which of course they are not, and no one is suggesting that they are—and they may be safely allowed to drink while watching the match with no risk to good order or safety.

But the Government never argued for one minute that drinking in private boxes must be curbed because the people in them are potential troublemakers. That has been no part of the Government's argument at all. It would be quite contrary to the experience which the whole House obviously understands. What we have said is that where restrictive measures have to be applied—and there is little doubt that these measures are justified and necessary—they must be applied fairly to all spectators. Of course, it is regrettable that, in order to deal effectively with the hooligan element, the hooligan behaviour of the minority, we have to put the same constraints on the respectable majority. This is the point about collective punishment which was referred to at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and which has been referred to again this afternoon.

Let us be quite clear. The majority of the people in the stands and on the terraces are no less law abiding than those who are fortunate enough to have places in private boxes. It would be very misleading to suggest otherwise. I do not believe that it is essential to the enjoyment of a game of football to have a glass in one's hand while one watches it; and this is a point which was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, not just today but at the earlier stage of the Bill as well. That applies equally whether one is watching the game from the terraces, from the stands or from a box. I do not accept that the restrictions in the Bill will cause unreasonable hardship to the occupants of private boxes. One has to bear in mind—and this, I think, has escaped the notice of the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder—that all the spectators, not just those in boxes, will have at least equal opportunities for obtaining a drink out of sight of the pitch.

I am not swayed by any suggestions that there exists some kind of automatic right to drink in private boxes. My right honourable friend has made it clear that we attach significance to the implication for clubs' revenue of restricting the sale and possession of alcohol in private boxes. This seems to me to be the major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Some loss of revenue is inevitable. I accept that and so, I think, must the clubs. Whether, in the event, the figure will approach the £3 million or £4 million which has been mentioned we cannot yet know. What concerns us is whether the loss in income is to the detriment of the game; for instance, whether ground improvements have to be shelved for lack of money.

We have undertaken to monitor the impact on clubs' income during the coming season. If indeed the impact is as severe as has been claimed, I am sure that it will quickly become apparent; and if the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to justify some relaxation without undermining the principles which lie behind this Bill, we shall consider, in the context of public order legislation, what might be done. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech as some would have me do, but we shall ensure that any such legislation is sufficiently widely drawn to embrace these matters in relation to the present Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has suggested that discretion might be given to the magistrates' courts to say whether and on what conditions drinking might be permitted in private boxes in sight of the pitch. That would certainly be a possibility which would merit close attention but it would merit it during the monitoring exercise and our consideration of the public order legislation and not in the time frame of the Bill now before us.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, have suggested that an exception might be made for private boxes which are not overlooked by other parts of the ground or which are fitted with one-way glass. I certainly see the force of that argument, because spectators elsewhere in the ground who were not allowed to drink during the match would no doubt be more likely to be annoyed by the exceptional treatment for private boxes if they could see the drinking going on. I agree that it would be a bad match indeed if those outside looked in and did not look at what was going on on the pitch, but such an amendment would depart from the principle we have applied: the principle of equal treatment for all spectators. That is the meat of the problem. That is the principle upon which this Bill has to rely in this particular case.

Also, I have to point out the obvious flaw to which I referred at Committee stage: that under certain conditions of light people can see into the boxes. That is an inescapable law of physics. This, again, may be a suggestion at which we could look in the future, but I do not think it helps us at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggests that drinking in private boxes might be permitted by the magistrates, but only with meals and not in the period beginning half-an-hour before the start of the match and ending half-an-hour after the end. That is a further interesting suggestion and we shall bear it in mind if, in the course of the next season, we conclude that some relaxation of the restrictions in the Bill is justified.

Again, this departs from the principle of equal treatment of all spectators which, as I have just said, has guided us so far. It would also complicate the Bill considerably because, in effect, the period of the "designated sporting event", which is defined in Clause 9, would be different for spectators eating meals in private boxes from all other spectators. I do not think we could reasonably hope to restructure the Bill in a satisfactory manner in the time available to us, even if the amendments were acceptable in principle.

It seems right to take as our starting point the imposition of equal constraints on all spectators, unappealing as they may seem to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others. From that starting point, the clubs will have an opportunity to make their case subsequently for some relaxation in these constraints and to demonstrate that that would be in the best interests of the game and would not put the order and safety of spectators at risk. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, both stressed the importance and the relevance of this Bill at this time to help bring back the reputation of football here and abroad. I do not think I can add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said on that. But I think that this is the right way to tackle the particular issue we face, which we all acknowledge to be a difficult and a sensitive one.

I hope that the noble Lords who have supported this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will be content for us to proceed on that basis and, with the assurances about consideration in the future which I have given, will not press their amendments.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I propose to speak very briefly. By way of introduction, I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, and to the Minister of State for having met a number of us earlier this week. And I am grateful to the noble Lord for having said that he and his right honourable friends would ensure that in any public order legislation in the next Session or thereafter, the Bill's Long Title would be drawn in such a fashion as to make this Bill amendable. I think that that is important and I am grateful for it having been said.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord will not be astonished to hear that most of us remain entirely unconvinced by this argument about private boxes. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have been deployed this afternoon and on the last occasion when we discussed this. I must say one thing to him. He used an argument which in my view was entirely justified when he said that one of the great difficulties is that we have so little time that he cannot guarantee that, even if the House wants this particular amendment to be carried, we shall be able to do it in the time that is available.

I hope that those words will be remembered by all sitting in the House today. It is a classic illustration of how dangerous it is to have legislation proceeding on its way to the statute book without proper parliamentary consideration. We admittedly did get a second day, and for that I expressed my pleasure last week when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House indicated that a second day was to be made available. But of course this Bill is being dealt with in two stages rather than the normal four; and that is precisely why the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, used those words a few moments ago. Thus I hope very much that, wherever we sit in this House, we shall look with great caution on any appeal by any Government to pass legislation without going through the normal procedures unless—and this is a very important qualification—it is temporary legislation.

I come now to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. He said that we had to react to this Bill in a particular way because we were faced with what he described as a national emergency. I think that that is reasonable and that most of us are prepared to support this Bill on that basis. But emergency legislation should not be permanent legislation. And the problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will recognise, that although we all recognise the character of the emergency—and who could possibly deny it after what happened in Brussels?—what we are faced with at the moment is permanent legislation so far as we are concerned in this House.

It is legislation which, as I think most of us recognise, not only to some degree damages football in this country, but contains within it—this is a point to which we shall come later—the power for Ministers to extend the controls imposed in this Bill on every other sport in this country without any affirmative resolution procedure. So the House should be aware that, although at the moment we are talking about private boxes at association football matches, these provisions could be applied to every sport in this country; and unless we secure changes later this afternoon by means of persuading the Government that there should be an affirmative resolution procedure, at the very least, before that legislation could be extended to other sports, we could face very damaging consequences for the whole of sport in this country.

Most of us, wherever we sit, would, I think, privately recognise that this Bill will not massively change the public order position at football. It will have a useful, marginal effect. To argue more than that would in my view, be to blind ourselves to the evidence that is available. With that, I think I have put the case from these Benches.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I think that the Minister will not be surprised if I have to reject totally that what he has put on the table means anything at all. He has not changed the position one iota since last Thursday and last Monday. I have to say to my own Front Bench that I am saddened that there appears to be such a negative approach. I think that this is what happens when Front Benches in another place go into secret concubine, producing instant answers to very complex problems and hoping that we will rubber stamp them.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, I want to assure him that every relationship I have, or another friend had, is entirely legitimate within the bounds of marriage.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I plead guilty to an obvious slip of the tongue. Nevertheless, I made the point when I began to move this amendment that we were granted an extra day on the basis of going into the Bill thoroughly and meticulously to see whether it was flawed. I do not think the case has been made adequately by the Minister, or by the one speaker who supported him from behind, who said that our argument was illogical.

The Minister commenced by saying that the Bill is about the sale of liquor or beer in the safest parts of the ground. That was the Minister's statement, not mine. In the safest parts of the ground, you will be allowed to take drink. But can anybody tell me that the boxes that we are talking about are the unsafest part of the ground? I should have thought, in terms of public order, that they were almost vandalproof and foolproof. That part of the Minister's speech was a contradiction in terms.

The Minister also tried to give the impression that I was solely concerned with the finances of football clubs. I have no association with any football clubs. I may watch two matches in a season, but that is all. Now and again, I may go to watch my own team, Manchester City, and I may occasionally go to Leeds. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said was that you get only 10 minutes between the first half and the second half in which to get a drink of any kind. That is why most people, if they want a drink, have to go early. But I have never attempted to get a glass of beer at half-time, because there is then a sudden rush. If anybody tells me that someone who has been watching a football match for 45 minutes can run to a bar at Anfield, at Main Road, or at Tottenham Hotspurs' ground in 10 minutes and partake of enough drink to do any damage, I will say that that is a lot of nonsense.

Part of the speech of my colleague on the Front Bench started to sound like a Second Reading speech on what the Bill is about. I take exception to blanket judgments being accepted by people, and to people being punished when they have had no part to play. We have had one game cited here, which was an awful and awesome tragedy. But I have to say that last week FIFA itself lifted the ban on English clubs playing abroad in the rest of the world.

What was England's football record last year as an export in playing abroad? They played 64 matches in the rest of the world, outside Europe, and 96 in Europe, and there was one disaster which nobody would excuse or condone but which could have been avoided, even though the prime factor was some lunatic supporters, not perhaps from Liverpool but from other areas. There were major deficiencies that helped to cause that disaster. So out of 150-odd matches played last year, there was immense trouble at one match; and that is to be regretted.

I take the view that Hitler used to do the same in the last war. If somebody shot one of his gauleiters, he had a cure for that. He had blanket judgment. He shot a whole village and erased it. So we have to be a little careful in talking about accepting judgments to put our image right.

I do not think that the case has been made at all by the Minister. He suggests that we leave it to the Government's good wishes, so that they may study it and perhaps come back with something, but he is not sure that he can come back in the next 12 months. He is not sure that he will get a slot for the Bill. But in my opinion, with the haemorrhaging of the finances of some of the football teams, they will be damaged irreparably. So on that basis I have to test the will of the House.

4.54 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 114.

Airedale, L. Kearton, L.
Amherst, E. Kilmarnock, L.
Attlee, E. Kinloss, Ly.
Aylestone, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Bernstein, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Beswick, L. Monson, L.
Blease, L. Mulley, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Northfield, L.
Bottomley, L. Phillips, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Prys-Davies, L.
Caradon, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Chitnis, L. Rugby, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Coleraine, L. Seear, B.
Craigavon, V. Shinwell, L.
Crawshaw of Aintree, L. Stallard, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Stamp, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.] Stewart of Fulham, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Foot, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Grey, E. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hall, V. Thurso, V.
Hampton, L. Tordoff, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hayter, L. Whaddon, L.
Hooson, L. Wigoder, L. [Teller.]
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Winstanley, L.
Kagan, L.
Abinger, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Hooper, B.
Ampthill, L. Hughes, L.
Ardwick, L. Hunter of Newington, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Inglewood, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Jeger, B.
Beloff, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Belstead, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Bessborough, E. Killearn, L.
Birk, B. Kirkhill, L.
Boothby, L. Lane-Fox, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Lansdowne, M.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Lauderdale, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Lawrence, L.
Broxbourne, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Caithness, E. Long, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Longford, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. McAlpine of Moffat, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mancroft, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Margadale, L.
Cathcart, E. Marley, L.
Cawley, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Collison, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Melchett, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Merrivale, L.
Cox, B. Mersey, V.
Craigton, L. Milverton, L.
Davidson, V. Mishcon, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Molson, L.
Dilhorne, V. Morton of Shuna, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Mottistone, L.
Dundee, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L
Ellenborough, L. Nicol, B.
Elton, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Ennals, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Faithfull, B. Oram, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Fortescue, E. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Galpern, L. Portland, D.
Gisborough, L. Radnor, E.
Glenarthur, L. Rankeillour, L.
Gowrie, E. Rea, L.
Granville of Eye, L. Richardson, L.
Gridley, L. Rochdale, V.
Henley, L. Rodney, L.
Hives, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Holderness, L. St. Davids, V.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Trumpington, B.
Selkirk, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L
Sempill, Ly. Vivian, L.
Skelmersdale, L. Westbury, L.
Somers, L. White, B.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Whitelaw, V.
Stoddart of Swindon, L. Windlesham, L.
Swinton, E. [Teller.] Wise, L.
Terrington, L. Young of Graffham, L.
Tranmire, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.