Lords Sitting of 10 April 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I should like to take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from Professor Basil Markesinis, Director of the Institute of Anglo-American Law in Leiden, to visit the university and deliver a lecture on law reform between 13th and 17th April. Accordingly I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 14th April.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord be accompanied on that occasion?
The Lord Chancellor: I can think of some excellent companions, my Lords.

Romania: Human Rights
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will advise Her Majesty the Queen to withdraw the award of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath conferred on President Ceausescu of Romania on 12th June 1978 because of abuse of human rights in Romania.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne):My Lords, we are profoundly disturbed by the repressive policies being pursued by President Ceausescu of Romania. We condemn the systematic violations of human rights taking place in that country.
2
It would, however, be inappropriate for Her Majesty to be involved in a political gesture of the kind proposed; nor do we have any plans to advise otherwise. We are concentrating our efforts on drawing attention to the widespread abuses of human rights in Romania and, with other EC member states, seeking a significant improvement in Romanian performance.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, with the benefit of hindsight, does he agree that it was a serious error for the then Government to have invited to this country someone whose Government represented a regime with almost the worst human rights record in Europe at that time? Does he agree that we should consider very carefully before allowing governments to invite someone like President Ceausescu to this country on a state visit as opposed to a government to government visit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, President Ceausescu is a head of state and not a head of government, although he also holds the latter post. We are anxious to improve our relations with Romania but that would have to be in the context of an improvement in Romania's human rights performance. We wish to take every opportunity for them to hear our views.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as international agreements have clearly failed to improve the Romanian President's record on human rights, international disapproval is perhaps the only course? Therefore, does he accept that there should be some way in which European disapproval can be shown, even though, as he said, it is not possible to withdraw honours? Can he give a commitment to continue to raise the issue at forthcoming CSCE conferences?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall lose no opportunity for making our views known to the Romanian leadership. The CSCE process is just one of those occasions. We have reminded the Romanians of their obligations under the Final Act on more than one occasion. The United Nations human rights

3
conference has also recently appointed a rapporteur to look into the question of human rights abuses in that country.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, at the same time as raising the question of human rights, will the Government also take up with the Romanians the question of the bulldozing of historic churches in Bucharest and the enforced collectivisation of villages in the Romanian countryside which also involves the destruction of much of Romania's cultural heritage?
Lord Trefgarne:Yes, my Lords. That is a matter which is causing us special concern. A number of churches around Bucharest were demolished between 1984 and 1987 but I understand that none has been demolished since 1987. We wonder whether that may be the result of international pressure. We certainly hope so.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend also take into account the unpleasant behaviour of the Romanians towards the Hungarians within their territory, who I understand are attacked obsessively by the Romanian Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. There are about 2 million people of Hungarian descent living in part of Romania. We are anxious about their condition and have also made that point known to our Romanian interlocutors.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not Transylvania, where the Romanian minority lives, is open to visits by journalists and others?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that one or two Western Europeans have been allowed to visit parts of Transylvania, including, I understand, my noble friend Lord Newall. However, generally speaking our diplomats in Romania are subject to very considerable restrictions.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, can my noble friend advise the House whether the Romanian Government have yet apologised for the beating up of the British ambassador in Bucharest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no, they have not, is the short answer. Our ambassador tried to visit a Romanian citizen recently and, as my noble friend has pointed out, he was manhandled and subjected to some abuse. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has raised that matter quite recently with the Romanian Foreign Secretary but I am sorry to say has not received a satisfactory reply.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister say whether a collar was awarded at the same time as the Grand Cross? Does he agree that a collar is in any case the property of Her Majesty's Government? Will he say whether any reciprocal award was made during the state visit to this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to inquire into both those points. I do not think that a reciprocal award was made, but I shall check. As regards the ownership of the collar to which my noble friend refers, perhaps I may write to him.

Balance of Payments: Manufacturing Industry
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the balance of payments position in manufacturing industry.
Lord Strathclyde:My Lords, in the three months to February 1989, trade in manufactures was in deficit by £4·4 billion compared with a deficit of £4·1 billion in the previous three months.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that during the last full year of the previous Labour Government—which was 1978—this country had a balance of over £5 billion on its manufacturing industries; a surplus of £5 billion? Is he also aware that under this Government, the adverse balance of payments in manufacturing industry last year was £14·5 billion? Will he tell us what has happened to show such appalling figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must say that the period of the last Labour Government was a very long time ago. I had hardly left school at the time that Government left office. This Government's policies have laid down the basis of sustained growth—eight years of growth. The economy has grown faster than in all major European countries since 1980. Public finances are strong. Employment has grown by more than 2·75 million since 1983 while unemployment has fallen for 31 successive months and is now below the Community average.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, in spite of the commendable growth that has taken place in the last few years in manufacturing industry, our capacity is inadequate to meet the requirements of the nation? What steps will the Government take to make sure that we increase the competitive capacity of manufacturing industry so that the enormous deficit, totalling no less than £14 billion on our manufacturing account last year, can be overcome?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that he has a debate on 26th April when, naturally, we shall be able to discuss these questions far more fully than at Question Time. However, as regards his specific question concerning what the Government intend to do, it is not so much for governments but for industries to galvanise themselves to improve their export situation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the very fact that we have changed

5
from a public sector borrowing requirement to a public sector debt repayment of some £12 billion this year shows that the economy is in very good shape, and that that was unimaginable 10, 15 or 20 years ago?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord and the Government now accept that the warning given by the House's Select Committee on Overseas Trade three years ago was timely and correct? Would it not have been in the country's interests if the Government had taken note of the committee's recommendations and increased expenditure on exporting industries, particularly manufacturing industries? Will he say to what level interest rates will have to rise before we obtain a nil adverse balance of trade?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are continually offered the advice of forecasters and Select Committees. Very often, those forecasts are wrong. Sometimes, of course, they are right. The Government take all those factors into account. As to interest rates, companies are now in a far stronger financial position than they have been for a long time. I must point out that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, increases industry's costs by far less than a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with regard to the last question, is my noble friend aware of any economic law by which the Government could increase funds to manufacturing industry other than by straight subvention, which is contrary to the principles of the European Community?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a question, I believe, for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to answer.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister confirm or deny the report that the Government intend to solve the balance of payment problems by abolishing the figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no, that is not the case. There is a review dealing with the statistical office which will involve a transfer to the CSO of statistics work in the DTI and the Department of Employment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while the figures that he has given confirm the fundamental soundness of our manufacturing economy, it would be wrong to ignore the message that comes from the balance of trade figures? Can he find any way of encouraging the Opposition parties to urge people in industry to improve their productivity instead of using party political ploys to try to denigrate the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that, generally speaking, members of the Opposition are
6
as keen as we are on this side of the House to see the economy grow.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has used the Government's own recently published figures, but is he aware that on the basis of the February figures relating to manufactured imports and exports there will be an annual deficit of £22 billion, which is rather more than the £14 billion that has been mentioned in respect of the last year? Is it the Government's case that the larger the deficit on overseas trade in manufactures the more prosperous is the country? That seems to me to be the impression given by his noble friend. Moreover, has the noble Lord seen the report in the Financial Times of 25th March and the statement by the Engineering Employers' Federation that in 1989 for the first time mechanical engineering will be in deficit?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not read the Financial Times of 25th March but I shall certainly do so now. As I said previously, a balance of payments deficit in itself is not of great importance provided it can be financed. The noble Lord produced a figure of £22 billion. Perhaps I could refer him to my earlier point on the question of forecasts which are often wrong.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates had less effect than the corresponding figure in unit costs. Does he agree that by putting up interest rates he also puts up mortgage rates, which will greatly increase the pressure on pay claims? Particularly at a time when there are skill shortages, is it not very likely that employers will give way to those pay claims which will greatly increase their costs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said that it would increase industry's costs by far less than a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements. The real problem is that we are trying to eradicate inflation. Firm action has already been taken and we are now seeing signs that this is working. It is forecast to fall to 5.5 per cent. by the end of the year and will continue to fall throughout 1990.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is not the imbalance between imports and exports in the manufacturing industry partly perhaps due to the citizens of the United Kingdom? If some of us bought fewer foreign cars, televisions, perfumes, calculators, etc., is it possible that there might be quite a considerable difference in the figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to a certain extent my noble friend is of course correct. However, two-thirds of imports are of capital goods, intermediate goods, and semi-finished manufactures. These will be used to redirect the British economy enabling it to export more in the future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord answered my noble friend Lord Stoddart in relation to the report of the Select Commmittee of this House and said that some of the advice from committees

7
was wrong. But is it not the case that the report to which my noble friend referred was much more accurate than the forecast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year? He forecast a deficit of £4 billion when it was in fact more than three times that figure.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that could well be true but last year an enormous number of economists were wrong.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to me the noble Lord chose to remind me that the last Labour Government was in office 10 years ago. Would he take time out to remind the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government of that? They seem to be more intent than anybody on using that fact when it suits them. What does he think of today's published figures to the effect that the annual increase in the cost of raw materials and fuel to manufacturing industry has risen to 6.5 per cent? What effect will that have on competition with our overseas competitors?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to industry to decide how it reorganises its costs. What I believe counts is that a product should be well designed, well marketed, of good quality, made by a well-managed firm and a skilled workforce.

Gatwick Airport: Second Runway
2.55 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as they have never accepted being legally bound by agreements made in 1979 between West Sussex County Council and the British Airports Authority, they are prepared to consider the recommendation that, in spite of the many difficulties and obstacles and the inevitable controversy, all efforts should be made to provide a second main runway at Gatwick.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend is awaiting wide-ranging advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on airport and airspace capacity to 2005. We shall have to consider carefully this and all the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Transport in another place.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration the findings of the Select Committee on Transport that found, as regards the main runway at Gatwick, there is one take-off or landing every five minutes? That may not be serious at all times but certainly it is at some times of the day, especially in peak hours. Secondly, the recommendation from that Select Committee was that no effort should be spared to proceed at once to introduce and provide an additional second runway, perhaps
8
in parallel with the first one. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we shall of course take into account the Select Committee's recommendations. We shall respond to them in the normal way. We have commissioned the CAA to give us advice by July of this year. We shall have to wait to see what it advises.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has the Civil Aviation Authority already advised Her Majesty's Government that an additional runway will be required in the South-East of England before the end of the century and that therefore time is now running short for the preparatory work?
Lord Brabazon of Tara:My Lords, the advice that the CAA has given us was in the consultation document that it produced—CAP 548. It is plainly wrong to reach decisions until we have considered the CAA's formal advice in July, which is not that far away now, when everyone will have had their chance to say something.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, up to now the CAA has expressed great concern about the possible shortage of airspace capacity? That is a problem which still has to be solved. Is it not also a fact that the Select Committee on Transport in the other place appears not to have taken into consideration whether there will be any change in the estimates of passengers arising as a result of the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, like airport capacity, airspace is equally a concern. Obviously one cannot reach a decision on one without knowing what the effects on the other will be. That will be a very important part of the Civil Aviation Authority's advice when it gives it to us in July. I think it would be wrong for me to comment in your Lordships' House on the Select Committee's report in another place as of course it will be receiving the normal formal response to that report in the usual way.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although we welcome the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, we deeply regret that his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, cannot be present owing to an accident? We all wish her well. Having said that, will the Government continue to resist pressure coming from various sources for any extension of night flying into either Gatwick or Heathrow beyond the emergency arrangements that are normally made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord in expressing regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has had an accident. I am sure I speak for everybody on our side of the House when I wish her a speedy recovery. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, on having taken up the cudgels that she has left off. So far as concerns night flying at Gatwick and

9
Heathrow, in February we laid down a regime for the next five years. We have no plans to alter that regime.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend point out to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is a— —
Noble Lords: Order, order! Carry on!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may start again. Will my noble friend point out to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is a very close relationship between airspace and runway capacity and that shortage of runway capacity accentuates shortage of airspace?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There is a close correlation between airspace capacity and airport capacity. However, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested anything otherwise.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords——Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords——
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Baroness Hylton-Foster:My Lords, will the Minister consider—I hope that I have the terminology correct—the airspace when considering the question of a second runway at Gatwick? I understand that there is already a great deal of air traffic. Will the Minister agree that more would only make more problems for the poor air traffic controllers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I have covered that already in the Answer that I have given. Obviously airspace and airport capacity need to be considered at the same time.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I do not mind giving way to anybody. While these matters are under consideration, will the Minister attempt to use his good offices to dissuade the BAA from proceeding with its proposals to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow and instead to concentrate on the possible runway deficiencies at Gatwick or Stansted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the BAA proposes to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow it would have to be subject to planning permission. However, I should perhaps have said earlier that there are three factors in the equation: airport capacity; airspace capacity; and terminal capacity.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for their kind comments about my noble friend who is unable to be here today. Noble Lords may already have realised that I have neither the knowledge of the noble Baroness nor her tenacity.

South America: Trade Relations
3.2 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken or propose to take to improve trade relations with South America.
Lord Strathclyde:My Lords, the Government attach great importance to our trade relations with Latin America. There have been six ministerial visits there since the beginning of last year. The Department of Trade and Industry's and our Embassies' services are available to companies wishing to trade in the region. The department also supports the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, which does very valuable work in promoting trade with the region. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is arranging a seminar on Latin America at the end of May, at which leading businessmen will have the opportunity of meeting all our ambassadors from the Latin American countries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply which is encouraging. If the Question were the cause of all these wonderful things that the Government are going to do, I shall have to put down a few more.
Is the noble Lord aware that British trade and commercial undertakings feel that the apathy that has been shown by the Government in years past has proved very costly and has placed them at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors? Will the Government urge all those who wish to assist in developing trade with Latin America to continue to improve the situation for British commerce and industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the UK market share has increased very slightly to 3 per cent. since the early 1980s. We shall continue to offer support for projects through the aid and trade provision to companies seeking to win contracts in the region.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the prospects of the United Kingdom increasing its trade with South American countries depend very largely on the resolution of the various debt problems of these South American states? Will the noble Lord inform us of the nature and extent of his department's liaison with the Treasury on this question in its negotiations with the remainder of the G7 group, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank?
Will the noble Lord agree that the closest possible liaison between the DTI and the Treasury on this matter is an absolute imperative?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is naturally close liaison between the DTI and the Treasury on a whole host of matters including this one. The noble Lord said that one of the problems for this country exporting to Latin America was the debt crisis. He is quite correct there. The debt crisis has hit Latin America very hard. The Government a re seriously considering the debt proposals set out by the new

11
US Trade Secretary Brady concerning debt reduction in these countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has given the slight increase in market share. If he does not have the figures, can he let us know what the movement has been in trade between this country and Latin America in real terms over the past decade? When he is reading—perhaps he will be re-reading—the report of the Select Committee previously referred to perhaps he will note that there is a section that urges the British Government to increase their support for trade in the third world in contrast with the great deficit that we suffer in our trade with the European Common Market.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have a deficit of trade with South America. However, on the exact figures I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and let him know the exact figures.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister accept that one of the impediments to increasing the flow of trade between this country and South America is the fact that the South American countries do not have sufficient foreign currency because the repayment of their existing debts is consuming all their available resources? Can he say whether or not this country is supportive of the Brady initiatives?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said briefly earlier on, Her Majesty's Government are considering these proposals very carefully. We hope to come up with an answer to the proposals in due course.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Canning House advisers and the Latin American Trade Bureau are very conscious of the fact that there needs to be an improvement, in particular as we approach 1992? If there is not a massive improvement between British commercial undertakings and trade with Latin America so that we have a better chance of improving our position with foreign competitors, we shall be in a very serious situation in 1992.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Canning House and the Latin American Trade Advisory Group are obviously in very close contact.
On 1992 and with regard to this Government, the position in no way implies a Fortress Europe situation. We hope that trade will continue to grow.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Football Spectators Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989 will be taken.

Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.14 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("whether or not in relation to any initial stage,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 50, 51 and 71 to 74.
This amendment is merely altering the words within the Bill which will give effect to the general principle upon which we voted at Committee stage. It in no way interferes with the principle that we approved and which was generally accepted. I thought it right, as I had moved the first amendment in Committee, that I should move these amended words at Report stage.
The amendment reflects our parliamentary procedure at its best. We came to a decision at Committee stage. We used words that we thought would give effect to the general procedure we had in mind.
I was very impressed with the intervention from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who has served with distinction as one of our Law Lords. While he expressed general approval of the principle behind the Committee amendments, he thought that the words may cause confusion if they had to be applied in the future operation of this statute. I did not feel it right to ignore the advice from such a distinguished quarter.
I considered that the words as they stood did not lend themselves to possible misinterpretation. If Clauses 4 and 5 were read together I am certain that the proper effect would be given. But with someone as experienced as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I felt it right that my colleagues and I who had tabled the original amendment should look again to see whether we could produce words meaning the same but leaving the issue less open to possible misinterpretation during later application. The words contained in my amendments are designed to achieve that end.
The experts who will form the FMA and advise on the procedure to be followed are encouraged to look at the effects of the Bill when applied selectively rather than at once. The amendment does not provide that it must be applied selectively; it merely gives the expert committee authority and encouragement to look at that possibility.
The amendment in no way alters what was decided in Committee but is designed to use words which will not lend themselves to possible misinterpretation. I and my noble friends who have attached their names

13
to the amendment represent all sides of the House. We agree that, where possible, Parliament should make statutes as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. There should be no need to delve through all kinds of clauses in order to arrive at the same decision. The amendment avoids such possible confusion and I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this matter should not delay the House too long. We accept and support the intention of the amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for the manner in which during discussions with Ministers he has pursued what he believed the House had in mind. The Government will not need reminding of the central issue. It was whether to accept the principle that the football authorities should have the opportunity of phased introduction. On that issue the Government were defeated by a narrow majority and it caused them to think again.
I hope that in that rethinking the Minister and his advisers will not be churlish in giving the amendment full effect. It means that the scheme will be capable of implementation by one form of phasing or another. The Minister may say that he has every sympathy with this issue being put on the plate of the FMA. He may nod his head in order to get the Bill through the House. He may say that they are entitled to consider whether in the light of their investigations phasing is desirable. However, he may say at the end of the day that he reserves the right under a part of the Bill to veto any detail of the scheme. The Minister is entitled to tell us that. However, this afternoon I want him to tell the House and the football authorities without equivocation that, if in implementing the spirit of these amendments they come to the conclusion that a scheme can best be made successful by having a form of phasing he will accept the good sense of the football authorities. I have no knowledge or authority to say that if the football authorities are given that option they will exercise it. That is because they have not carried out the detailed discussions or the experiments.
The noble Lord has been sensitive about experiments. His noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux asked about implementation, experimentation and tests. In a reply dated 15th March the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that those would be matters left to the Football Membership Authority. The House and the whole of football are worried that, holus-bolus, there will be a Bill which on one day is not operable but on the next is an Act of Parliament. They wish to see some form of experimentation.
I hope that the noble Lord will be helpful and say that, if in the light of tests, experiments and consulations the football authorities wish to exercise the options put forward in this series of amendments, not only do they have the right to do so but, if they come to the conclusion that they wish to introduce some kind of phasing, he will recognise that their experience is greater than his. They wish to see football benefited just as much as he does.
14
We on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Mellish, for having pursued what we wish to see happen.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was not present on 20th February when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls carried the amendment in a full House by a small majority. I came to hear about it because I was told that probably there was a genuine misunderstanding in the drafting. I believe that my noble friend and those supporting him have been wise in agreeing to have the drafting corrected so that everyone is satisfied.
The Bill, as amended in Committee as a result of my noble friend's amendment, provided for a phasing period to become mandatory. Now it must be considered, but in the end it is discretionary on the part of the Secretary of State. We all wish to see that and I congratulate my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am pleased to accept the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lords, Lord Mellish and Lord Graham. The Government accept that it was the will of your Lordships' House that the Secretary of State and the Football Membership Authority should be required to consider the possibility of a phased application of the national membership scheme before it is approved. This is the effect of the amendments which my noble friend and the noble Lords have now moved, and we therefore accept them.
I explained when we first debated amendments on this subject, on the first day of Committee, and again on the second day, that the amendments which my noble friend and the noble Lord moved in Committee on this subject seemed to us to go further than they intended. Some of them, in particular the amendment which produced what is now subsection (2)(a) of Clause 5, have the effect of making phasing a compulsory aspect of the scheme. Other amendments moved in Committee to Clause 23 would actually prevent Part I of the Bill from coming into force at all.
This was not the effect which my noble friend intended, as he has said in his speech introducing the amendments today. Perhaps I may join him in paying tribute to the helpful contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on this subject. It was also made clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee, that it was not his intention to make phasing mandatory. He said so in as many words. Perhaps if I may quote him:
"Do not legislate in mandatory terms … merely point out that he,"
that is, the Secretary of State,
"has a duty to consider something".
This is very clearly the effect of the amendments which my noble friend has moved today. If your Lordships accept these amendments, the Bill will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have

15
regard to the desirability of a phased application of the scheme when he comes to designate the matches to which the scheme will apply. For this purpose, the Football Membership Authority will be required to consider the possibility of phasing. If the authority considers that phasing is desirable—and I will ensure that my noble friend's words on the subject and those of other noble Lords are drawn to the attention of the football authorities—it will be able to make recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will have to consider those recommendations.
I do not think that there can be any argument about the effect of this. If the FMA considers that phasing is desirable, it will be up to it to propose how phasing might be achieved and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. He will not have to accept those recommendations but he will have to consider them. My noble friend has also proposed deleting the amendments which he moved in Committee and of course I support him in that respect as well.
I should be clear on one point in accepting these amendments. We accept that the Secretary of State must consider the possibility of phasing and he must listen to what the FMA has to say on the possibility. But we continue to hope that phasing will not be necessary. We remain concerned that, if the scheme were to be introduced in stages, hooliganism would be displaced from those clubs at which the scheme applied to those at which it did not. Hooligans who had been banned from some clubs, perhaps as a result of convictions for violent offences, would be free to go to others and cause trouble there.
For this reason in particular, we believe that it will be in the interests of all clubs that the scheme should apply throughout the league from the date of its implementation, though the implementation date itself must of course depend on the technology being available and working.
I thought that it was only right that I should explain that this is the Government's present view. But the issue is open for further debate. It always was. What my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, have achieved is to ensure that both the FMA and the Secretary of State will have to give full consideration to the possibility of phasing. My noble friend said that it was crucial that the football authorities, the experts, should look at the possibility. As he knows, it has always been the Government's intention that the football authorities should set up and run the FMA. I hope that government amendments which we are to discuss later today will further confirm that intention.
I am pleased to be able to start our discussions today by accepting a group of amendments. This group will remove provisions which went further than, I think, my noble friend intended. In their place, they will substitute a new clause which I am happy to commend to the House, one which requires both the FMA and the Secretary of State to consider the desirability of phasing before the scheme is implemented. I support these amendments.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I promise not to take very long but the House will know that I was involved in the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
The attitude of the Minister today is so different that I can hardly believe it. Your Lordships will remember that when we first moved this amendment the Government's attitude was, "We know best". I believe that is why many of your Lordships felt, as I certainly did, that that was a bit much. It was possible that the Government did not know best. We thought that the one objective of setting up a specialist advisory committee was to enable it to consider such matters and certainly phasing was one of them. However, the Minister dismissed that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in Committee the wording of an amendment is often wrong and is not acceptable either to the people who draft amendments professionally or the government of the day. If the Minister had stood up and said, "Look, the wording of the amendment is wrong but we shall do something about it on Report", we should not have taken the matter to a vote. That is the difference between then and now. Today the attitude is that of course the specialist committee will look at the matter, and I am sure that every Member of this House will say that it is about time too. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh—and I admire him for having changed his stance—his words when we last discussed this matter, that football should be run by football, are very wise indeed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel even more aggrieved than did my noble friend Lord Mellish. I believe that when I give my explanation, your Lordships' House will agree with me. On 20th February I moved this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, repeatedly refused to accept it. We all remember that only a few moments before I moved it the Government had been defeated.
While my amendment was being discussed and the discussion was obviously nearing its close, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the Government Chief Whip, rushed into the Chamber—there is no other way to describe his behaviour—put a piece of paper under the nose of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, whereupon he rose and said, albeit without commitment, that he would take away the amendment for consultation.
There has been no consultation whatever. I received a message from the chairman of Cardiff City Football Club to say that on 22nd March he, together with others, had been invited to the Welsh Office. He and the rest of my friends were under the clear impression that that was as a result of the commitment given by the noble Lord.
Following that meeting I met the chairman of Swansea, Cardiff and Wrexham Football Clubs and the secretary of the Football Association of Wales. I

17
could hardly believe what they told me and, indeed, I asked them to put it in writing, which they have done. I understand that a number of your Lordships have received the letter from the secretary of the Football Association of Wales, which reads:
"On the 22nd March a small committee, including representatives from our National Association, the Football League clubs in Wales, the Sports Council for Wales and the Police Authorities, was convened at the Welsh office by the Secretary of State. However, it was made clear at the outset that the meeting was designed purely to consider how the Bill should be implemented. When the question was raised regarding Lord Hesketh's promise of consultation, the meeting was informed that the Government's majority in the House of Commons was sufficient to pass the Bill and that other matters were quite irrelevant and would be to waste time spent more constructively".
Noble Lords: Oh, Oh!
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, from the comments I have just heard, I believe that I was wise to ask Mr. Alun Evans to put that matter on paper.
Before I proceed with my amendment, I respectfully ask the Minister to explain exactly what has been going on.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may first remind the noble Lord that I undertook without commitment to take away the amendment for consultation. Of course I referred to the meeting to which the noble Lord referred in a letter that I have not seen.
We discussed the issue at length in Committee, when I undertook, without commitment, to take away for consultation the amendment moved by the noble Lord. But I pointed then to the difficulties of excluding three clubs playing in a trans-national league, all the rest of whose members were included in the scheme.
I also referred, as the noble Lord reminded me, to the working party which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales was setting up to advise him on the designation of matches played in Wales. That meeting, as the noble Lord has pointed out, took place on 22nd March. My right honourable friend met the members of the group. There were representatives from the Football Association of Wales, the Football Leaue, the Welsh League clubs, the Sports Council and the police forces within whose areas the Welsh League clubs grounds lie. I understand that the question of the exclusion of clubs was discussed at some length. My right honourable friend listened to those who argued for exclusion, but neither on the grounds of principle nor by reference to the record of violence associated with matches involving Welsh League clubs was he convinced that an exception could or should be made. Indeed, he argued as I have done, that there must be consistency within the Football League.
We have considered carefully here. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also considered fully the question of excluding Welsh clubs from the scheme. But we cannot agree with those who have urged exclusion. I invite noble Lords to think about this because the problem—it is a real problem—is that one cannot exempt three clubs out of 92 in the League and expect the scheme
18
to work. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, I must ask the Minister to give the House a better explanation. At column 426, his closing words were:
"I can give no commitment, but I can take it away for consultation"—[Official Report, 20/2/89; col. 426.]
That expression rested on his knowledge, not ours, that there was to be a meeting on 22nd March. Has the Minister been in touch with my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa at any stage? Whenever the mover withdraws an amendment on the promise of consultation, everyone knows that that person should be part of the consultations. That has not happened.
I too have a record of what took place at the meeting. It was sent to me not by the Welsh FA but by the Football League. It says:
"In response to questions from the football representatives, the Secretary of State"—
not a functionary—
"reported that, following the recent debates in the House of Lords, his office had not been consulted by Lord Hesketh, nor was he aware that any such consultation would be forthcoming".
If that is the tenor of the meeting, then this is familiar ground. A working party is summoned to No. 10 Downing Street in order to consult on how best to make progress in football. When the majority say that they are not in favour of an identity card scheme they are told that what is to be discussed is the implementation of an ID scheme, not the principle at all.
If there is any meaning to consultation in Wales that consultation must have meant that the discussion was to include whether the Bill should apply to Wales. But, apparently, the purpose was purely to help the Secretary of State to implement the Bill in Wales. Surely, no one on the Benches behind the Minister accepts that as a proper definition of "consultation". It is a con trick. It has stopped the Government having a second defeat, and that is all it has done. The difference between this stage and the previous stage and the reason there was the change on the first series of amendments is that the Government were defeated. They avoided a defeat on this issue because we agreed to consultations. The Minister has told us that there was never any meaning to that phrase. I am not impugning the Minister— —
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I really feel— —Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I really feel— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall give way to the Minister in a minute. There was no meaning to consultation because the Minister knew, and we did not, that the issue of whether Wales should be included was never to be on the agenda.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I take great exception to that. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is trying to put his own interpretation on the meaning of the word "consultation". I have already explained to the House what I meant. My explanation did not suit

19
the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. As a result he is trying to put a meaning on to something that I said. I am afraid that what he says is just not the case. It is important to understand that these discussions were serious. It was not some process that was not about consultation. The fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, knows, is that the outcome was disagreement. Consultation does not always result in everyone being satisfied on all sides.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that his interpretation of the word "consultation" is to invite the parties affected—not the noble Lord who moved the amendment—to consider how to implement the scheme that those assembled did not agree with, that is not our interpretation. I have references to what other parties to those discussions said. I have here a note from Mr. Davies, who represented the South Wales police. He reported that the ACPO was seriously concerned about the national membership scheme in general. He referred to a four-page letter from the ACPO which had been sent to the Home Secretary expressing the organisation's reservations.
The whole basis on which the Minister tells us that these were proper consultations has been swept aside. I invite every Member sitting behind the noble Lord to reflect that if in future we are told that consultations will take place and that they prove as thin as those that did take place, they should be as ashamed as I am that the Minister has told the House that that is what he means by consultation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the issue before your Lordships is the question of whether the words "and Wales" should be left out or kept in the Bill. The issue is not how much consultation there was, or the nature of it.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Renton: No, my Lords, this is the parliamentary reality of the situation. Personally, I was convinced by what my noble friend told your Lordships about the consultation that there has been. It is sad that it does not satisfy noble Lords opposite. Surely, however, we must apply our minds to whether the words "and Wales" should be kept in or left out.
In spite of my Christian name, I do not have the good fortune to have any Welsh blood, but I have spent a lot of my life in Wales and have many friends there. It surprises me, even as a friend of Wales, to find that the Welsh are to be treated differently from the English.
Noble Lords: And the Scots!
Lord Renton: And the Scots.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, there appears to be some illogicality in retaining Wales in the Bill and excluding Scotland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is somewhat extending the issue before your Lordships. We are concerned whether Wales should be treated separately from England. That is what it comes to. My noble friend has pointed out that there are three Welsh clubs, no doubt conducting their football matches magnificently. I have never had the good fortune to attend any of them. There are 92 clubs altogether. I should have thought it an act of discrimination against the English if we are to insist on the three Welsh clubs being left out. I hope that your Lordships will, perhaps almost unanimously, oppose the amendment.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene. But the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has talked so much rubbish. First, he knows nothing about the Bill. He did not know, for example, that Scotland was not included in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he did not hear the debate.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord says that this should not be a discussion about consultation but purely on the merits of whether Wales should be included. If he had attended the Committee stage debate he would have heard my noble friend Lord Brooks and all the rest of us arguing why Wales should be excluded. He would have enjoyed the whole argument.
Let us be fair; let us follow the trends. The Minister having already been defeated on an earlier amendment, sensed that the Committee was not in the sort of mood to put up with his rubbishy arguments any more and decided, wisely, to say "Do not press the amendment to a vote, I will consult". All of us know, including the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, that Ministers say that not to camouflage but to gain time to think, to discuss, to consult and to argue a matter through. It would have been more final if the Government had said "We do not agree with that. We think the Welsh argument is rubbish. Let us take the matter to a vote". There would then have been a decision and the matter would have been settled. The Government would not risk that.
Therefore, my argument is that noble Lords have every right to question the whole issue of consultation. Let us not make this place a farce. Either the Minister meant it or he did not. It is rubbish to talk about the Welsh argument being raised again. Did the Government consult? The answer is that they did not. That being so, I shall certainly vote in favour if the amendment is pressed to a Division.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I assure him that had any other noble Lord described my speech in the terms that he used I might have been offended; but knowing him as such an old friend, it does not worry me one bit.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not in the Chamber when we had our previous debate in Committee. Had he been so he would have understood the feeling and

21
recognised the flavour of the Committee at that time. I should say to the Minister that some of us are extremely resentful at the attitude taken and the fact that consultation did not take place as promised. Among others, I was one who prevailed upon my noble friend to withdraw his amendment on the basis that the Minister had given a proper undertaking to consult. It is now quite clear that consultation has not taken place.
Your Lordships should take grave exception to the paragraph in the letter which says:
"it was made clear at the outset that the meeting was designed purely to consider how the Bill should be implemented. When the question was raised regarding Lord Hesketh's promise of consultation, the meeting was informed that the Government's majority in the House of Commons was sufficient to pass the Bill and that other matters were quite irrelevant and would be a waste of time".
That meeting took place when there were a further three stages of the Bill to go through this House. It is an insult to your Lordships that they should be told through this meeting that what they had further to say about the Bill was irrelevant because, whatever they said and whatever they did, the House of Commons with its huge government majority would alter it or throw it out anyway.
I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his reply because as a Member of this House I am entitled to feel insulted, as I believe other Members feel insulted. If that is the way we are to be treated, there is no point in noble Lords coming here every day seriously, as we think, debating matters of great note if we are to be told that it is a complete waste of time, that the House of Commons will take no notice at all and that the Government with their huge majority will use it to dun this House.
On the issue itself, the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, ask why Wales should be excluded. There are very good reasons why Wales should be excluded: first, there is no history of football hooliganism and, secondly, that is recognised by the fact that Wales still takes part in European competition. If that is not a good enough reason to exclude Wales, I do not know what is.
Even at this stage the Minister has an opportunity to rescue those who have let him down. These people who had this discussion—not consultation—have let the Minister down, make no mistake about that. They were to tell the football people in Wales what was going to happen. The Minister still has the opportunity when he speaks again to put right this matter and to rescue at least his own reputation, which I sincerely hope he will do because we hold him in high regard.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that at this early part of the Report stage words like "insulted" and resentful" should be used. I do not believe that is in the spirit of this House and the way we do our business here. My noble friend has given an explanation. It is not an explanation which is accepted, but in either House, whether we call one another honourable members or noble colleagues, when an answer is given one usually accepts it as being a genuine answer given by the Minister. It is
22
not within normal practice, and nor should it be if we are to be a civilised Parliament, that one should feel resentful or insulted because a different point of view is expressed to what one wanted. I am sorry that the words have been used but is early, let us not repeat them and let us get on with producing as good a Bill as we can.
On this amendment, of course there is a difference between Wales and Scotland. We know that in many instances in Scotland there is a different law to this country. There is a separateness which has been established over many years. Scotland had Sunday opening of pubs long before we could get an extra hour for Sundays. Therefore, there is a difference. Not to recognise that there is a traditional difference is wrong. However, Wales and England have invariably gone together.
On whether or not Wales should be excluded, I do not support the amendment for this reason. All of my amendments in the past, and all the contributions that I have so far made to the proceedings on this Bill, are based on my view that Parliament is not the place to set down the detailed rules. I believe that the people who know football, practise it and understand the practicalities should do that. We must make certain that the FMA—that committee of experts when it is formed—has the power to give a lead, because it will comprise practical men who have the experience.
Under the amendment accepted in Committee and reaffirmed a few moments ago, we have not taken away from the FMA the power to say that in the interests of football Wales should not be included. It is up to the FMA to recommend to the Secretary of State, in whatever proposals it puts forward, that that is the position. My understanding of my amendment is that the FMA would have the power to do just that.
I am very pro-Wales. I understand its separateness on many issues, but on this issue I believe it would be wrong to separate Wales. I hope that we can argue this amendment, like others, on its merits, without feeling resentful or insulted, because there are no grounds for that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I find it a trifle difficult to follow part of the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if he will forgive me for saying so. My understanding of his view is that Parliament is not the place to settle the question of whether or not Wales should be included within this Bill.
The noble Lord is transferring a degree of responsibility to the Football Membership Authority of a kind which I think does not exist in any other organisation in this country. If Parliament is not the right place to decide this matter, who conceivably is, particularly as the Secretary of Slate has made it absolutely clear that as a matter of principle he insists on including Wales in the scheme? Therefore if this amendment is not proceeded with on the ground that the matter should be left to the FMA, we shall be doing so knowing that as a matter of principle the Secretary of State would reject any such advice from that authority. That is absolute nonsense.

23
Perhaps I may return to the question of Scotland and Wales. A number of noble Lords have speculated as to why Scotland has been excluded from this Bill. I congratulate the Scots on having been left out of a thoroughly bad and ill-considered piece of legislation. I suspect that the reason for it has more to do with the political situation in Scotland than any other matter. It probably has very little to do with football. As regards the level of violence, there is no evidence at all that there is more of it in Wales than in Scotland. On the basis of the evidence that a number of us put before the House on the last occasion, it was clear that the amount of violence at Welsh football grounds is trivial. That is one of the reasons why Wales still plays European football and England does not. It is recognised that there is not a violence problem in Wales. That being so, it seems to be extremely ill-judged that the Government should persist by including Wales in the Bill against a great deal of advice that they have received from the Principality. I still hope that the Government will think better of it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no doubt that there is a distinction between the Scottish and the Welsh leagues. It is unfair to dismiss that as not being the case. When this matter was last discussed (I refer to col. 426 of Hansard for 20th February) the Minister laid out the reasons for the complications when considering exemption for Wales. The interaction between the three Welsh clubs and the English league makes the situation more complicated. Having said that, and having made reference to the working party and the meeting that has taken place in Wales—I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister is in constant touch with the Welsh Office and has the benefit of any findings from the working party—it is perfectly fair to say that thought has been given to the problem since the previous discussions. It is perfectly fair that at this stage the Bill should apply to all 92 clubs.
I very strongly support the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the amendment accepted by the Minister a moment ago gives an opportunity for exemption for Wales either when the scheme is implemented or subsequently. That is an opportunity that can be considered. I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment and that the Bill will be left as it is, applying to all 92 clubs with no separate exemption for Wales. But, in implementing the Bill, I hope that discussions will take place with the Football Leagues and that consideration will be given to whether it is appropriate for either temporary or complete exemption to be accorded when the Bill is approved by Parliament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I ask the Minister to take on board directly the question of whether it is possible for the FMA to put forward a scheme that excludes Wales. A great many of the Minister's colleagues are hanging on in order to defeat this amendment because of the FMA. If the Minister repeats what he said before he will say that there is no possibility. I wait to hear what he has to say.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems that there is no argument except that put forward by the Minister. If you have 92 members of an organisation upon whom you are imposing an obligation, three of whom live in an area which, because of geographical accident, has been legislatively a part of the United Kingdom since 1485 they cannot suddenly be given exemption. It would be just as logical to say that we would not exclude Wales, but we would exclude Scunthorpe United, Luton Town and Norwich because they were another part of the heptarchy. The decision has been taken and I support the government view that the 92 clubs of the Football League should be asked to run a membership scheme. Perfectly logically, you can exclude sections that visit all 92 members but you cannot exclude three. Therefore I sincerely hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, notwithstanding my name, I should not have felt it necessary to intervene in an amendment concerning Wales but for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He suspected that the reason why Scotland is not included is because of the political situation there. There is no evidence whatever that the Government pay the slightest attention to the political situation in Scotland, and that could not possibly be the reason. It is because several years ago the Scottish Office had the courage to take action regarding these matters. Legislation was passed concering drink in public places and especially at football matches. That is the reason why hooliganism was controlled much earlier in Scotland and before any sign of it being controlled in England.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, my earlier question to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may have been misinterpreted as indicating I was anxious to include Scotland in the Bill. I wish to assure the noble Lord that we have no desire to be included in it. Any such suggestion would be greeted with great opposition and resentment. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, steps have been taken in Scotland to ensure that there is reasonable behaviour at football matches. This national sport is played with great passion in Scotland and week by week the attendances are increasing because of that reasonable behaviour. The clubs, the police and the supporters have collaborated to make sure that people can go to football matches and enjoy the spectacle of a great game. That has been achieved.
I turn now to the problem of Wales. Unlike Scotland, football is not a national game in Wales. The national game is rugby football. We are dealing with small clubs which will suffer if this Bill is imposed on them. That situation has been made clear by the small English clubs. They will all suffer from the imposition of an identity card system. We are really punishing Wales, which is in a special situation. It is a nation of small football clubs that will suffer from this legislation. It is not a geographical accident. There is a Welsh Football Association just as there are an English and a Scottish FA. Wales is a nation and it is entitled to be considered as one in relation to this legislation. We are not breaking any great consitutional rule in this matter. I appeal

25
to noble Lords on the other side and say that this is not a big party issue, but a question of controlling three or four Welsh clubs.
I ask noble Lords not to divide on party lines on the question: let us consider what is good for the game and for the people who are trying to maintain the small clubs in Wales. If Scotland is excluded from these provisions, whether for political or other reasons or because the Scots behave themselves a little better at football matches (statistically that is not so), why should a big issue be made of the question of excluding these few clubs in Wales? It is a very important matter for the clubs whether they play in Europe or not. Half of the Glasgow Rangers football team is made up of English internationals who have had to go North to earn a living because of the greater rewards of playing in Europe. If they are excluded from Europe they cannot enjoy those greater rewards. I suggest to noble Lords that we should seriously consider this matter without making a big issue of it. There will be no great harm to the Government. Soccer in Wales will be encouraged if this amendment is approved.
4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I ask the Leader of the House to remind your Lordships that at Report Stage, apart from the mover of the amendment and the Minister, noble Lords may speak only once. At least two or three noble Lords have spoken twice already.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. I was extremely conscious on the first day of the Committee that this is a very Welsh matter. Because of that I felt it, important that the meeting should be a Welsh meeting in Wales with the Secretary of State. A number of noble Lords have produced accounts from organisations which went to that meeting and were dissatisfied with the outcome. I was not at the meeting but I can assure the House that the Secretary of State for Wales has told me that the football interests in Wales had a good chance to put their case. I do not think that he could have gone further than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the FMA recommending, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, that the three Welsh clubs be excluded from the scheme. When the scheme is drawn up it will be perfectly possible for that to happen, but I very much doubt that the architects of the scheme will consider it a good idea, for the same reasons as many noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon. If the scheme is to work with 92 members, it will not work if three are exempted. It could happen but I am not sure that it will happen.
Certain noble Lords opposite rightly pointed out that the police have reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, did not mention that the Welsh police believe that if the scheme comes in the Welsh clubs must be part of it.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was disturbed by some of the expressions that were used in the course of
26
the discussion on my amendment. All I said was that I felt aggrieved about the way I had been treated. I hope he does not think that that is an extreme or unparliamentary expression.
I am totally dissatisfied with the Minister's explanation about the so-called consultation. I repeat that I have heard only secondhand from those who were invited to attend the meeting. The Minister said that they may have been dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting. It was not that they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting; they were dissatisfied with the purpose of the meeting. They were brought there as members of a working party. Those were the words used on the heading of the invitation letter sent to them. However, that topic has been exhausted.
There is a great deal of ignorance on the Benches opposite about the position of these three clubs in Wales. Many smaller English clubs genuinely fear that they will be driven out of existence. If England lost three, four, six, 12 or 20 of its clubs it would be something of a tragedy, but the English football system would survive. We are talking about three Welsh clubs. Since I spoke to the House at Second Reading we have lost Newport completely. All its assets have been sold at auction. It was driven to the wall because financially it could not survive. Cardiff City Football Club is up for sale. The chairman has made it quite clear that he can no longer continue financially to support the club. Swansea City Football Club has been to the very doors of the bankruptcy court and has managed to survive only through the loyalty of the local community and of some business interests. Wrexham Football Club is in the Fourth Division and is surviving on small gates by the skin of its teeth.
The semi-finals of the Football Association of Wales Cup are about to be played. As I said in Committee, the most important time in Wales is not when we play English clubs in the Football League but when the cup competition comes around. Clubs such as Merthyr, Barry and Bangor have the opportunity to play in Europe. That does not apply to any non-league English club. No non-league English club would consider even in its wildest dreams that it would get into European competition, even if English clubs were admitted. However, two years ago Merthyr played in the European Cup Winners Cup. All Wales was rooting for it. Barry is in the semi-final and is playing Swansea City. I happen to be the leader of South Glamorgan County Council. We are responsible for implementing the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. We have refused to issue a licence for the game to be played at Jenner Park in Barry. Not one spectator can attend. Barry has applied to Ninian Park to play this game against Swansea at that ground. Ninian Park has agreed but has pointed out some essential expenses which total £1,500. Barry does not have £1,500. It came to my authority. We agreed to give a grant of £1,500 so that the game can be played.
I mention these points to impress on noble Lords opposite the position of our three small Football League clubs in Wales. The position is different from the one in England. When I hear that Cardiff is no different from Scunthorpe I feel it necessary to point

27
out that if Scunthorpe has a problem with education it presumably goes to see Kenneth Baker. We do not; we see Mr. Peter Walker. We are separate in that sense. Scunthorpe is in exactly the same position as a town in Devon or in any other county in England. We are in a totally different position. The setting up of the Welsh Office was to a large extent a recognition of the fact that Wales is a separate nation and a separate entity.
I intend to press my admendment to test the feeling of the House. I hope that what I have said will at least change the minds which apparently were made up and will persuade some noble Lords who were going to make up their minds after listening to the debate to join me and my friends in the Lobby.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 123.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mais, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mayhew, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mellish, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Porritt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fletcher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpem, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

28

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allerton, L.

Joseph, L.

Arran, E.

Knights, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Long, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lothian, M.

Beaverbrook, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Cawley, L.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Croft, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renton, L.

Daventry, V.

Richardson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Donegall, M.

Rugby, L.

Dundee, E.

Saint Brides, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Effingham, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seebohm, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Slim,V.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathcarron, L.

Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathspey, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harvington, L.

Swansea, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("such") and insert ("League or domestic cup").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I

29
were to speak also to Amendment No. 59. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers appreciate that this is the Wembley issue. I am also very conscious of the fact that we have debated the subject of Wembley in the past. My purpose in raising these two issues now is to link the first amendment and Amendment No. 59, in order to try to write into the Bill matters which relate to the duties, and the extent of those duties, of the licensing authority.
No doubt the Minister will recognise the fact that we had a most useful, although somewhat lengthy, debate on 14th March when the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, played a major part in the proceedings. Incidentally, he apologises for not being able to be here today. However, perhaps I may read to the Minister what he said on that occasion (at cols. 187 and 188 of Hansard). I should like him to confirm that our understanding of the situation is correct. He said:
"We accept that special arrangements could be made to enable foreign visitors, who are not members of the scheme, to attend matches and that will be a feature of the scheme".
He then went on to say:
"I make no apology for the fact that we are looking at the possibility of providing special arrangements in the scheme for Wembley different from those that will be operated at club grounds".
As regards the Bill, we are torn between trying to write words into it and trying to strengthen the power of the FMA to act as it considers to be right. We always have the fear that if the FMA in its wisdom considers that that which is right is to be implemented, the Minister still has the reserve power to say, "Oh, no you don't". What we want from the Minister today are assurances, whereby the FMA will not be wasting its time, so that the authority will know that it is going broadly along the right lines. The Minister says that the scheme from the FMA will provide special arrangements regarding Wembley which will be different from those which will operate at other club grounds. We should like him to say a little more on the subject.
In the aforementioned debate the Minister then went on to say:
"Wembley is a unique football stadium".
Therefore, it is a unique football stadium as opposed to the generality of the other stadiums. Then, at the top of column 188, he said:
"I think that the sensible course here is to allow the FMA to draw up those special arrangements in consultation with the Wembley authorities and the police".
Amendment No. 59 states:
"It shall be the duty of the licensing Authority to advise the Secretary of State on such matters concerned with this Act as the Committee may determine or as may be referred to the Authority by the Secretary of State and may, for such purpose, obtain advice or assistance from other persons with knowledge or experience appearing to the authority to be relevant to this function".
I want the Minister to say that all that means that the Wembley authorities will be able to convince the FMA that Wembley is a special case and that will be enshrined on the face of Hansard, not the Bill, or we shall be driven to try to write words on to the face of the Bill. I am knowledgeable about parliamentary arithmetic, if not procedure, and it would be an exercise in futility if we tried to do it that way. I
30
want the Minister to confirm that what I have said is correct. He continued in col. 188 to say:
"I am sure that consultation between the interested parties as the detailed scheme is being worked up is much the best way of devising sensible arrangements by which Wembley can be fitted into the framework of the membership scheme".
The Minister may say that Wembley has all that it wants. I believe that it has all that it can obtain at this stage of the Bill in this House in view of what the Minister has fairly said, although we do not agree with it, about the Secretary of State's ultimate power of veto. In moving the amendment, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I want the Minister to confirm that the Wembley authorities have as much as they can obtain at this stage and that the FMA will be encouraged to look at Wembley as a special case, work out the nuts and bolts and include it in the scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that if that is what Wembley and the FMA want, he is prepared to frank it. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at length on the amendment. I believe it only right to indicate that following the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and I and representatives of ACPO met the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to discuss a number of important matters dealt with in the Bill which have direct relevance to the police service. We are looking forward to hearing from the noble Earl nearer to Third Reading about the outcome of the consideration which has been given to the points that we put forward on that occasion.
That is particularly relevant to Wembley, because as far as I am aware no discussions have yet taken place with the Metroplitan Police on how satisfactory arrangements will be made at Wembley. That is a matter of crucial importance, because, as we all know, we shall be confronted with a situation where English nationals, if I may so describe them, will have to present FMA membership passes to get into Wembley and people coming from Scotland will not have to. There is also the question of international matches which we shall no doubt discuss later.
I hope that there will be discussions about Wembley with the Metropolitan Police well before any final determination is made. I shall not press the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, today. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is present and as this is one of the matters that we did not discuss at the Home Office two weeks ago, I am taking the opportunity to mention it now.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made a reasonable plea. I hope that my noble friend will accept it in the spirit in which he presented it. Wembley is a separate matter. It is different. That is where the FMA's expertise is necessary. The Secretary of State has powers in the Bill which I would not want to remove because certain things could happen which might make it vital that the long stop of the Secretary of State's decision with regard to the welfare of the whole nation should exist. However, I hope that my noble friend can give some indication that football, the

31
correct operation of football grounds and the membership, will all be in the mind of the Secretary of State.
I do not want to tell my noble friend which words he should use. However, I was rather sad that on the last amendment he said to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that he accepted my point but at the end of the day the FMA could, if it wanted, recommend that Wales—in that case—could be excluded because it had the power to do that. I hope that is what my amendment entitled the FMA to do. I hope that I am not being presumptuous, but my noble friend went on to say that the FMA would not do such things. He was certain that the case would be so overwhelming that that would never cross its mind. As he is the Minister answering to the House, that could give the impression that that would be the view that the Secretary of State would hold strongly.
If in answering this reasonable plea that the FMA should be the body to use its expertise to decide what should happen my noble friend could avoid using words which give the impression that the Secretary of State has made up his mind, irrespective of what the FMA says, that would be more helpful and more acceptable to the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment deserves consideration again although we touched upon it in Committee. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it. I see one or two problems with it. First, Amendment No. 3 would, as has been pointed out, enable international matches at Wembley to be excluded from the operation of the scheme. We know that for the most part international football matches do not create trouble; but, as I understand the working of the scheme, it is not particular places—we had this of course on the last amendment in relation to Wales—with which we should be so concerned as with who would be attracted to particular places if they were exempt. Hooligans in one place could easily be attracted to exempted grounds merely because they would then be free to go and make a nuisance of themselves at that ground. That point needs to be considered. Even in relation to international matches, we should bear in mind that, as I understand it, about 1,000 police officers were considered necessary to protect Wembley stadium during the England/Holland match last year. We must be careful about this, although on the face of it the proposal seems reasonable.
Amendment No. 59 seems to go very much wider than what the noble Lord has in mind with Amendment No. 3 and wider than the case that he made out for Amendment No. 59. He was anxious that the Wembley authorities should be consulted as a result of the opportunity given by Amendment No. 59; but of course that amendment would place a duty on the licensing authority to make all kinds of inquiries to obtain advice or assistance, not merely from the Wembley authorities but from all over the country. The licensing authorities will probably do that anyway. They probably could not exercise their power without doing that. Bearing in mind that
32
Amendment No. 59 goes much wider than Amendment No. 3, I should wish to hear my noble friend before we write the provision on to the face of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments take us back to the important matter of how best to deal with international matches played at Wembley, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out at the beginning of his remarks. It is an issue on which we have spent a considerable amount of time. I have made it clear that the Government regard Wembley as a special case. We entirely accept that special arrangements will be necessary to deal with foreign spectators at international matches.
It would not be appropriate to try to accommodate them within the scheme through the temporary membership arrangements which clubs will be able to apply to foreign visitors to league grounds. What we want to see happen is that the FMA should get together with Wembley authorities and the police and work out appropriate arrangements for dealing with foreign spectators at Wembley. They will wish to look at what security arrangements, if any, should be made to deal with supporters of non-English teams. As I said at Committee stage, we should remember here that most foreign supporters will have purchased their tickets at home and travelled to the match in groups.
I have argued that we need special arrangements for Wembley and I accept of course that we cannot require foreign spectators to join the national membership scheme. Nor do we think that international matches can be excluded altogether from this scheme, because international matches, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, can often be a source or focus of attention. They can call for considerable police resources to be deployed.
On licensing, we accept that the licensing authority, in its existing functions, will need to take full account of the special considerations which apply to Wembley. There is already provision for the Secretary of State, where he himself is not the licensing authority, to require such considerations as he considers necessary to be taken into account by the licensing authority.
In the circumstances, I do not consider that it is necessary or desirable to require the licensing authority to have to take into account any recommendations from a committee of the kind referred to in Amendment No. 59. There is of course nothing to prevent the licensing authority, of its own volition, seeking relevant advice, for example, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in the case of Wembley, from the Metropolitan Police.
I have emphasised today that Wembley is a special case. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be sensible to ask the FMA to consider, in consultation with the Wembley authorities and the police, how best to deal with international matches and then make recommendations to the Secretary of State. I now turn to the recommendations to the Secretary of State, and the point of my noble friend Lord

33
Harmar-Nicholls concerning the exclusion of the three Welsh clubs. There is a world of difference between a recommendation which is not a whole section of the scheme, as with the three Welsh clubs, and what we are discussing regarding recommendations for a satisfactory outcome at Wembley. I can give my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls my assurance on that. I confirm again that we envisage special arrangements for Wembley.
Amendment No. 46, to which we shall come later, provides for the scheme to make different provisions for different circumstances. It is a government amendment and is designed to make absolutely clear that the scheme can make special provision for Wembley. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that those of us who have a deep interest in these matters will read carefully what the Minister has said. I know that we are dealing with the interpretation of the words "exclusions" and "exemptions" because we were trying to exclude the Welsh situation from the scheme. Here we are trying to avoid the application of the entire scheme to a particular and unique situation.
However, I am surprised at the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was able to read into the words of my amendment far more than I had intended. The amendment says that the Secretary of State,
"may, for such purpose, obtain advice or assistance from other persons".
That does not mean that he has a duty to consult everybody. It mentions the Football Membership Authority and the licensing authority, and we remember that we had a debate on who would be the licensing authority. We are still uncertain because the authority has not been designated. We moved that the licensing authority should be the local authority within whose area the ground was situated because it already carries out some functions. However, we made no progress on that.
In this amendment we are saying that if the licensing authority—which could very well still be the FMA which will have all these powers—wishes to consult the Wembley authorities it may do so. I could not insert "Wembley" into the amendment because that would have involved too much special pleading. The licensing authority may say to the Wembley authorities, "In view of what the Minister has said and our knowledge of what football means, come and discuss the matter sensibly with us". The authority does not have to consult other people if it feels there is no purpose in doing so.
I believe that we have gained as much as we can from the Minister. I am grateful to him because I feel that he genuinely understands that Wembley needs to be treated separately. There are not merely a few dozen or a few hundred people involved; there could very well be a great many. Those of us who enjoyed the privilege yesterday, as I did, of attending the Cup Final at Wembley are conscious that it is a unique stadium with a unique atmosphere. I go to football now and again but there are people for whom
34
it as the acme of opportunity to attend football. It is quite special. I have found from discussions with the Wembley authorities—and that is the phrase I like to use—that they are most anxious and concerned about the application of the scheme to Wembley. They are anxious to find a means, without altering what the Minister has in mind for the scheme, whereby the special situation of Wembley can be taken care of. We are grateful for what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("instrument") to ("House") in line 30 and insert ("but no order under that subsection will have effect until approved by a resolution of each").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the affirmative resolution amendment and I think that the most sensible thing to do would be to take all similar amendments at the same time.
As I indicated during the Committee stage of the Bill, we have all heard arguments on the matter both in this House and, in some cases, in the House of Commons. The question is whether the Government should have to obtain the support of Parliament by means of the affirmative resolution procedure rather than by the far less stringent terms of the negative resolution procedure. Sometimes I am bound to admit that I have put the argument for the affirmative resolution, but when in Government I have used the alternative argument. Governments are inevitably enthusiastic for the negative resolution procedure and all oppositions see merit in the affirmative resolution procedure. I concede that at the outset.
However as regards this Bill we are discussing a very different matter. It is one which, as I indicated on Second Reading, is little more than an empty shell. All that will happen after the Bill becomes a statute is that there will be a Football Membership Authority which will at some stage put its proposals to the Secretary of State who may accept or reject them. Some of the matters which will be discussed between them raise points of the highest principle. It seems to me highly undesirable that one should allow the matter to be left entirely to the decision of a Minister after what will inevitably be private negotiations with the Football Membership Authority.
Let me remind the House of some of the issues which we have discussed here. For example, questions of nationality law, and in some cases questions of European law, which will be determined not by Parliament but by the Secretary of State after discussions with the Football Membership Authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will remember, I raised the matter of the young man living either in Manchester or Liverpool, who is the holder of an Irish Republic passport. He will have certain rights which are superior to those of the young man living next door who is a citizen of the United Kingdom.
We know that Ministers are prepared to agree to some form of special arrangement for holders of foreign passports but we do not know what those arrangements will be. The situation of the young man who has an Irish Republic passport is not a matter of trivial importance because, as we well know, both Manchester United and Liverpool have the support of hundreds, if not thousands, of Irish spectators at every home match. No doubt the same is true of other clubs in the Football League.
As I understand the position, the foreign passport holder, whether from the Irish Republic or from another country, if he goes to one or two, or possible three, matches in a season may be able to have some special arrangement made. If he goes to more matches than that, the club is expected to ensure that he becomes a member of the FMA scheme. Ministers have not been able to explain how the club would know on how many occasions a foreign passport holder entered their ground. Perhaps they would create some new massive bureaucracy which, as one noble Lord has pointed out, would be quite impossible for some of the smaller clubs to finance.
Quite apart from that situation, one has the position of the Scot who may go to Newcastle once a year. As has been pointed out, he can go to any football match in Scotland and he does not have to be a member of a football membership scheme. If he went to a match in England a totally different situation would arise. Before Parliament finally sanctions this very complicated scheme it would be interesting to know the position of the Scottish businessman who wants to watch Newcastle United play once a season. Does he have to be a member of the football membership scheme or does he not? If it is argued that he must be a member of a football membership scheme if he is attending a match in England, why does a French businessman not have to a member of a scheme if he only comes to this country once or twice a season and wants to enter a ground?
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and his colleagues have told us that all these matters will be earnestly considered by the Football Membership Authority. I have no doubt that that is true. However, it seems to me that on matters of principle of this kind where one is dealing with European Community law it is desirable that the matter should finally be placed before Parliament for its approval.
I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, the question of whether this is or is not a question of European Community law on 20th February (Official Report, 20/2/89, col. 468). The noble Lord chose not to deal with the issue. I very much hope that he will deal with it either today or in correspondence before Third Reading.
The issue of European law is in my view this. Can a state within the European Community discriminate against its own citizens? That is a matter which clearly falls within the competence of the European courts. It seems to me very desirable that that matter should be clarified.
We have just heard a rewarding debate on the position at Wembley Stadium, a subject upon which
36
the noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said today, as he said on the last occasion: "Let us leave it to the Football Membership Authority". The position of Wembley is of critical importance, not only as far as football is concerned but as far as public order is concerned. It is self-evidently important in relation to football because all of our major international matches are played at Wembley, such as that played yesterday, which was attended by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and myself.
There were well over 70,000 spectators and one saw only one act of spectator misbehaviour when a youth ran on to the field carrying a Union Jack. I would not have thought that that was an overwhelmingly powerful argument for the massive piece of legislation which we are now considering. Certainly there were heavy police resources involved, as there would be at any public event which large numbers of people attended. There is nothing special about football. If 70,000 people go anywhere at the same time, clearly there will be need for a large police presence.
The position at Wembley raises other issues which are related in part to the public order question. As we know, people resident in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be able to get in without being members of the scheme and young Englishmen will not. It is said that separate entrances will be provided. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, commented, if a ground like Wembley is excluded, the problem is that all the people who have been involved in acts of bad behaviour will flock there. Unhappily, the position is that at home international matches they will be able to get into Wembley with immense ease because they will buy black market tickets in the street outside. The sale of black market tickets is not a criminal offence in this country. I hope that this is a matter which will be looked into with great care by the Football Membership Authority because, if the noble Lord is right, there is likely to be more trouble at Wembley in the future than there has been in the past.
Matters of this sort are fundamental both to the scheme and to the many issues of public policy relating thereto. Therefore it seems absolutely right that Parliament should be consulted before the final scheme is approved. On that basis I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, is correct when he says that the attitude of many of us to this amendment is to some extent affected by which side of the House one happens to be sitting. That is natural and true. This is the kind of amendment that is moved in more or less the same terms to most major Bills. It is also true that the many and complex problems raised by this Bill will undoubtedly give rise to the making of a great many statutory instruments by Ministers of the Crown, whoever they may be.
I differ from the noble Lord in that I do not think that those facts point very clearly to the desirability of subjecting all of these orders, including Amendments Nos. 10, 16, 20, 22 and 23, to the affirmative procedure.

37
There is a practical problem. Some of these orders will no doubt be very important, and I do not differ from the noble Lord in that point of view. Some of them will be trivial. Some will be of largely local interest, generating great feeling within a particular club but not of any wide or general significance. The suggestion that every one should be put in the affirmative procedure and have to come before both Houses of Parliament on a Motion quite frankly appals me. The very considerable consumption of parliamentary time involved has to be taken into account. To use up that amount of time simply because there may be one or two quite important orders among a large flock of them does not seem to me to be a sensible thing to do.
Nor, when one comes to think of it, is the affirmative procedure, particularly of this House, necessarily very much more effective than the negative. It is the convention of this House that in general we do not reject affirmative resolutions carried by another place, any more than we tend to accept Prayers for the negative annulment of orders subject to that procedure. The only difference—and I grant this to the noble Lord—is that the affirmative procedure makes it certain that the order comes to this House.
There is nothing to prevent any noble Lord putting down a Prayer against any negative order that may be made and in that way securing that that particular order comes before this House for discussion. That seems a very much more convenient procedure since it means that it will be only those orders that raise a point which one of your Lordships believes is of importance which take up parliamentary time by being discussed. The negative procedure is a more selective procedure.
If, as I do, one accepts what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said as to the large number of orders likely necessarily to be made under the amendment, that is an argument for having a measure of selectivity, which the negative procedure gives. That is preferable to the necessity of solemnly tabling, briefing Ministers to move and having the right Opposition spokesman speak against every single order, regardless of whether it is one that matters in substance.
I have had some experience of these things, as has the noble Lord. As he said, I have sometimes argued in favour of the affirmative procedure when I have been in opposition and very firmly against it when I have been in government. That is a common experience of so many of us in this House. However, looking at it objectively, it seems to me that where one has a Bill under which there will be a great many orders, not all of which will be of very great general importance, and given the limitations on what this House can do in relation to statutory instruments, the case for the selectivity of the negative procedure is overwhelming. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that, although he is quite right in thinking that the affirmative resolution procedure makes no difference to this House, it makes a great deal of difference so far as concerns the other place?
38
That, at least, is what my friends in the other place constantly tell me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that may possibly be the case. However, if that is so it is a case for an amendment to that effect being moved in the House, which believes that it will benefit from it, and not for your Lordships to be so maternal towards another place as to seek to provide for it. Even if the noble Lord is right—and I have had some experience in another place and think he somewhat exaggerates—surely that is their business?
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is clear from the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised a very important matter. The whole of the scheme is unprecedented. It represents a new departure and it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity of seeing how it proceeds. In connection with this Bill there are a number of occasions—six are mentioned in the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 4 and a further occasion arises from the Government's new Clause 3, making seven in all—on which matters would have to be considered by Parliament, or Parliament at least would have to be given the opportunity to consider them in connection with the Bill.
We are concerned with the question of whether the affirmative or negative resolution procedure applies. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter but have one or two additional points to make. In relation to the negative procedure, 40 days are allowed in which an objection may be made by means of a Prayer in either House of Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Forty sitting days.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is right: 40 parliamentary days. If nothing is done within those 40 days the order comes into operation. Therefore there may be quite a long period before there is any discussion, but in the meantime the order is in operation. If nothing is done within 40 days, the opportunity lapses and the order stands.
The question of whether the negative or affirmative procedure should apply is a matter of judgment based on parliamentary experience. However, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has pointed out, before using an affirmative resolution one must be sure not only that parliamentary time is likely to be available but that it ought to be made available. Also, and this is particularly relevant to this Bill, if one insists on the affirmative procedure, before the order can take effect one risks delay in circumstances in which there ought not to be delay. In the course of the football season that could be a very serious matter.
There is another potential objection. It is somewhat technical but it is so important that I think that we ought to take note of it. If we adopt the affirmative procedure there is the danger of hybridity. As soon as hybridity rears its benign head, the opportunity for further delay and endless objection is very great indeed. One ought therefore

39
to be cautious about affirmative resolutions for those three reasons.
I wonder whether I may be greatly daring, but I should not like to be held to this point, because I want to hear what my noble friend has to say. I should have thought that it would be inappropriate to have the affirmative procedure under Clause I, to which Amendment No. 4 relates. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, in relation to Amendment No. 10 it would be negative anyway. However, under Clause 4, which relates to the national membership scheme, which is a new departure, it may well be right, subject to what my noble friend has said, to have the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can see what the scheme will be like before it commits itself.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the Government indicated that that was their position, we would withdraw all the other amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is interesting.
Lord Renton:My Lords, that is interesting. That would enable me to curtail my remarks so that we could hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say. That is perhaps the crucial situation. I merely repeat that we must be jolly careful about this matter. Leaving aside the usual prejudices for and against affirmative resolutions, according to whether we support the Government or are in opposition, I believe that this is a matter upon which we should take the Government's judgment seriously.
5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that point and say to the Minister that Parliament's judgment is something that the Government should take seriously. All that these amendments are seeking to do is to provide an opportunity for Parliament to approve or disapprove and to say whether this principle should be affirmative or negative. For the purposes of the argument, I shall assume that the Government are genuine, that they believe that they have a solution to the problem and that they will work out that solution in practice with a body of people whom they trust and who know football. That body of people—the FMA—will produce a scheme to which the Secretary of State can add, in which he can insert, from which he can delete and which he can amend or reject. Finally, a scheme will be presented to the Secretary of State and the football authorities will say, "This is how we believe Parliament wants us to exercise the authority in this Bill". The Secretary of State will say, "Yes, that is the shape". We say that, before he begins to implement the proposal he should come before Parliament to say, not that those people have been involved in the nitty gritty or in negotiations, but that all that has been done and that this is the scheme.
We shall be satisfied if the Minister can tell me, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and
40
people outside the House that there is a device—these amendments seek to produce that device—whereby, in accordance with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, he feels it reasonable for at least one opportunity to be given in some shape or form to Parliament to look at the proposal—I do not even say to "approve" or "disapprove"— rather than presenting a fait accompli. I speak kindly with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this matter. What we fear is that, when the Bill has Passed out of Parliament's hands and received Royal Assent, our opportunity to be able even to make a judgment on what the scheme means will have gone.
So much of what the Minister fairly and honourably said is to the effect that he wants to leave the matter to the FMA. Against that background, if he does not agree with what it has done, he has the sanction to change it, but Parliament does not. I am not talking about the sovereignty of the Minister, because, as other noble Lords have said, governments and oppositions change. However, as an opposition, we are entitled to say that we should have the opportunity to look at the colour of the money; in other words, we want to see what the Bill means. If there is a device other than that about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has very intelligently and sensibly talked, I should be grateful if the Minister could help us.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if there is an issue of hybridity here, as I believe we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that issue needs to be faced up to and not disposed of by taking one purely procedural course rather than another. I hope that we shall hear more about hybridity, if that is an issue, and how it will be disposed of.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am glad to have this early opportunity to spell out the Government's position on parliamentary approval in relation to the national membership scheme. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State's designation of football matches to be subject to parliamentary approval, but it does not at present do so in relation to the scheme itself. However, I am pleased to be able to make a positive response on that issue now.
The issue of parliamentary approval has been raised many times during our debates on this Bill, not only in discussion of relevant amendments but at other points as well. I recognise that it is an issue on which many Members of this House feel strongly—particularly those who have substantially more parliamentary experience than I have.
The Bill is a framework Bill. We want the football authorities to draw up the scheme subject to the Bill's framework. I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House want that too. Once the scheme has been prepared by the Football Membership Authority, it is to be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. It is at that point that the issue of further parliamentary scrutiny arises.
I am pleased to say that we accept the argument that Parliament should have another opportunity to debate what is proposed, if it wishes to do so, following the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme. We shall therefore consider an amendment that

41
would make the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Our intention is that it should be the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme, rather than the scheme itself, which would be the subject of the order, since the scheme will have been drawn up by the football authorities rather than the Secretary of State. But the scheme will, of course, be available for Parliament to consider, when the order is laid. If Parliament rejects the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme, it will reject the scheme at the same time.
I think that this offer goes a good way to meet the concerns that many noble Lords have expressed. We know also that the football authorities support the principle of parliamentary approval. I should be clear that what we have in mind is a negative resolution order, in relation to the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme, just as we propose negative resolution for the Secretary of State's designation of matches.
At the same time, I accept that, if the Secretary of State's initial approval of the scheme submitted to him is to be subject to parliamentary approval, it is logical that his approval of any replacement scheme should also be subject to parliamentary approval. I am less convinced that there is a case for parliamentary approval of modifications of the scheme—which could be very minor—or of the withdrawal of designation of the FMA, but I shall return to those aspects in a moment.
The reason why we regard negative resolution as preferable to affirmative is similar in relation to designation and to the scheme itself. If the order by which the Secretary of State designates football matches—or the order by which he approves the scheme—were to be affirmative, then my advice is that it would be likely that the order would be subject to the hybridity procedures. The Bill itself would not become hybrid but the order would. I am advised that affirmative resolution orders attract the hybridity rules but negative orders do not.
This is a point that we have looked into carefully since Committee stage. If the Secretary of State were to designate all matches between Football League clubs, still more if he were to phase the introduction of the scheme, by an affirmative order, the order would be hybrid, because league matches are just one category within the general class of all Association football matches—professional and amateur. Similarly, an order confirming the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme could be hybrid because the scheme will make different arrangements in different cases, for example, for Wembley Stadium, as we have just discussed.
I do not believe that it is in anyone's interests, certainly not football's, for these orders to become subject to the hybridity procedures. It could mean a prolonged period of uncertainty following Royal Assent. Implementation of the scheme could be delayed for a long time. If the orders are subject to negative resolution, on the other hand, Parliament will have a chance to debate them—as noble Lords wish—but the debates can follow soon after the
42
orders are laid and the period of uncertainty will therefore be short.
I say particularly that this is in the interests of football because progress is already being made in the preparation of the scheme. If the Bill gains Royal Assent before the end of July, as we hope it will, my right honourable friend hopes to designate the body to be established by the Football Association and the Football League as the Football Membership Authority at once. The football authorities have established a working party to prepare the scheme and my department is helping both with advice and with the costs of the preparation of the scheme to be submitted.
The football authorities have agreed with the Minister for Sport that they will submit the scheme for approval by 31st August. Our aim would then be to lay the order in time for debates, if Parliament wishes to have them, when both Houses return in October. This timetable for completion of the scheme could be thrown into disarray if the hybridity rules were to be invoked by an affirmative order.
I said that I was less convinced about the case for parliamentary approval in relation to agreed modifications of the scheme. My concern on this point is a practical one. If the FMA should propose a minor modification to the scheme once it is in place and the Secretary of State were happy to agree with it, is it really necessary for every such modification to be subject to a new statutory instrument? If we build in this requirement to subject every modification to parliamentary procedure we may discourage the FMA from proposing even minor improvements to the scheme in future years.
I shall consider the arguments but I do not feel able to offer any commitments on this point at this stage. I am also unconvinced of the case for making the withdrawl of designation of the FMA the subject of parliamentary approval. The effect of the amendment would be that if the body designated as the FMA wished to give up that role, perhaps because it had gone into liquidation, it could only do so following a statutory instrument. I suggest that we can go too far in making matters subject to parliamentary approval.
I have made a significant offer in accepting the principle of parliamentary approval in relation to the national membership scheme. I hope that in doing so, I have been able further to reassure noble Lords about the Government's plans fir this Bill. At the same time, I have explained why it is preferable that the orders should be negative rather than affirmative resolution. In the light of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can confirm that this is the first occasion on which this timetable has seen the light of day? Is the Minister telling the House that it is the Government's intention that when the Bill leaves this Chamber, shall we say before the end of April, for another place where there will be fierce opposition to it they will use the guillotine in order to push the Bill through

43
Committee and on the Floor of the other place, with subsequent amendments returning to this Chamber?
The noble Lord talks about agreements and understandings with a putative body that has no legal or legislative status; in other words, a working party. He says that it intends to deliver to the Minister a scheme by 31st August. The timetable includes the possibility of looking at phasing and carrying out tests. Does the noble Lord envisage that in response to our concern the Minister can casually produce this scheme dressed up as some kind of offer or concession? If so, I believe that to be an abuse of the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord has yet again misinterpreted what I said. I gave him an indicative set of dates. On any scheme or project one has to have a set of dates on which to work. That is very different from what he implies I said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not intend to press this matter today. The Government have inched a little towards us. We were asking for affirmative resolution and the noble Lord has offered us a great deal less than that. Nevertheless, he has offered us something. I do not believe in being disagreeable about every passing gift horse. I merely say—if I understood the noble Lord rightly—that I am very concerned about the timetable. He may wish to correct me at once if I am wrong, but as I understood it he is looking for an absolutely complete scheme by the end of August from an organisation which does not yet exist.
I return to one or two of the matters which, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will remember, were represented to the Government by the police service. Let me make it absolutely clear that the police service expects to be consulted about the final scheme before it receives the Secretary of State's approval. We are talking about a dangerously short timescale, if I have understood what is involved. Presumably we are also talking about discussions on the very complicated issues that arise with the Metropolitan Police so far as Wembley is concerned and with some of the Welsh police forces in relation to national matches played in Wales.
The timescale indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is alarmingly short. I am afraid I must tell him that it will cause considerable concern among the many serious-minded people who will have to try to implement an extremely complex scheme. I do not propose to say any more about the matter today. I hope very much that the noble Lord will listen to what I have said and recognise that there will be deep concern about the timescale on the part of some of those who will be involved in its implementation. I hope very much that the noble Lord and his advisers will review the matter.
Having said that, I do not propose to reply to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. As they will realise, in the context of the situation as described by the noble Lord that would be rather pointless. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Offences relating to unauthorised attendance at designated football matches]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 6. These matters deal with the vexed question of the extent to which offences will incur penalty under the national membership scheme. We object strongly to the fact that someone who offends against the scheme under certain circumstances may incur a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. We believe that to be very reprehensible.
We have discussed this matter previously. I wonder whether the Minister has had second thoughts about the offence. It is not simply a matter of committing an offence but of attempting to commit an offence. Questions arise concerning the interpretation of an offence of trying to get into a ground without a card. There is the matter of the perimeter around the ground to which the parameters of the Bill will run—it is a running parameter in this instance. Frankly, we want the Minister to justify the fact that someone who is alleged to be in the course of attempting to commit an offence under this subsection which is concerned with "entering premises" should merit a term of imprisonment. It might be the short sharp shock philosophy but in view of the overcrowded state of our prisons and the enormous burdens now placed upon the police, the judiciary and magistrates' courts, we wonder whether this is the way to deal with offenders who commit the new and extraordinary offence of failing to carry a card giving admission to a football ground.
The offence is not simply one of entering with an invalid card or attempting to commit fraud in some way; it is simply attempting to get into the ground. We believe that this is much too punitive for what we consider, if not perhaps a trivial offence, at least one that should not merit a term of imprisonment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I do not believe that the Government can have fully thought through the implications of lines 39 and 40. If an individual tries to enter a football ground whether through the turnstile or over a wall or fence and if he succeeds, clearly an offence will have been committed whether or not this amendment is agreed to. If he has stopped at the turnstile and is turned away, and becomes violent or threatens violence, or becomes verbally abusive to the extent that public disorder is likely to be provoked, then clearly he has committed an offence under existing public order Acts. There is then no need for the creation of a new offence. On the other hand, an individual may not have heard of the existence of this Act—assuming that it becomes law—or of the existence of identity cards. He tries to enter a football ground and is turned away. If he leaves quite peacefully then no harm is done. These two lines are obviously unnecessary and indeed

45
draconian. They are unnecessary and draconian if Amendment No. 6—which eliminates the possibility of a month's imprisonment—is not accepted.
The idea that someone should risk being sent to prison for a month merely for peacefully trying to get into a football match would have seemed ridiculous as recently as five years ago, let alone 10 or 20 years ago. I believe that provision for imprisonment is authoritarian and intolerable, and that Amendment No. 5 is essential.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when we fix a maximum penalty in a Bill, we do so in order to cover the worst type of case that is likely to arise, not the most typical. It is rather remarkable that we have here a scheme that will require some sanctions or penalties to make it work. The penalties that are placed at various points in the Bill are for the most part not very stringent, although there is the provision for two years. Otherwise they are very mild penalties.
We are dealing here with the person who is not authorised either entering or remaining at a football ground. He does not have one of these cards that people will have to have. I should have thought that the offence normally could be dealt with simply by a fine at the magistrates' court. However, one could have the occasional case of a persistent offender. It may be somebody who never utters a word, never even waves a fist, and offers no force whatever. He may be a big, burly fellow who simply says, "I am here." He may not even say it: he may just stand there. He does so on several different occasions. He may have been fined, and he may have paid the fine in the past. In order to stop a fellow acting in this way, to be unable to send him to prison for a period of up to one month seems unreasonable. I hope that the Government will not accept this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, big burly, men such as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and I, have started to become rather nervous at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in case we find ourselves imprisoned for one month. To be absolutely blunt, I cannot see the relevance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The fact that a large man goes to the entrance of a football ground, apparently says nothing, and thereby commits some criminal offence which could land him in prison for one month, seems a little far fetched, if the noble Lord will forgive me saying so.
What worries me about these two amendments is this. The first is a matter that I discussed at Committee stage. It is clear and obvious that people in England and Wales will know of the existence of this scheme. What is more troublesome is the problem with which a person visiting this country from abroad would be confronted if he presened himself at a football ground not knowing of the existence of this scheme. If a foreigner commits an act of theft in this country he knows, in terms of his own domestic law, that to steal other people's property is a criminal offence. But someone who visits this country from any country in the European Community—none of which has the remotest intention of bringing in a draft scheme such as this—is undoubtedly at risk of committing an offence if
46
he presents himself at a football ground, so long as these two lines in the first of these two amendments is incorporated in the Bill. He is attempting to enter the ground.
It may well be that once he has identified himself as someone who is not a British subject, the authorities will decide to take no action. But if this Bill goes through unamended, there is little doubt that he puts himself at risk of committing this offence. In my view that is entirely unnecessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is not only a question of the foreigner. The foreigner who genuinely did not understand the matter would almost certainly be gently and leniently treated by any court. The amendment goes much further. Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide that the attempt to commit the offence is not an offence under the Act.
One can easily envisage a man who persistently attempts to get into the ground without a card. He causes an infinity of trouble to the police or to the football authorities by these continued attempts. However, because the policing of the gate is effective he does not actually get in. Is it seriously suggested that simply because the man is thwarted in his attempt to get in, he should be found to have committed no offence? That seems to me contrary to all ideas either of justice or of common sense.
On the question of imprisonment, it is obvious that no court will impose— —
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does he not realise—I am sure that he does—that if the man either enters the ground or remains on the premises, he commits a criminal offence?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, yes; but this amendment deals with someone who attempts to commit an offence. He attempts to get into the ground. Because of the efficiency of the policing, perhaps he does not succeed. He may go on making those attempts day after day, week after week. Is it suggested that a man who quite deliberately tries to defy the intentions of Parliament, and in the process gives an enormous amount of trouble to those concerned with the security of the grounds should commit no offence? As I understand it, that would be the effect of accepting this amendment.
On the question of imprisonment, it is obvious that an ordinary individual offence, unless very grossly violent, would not be dealt with by any sensible bench of magistrates. However, what is to happen with the man who commits this offence regularly once a week? He may well be a man of very limited means to whom a fine therefore holds remarkably little terror. He simply attempts to get in again and again. He gives an infinity of trouble to those trying to work what everyone admits is a quite difficult system. Surely there should be a reserve power in the courts so that they can say, "You have gone on deliberately defying the law and deliberately trying to get in. A short term of imprisonment is the only sentence that we can impose on you." My only surprise is the same kind of surprise——
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, may I— —
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord be patient for a moment? My only surprise, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, is that the maximum sentence is so moderate. One month is not, in many ways, a very sensible sentence to impose. Its shortness is perhaps a factor against its deterrent effect. But the general principle that in an extreme case a persistent offender could be sent to prison is an important part of the Bill. Now I shall certainly give way.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform me, as I am ignorant about these things, whether it is a criminal offence to try to get into a cinema without a ticket? If not, does the noble Lord suggest that it should become one?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we are not legislating for cinemas— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Do not put the idea into their heads, my Lords!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham says, do not let us put the idea into people's heads. We are not legislating for the cinema and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that question is about as irrelevant as it could be.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the point brought out in the debate on this amendment shows that the Government have it about right. Noble Lords may laugh, but I think that that is so. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made the point that a month in prison was too much; it was wrong, penal and ought not to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that there was no need for it at all because under one of the public order Acts the problem could be dealt with—it ought not to be put in.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was saying that certain circumstances may happen which would mean that a month would not be sufficient to face up to the damage that this persistent offender was doing. But we know exactly what happens, particularly those of us who have sat as magistrates for a number of years. The persistent offender who bothers my noble friend would probably not be charged under this Bill at all. He would be charged under one of the public order Acts where there is power to give more than a month's imprisonment and to make him face up to the circumstances. As regards the month's imprisonment that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, found too much, although it is in the Bill as a maximum there is no suggestion that everybody who attempts to get in will have to be sent to prison for a month. We know that all the circumstances will be taken into account. To begin with people may not be charged at all. Somebody will have to bring on the charge.
If it is as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seems to be describing, then the charge would not
48
be brought. If it were over the mark and needed to be dealt with then, as my noble friend said, the magistrates are perfectly capable, up to the maximum, of letting the punishment fit the crime as all the circumstances show themselves.
If one listens to all those arguments and puts them together it looks as though the Government have this matter about right and they ought to stand firm on the words in their Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord I think that the Government have it all wrong. Indeed the more one listens to the debate about the Bill the more one's mind boggles at the effects that it will have. Here we are discussing a part of the Bill which enables the courts to send to prison for a month any person who attempts to get into a football match. Where on earth are we going? This is supposed to be a democracy and yet here we are saying to a person who attempts to get into a football match that he can be fined on level 3, which I believe is £1,000, and, secondly, in other circumstances or perhaps under the same circumstances he can be sent to prison. We are reaching the stage where there may be some dubiety about whether this is a truly free country.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the one month prison sentence is only a reserve power. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that the one month's prison sentence is a reserve power. The Bill does not say that at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in most of our penal statutes a maximum penalty is laid down? Nowhere in them, as far as I know, is it stated that this is a reserve power because they are enacted, as this will be enacted, on the basis that our courts of law are sensible and experienced and will only impose the maximum penalty in offences of the maximum gravity.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has great confidence in our courts, as I believe we all have. But when we are discussing a Bill we ought to be precise. I have been told on several occasions that we must be precise in legislation. The Bill does not say that the magistrates, as a reserve power, may send a person to gaol for one month. The magistrates could send a person to gaol on the first offence if they felt so inclined. The noble Lord must agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, introduced another red herring into the debate, which was that the courts must have at their disposal the opportunity to send somebody to prison in case the person does not pay his fine. But that is a red herring, because the courts already have the power— —
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: But, my Lords— —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, let me finish my point. The courts already have the power to send people to prison if they do not pay their fines. Therefore as I said that is a plain red herring. It is not necessary to have in the Bill the penalty of one month's imprisonment just in case somebody does

49
not pay his fine. Magistrates are already able to send people to prison if they do not pay their fines.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:My Lords, will the noble Lord do me the favour of reading Hansard tomorrow, in which case he will realise that he is attributing a statement to me which I did not make and in the process he is wasting the time of the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry if I attributed a statement to him that he did not make, but I understood the noble Lord to say that. I shall certainly read Hansard and I apologise in advance if he did not say that. The fact is that these provisions are going over the top. My noble friend is quite right to put this amendment down. I can only hope that he will press the amendment and test the feelings of the House. If he does so I hope that Members of this House will realise just how over the top the Bill is going and that they will accept the amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I believe that the Government need to look again at subsection (1). The last two lines deal with attempting to commit an offence. I do not know why it is necessary to refer to that in the subsection, because I understand that attempting to commit an offence is itself an offence under the general law and should not presumably have to be specifically mentioned in statute.
Quite apart from that we have the curious position that the substantive offence is twofold, but the attempt referred to is only one fold. Thus the offence is of entering premises on the one hand or remaining on the premises on the other hand, but the attempt referred to at the end refers only to the attempt of entering the premises.
Let us suppose that a carpenter goes into the football ground to carry out repairs at a time when he is perfectly entitled to do so. He is not an authorised person, but he does not have to be because he is the carpenter. As the time of the match approaches, he keenly wants to stay to watch. He is not an authorised person but he attempts to remain on the ground in order to watch the match. He does not succeed in his attempts because the police are sent for and he is turned out. However, he has made an absolute nuisance of himself.
What will happen to him when he comes before the magistrates? Will he be convicted under the general law of attempting to commit an offence, or will he be acquitted under the subsection on the argument, "I did not attempt to enter; I attempted only to remain"? The subsection provides only for attempting to enter but not attempting to remain. For the benefit of the magistrates who must deal with such a situation perhaps the Government will look again at the subsection to see whether it needs to be amended.
Lord Knights: My Lords, the Bill is designed to keep hooligans out of football grounds. That must be achieved with as little interference to innocent supporters as possible. It is unlikely that in practice this specific offence—being in a football ground
50
without permission—will be committed on its own. Generally it will be discovered because the offender has committed another offence which brings him to the notice of the police. I do not believe that many people will be picked up for not carrying their card. If the offence comes to light as a result of some other offence having been committed (which I believe will be the case) the substantive penalty can be applied in respect of the more serious offence.
On the other hand, there must be a sanction to deal with the person offending against the law. But I do not believe that imprisonment is necessarily the appropriate sanction in this case. I believe that the more serious offence which would carry imprisonment is more likely to be that with which he is charged.
What about an attempt to enter the ground? If someone mistakenly or innocently, being unaware of the law, presents himself at the gate and is told that he cannot enter, then technically he has committed an offence. However, it is most unlikely that any police officer would seek to take him before the courts. For that reason, if for no other it would be a pity to place that offence on the statute book. I believe that the conduct is far too simple to require the criminal law to force it into existence.
I believe that there would be a simple offence of being found within the ground without authority; but in practice a fine is all that is required to deal with it, if it must be dealt with at all.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for having tabled the amendment even if for only one reason. It appears to have propelled your Lordships' imagination into overdrive concerning a fairly modest amendment. At one moment we heard the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, say that people would be put into prison for being in a cinema without a ticket. That is about as extreme an example of imagination as one can get. At another moment we heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saying that those attempting to enter a football ground will have a short sharp shock of a month's imprisonment. In between we have heard a variety of examples, including the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who always succeeds in putting forward matters of great finesse.
I should like to deal with Lord Airedale's point first. He said that he believed to be unnecessary the words in the latter part of the subsection which are:
"and so does a person who attempts to commit an offence under this subsection of entering premises".
That is because the provision is covered by the original offence in the first part of the clause. My advice is that the inclusion of a specific reference to "attempts" is necessary in order to attract the provisions of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 because the offence in Clause 2(1) is only summary. In other words, it is triable only in the magistrates' courts. Therefore, on this occasion the noble Lord is wrong and that part is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, then said, "Yes, but the offence is only one of entering tine premises and not remaining there". So far as my imagination

51
can go, I see that one can attempt to enter the premises but not succeed. The fact that one is attempting is the cause of an offence. If one is on the premises and attempts to remain there, one is remaining on the premises and I do not believe that the additional word is necessary.
However, if the noble Lord wishes the Bill to be strengthened in that way, I am happy to look again at the drafting to see whether it would be more appropriate. However, I believe that the noble Lord will find it to be unnecessary and I have a funny feeling that noble Lords will not wish to see the Bill made stronger in this case.
In this part of the Bill we are trying to state what should happen to someone who is not an authorised spectator and who enters, or tries to enter, a designated match. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that it is an offence to remain on the premises, and he appears to believe that that is wrong. Of course it is a criminal offence to stay on the premises because, if it is not, one can permit anyone to enter the grounds, stay there and not commit a criminal offence. The whole basis of the argument must be that it is a criminal offence.
My noble friend Lord Hesketh previously pointed out that it is not good enough to limit the offence in Clause 2(1) to actual entry. There must also be a satisfactory response by the courts for someone caught deliberately trying to cheat the system; for example, by using stolen cards. The noble Lord, Lord Monson. Said— —
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way. Does he realise that in such a situation the man concerned will have committed the offence of stealing a card, and that would be an act of theft? That would be the offence for which he would appear in court.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is very good at making several speeches on Report. I was giving that merely as an example— —
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, — —
Earl Ferrers:My Lords, if the noble Lord now insists on making interventions from a sedentary position, which is even worse than from a standing position, we shall not get very far.
To continue, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in saying that it would be intolerable to see a person who was peacefully trying to enter a football match sentenced to a month's imprisonment. There is no intention of that occurring. There is no intention to catch the innocent, would be spectator or even—dare I mention the noble Lord, Lord Harris, again—the foreigner who is unaware of the requirement to hold a card. If he misses the publicity about the scheme and the notices near the turnstile he will be advised by the turnstile operator that he cannot be allowed in. Providing that he accepts the ruling he will commit no offence.
My noble friend Lord Renton made a speech with which I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he saw no relevance in my noble friend's speech.
52
I saw a great deal of relevance because my noble friend was saying that there is a distinction between the maximum sentence provided for in the Bill in order to deal adequately with the worst of the most persistent offenders and the particular sentence which a court will pass in the light of all the circumstances of an individual case. Very often that sentence will be far less severe than the former. It is the Government's view that imprisonment of up to one month is necessary if the circumstances should warrant that. The only reason that we put in that provision is in order to catch the person who deliberately and consistently goes out to cheat. It is up to the court to decide whether or not to impose that sentence or a lesser one.
The other point to which I should like to refer is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. I am sorry, I should have referred to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I beg his pardon. That is a terrible mistake.
A noble Lord A noble Lord: He is a nice man.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, so is the other one. Both are most agreeable. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the Level 3 fine was £1,000. It is not; it is only £400.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on a point of clarification— —
Noble Lords Noble Lords, Order, order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich:My Lords, with great respect, under the Standing Orders of the House I am entitled to ask, without the consent of the House, a question on a point of clarification. I ask the noble Earl whether he will be kind enough to answer the question which I put to him relating to the stolen card. If he cannot do that today I understand the position and no doubt he will deal with the matter in correspondence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quite rightly always likes me to reply to a question to which I have not replied. I thought that the answer was fairly obvious although I did not actually reply. If one steals a person's card one is guilty of theft. I do not invite the noble Lord to rise again, but he merely makes a wagging dissent with his face, by which I assume he means that he does not agree or does not understand. If a person steals somebody else's card, that person is guilty of theft in the same way as if he steals any other piece of property.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was not wagging my face in any direction. The noble Earl has given as an answer the question that I put to him. If he bothers to look at Hansard tomorrow he will realise that his rather uncharacteristic bluster was not justified.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I make this intervention and I do so not as a Government Minister but merely one who is acting as Leader of your Lordships' House. We are going very far awry from the

53
procedures of your Lordships' House. We should only speak once. It is fine to ask a question on a point of clarification but sometimes noble Lords of all hues and varieties get up and say, "Before the noble Lord sits down", and then proceed to make another speech. Perhaps it would be better to try to keep closer to the rules of procedure.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before I decide what to do with this amendment, there are some points which need to be made. In this House we have people of great authority and experience like the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who brings to this House his experience as a senior policeman, whom we all respect both on his record and for his judgment on these matters. He advises the House that a term of imprisonment is not appropriate in the circumstances. However, the Government have made no reference to that point. I believe that I am entitled to draw that to the attention of those noble Lords behind the Minister who are looking for guidance on these matters from people with experience of them.
I believe that the Government have got this wrong because the Minister referred—and he echoed the words of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter—to a "persistent offender". There is no mention of the word "persistent" here. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that there does not need to be, but there then arises a point of interpretation. If the noble Lord tells us that every police force and every police officer in charge of a match will interpret this matter in the same way throughout the country or that magistrates' courts in 10 different parts of the country faced with a charge drawn in the same way will not impose three or four different sentences then we should be on safer ground. However, we know from experience that there is a great disparity in the way in which magistrates interpret their powers.
We are talking not about football fans but, in the words of the Minister, about authorised spectators. There is a new jargon which has been foisted on the British public and a new procedure which the British football fan (unlike any other football fan in the world) will have to go through; namely, he must have a card in order to gain entry. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew attention to a foreigner who may not understand the system. What about a person who lives in Scotland— —
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, they are foreigners.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord said and perhaps the Hansard writer also heard that. We are told that the situation is not dealt with in which someone comes down from Scotland, knows about the scheme, is not involved in it and attempts to gain entry innocently. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave a fair flavour of the matter when he said that if a person hangs around outside the football ground after allegedly attempting to get in, he will commit the offence. That is terrible. The ground which I know best is that of Tottenham Hotspur and nearby is the High Road. Apart from the person who may deliberately try to gain entry,
54
this provision may also catch hundreds and thousands of innocent people. Clause 2(3) states:
"A constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence … may arrest him without a warrant".
It will be up to the individual policeman, experienced or not and harrassed or not, to take a decision about a group of people of which he takes a dim view, some of whom may be guilty of the offence, others of whom may not be guilty. I find it terribly sad that a Bill which starts off by attempting to catch one in 10,000 spectators inside the ground is likely to be used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. When I talk about nuts I do not wish to be disparaging to the Government but this is a crackpot scheme and this is one aspect of it which the Government will realise, on reflection, does not bring them any credit.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Knights, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrovel,L

Monson, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rugby, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Falkender, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkland, V.

Simon, V.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Allerton, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Beloff, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

55

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cawley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Croft, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Daventry, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Newall, L.

Dormer, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pym, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Richardson, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodney, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harvington, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joseph, L.

Trafford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Keyes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lay ton, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 [National membership scheme: the administrator etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 11. The reason I do so is because Amendment No. 11 has been marshalled in the wrong place. In the proper order, it comes before Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 because amendments to leave out a clause come after amendments to a clause.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("or a period of three years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes a three-year period of appointment for members of the FMA. We believe it reasonable to specify a limit to the period for which members serve on this body. As far as we are aware, most
56
bodies appointed to fulfil this type of function have had indicated in the appropriate legislation the period for which members can serve on the body concerned.
We see no reason why the Government should not look with favour on this amendment. We believe it would give an opportunity for movement and for people with a variety of experience to be brought in as the term of office of appointees expires. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, makes more or less the same point as was made in Committee by his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Its effect, if accepted, would be to limit the appointment of the Football Membership Authority to a three-year period.
I said during the Committee debate that we do not see that limiting the term of office of the FMA to three years would serve any useful purpose. If the initial appointment of the authority is working well why should we bring it to an arbitrary end after three years? If the need should arise for the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of the FMA, either at his instance or because the body concerned wishes that to be the case, the Bill already provides for that to happen.
I hope I have already made it clear that the Government wish the football authorities to set up and run the FMA. It is also our hope that once the Secretary of State has made his designation there will be no need for this to be withdrawn at a later stage. However, if that should be necessary the Bill already seems to provide for all the likely circumstances. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister' response in some respects, but he does not make the right premise when arguing his case. He said that if the body is working well it should be left alone. However, our experience of this Government is that appointees to other boards—health boards, Manpower Commission boards, and a variety of other boards—who have been doing well have been removed for no apparent reason other than that their colour no longer matches the political colour of the Government. I wish to make that point on the basis that I cannot accept as valid the Minister's reason for not viewing this amendment more favourably, nor his view that we should leave things alone when they appear to be working well.
Whoever the Secretary of State appoints to the FMA, he may decide to appoint on a national basis people who are associated with supporters' clubs. He cannot do it on a local basis. I understand that to some degree most supporters' clubs hold ballots. In the big clubs the chairman and the secretary are very important people carrying out an important function. In lining up the members of the FMA and in order to make the scheme more acceptable, the Secretary of State may say, "We shall have Mr. So and So from area A and Mr. So and So from area B" He may recruit them on a geographical basis in order to gain the necessary support. But what

57
happens if a member is removed from his job locally? There was an example last week at Brighton when an official of a supporters' club was dismissed. It was in the dying moments of the game. The ball was kicked out and the official of the Brighton Supporters' Club headed the ball further back in order to gain time. Immediately a complaint was made. Brighton sacked the official because he had interfered with the play.
What will be the position of a person so affected and who had been appointed to the board of the FMA? Is he appointed as a representative of the people who balloted for him or is he there on his own behalf? It is not a bad thing to consider a fixed term of office that may be renewed after three years. I do not believe it is right to say that a person should be appointed for an indefinite period in order to see how the situation develops. I ask the Minister whether he would care to reconsider the matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has raised. He hinted that if something is working well why not leave it alone. The questions that he raised are covered in Clause 3(2) and 3(3).
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not happy with what the Minister has said. We are not moving as fast as we should like and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
("The Football Membership Authority.
—

(1) There shall be a body responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme which shall be designated for the purpose by the Secretary of State under the name (and herein referred to as) "the Football Membership Authority".

(2) The Secretary of State may designate as the Football Membership Authority any body corporate formed for the purpose by the Football Association and the Football League or any body corporate formed by any other persons or, for the purpose, on his behalf.

(3) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body under this section, whether at the instance of the body or at his own instance.

(4)The functions of a body as the Football Membership Authority shall be assumed or, on withdrawal of its designation, divested on the date specified by the Secretary of State when making or withdrawing the designation but subject to subsection (5) below and without prejudice to its duty under subsection (6) below.

(5) No date other than 1st June in any year shall be specified under subsection(4) above as the date on which functions are to be assumed or withdrawn, but this does not apply—

(a)to the initial designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, or

(b)where the Secretary of State withdraws the designation of a body on the ground that the body has failed to discharge its duties as the Football Membership Authority or is being wound up or that a receiver or manager of its property has been appointed.

(6) It shall be the duty of the Football Membership Authority to make to the Secretary of State a report on the discharge of its functions during each period of twelve months beginning
58
with 1st June in any year and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.

(7) Where a body assumes or is divested of its functions as the Football Membership Authority on a date other than 1st June subsection (6) above shall have effect as if it required a report to be made for such period as the Secretary of State directs.

(8) On the withdrawal of the designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, the scheme shall cease to have effect but the Secretary of State may, by order, provide for the transfer of the body's property rights and liabilities under the scheme to its successor as the Football Membership Authority on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Secretary of State.

(9) The power to make an order under subsection (8) above is exercisable by statutory instrument.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House, if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 42, 58 and 81. I shall be moving those which appear in my name, but shall not be supporting those tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris. The Government amendments follow a debate which we had in Committee on the naming of the body that would run the scheme. I assured the Chamber then that there was nothing mysterious or sinister about the term used in the Bill as introduced, referring to the "administrator" of the scheme. But I also said that we were keen to dispel all doubts about our intentions in this respect and that we would bring forward our own amendments at Report to refer to the Football Membership Authority on the face of the Bill. This is the main effect of the new Clause 3 and the amendments consequential upon it.
I hope that these amendments will remove any doubts which noble Lords or others may have had about the Government's intentions. If your Lordships approve them, the Bill will refer specifically to the Football Membership Authority. It has always been our hope that the football authorities would set up and run the Football Membership Authority (in consultation with the Secretary of State). Clause 3 now refers to the Football Association and the Football League by name. A later government amendment which we will come to shortly, would require the FMA to consult the FA and the League in drawing up the scheme, also in line with an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage.
I referred earlier today to the working party set up by the football authorities to prepare a scheme for submission to the Secretary of State. The working party met last week and an official from my department attended the meeting, as had been agreed. I understand that the meeting went well and my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has welcomed the assurances which he has received from the League and the FA that they will press on with the preparation of the scheme.
These amendments carry through another offer which I made in Committee, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to respond positively to the idea of requiring the FMA to prepare an annual report for submission to Parliament. The new Clause 3(6) requires the FMA to make an annual report to the Secretary of State and requires him to lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament. As the

59
noble Lord said, this is an important matter. It is right that the authority should make formal annual reports and that they should be presented to Parliament. I am glad to have been able to meet the noble Lord's concern on this point. The new version of Clause 3 also recognises that the FMA will be a corporate body. I hope it will reassure the noble Lords to see the words spelled out in the Bill. The clause does not specify the number of members of the authority, though the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris, have tabled amendments on this aspect, on the chairmanship and on the tenure of office of members of the FMA. We have considered the points which the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris, made in Committee on these matters.
There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, precedents for referring specifically to the number of members a body is to have. But I think that the noble Lord will find that those precedents relate to public bodies. The FMA will be a designated body but it will not be a public body like, for example, the proposed National Rivers Authority or English Heritage, under the Bill as presently drafted. We envisage that the body designated by the Secretary of State to be the FMA will be set up and run by the FA and the League. It would not be desirable or appropriate for the Secretary of State to impose the number of members that body should have, nor to lay down rules about the tenure of office of its members. In other respects, the new version of Clause 3 is substantially the same as the version in the Bill as published.
The Opposition have also proposed two other amendments to the Government's new Clause 3. The first would require the FMA to consult the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs in drawing up the scheme. This issue was raised in Committee and I said then that I hoped that the football authorities would consult the football supporters' bodies about the scheme, as my honourable friend the Minister for Sport had consulted them about the Government's proposals shortly before Christmas. I did not think that it was necessary to spell this out in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, accepted my point. I hope that he will feel able to do so again now.
The football authorities have never hesitated to make their views known on the principle of the national membership scheme. The positions of the football authorities and the Government are familiar. But, within these parameters, the football authorities want to run the scheme if there is to be one. My honourable friend has confirmed that they will have first refusal for designation by the Secretary of State. The Government's amendments will, I hope, remove any doubt about our commitment to this approach. They carry through the promises to consider points made in Committee. I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their own. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Grahamof Edmonton Lord Grahamof Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
Line 8, after ("League") insert ("in consultation with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I very much appreciate the sense of what the Minister has said. He has fairly sought in part to write on the face of the Bill a number of undertakings or, shall I say, parliamentary noises, that he made at the previous stage of the Bill, but without commitment. I wish to begin on a constructive note. We know far more about the Government's ideas of how the membership scheme will be structured than we did at an earlier stage. I am very grateful to the Minister for that.
I want to speak directly to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 81, which hang together as well. Amendment No. 8 is a passionate plea for the Government to do more than simply make noises about their understanding that the FMA will consult supporters. Does the Minister realise that the body of people affected most by the Bill are the supporters? Is he aware that 70,000 people were at Wembley yesterday? Several Members of the House were there too. A great many administrators and others involved in football were there. However, the group most affected by the provisions of the Bill is the spectators.
What does the amendment ask the Government to take on board. We say that the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs are entitled by right and by status to a place at the top table. Once the Bill becomes an Act the top table will be the FMA. I hope that the Football League and the Football Association will not think it too much to ask to have among the members of the FMA some places clearly marked for the representatives of the supporters.
That is not too much to ask. I understood what the Minister said on a previous occasion about his hopes. Supporters will not live by hopes. The Minister may believe that the FMA will be sympathetic to consultations. The supporters do not want to be consulted. They want to be part of the action. Anyone who understands football will know that the spectators are incensed by the application of the scheme. At Northampton Town the supporters club and the club itself have been busy on this matter. A petition, signed by 1,293 supporters, was presented by the club to Michael Morris, the local Member of Parliament. His nearby parliamentary colleague, Mr.Tony Marlow, hopes that the Government can be persuaded to drop the Bill. I am not in the business of asking the Government to drop the Bill. I ask the Government to recognise that unless the fans and their organisations feel that they are part of the action their bitterness about their views being ignored will grow.
What are they asking for? We have laid down a formula for membership of the FMA. Certainly the dominant partners will be the Football Association and the Football League. They carry the clout, the muscle and the influence. We say that the authority

61
should not be peopled only by the Football League and the Football Association. We want some independent people. We believe that there should be an independent chairman. We realise that very often in this House noises are made to the effect that it is too late, even though the Bill is still here. If the Minister were to say that he is prepared to consider the sense of what we want, which is an involvement for the fans in the scheme, I would not press the matter to a vote, as there is a long stage to go through in another place. However, if the Minister says that all he can offer to the fans is sympathy, hope and expectation, that will not be good for the Bill. It would not be acceptable to me. We acknowledge the wisdom of the Government in fleshing out the FMA as far as they were able to do, but there is a long way to go before we shall be satisfied with the composition of the FMA, which will have all the pseudo powers referred to by the Minister.
We want to ensure that sitting around a room, with a vote and with an entitlement to influence its decisions, will be representatives of the supporters clubs. We want them to feel a part of it even though they may never win a vote. They will not be there by proxy. The fans will be entitled to a seat at the top table. The Football Supporters Association has been enormously active in this matter. Members of another place will receive details of organised and uniform protests. Fans will be writing to their Members of Parliament to ask them not to support the Bill. I am not arguing against the Bill now. I am arguing for democracy, entitlement and representation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my interpretation of new Clause 3 correct? Subsection (1) says that there shall be a Football Membership Authority. Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State may appoint whom he likes. Subsection (3) says that he may sack whom he likes. Subsection (5) says that he can do so only on 1st June. Subsection (6) says that he can vary the matter a little. Subsection (7) does the same. Subsection (8) says that if he does not like the FMA he can create another one by Order in Council. That is how I read the Bill. It is perfectly possible that I am wrong. It seems to be a fairly silly clause.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister in charge of the Bill has constantly reiterated the point that the Bill has been brought forward for the sake of football. Football is an abstraction. The people who play football and the people who go to football matches are not an abstraction. They are real. If the Government are sincere in their objective to help football, they will have to go beyong the Football League and the Football Assciation in setting up an authority to run the scheme. The Football League and the Football Association may run the game but they do not run the hundreds of thousands of supporters who attend games every week. If the Government are concerned, as they say they are, about the safety of those supporters, which I understand is the principal objective of the Bill, those supporters themselves should be asked about the way in which the scheme is to be run.
62
Subsection (2) says:
"any body corporate formed for the purpose by the Football Association and the Football League or any body corporate formed by any other persons".
If the Minister had inserted "and" instead of "or", it would have been open to the Secretary of State to have included the kind of organisations which my noble friend Lord Graham has mentioned. There are others. My noble friend has mentioned the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. I support the noble Lord completely on that aspect. As he said, there may well be other organisations, formed by football supporters; that is, by the people who pay at the turnstiles, and who will be directly and personally affected by the scheme of football membership cards. Surely that incluson is in the Government's interest, and in the interests of making the scheme work—if it ever can work, although I very much doubt it.
However, taking the matter from the Government's point of view, if they really want the scheme to work, then it must be seen to be working in association with the people whom it affects. They are not the people in the executive boxes, or those in the directors' boxes. Indeed, although I have in Committee given a welcome to the efforts which have been made by most clubs in this country to stamp out hooliganism, there are many of us who are regular football supporters—and have been for many years—who feel that there is far too much money running the game, and that the game has been run too much as a business. Indeed, the supporters frequently feel that way.
I ask the Minister to address himself to the issue of whether he and the Government do not wish to associate with their scheme the people who it will affect quite directly; namely, the hundreds of thousands of fans, however they are organised, who should be included in the Football Membership Authority so as to represent those who wall be directly affected by what is proposed. In that way, the authorities can obtain advice of such people, and their views, and have them associated with what is proposed to be done on their behalf.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the answer to that question is quite straightforward. There are many matters upon which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and myself disagree; but there are, however, some upon which we have agreed. One of those is that it has always been the Government's intention to have football running football. Perhaps I may use Lord Graham's, analogy of the top table. We propose that there will be a top table at which the two hosts will be the FA and the Football League. If they feel that it will be an addition to the formation of the FMA to have people representing various other bodies in football, then it would be up to them to ask such people to become involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, also feels the same way as Lord Graham of Edmonton, on the matter. However, he then departed into more fertile, philosophical country regarding the state of play and how much money there was in football. He also went into the philosophy of the whole game. I do not

63
feel that I have the remit—nor, indeed, do the amendments cover that issue—to go into the matter at great depth.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me whether I thought the clause was a silly one. I do not think that the clause is silly. One of the main purposes of it is to incorporate improvements which were brought to the attention of this Chamber in Committee by such noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and as he referred to what I said, will he address himself to these two facts? First, it is the football supporters who keep the game alive; indeed, it is their attendance money which keeps the game alive. Secondly, is it not the case— —
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Lord address himself to this issue before he sits down— —
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow: He has sat down!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: — —will the noble Lord address himself to the issue of the inclusion of representatives of the supporters about whom—I should imagine from what he has said previously—he is most concerned regarding hooliganism, and who will be personally affected by the introduction of the membership card?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall try to be brief in what I say. However, in his response the Minister referred to the FA and the Football League forming the top table. I think he went on to say that they could consider whether they would want to co-opt people from other organisations and then the Government would consider the matter. I should have thought that the Government, having considered the matter, could give a positive view upon it now.
I say that because when the last piece of legislation concerning the game of soccer was passing through your Lordships' House—I think it was the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill—I visited a number of grounds, including those of Leeds United, Manchester City and Manchester United. It came to pass that I was told quite forcefully by some of the VIPs concerned with the behaviour of spectators and crowd control—who were in fact members of their own supporters clubs and senior people within those organisations—that when particular clubs were playing other clubs, where it was known that friction would take place, meetings were usually convened with the senior policemen involved with security at the home ground and the police from the visiting club's area. I should point out here that the friction has diminished quite considerably.
However, very often, in order to ensure that what was taking place got total support, people—that is,
64
the representatives of both clubs involved—were brought in on an objective basis. There is no questioning the fact that it was an immense bonus to the police and the other people involved in controlling crowd behaviour at those games. Therefore I think it would be an immense bonus for the Government, if they want to see this Bill passed successfully, if they indicate—not just hope that it may come to pass—that at all levels the people involved with the game will be able to participate and take responsibility in the matter.
Indeed, they have proved in the past that they can function and apply those qualities to the good of the game. It has been proved to be so before, and I am quite sure that it will prove so again. I hope that the Minister will at least think about the matter, even if he does not wish to give an indication today. However, I do not think that he should just sit back on the basis of what he has already said and hope that that is the best way out, because I do not honestly believe that it is.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has disappointed me because what I was looking for was not only a place at the top table, but also dignity and respect for football spectators. However, soft words butter no parsnips. I understand that that is a well-known phrase. It is no good the Minister, and his colleagues, saying that they recognise the value of spectators and supporters, that they believe the hosts are entitled to be free to choose and that they hope that they will invite spectators to become involved. I believe that the Minister has been less than fair to the people whose money goes into the game of football. Indeed, it is not just their money; it is their partisanship in, and their passion for, football which makes the game of football work. Moreover, without the spectator, without the fan and without the organisation there would be no game. Indeed, there is not a football club in the land which is not grateful for the involvement of the spectators and fans in its locality.
I am not talking about making policy and I am not talking about telling the football clubs what to do. However, there are many ways in which they can be involved. All I am saying is that here is an opportunity to recognise the raison d'être of the spectators and of the supporters. Indeed, they spend a lot of money and a lot of time, and they are used—and I mean "used"—by football to carry that industry on their backs. That is the reality of the matter. These amendments have been given to me by the supporters associations, and I believe that they are very worthy.
I am well aware of the political reality and the parliamentary arithmetic which clearly indicate that when I press these matters to a vote, as I intend to, they will not be carried. I believe that the supporters clubs deserve to know that there are some Members of this House who are prepared to create a place for them at the top table, and that there are other Members, including the Government, who believe that that issue should be left to charity and chance. In my view it is not good enough and therefore I must test the opinion of the House.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, 1.

Hylton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Blyth, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knights, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Dilhorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Munster, E.

Dundee, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pym, L.

Harvington, L.

Rees, L.

Henderson of Brampton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hesketh, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hives, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holderness, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

66

Shannon, E.

Trafford, L.

Sharpies, B.

Tranmire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sudeley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Swinfen, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Teynham, L.

Wynford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved, as amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 9:
Line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) The Football Membership Authority shall consist of a chairman (who shall be an independent person, that is to say a person having no involvement in the ownership or management of any premises at which football matches are played, and appointed as such by the Secretary of State) and not less than six ordinary members who shall hold office under the terms and conditions laid down in Schedule (The Football Membership Authority) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it always gives me great pleasure to see the Government Chief Whip sitting on the Opposition Benches. It is no doubt an augury of happier things to come. In moving the amendment, I have one relatively simple question to ask. My information is that the football authorities would be content to have an outside chairman. If that can be confirmed, will the Government accept the proposal? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is better informed than I am on this matter. I shall have to correspond with him. I believe that I can now say that the answer is yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. As I said, I asked the representatives of the football authorities whether that was their position. I was told by them that it was. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I do not want to argue the merits of the case. It seems to me for a number of reasons, not least the position of the appeals tribunal, highly desirable that someone from outside football should be the chairman of that organisation. If that is confirmed to be the position of the football authorities, I rejoice to hear that the Government would not try to block the proposal. With that assurance from the noble Lord, unless— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am in a mood to seize the opportunity. Perhaps the Minister is saying that the authorities may indicate that they would be satified with having an independent chairman. The amendment mentions independent members as well. Can the Minister also assure the House that if it is the view of the FA and the league that they would be content with some injection of independent members he would give the same reply?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think I am correct in stating that I said that earlier when speaking to the original amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to— —
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, let us be quite clear. I am the mover of the amendment and I have a right to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, intervened after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Under the Standing Orders of the House, I am entitled to reply to the debate and I have every intention of doing so.
All I wish to say to the noble Lord is that again I am very glad to hear what he said. It entirely meets my point. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Clause 4 [National membership scheme: making, approval, modification etc.]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 22, leave out from first ("The") to ("shall") in line 23 and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("his appointment") and insert ("its designation takes effect,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment also. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A) The Football Membership Authority shall, before exercising any of its functions under this section, consult the Football Association and the Football League.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to require the Football Membership Authority to consult the FA and the league in drawing up, modifying or replacing the scheme in line with the undertaking that I gave during the Committee stage of the Bill.
I have explained that it has always been our hope that the FA and the league would set up and run the FMA. I have been able to tell your Lordships today that everything is on course for that to happen. In the unlikely event that they are not appointed to run the FMA or that they cease to run it in the future, this amendment would require the new body designated as the FMA to consult the football authorities in drawing up or modifying the scheme or when replacing it. The Government accept completely the need for the football authorities to be fully consulted at such times. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help the House. If the league and the association accept the responsibility and become the FMA, can he give an indication of the circumstances under which they would be
68
deprived of that right and authority? What are the kinds of things they might do wrong? I hope that it is not simply to displease the Government. What are the defects or crimes that they might commit in order to have their sovereignty of the FMA taken away from them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I gave an example of this earlier this afternoon on a previous amendment. It was where, for instance, the FMA went into liquidation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that that is his one illustration? In other words they have the right virtually in perpetuity, except for that illustration.
Lord Hesketh: No. My Lords, there is also the possibility that the Football League and the FMA might decide that they did not want to run the scheme.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No.15:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh Moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("administrator of the scheme") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Clause 5 [National membership scheme: contents and penalties]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to his amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("(bb) providing for temporary membership of the scheme, including (in particular) the temporary membershp of football club guests;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 39 and 46. I shall be moving those which appear in my name but again I shall not be supporting those tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris.
We spent a considerable amount of time discussing the possibility of exemptions from the national membership scheme during Committee stage. I am sorry to see that most of the amendments which we debated at such length in Committee have been tabled again now. I made the point several times during these discussions that the more law-abiding spectators who join the scheme, the better it will work for the benefit of the members and of football in general. People will benefit from membership, not lose by it, because of the potential protection from hooliganism which it offers. There is just one group for whom exclusion from the scheme is both appropriate and desirable—that is the hooligans themselves.
At the same time, I accepted that there are practical reasons why certain people should not be required to become full members of the scheme. The groups I mentioned specifically in Committee were disabled people for whom designated areas and special access arrangements are required and guests of the club to whom temporary membership cards could be issued. Both these groups are catered for in the government amendments which we are now considering. I also said that the best way to deal with others for whom a requirement to join the national scheme might be inappropriate—foreign visitors, organised school parties perhaps guests of members of the club—would be by means of temporary membership arrangements. The government amendments will allow for that and they will do so in a more sensible way than the opposition amendments proposing general exemptions for these groups would do. The clubs will take responsibility for the issue of temporary membership cards and be held responsible through their licence.
Noble Lords will have noticed, however, that the government amendments go further than the offer to consider which I made at Committee stage. They also include a specific exemption, for which the scheme must provide, for children under 10 accompanied by an adult who is a member of the scheme or is otherwise authorised by the scheme. We considered the arguments which noble Lords
70
advanced at Committee stage on the subject of family groups very carefully and I am very pleased to have been able to come forward with this additional exemption in response to your Lordships' comments.
The amendments refer to children under the age of 10, rather than 14 or even 16, as has previously been suggested. The choice of the age 10 reflects, I am afraid, the rising tide of violence among young people, even the very young. It also reduces the risk that older teenage hooligans could pretend to qualify for exemption, as they might do if we put the age at 14 or 16. At the same time many 11 or 12 year-olds may not be able to afford membership. I see no reason why clubs should not issue cards free to everyone under the age of 14 or 16 if they wish.
I am glad that we have been able to go some way to meeting the points made by noble Lords by providing this additional exemption for accompanied children. I should emphasise that this exemption and that for disabled people are to be subject to such conditions as are specified in the scheme. We shall expect the scheme to spell out that the exemptions are to apply to designated areas in football grounds—be they for disabled people or for family groups—for which special access arrangements are provided. Many clubs already have such areas; others may wish to develop them. It makes practical sense to use them as the basis for these exemptions and to avoid confusion with members of the scheme going through normal turnstiles.
We are to come later to further opposition amendments proposing additional exemptions. I should like to mention just two of them now. First, I am afraid that I am not prepared to go as far as the opposition amendment on family areas is now proposing. Sixteen years is, I am afraid, too old an age at which to pitch an exemption, despite the recommendation to this effect in the Minister for Sport's working party report. Hooliganism is a serious problem among teenagers. I also believe that it is essential that the adults who accompany the children must be members of or authorised by the scheme if we are to prevent hooligans abusing this exemption to evade membership of the scheme.
I should also say a word at this point about the case for an exemption for retired people. I made the point in Committee that it is in the interests of retired people, as it is of other law-abiding spectators, for the scheme to be a success. They constitute too large a group to be exempted from the scheme altogether. The checking arrangements that would be needed to avoid abuse would be more onerous to retired people than the membership scheme itself. It would be better by far for them to join the scheme and benefit from its protection.
If your Lordships accept the Government's though not the Opposition's amendments, the Bill will provide that the scheme must provide for temporary membership arrangements and for exemptions for disabled people and accompanied children. It will also retain the provision allowing the FMA to propose further exemptions if they wish. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is important that the FMA should have this discretion. They will need it, among other possibilities, to deal with the specific issue of Wembley. This brings me to the final aspect

71
of the Government's amendments to which I wish to draw attention.
The new subsection (3A) which we are proposing would allow the scheme to make different provision for different circumstances. Noble Lords will recall from our discussions about Wembley in Committee that I accepted that Wembley was a special case for which special arrangements would be needed to deal with the special requirements of international matches. I said then that we would expect the FMA to come up with proposals for these special arrangements in discussion with the Wembley authorities. We are now proposing the new subsection (3A) in order to make absolutely sure that it will be possible for the scheme to provide for these special arrangements.
I began my introduction of these amendments by reiterating the Government's commitment to a membership scheme that would attract as many members as possible. I hope that I have shown that within that commitment we are prepared to take a very reasonable approach to the special practical considerations that apply to certain groups; to the case for temporary membership cards for club guests and others; to specific exemptions for disabled people and accompanied children in designated areas; and to allowing the FMA to come up with other proposals if they wish, including for Wembley Stadium. These amendments will provide for these arrangements. I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to deal with very nearly every amendment on page 5 as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has done. That would be something very close to an abuse of our procedures. We must discuss the narrower issues which are before us. I was a little surprised, if I may say so, that the noble Lord used the rather unfortunate phrase about being sorry that the amendments had been put down again. The reason that they have been put down again is the lamentable quality of the Government's arguments against them on the last occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I welcome the government amendment dealing with disabled persons and accompanied children. We vigorously put forward arguments at Committee, and we are very pleased that the noble Lord has met our point. It would have been even better if the Government had considered this Bill carefully before bringing it before Parliament in the first instance.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will respond to the question of European Community passport holders. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 26, which is an amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 25. As I understand the situation, the Government are content that clubs should make temporary membership arrangements for such people. That is fine as far as it goes, but I am still unclear about whether, as part of the new arrangements, such passport holders will be able to show passports at a whole series of football matches or
72
only at one or two during a season. On the last occasion that we debated this matter the noble Lord thought that it should only be on one or two occasions and that after that they would have to be members of the scheme.
This would be a new and substantial burden that would be placed upon football clubs in terms of their record-keeping. It would be a substantial burden because presumably they would need to consult their files on every occasion before deciding whether or not to issue a temporary membership card. The test would be whether someone had been there on one or two or three occasions in the current season. The costs of this scheme are beginning to multiply. A situation would arise, where scores, if not hundreds, of applications for temporary membership arrangements would have to be considered by officials of the club. It would be a greater burden upon the smaller clubs which would have to introduce special arrangements.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is content that EC passport holders should have the right to enter a ground on a limited number of occasions, it would be infinitely more sensible to put that on the face of the Bill. What I am not clear about is why the noble Lord is so determined to resist this amendment if he accepts the principle of what we are attempting to achieve. What is the case against it? I have heard everything that the noble Lord has said, but at the end of the day I am bound to say that I do not understand why he is resisting it. I should be very grateful if he would help me.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I have been involved since Second Reading in the foreign tourism aspect of this Bill. I welcome Amendment No. 25 because it gives the industry an opportunity. I welcome Amendment No. 27 for a different reason; I think that it may attract back some of those people who have been lost to football. It is at the very core of the Bill. It would make football more acceptable and this group of people would return.
The amendment that I am not desperately happy about is Amendment No. 26, and the reason for that is very simple. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has spoken to the industry. I have also done so, but I suspect that he and I may have drawn different conclusions from our discussions. The largest source for this business, the casual visitors to a football match who come once or twice a year, are the Swedes and the Norwegians. The Finns are not very far behind. The reason for that is the climate. In Scandinavia and in Finland football is a summer game, not a winter game. That is why Swedish television was willing to pay approximately £60,000 to televise a match between Bournemouth and Manchester United and why Southampton lost a similar sum which they would have obtained from Norwegian television, had their game with Norwich not been cancelled in the context of England's game with Albania.
If there is to be a passport-style amendment, I do not think that the industry and my erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority can accept the thought that it should be limited to the EC. I am surprised that BITOA is alleged to have supported

73
this amendment because when I have spoken to people in the business they have always said that Scandinavia is of paramount importance to them. One contact in the industry in Manchester said that the Irish are of critical importance in the north west, particularly the Liverpool side and the Manchester side. They may fall within the "frequency of visit" argument that was being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and perhaps we should address that situation later. However, in terms of the major source of the business which is Scandinavia, Amendment No. 26 is not acceptable.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like the Minister to explain his point with regard to Amendment No. 27. He said that disabled people would go into designated areas in a football ground. That implies the physically disabled in wheelchairs. There are a number of disabled people—the blind, for example —who go to football matches. Is it the intention that these people would have to go into designated areas or would they have exemption from the scheme? If the Minister is not careful the scheme will discriminate between different kinds of disability.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has in part answered in the way that I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are well aware of the substantial number of Scandinavian supporters who come to this country. We do not understand why we should make an EC separation when considerable number of supporters, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will know, both of Arsenal and of Tottenham Hotspur, come from Scandinavia. That is the reason for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a point concerning temporary membership. We believe that applying perpetually for temporary membership will be very inconvenient when compared with being a member of the scheme. I know that if I were in that role I should want to join the scheme rather than have to go through the rigmarole of having to get a temporary membership card for each match.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the disabled. We have said that the disabled will be exempt in designated areas. If, as he suggested, a blind person wanted to go to a favourite part of the ground he would have to be a member of the scheme in order to have full access throughout the ground.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if we are now dealing with Amendment No. 26 perhaps I may ask him whether the Government would be prepared to accept an amendment which would allow the admission of bona fide tourists from any part of the world for up to, say, six matches on production of their passports.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it will be possible to get into a ground. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that his suggestion of introducing the figure of six matches would complicate matters even further.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked perhaps
74
I may seek clarification. If the Government's objection relates to holders of European Community passports can I take it, on the basis of the Minister's alacrity in agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, that if an amendment was put down at Third Reading referring to "any international passport holder" that the Government would support it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware, we see the temporary membership card as the way in. Confusion has arisen. A foreigner going to see Tottenham Hotspur as an individual rather than as a member of a group would be able to identify himself most easily by producing his passport. I should assume that the club secretary would regard the production of that passport as a valid reason for giving the foreigner a temporary membership card.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, so possession of the passport would be the passport into the ground. The fact that somebody turned up at the ground with a passport would ipso facto be an entitlement to a guest ticket.
The Government have used the term the "integrity of the scheme" ad nauseam. We are not arguing about the scheme. We want to encourage foreigners to come to watch British football matches. Everyone would accept that possession of a passport is sufficient to allow them into the ground. It might be said that there is a danger that passports might be stolen, they are precious, but people do carry passports with them. Surely the Minister can say that he is prepared to look at an amendment on the lines of that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, without commitment. Perhaps he will consider whether, between now and two weeks' time, which is all the time we have, this measure can be tidied up and be made more precise in order to relieve the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. The noble Lord has put those worries forward very fairly and they are very proper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. The situation is now becoming completely confused. I understand the reason for the amendment put foward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, we shall find that under this scheme the only members of the EC who cannot attend a football match on the production of a passport are the British. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to put the British even more against the EC. It seems to rue that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not wide enough. If we are to have an amendment of this kind it ought to embrace everybody other than the English and the Welsh, unfortunately. Then the English and the Welsh can hate the rest of the world because they will be the only people who will not be able to get into a football match on the production of a passport.
This illustrates the absurdity of the Bill. I have been talking to my colleagues. I do not want to be misunderstood, nor does anyone on his side of

75
the Chamber want to be misunderstood. We hate football hooliganism and we would be prepared to support the most oppresssive measures against football hooliganism and the football hooligans. But we are concerned and have tried to show that this Bill simply imposes colossal inconvenience and an illiberal situation on the vast majority of British people who also wish to attend a football match.
I wish the Government would consider what is happening. At any event, can the noble Lord, in his final winding up, assure us that at least foreigners who wish to attend a football match, irrespective of whether or not they are members of the EC, will be able to get in?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. In earlier stages of the Bill and earlier this afternoon the Opposition have considered it right and proper to introduce measures aimed at lower sentencing. Then the noble Lord stands up and says that he is willing to engage in oppressive measures.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He has misrepresented me. I said that we would be prepared to support the most oppressive measures against football hooliganism. What this Bill does is to impose oppressive measures against ordinary, innocent citizens who may just wish to go to a football match as spectators. That does not make them football hooligans.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has referred to just one amendment. There were a number of other amendments at Committee stage which would have reduced the level of sentence.
I believe that there is a misunderstanding as to what a passport can do for a foreigner who turns up at a football club. The passport in no way guarantees access to the football ground. The passport provides the club, for example Tottenham Hotspur, with the opportunity to decide whether, as the responsible issuing authority, it should or should not give a temporary membership card to that person in order to attend and watch a game. The passport itself does not directly obtain admission to the ground.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, I should have called Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 before now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his attention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, Amendment No. 26:
Line 3, after ("guests") insert ("and of the holders of passports issued by other countries of the European Community")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the position is somewhat confused. I assumed that we were debating the earlier amendment, Amendment No. 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Now, as I understand it, we could not have been discussing that amendment, and we should have been discussing
76
Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and myself. That amendment deals with the admission of foreign passport holders.
I do not wish to go interminably through the arguments all over again. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and I do not see the European Community in quite the same way. That is not the reason for the amendment. The amendment is intended to deal with the situation in which people have special rights of entry to the United Kingdom not possessed by others. Nevertheless, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said: namely, that, if there is a provision relating to passport holders, it should relate to any foreign passport holder. On reflection, I think that he is right and we are wrong. That is another reason why I do not intend to press the amendment today. However, I should like to return to the point so that there is no possible misunderstanding. An amended version of the amendment would give foreign passport holders special rights, rights which they would not possess if they were totally reliant on the temporary membership card.
All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is that, given the fact that he or one of his colleagues, spent a vast amount of time on the last occasion in explaining how terribly difficult it would be if old age pensioners and others had to have special entrances at football matches—because they had privileged treatment within the scheme—the same will obviously now apply to foreign passport holders, if the Government get their way. The only way football can respond to that new arrangement of temporary membership cards is to provide an arrangement under which people can be admitted to some point—presumably outside the ground —where they will on each occasion have to try to negotiate their way through to a temporary membership card.
The folly, stupidity and near madness of the Bill grows on one as the debate proceeds, but, believe it or not, that is what the Government now recommend. I merely say that, given the fact that I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, we shall have to return to the issue and, on that basis, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 25 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this might be a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Report stage of the Bill at 8.20 p.m. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989
7.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the need for this order arises out of the link between the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The independent Top Salaries Review Body recommended in 1983 that the Lord Chancellor should be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his position as the head of the judiciary and of his wider responsibilities. The House accepted the principle of the TSRB recommendation and has successively reaffirmed that with the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Salary Orders for the years 1984 to 1988.
An annual Lord Chancellor's Salary Order is necessary because the Lord Chief Justice's salary is set annually following the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. This year, the TSRB recommended a salary of £89,500 for the Lord Chief Justice—a 5 per cent. increase. The Government accepted that that figure be paid from the due date of 1st April 1989.
The Lord Chancellor has a salary lead of £2,000. The House accepted that figure in 1983 and it has remained at that level since. Its real value has eroded since it was first established, but that of itself is not a valid reason for changing it. The lead exists because the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and that makes it right that an appropriate differential should exist between him and the Lord Chief Justice. A lead of £2,000 fulfils that requirement.
The order establishes the Lord Chancellor's salary at £91,500 from the day it comes into force—it cannot be made retrospective. The salary level derives directly from the TSRB report and embodies a principle established six years ago and accepted by the House on six previous occasions. I hope that once again it will commend itself to the House this year. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 14th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
7.24 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House not only have no objection to the order, but certainly approve both what it says and the very fair manner in which the Minister has indicated to the House that there is an assumption written into the proceedings and arrangements which makes it automatic for the order to come before the House.
I certainly concur with the Minister that, in the circumstances, this is a wholly appropriate and reasonable proposal, not least in respect of the manner in which one seeks, in a difficult area—if not to indicate a pecking order or a hierarchy—to ascribe to a post a salary that is felt to be reasonable and appropriate. Certainly, we on this side of the House will, as we have done on the previous occasions, not only raise no objection to the order, but welcome, support and approve it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I recognise that the order relates to the position and not the personality of the person who occupies that distinguished
78
post. But, as regards the personality, after reading Friday's debate, I certainly believe that the position is occupied with great distinction at the moment and that further encourages me to support the Motion before the House.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to follow what the noble Lord has just said and support what has been said from both the Front Benches, because, in this particular case, not only the post but the recipient merits the money. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has shown great courage in tackling a matter upon which most of us who would hesitate to go into a detailed legal debate nevertheless support in principle what he is trying to do. We also feel that, in our support, we are buttressed by very many people in this country who are deeply uneasy about the existing situation, but do not have the specialist knowledge to underpin their views.
I should also like to say that I sympathise greatly with the noble and learned Lord with regard to the debate that took place last Friday. I am sure that there are many other interests in this country which would like to be as well represented in this House as that particular interest was. I am sure that we could, for example, have an interesting debate here on the Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill if there were two or three dozen dockers scattered around the Benches on either side of the House.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly and thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his words; I am grateful for them and am glad that he welcomes the order. I should also thank the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for their words. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be greatly encouraged by their words concerning Friday's debate, in which I too believe that he did a remarkably good job. I was here at a quarter to eleven on Friday night and was amazed by his stamina throughout the day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 until 8.20 p.m.]

Football Spectators' Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 5.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment NO. 27:
Page 4, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
("

(i) disabled persons, and

(ii) accompanied children,

in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as are specified in the scheme:").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 28:
Line 2, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this simple amendment stands in the group of amendments to which we are speaking, and enables me to speak to those additional amendments which seek to widen on the face of the Bill the exemptions that we wish to see. I should like the guidance of the House and the Minister. I wonder whether it would be possible for me simply to move Amendment No. 28 and then leave those speakers who have prime interests in Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 to move them appropriately thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is a paving amendment on the exemptions which will follow hereafter. The grammatical change that it proposes will not be necessary if noble Lords withdraw the subsequent amendments, as I hope they will.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to disappoint the Minister. Certainly we do not intend to withdraw the amendments. I know that in speaking to Amendment No. 25 the Minister rehearsed the arguments against them. To be fair he pointed out that we had already had a canter over this course in which the Minister had argued that what he had given in the form of a concession as to the duties of the FMA and the general issue of exemptions was as far as he thought he could go. In effect that is merely to insert Amendment No. 27 on the face of the Bill. The clarification as to accompanied children is referred to in Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 39 is still in this bracket. In moving Amendment No. 28 and giving notice that when we reach Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 they will certainly be spoken to separately, I confirm that what will happen to them will depend upon what the Minister has to say. I seek the guidance of the Minister. Amendment No. 39 states:
"and in this subsection 'accompanied children' means persons under the age of 10 years in the charge of an authorised spectator.
We no longer have football supporters or fans; we have authorised spectators. That is a category which will rest uneasily on the shoulders of many of my friends who stand on the terraces at matches.
Can the Minister tell us what device the Government have in mind to be able to estimate the age of the child in question and to determine whether or not he is under the age of 10? One of the arguments that we had about the old age pensioner was the difficulty of ascertaining exactly who was an old age pensioner. That amendment will be moved and spoken to much more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when we reach it and I am not anxious to interfere in those arguments. So perhaps the Minister can tell us what device, other than accepting the word of the person accompanying the
80
child or perhaps the production of a birth certificate, the Government have in mind to determine whether or not a person is under the age of 10.
Is he saying that the age of 10 has been decided upon because it is felt that someone under that age is either not a potential hooligan or is incapable of committing acts of violence? Is it felt that someone over the age of 10 is ipso facto someone who is more likely to commit violence? One hesitates to ascribe to youngsters aged 7, 8, 9 or 10 the kind of violence that we see. However, that is no yardstick. Even though youngsters are accompanied by an authorised spectator, who is usually their parent, that is no guarantee of their age. We shall come later to an amendment which concerns parents. Having moved Amendment No. 28 I ask the Minister to say a little more about Amendment No. 39.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said previously when I spoke to Amendment No. 25, we have tried again to provide here something which is helpful and useful. The difficulty resides in where one pitches the age: at five, 10 or 15 years? The age of 10 has two advantages. First, it is the age of criminal responsibility; secondly, one will never obtain the perfect answer if there is to be an exclusion, as I am sure the noble Lord would agree.
His point about the ages is a very good one. In today's newspaper there is a horrifying story of a nine year-old and a seven year-old who beat up another child and set fire to him. Those children were under the age of 10. The fact of the matter is that we want to have something sensible. I would say that by and large a child of the age of 10 will look much more like a child than a 14 year-old who may be very tall and approaching six feet. We have tried to find something sensible which accommodates those views and which is the best age. The combination of that and the fact that it is the age of criminal responsibility is why the age of 10 was the age that we decided upon for this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend say why it is easier to tell the difference between a 10 year-old and an 11 year-old boy, which he argues will be essential for the turnstile keepers, yet much harder to distinguish between men and women—because he is resisting the next amendment to exclude women. It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a slight muddle.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Earl is entirely correct on that matter. I am sure that if we said that we would not exempt anyone down to the age of one he would consider that even less satisfactory.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am not arguing about the age of 10. I ask how the age will be determined. The Minister appears to be saying that it will depend upon appearance. But in that case he is all at sixes and sevens.
We acknowledge that this is a difficult area. We are trying to exclude lots of people legitimately. Can the Minister and his advisers say how they envisage

81
that the turnstile keeper will be able to determine that the child who is accompanied by an authorised spectator is the age that the authorised spectator says he is? That spectator is not asked to say that this is his son or daughter, but simply accompanies the child. He goes through the turnstile. The turnstile operator says, "Just a minute. That child must be below age". The man says, "This boy is certainly below the age of 10". Is the word of the authorised spectator to be accepted? I do not envisage that there are vicious people below or above the age of 10. I simply wish those outside the House to know what guidance the Minister's advisers have been given in order to establish that under Amendment No. 39 the child is under the age of 10.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. It seems to me that we are being unnecessarily pernickety on this point. If a young person goes to buy a railway ticket, and below the age of 12 he purchases it at one price and above the age of 12 at another, there has to be a degree of trust between the person at the ticket office and the person paying the money. There has to be a cut-off point somewhere. For the reasons that the Minister has given, the age of 10 is reasonable. It is possible that someone may say that a child is 10 when he is 11, or vice versa. But there has to be a degree of trust. We are being unnecessarily pernickety and I hope that the Minister will stick with his cut-off point at the age of 10.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not think it is a matter of being pernickety, if the noble Baroness will forgive me. We are discussing what will be incorporated into the Bill. If the requirements of the Bill are not followed, people will be committing serious criminal offences. That is why we are being pernickety, if that is regarded by the noble Baroness as a term of abuse.
I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive my saying that she tends to work on the assumption that anything presented by Ministers is self-evidently desirable. I do not think so. There is a genuine problem here. Ministers have made a great deal of the difficulty to make provision to distinguish between men and women. It has been said that it would be very difficult to decide who was an old age pensioner. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the question: how does one decide whether a child is 10 or some other age? It seems to me a matter therefore of substance. I do not believe that what the noble Baroness said has a great deal to commend it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it is interesting to see the ease with which the Minister considers that one can pick an age which will be the arbitrary line of division, and that that will be the barrier. There has been trouble since time immemorial with those licensing laws that apply only to people of 18 and above. One of the biggest drawbacks in that area in the past has been that very often young people of 16 years look older than some people of 19 or 20. This has been a running sore in the licensing trade.
82
However, we are dealing with a very difficult situation. Just to draw an arbitrary line and to say that it will work is a very dangerous premise indeed. For instance, I have two grandsons. One is seven and one is five and a half. Noble Lords may ask what that has to do with the issue. The grandson who is five and a half is by far the bigger and looks the older. By the age of 10 he will look much older than the other grandson. If the Minister wants photographic evidence, I can give him it. He is the bigger and more mature boy now in terms of physical development.
How does one deal with the matter? If someone turns up with his son or grandson who is 10½, does one stop the whole procedure and ask, "Where is his birth certificate?" How does one prove age? Let us imagine a policeman at Anfield or Everton, Highbury or Tottenham, or at Manchester City or Manchester United on a big cup day. Suddenly he has to say to someone, "I think that the boy with you looks a little more than 10. Can you prove to me that he is not?" It is an absolute recipe for disaster—and a hold up of procedure.
We must bear in mind that most of these youngsters who go to matches are accompanied. Their first insight into football is mainly with their fathers and grandparents who take them to these games. The Minister has said that at 10 years a child can become the victim of criminal law. Surely the Government do not mean that they would relate criminal law to 10 year-old boys whom somebody has tried to take into a football match at the age of 10½ or 11 years? If so, what sort of a Bill is this? What kind of society are we becoming? I seriously suggest that the Minister ought to look at this amendment and try to reassess what he has said. In my opinion it will become the biggest joke of the lot. It will become a bigger joke than old age pensioners and women being potential attackers outside a football ground.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister going to object to my amendment which deletes the word "and"?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, there is no way in which we are not going to have a debate on old age pensioners. Let us make that absolutely clear. What precise procedure should we follow? In the final analysis, I am perfectly content to have an ungrammatical Bill because I do not think that it will make an immense amount of difficulty.
I wish to be clear that if we withdraw this amendment, we shall not be debarred from debating others.
The Earl of Onslow: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, could I be clear— —
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, surely we must try to keep in order. That means that I should not speak a second time—and there are many things that I

83
wish to say—and nor should the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We know that he is immensely distinguished, intelligent and clever, but he is allowed to speak only once on each amendment. Otherwise, we shall be here almost as long as rabbiting on about law—and that would be a terrible mistake.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have not spoken before. Therefore I am able to speak on this item. I am frankly surprised that the Minister has not replied to the direct question which my noble friend put. What will be the machinery for determining the admittance of a child, whether he is 10 years or 16 years? It is not a pernickety matter. There has to be some bureaucratic answer to that question. If it is to be left solely to the common sense and decision of the gateman, many of these other matters will fall into the same pattern. What will be the machinery for determining this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very interested in this. It is extraordinary. The Government produce a concession that is based on common sense. It is immediately jumped upon by the Opposition as presenting insuperable problems.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we want to know how you will supervise the matter.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we envisage that there will be special areas where accompanied children can go. Let us consider the facts of the matter. We are trying to make a helpful and useful provision. There are various other amendments providing for different ages. We have thought hard about why we believe that 10 is the right age. I am more than happy to differ from the noble Lords but that is the Government's position. We introduced it as a concession without even being asked for it, as I pointed out earlier in your Lordships' House. We felt that it was the the best common sense age. There has to be an element of common sense in everything. We believe that that is the best common sense age for allowing children to be able to attend with their parents at a football match.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the Government have thought long and hard and have arrived at the age of 10, ipso facto they must have thought long and hard about how they will determine who is 10.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may return briefly to the point that my noble friend was endeavouring to make, having spoken before he was halted—rightly I think—in his tracks because he had already spoken, and this is Report stage.
This is the question. The Minister has indicated that he will oppose Amendment No. 28. If Amendment No. 28 is not carried, the word "and" remains. Can we have an undertaking from him that when the subsequent amendments are moved, as they will be, he will not object to them on the grounds that they will be ungrammatical? Will he give us that assurance?
Lord Hesketh: Yes, my Lords. I am sure that the Bill can live with a grammatical error until Third Reading.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I apologise without reservation for my ignorance about what the Minister had in mind. I was sensitive to the fact that if we had a debate on Amendment No. 28 and lost that debate we would lose the opportunity of debating the other issues. The Minister has said that there may be a grammatical error to be put right, but that we can proceed with the other amendments. In those circumstances, although we have had no satisfaction whatsoever concerning how the Minister's advisers consider how they can implement Amendment No. 39, neither will the new Football Membership Authority nor the individual clubs have any idea how they will interpret these issues.
I appreciate that the Minister has a working party considering these aspects. I have no knowledge of these matters, but I am fairly certain that every time the members of the group meet they will at least discuss what has happened in Parliament since they last met and try to make some sense of what we have tried to do. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 29:
Line 3, after ("(ii)") insert ("women and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those noble Lords who have taken an interest in these matters will recall an amendment of mine at Committee stage to exempt all female persons. The House will have observed that I put down a similar amendment at Report stage which I subsequently withdrew, and I substituted for it the amendment that I have now moved. I wish to make it clear that my reason is for my own convenience and I hope for that of the House and not because my original amendment at Report was out of order or because of any convention which states that a similar amendment may not be moved at Report and Committee stages. However I decided that I would do it the Government's way. In fact the amendment, if it were carried, would read "women and accompanied children".
During our previous discussion, the noble Lord heard his noble friend Lord Onslow, and other noble Lords, talking about being able to distinguish between 10, 11 and 12 year-olds. There will be some difficulty about it. But as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, there is no difficulty in distinguishing men and women and women and children. Therefore the amendment will be as easily understood and workable as the amendment that the Government have tabled concerning children of 10 years and under.
The original arguments at Committee stage still stand. It was unfortunate, perhaps because of some feminist ideas, that the amendment was not carried at Committee stage. It failed by only six votes, which was unfortunate because it was a good amendment

85
and the Government could perhaps have incorporated it into the Bill then. Nevertheless the same arguments apply. There are no recorded cases of women at football matches behaving like hooligans. It will benefit football and probably reduce hooliganism if women are encouraged to attend football matches rather than discouraged as they will be under the Bill because they will have to apply for membership of the scheme and will have to pay for the privilege.
The same arguments apply and the same arguments stand, but the Ministers' amendments have shown that the exemptions of children, the disabled and women can be accommodated within the Bill and catered for. If we exempt disabled people, which I entirely accept and support, do we say that only the physically disabled will be affected or will the mentally disabled be involved as well? If they are, it will be interesting to know how the football authorities will distinguish between people who are not mentally disabled and those who are. It seems to me that there will be no difficulty about the amendment.
I believe, as I said and believed at Committee stage, that the amendment will benefit football and will help to reduce hooliganism. What is more it would be fairer to a section of the population which has shown quite clearly that, first, it does not involve itself in football hooliganism; and, secondly, is against it. I hope that in all the circumstances the Minister will be able to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I completely agree with the thrust behind this amendment. The Government are accepting that turnstile keepers are capable of distinguishing between 10 year-olds and 11 year-olds, but not between men and women. It has always seemed to me that the principle of the Bill is good, provided that the tickets are circumscribed to what I have called and will continue to call potential yob classes. Women are outside that potentiality. I believe that the Government are making a grave error in not excluding women and old age pensioners; but we have had a vote on this matter.
If we have a vote on something at Committee stage, the House has decided. It is believed that certain noble Baronesses perhaps felt that they could not vote for sexist reasons—that I suspect is a rumour whizzing about a fairly male chauvinist piggy-wig place, that may or may not be true. But those of us who are really crypto male chauvinist piggy-wiggys would love it to be true. The House has decided by a vote in Committee stage not to do something. My view—and I voted for the losing side—is that the House was wrong. It would be not in order to press this or, unfortunately, the old age pensioner exemption as well. The House has made decisions, and having made decisions we should not go back on them. Another place may make different decisions. I hope that it will. I am sorry, but if there is a Division, I shall vote for constitutional propriety as opposed to sexual equality.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, did the noble Earl say that we voted on the exclusion of women and old age pensioners:
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, no., I said that we had decided on old age pensioners.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, surely if we did not vote on the issue of old age pensioners we are perfectly entitled, to vote on it tonight if we so choose.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it was not the House which decided the question of whether women should be excluded but the Committee. The Committee has now reported to the House. Therefore the House is entitled to discuss the issue not necessarily to force a Division but to try to persuade the Government that the arguments put forward in Committee are worth while and that they should take them into consideration and think again. That is the purpose of the Report stage.
I should like to put two questions to the Minister. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that when the issue was discussed in Committee he argued that the integrity of the Bill depended on its totality. I have paraphrased his words but it is almost an exact quotation.
As regards the disabled and children the Government have varied that opinion and we welcome that. Therefore the integrity about which the Minister spoke has already been broken by the Government on his own promise. We suggest that there are other categories of people who could be exempt without diminishing the effect of the Bill in any way. In fact, it would increase the effect of the Bill from the Government's point of view.
At Committee the Minister answered me by saying that the exemption of females would ruin the attempt which the Government are making to outlaw hooliganism. It was said that women would be encouraged to come into the grounds because they would feel safer. That is a specious argument. My first question is: has the Minister discovered a single instance in which a female has been involved in any form of hooliganism in any football ground anywhere in the world? If the answer to that question is no, surely all women attending football grounds will feel safer if the Government's case is correct and if what the noble Earl has called the "yob class" is excluded.
The Government must admit that they are making it more difficult for women to attend football matches by requiring them to apply and pay for a membership card. The second point I put to the Minister is this. He has agreed that he wishes to encourage more women to attend football matches because that will civilise the atmosphere. He has mentioned the setting aside of enclosures for accompanied children. Many football grounds already provide them and they are used by families; that is father, mother and children.
If the Government's argument is logically followed, and if the Minister wishes more women to attend football matches, he will make it easier for

87
them to do so rather than more difficult. We ask the Government to think seriously about the issue. It will be no safer for women to go to football matches if they are forced to take up membership cards. Almost without doubt the enforcement of the necessity for a woman to hold a card will reduce the number attending matches.
Can the Minister answer these two questions: have there been any instances in which women have been engaged in hooliganism? Is it not the case that by compelling women to take out membership cards he will reduce the number attending matches?
Lord Renton: My Lords, surely the purpose of Report stage is to enable matters to be dealt with which were not resolved in Committee or did not then arise. If it is to become a practice that any decision made in Committee can be reconsidered, discussed and voted upon at Report our business will be seriously delayed. With deep respect, I believe that to say that the issue was not dealt with in Committee is merely a quibble.
As regards the merits of the case, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that generally speaking women are well behaved. They are better behaved than men and there are few women hooligans—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: There are none.
Lord Renton: I am not suggesting there are any but I should be surprised if there have never been any. Surely the Government cannot accept the amendment. First, we must remember that it would create an administrative loophole because many women have the same first names as men. The names "Evelyn" and "Robin" are used as Christian names by both men and women. Therefore, there would be confusion about whether a man or a woman was applying for the card or on whose behalf the application was made.
In these enlightened days of sexual equality women wish to have the same opportunities as men and they wish to bear the same burdens. They do not wish to be treated differently by Parliament in its law making except when that is unavoidable. For those reasons I believe that my noble friend would be wrong to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are correct in saying that for the House to reverse on Report a decision made in Committee is unconsitutional (as described by the noble Earl) or improper (as described by the noble Lord, Lord Renton). I remember at least one occasion since May 1979 when the Government were narrowly defeated in Committee and came back on Report having mustered their forces— —
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: That was the last occasion.
Lord Monson: They then overturned a decision made in Committee so any unconstitutional act was performed by the Government.
88
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the problem we must face is one of aggressive young males. However, I do not believe that we can rule out entirely the possibility of girls—I say "girls" advisedly and not "women"—taking advantage of any loophole which may exist. For that reason I marginally prefer the exclusion from the constraints of the Bill of women over 25 years and men over 35 years.
However, if the issue is brought to a vote I shall gladly go into the Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
9 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, I am totally opposed to the Bill. However, I believe that, as we have alrady discussed this amendment previously, we should leave it alone. If anybody is to decide whether women should be excluded, it should be the FMA.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may make a fine distinction here. As I read the Companion to the Standing Orders it says that noble Lords are perfectly entitled to table amendments which have been tabled at an earlier stage. However, they are not entitled to repeat at length on Report arguments which have been fully deployed previously. I suspect that we are getting rather close to that. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to change their mind.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the question of whether women should be exempt was debated at some length on two separate occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill. On the second occasion the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved an amendment which has the same effect as that which we are considering today; namely, it seeks a statutory exemption from the scheme for women. The House debated and considered this point very thoroughly in Committee and reached a clear decision not to provide for such an exemption. The Companion to the Standing Orders makes clear that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report. In view of that, I am sure that the House will not wish to tread over the same ground in detail today and I do not propose to do so.
Your Lordships will also be clear, from our earlier discussions, about the Government's position on exemptions generally. I have explained that we want as many law-abiding spectators as possible to join the scheme and enjoy the benefits of membership. This will be good for members and good for football. It is in the interests of neither, nor of the working of the scheme to allow too wide-ranging exemption arrangements.
As I said at the beginning, this issue has already been debated at great length on a previous occasion in Committee when a clear decision was reached and I very much hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall certainly consider that while I am speaking. First, I

89
did not—and if he had listened to me he would realise this—deploy all the arguments which were deployed in Committee. Indeed, I deliberately kept my opening remarks very short and related them to some of the discussions which we have had this evening.
However, one point which has been raised, first, by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister is that we do not have the right to discuss this matter and vote on it again because it has already been decided by the House, to use the term of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. However, the matter has not been decided by the House, but by a Committee of the House. One object of having a Committee stage is to be able to discuss a matter in complete detail. The object of having a Report stage is to enable the House as a House—as a complete House and not as a Committee—to have a second opinion. I believe that it will be dangerous for the House to accept, and certainly for Back-Benchers to accept, that once there has been a vote in Committee, that is an end of the matter. If the House accepts that, then it accepts that a very valuable piece of democracy is being taken away from it. It will agree to that at its peril.
Having made that point, I do not wish to deploy any further constitutional arguments as to what we can and cannot do. However, I believe that the amendment is a good one and would certainly be workable. I am sorry that the Government and the Minister do not feel able to accept it. I have been thinking on my feet and I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight and that is therefore the end of the matter as regards this House. However, I express the hope, because this is a serious amendment on a serious matter, that another place will take the matter up when it comes to debate it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 30:
Line 3, at end insert—
("(iii) persons holding at an international football match passport issued by the country of origin of the visiting team;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the amendment states, we are seeking to exempt supporters of the opposing team at an international football match from membership of the scheme. We have already had an argument as to the extent to which the foreign visitor nexus should run. We argued about whether it should be restricted to the EC. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, made out a very strong, reasonable and sensible case that the nationals of countries outside the EC enjoy the facility of coming to watch our football matches.
However, perhaps the Minister can take this opportunity—and I do not propose to press this matter to a Division as I seek clarification—to tell the House precisely how supporters from Albania or— —
Lord Hesketh: Romania.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those supporters may be allowed out but perhaps may not be allowed back. They are very choosy who they let back into that country. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how foreign football supporters coming to this country but primarily to Wembley will gain admission. I should like to hear from the Minister the mechanics of how they will be able to stand on the terraces or sit in the stands and watch their team. I beg to move.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I believe that this amendment has suffered somewhat in the printing because when I first read it, it referred to the word "passports" and now it refers to "passport". I am unaware of any such thing as an international football match passport although the way passports are stamped nowadays, perhaps football teams should stamp them instead of the country whose frontiers are being crossed.
I can see the point of this amendment but, before the Minister replies to it, perhaps I may suggest a caveat. The amendment assumes that one should make provision for international football matches. Therefore, can the Minister clarify the phrase "international football match"? Is it defined in the Bill? Is it, for example, England v. Sweden or a Swedish club playing a British club? That is a flaw in the amendment.
Secondly, I refer to where a foreign club is playing a British club, and I come back to the amendment we discussed earlier. Nowadays, because of the internationalisation of football, a French club can include Dutch, Swedish and even British players. Because of their star status these players attract groupies and supporters who are not necessarily holders of passports—and this is what I believe the amendment sets out to do—reflecting the country in which the international team plays. Therefore, again I suggest that the amendment is flawed. I think I would advise my erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority to explore that aspect because they have to get all the business they can and have a statutory duty to do so. The amendment lacks something and I fear that it lost that something in transition between the first printing a the current Marshalled List.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment means we again return to how best to deal with foreign spectators at international matches. I have explained the government position on this important subject at some length. We accept that foreign spectators at international matches cannot be expected to join the scheme. At the same time I have explained why we do not think that international matches can be excluded from it.
I could not, I hope, have made it clearer that we regard Wembley as a special case and that we want to see special arrangements made for foreign spectators at international matches. I have said how important it is for the FMA to consider what the most appropriate arrangements should be. The FMA will consider those arrangements in consultation with interested parties and then submit the proposals to the Secretary of State. I do not think that it would

91
be helpful to attempt to restrict the FMA in making its proposals by spelling out in the Bill exemption arrangements based on passports. Much the best way forward here is for the FMA to look at this issue in detail and to make its recommendations. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister said that there are to be special arrangements. Manifestly, whatever the Government's desire may be, it is quite ridiculous for any serious minded person to believe that if, for example, Bulgaria played England at Wembley all the Bulgarians would have to become members of this ridiculous organisation. Clearly, therefore, there will have to be special arrangements. The only way in which one can determine a Bulgarian from a citizen of any other country is by examination of his passport.
Therefore, while not disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his determination to withdraw this amendment, as the Government clearly will have to do this anyway, it might have been slightly more sensible to have done it in the Bill. It is inevitable and as the Government will have to do it they are passing responsibility to the FMA for the simple reason that they do not have the slightest idea of how to do it themselves. That is why we have these constant tributes to the FMA—the organisation consisting of the Football Association and the Football League, which were regularly denounced by Mr. Moynihan on every television programme only a few months ago. Nevertheless, as these arrangements will have to be in the final scheme, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his determination to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am touched by the faith that the Minister has in the ability of the FMA to produce to itself a satisfactory means of dealing with this problem. Although we have pointed to simple problems, which the Minister says are not so simple, the Minister says that he has faith and that the FMA will come forward with a scheme.
Can the Minister tell the House whether, if the FMA produces a scheme that it believes to be satisfactory, and even if there are some aspects of it that he dislikes (that is, an alleged threat to the integrity of the Bill) he will, ipso facto or prima facie, accept the solution?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that it will be up to the Secretary of State when he sees the FMA's proposals. The noble Lord describes my faith as touching. It is not touching: we just have a lot of faith in the ability of football to organise the FMA.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am touched by the Minister's "untouchedness". There is nothing more to be gained. The situation is highly unsatisfactory and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, whenever we come across a matter which the Minister and his advisers have not thought through
92
the answer is that it has been thought through and left to the FMA. I very much hope that the FMA will take on board the fact that it is being given enormous scope. I share the Minister's faith in its ability to deal with this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 31:
Line 3, at end insert—
("(iii) members of organised school parties;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister puzzled us when he mentioned the categories of exemptions at the last stage of the Bill. Among the groups of people we wish to be encouraged to attend football matches on a properly-organised basis are organised school parties. The Minister acknowledged the breakthrough (it was a breakthrough) that there were categories of people for whom he was prepared to make special arrangements. Can the Minister tell us the kind of special arrangements that might be made at Tottenham, Enfield or Edmonton, where, as part of their organised out-of-school activities, schools wish to take along a group of boys and girls as part of the children's social and civic education? It is also part of their cultural heritage, for example, that they should wish to attend a First Division match at Spurs or at Enfield. That club has ambitions to enter the league. The school party may wish to go to Arsenal, which is not very far away.
Can the Minister tell us how a teacher accompanying 30 children between the ages of 12 and 16, should go about obtaining permission to attend a football match? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the temporary membership arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, alluded, and proposed in the government amendments to the Bill, provide an entirely appropriate way of dealing with organised school parties. We recognise that many clubs wish to encourage properly-organised school parties to attend matches. They will wish to organise the arrangements in advance with the schools concerned. If they wish, they may offer temporary membership cards free to the members of school parties. That will be for the individual clubs concerned. It is a sensible arrangement that will allow the clubs to ensure that school parties are properly organised. A blanket exemption for such parties would raise unnecessary questions of identification and definition. A school party is particularly well suited to the temporary membership arrangements because, by definition, it has to be organised in advance. Such an arrangement suits and fits very well into this scheme.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to go through the procedure for the admission of a school party, as I see it. The school will apply to the appropriate official at Tottenham Hotspur and say, "When Spurs play

93
Everton on April 22nd, as part of our organised school activities we wish to bring along a party of 30 children. We as a school are responsible for them." Does the school have to say, "Therefore, please issue free temporary membership facilities for the scheme"? That does not include admittance to the ground because, if the charge is £2 or £3, that will have to be paid for. Is it a fact that the school will apply to Spurs and ask for temporary membership to cover 30 pupils? It may be that the children will have to be named, but that can be worked out by the FMA and the Minister. Can the Minister say whether the procedure will be as simple as that? Can the Minister say whether in advance of the game the school will apply for approval and they will receive a ticket for the teachers and the 30 children? They will then go along to the ground and there will be separate turnstiles to deal with the party. Is that how the scheme will work?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, let us suppose that one of the party is a French shoolchild. What will happen then?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I do not believe that it will make any difference. The simplest parallel that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is the matter that was raised when we were dicussing at an earlier stage of this Bill package tours coming in from overseas. I believe that this situation is very similar. The school authorities will write a letter to the club. In the same way as the package-tour operator will supply a list of names, the school will act very much in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested before I rose to answer his question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister because that is part of the nitty gritty. I am not remotely considering these as words on the face of the Bill. At the moment, organised visits are made to Spurs in a much more ad hoc but responsible way. It is a general understanding that we seek. In the future, as I understand it, this simply means that in return for a letter the school will receive a ticket of admittance representing the temporary guest-card facility. The Minister agrees with me that that is how it would work. I am not tying him down to precise words but that is my understanding of the arrangement. I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwhich Lord Harris of Greenwhich moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 32:
Line 3, at end insert—
("(iii) persons in receipt of a retirement pension from the Department of Social Security;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 deals with an issue which we discussed in Committee. I refer to the position of retirement pensioners. Notwithstanding what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, no doubt mistakenly, earlier this afternoon, we did not vote on the issue. The
94
amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and withdrawn after, by the standards of the Bill, a relatively short debate.
Why do we return to the issue of old age pensioners? We return to it for one self-evident reason. The Bill is supposed to be aimed at dealing with violence at football matches. How many old age pensioners have been convicted of criminal offences at football matches? The answer is one of almost baffled bewilderment on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, because there is no evidence that an old age pensioner has ever been convicted of such an offence. It may well be the case that on one occasion at Scunthorpe one dark Saturday evening an old age pensioner committed some appalling crime at a football match. However, no serious-minded person—those are the people to whom we are addresssing remarks—can conceivably imagine that old age pensioners represent a massive public order threat at football matches.
When I have asked senior police offices about their views on this matter they have looked at me as though I am going off my head. They cannot believe that I have asked such an utterly ludicrous question. I have reassured them that I fear that as we are having to discuss these matters with an appropriate attitude of solemnity it is necessary to reassure Parliament that old age pensioners have not been involved in such offences. There is general common ground. Indeed, on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was good enough to say:
"I recognise, of course, that it is unlikely that retired people would become involved in acts of hooliganism, far from it".—[Official Report, 7/3/89; col. 1428.]
That is a good point from which to start. There is general agreement that no public order problem exists in this respect. We then have to ask ourselves why the Government are not indicating their enthusiasm for the amendment. They are well known opponents of unnecessary bureaucracy. In the public and the private sectors Ministers rightly queue up to denounce bureaucracy. I do not disagree with their views on that matter. Why then are they imposing it on old age pensioners? We must return to the fount of wisdom, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who had to explain the Government's position on this matter. He said at col. 1427 of the Official Report of the same day:
"It is essential, however, that these"—
the exemptions—
"should be strictly limited, as I have said before, because of the danger of wide-ranging exemptions and also because in this case there is a possibility of confusion and chaos"—
that is a strong word—
"at the turnstiles".
That is the Government's case.
Since that debate I have asked the football authorities for their views on this matter. Once again those views are in conflict with those of the Government. They say that there would not be chaos at the turnstiles were the amendment to be inserted into the Bill. They point out that there are already a large number of separate entrances for old age pensioners. Indeed at the overwhelming majority of football clubs there are now separate entrances for old age pensioners. Therefore the picture conjured

95
up on the last occasion by the noble Lord of intolerable queues of old age pensioners standing there on wind-swept turf outside the turnstiles is a little far from the truth.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it can be done!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the football authorities say that they are very content and that if any old age pensioners want to be members of the scheme, then they can apply to do so; they can do so by the simple process of trying to join the FMA. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is to be believed, they will be enthusiastic to do so. I say that because the noble Lord said that membership is not a burden. Therefore, if he is right, many old age pensioners will want to be members of the FMA and that will diminish still further the likelihood of a queue outside those turnstiles.
The football authorities say that there could be several ways in which old people could in fact obtain a pass for the entire season—for example by simply presenting an old age pension book at the beginning of the season. All I say to the Government is that I do not really believe that there is the remotest prospect of them accepting the amendment because they have rejected so many entirely well-intentioned amendments at every stage of the Bill's proceedings. Therefore I expect the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to put forward remarkably similar arguments to those he produced on the last occasion.
All that I say to the noble Lord is that the football authorities believe they can administer the scheme without any of the disagreeable consequences which were set out by the noble Lord when he attempted to justify his position on the last occasion. Indeed, we await with interest to see which particular arguments he will deploy this evening against this particular amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may simply say to the Minister that if he genuinely wishes to take football with him, this is a very good way to do something with which—although the Minister may not be happy with it—football says it is capable of living. I am told by the Football League that 89 out of the 92 League clubs already have facilities for admitting old age pensioners separately. Indeed, they have turnstiles which are geared to include old age pensioners and juveniles. That is very often because the reduced prices which are charged for old age pensioners and juveniles are the same.
As I see it, the Minister has only one barrier to cross in order to accept the sense of the amendment, that barrier being that he does not wish to accept it. However, that is not a reason. What is proposed is capable of being implemented. If, in fact, he were to do something along those lines, which he may well say endangers the integrity of the scheme, who will benefit? First, it will benefit the old age pensioners because they will not have to be members of the scheme; they will not have to pay; they will not have to fill in any forms and they will not have to have
96
in their possession a card in order to gain entry. Whatever scheme is presently used by the clubs to ensure that old age pensioners satisfy the club that they are indeed old age pensioners in order to get through the turnstile, there will be the same facility. Moreover, what is also a certainty is that the clubs will be one of the greatest beneficiaries.
I can well imagine that a lot of people—I am getting perilously near, but I am not yet quite in the bracket which is affected by the clause—will simply say, "If I have got to join a scheme, pay a sum of money, fill in a form and carry about with me something that I need to get in to watch my local team"—that is, whether it be Newcastle United, which it was for me, but now it is Spurs—"I won't bother". One might say, "That's your choice". However, what an imposition to put upon people who, whatever else they have been doing, have been the lifeblood of our football. Of course, basically, watching football is perhaps a younger person's pastime.
My word, I do not go to football matches frequently but I sense that people feel that they belong to something. There is a camaraderie at a football match which is enjoyed by elderly people. The Minister should say something to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which will enable him to believe that he genuinely wants to meet this serious problem.
The Minister should appreciate that he will alienate a great many people if he classifies old age pensioners in the same way as he classifies hooligans. Whether one is a hooligan or an old age pensioner one must have a membership card to get into the match.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest. I have a retirement pension and have had for many years. I concede that more weight should be attached to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of this amendment than to some of the previous amendments in which I did not think there was any substance. If people are to be exempt but still want to attend football matches, they would have to prove that they are exempt. Old age pensioners do not normally carry cards around with them saying that they are old age pensioners. One can obtain a concessionary rail warrant, but I can never find mine when I want it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord never travel on public transport? If he does, he carries a card around with him unless he is a lunatic. If one has a card one travels free. It is no good saying old age pensioners do not travel around with cards. Any old age pensioner who is not senile carries around a series of cards.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must confess that the noble Lord has made a valid but silly point. To prevent the minority of undesirable people to whom we have referred as hooligans from entering football grounds we must have the irksome business—it is an irksome business—of making all those who want to go to football grounds have the right sort of authority to do so. I am not sure that old people

97
necessarily wish to be treated differently from others. I am now so old that I hate it when people try to make me feel my age. The worst thing of all is when young men call me sir. To single out old age pensioners who, as has been said, form a large group of football supporters does not seem to fit in at all well with the generality of the scheme.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the issue is not whether old age pensioners are potential hooligans. The whole point has been missed, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Contrary to what he said earlier about me, I am against the Government on all exemptions. I believe that they are bureaucratic. I support my noble friend Lord Renton. They are patronising, especially for old age pensioners.
I am sorry that the Bill has been seen only in a negative way. There is another side of it which has not emerged during the debate—the positive side. It is wrong to interpret the Government as assuming that the people we are giving passes to are potential hooligans. It is an overall scheme designed to give the best possible protection to people at football matches and to make it more easy to identify the troublemakers. If the scheme is seen in that light, people holding cards at football matches can consider them to be a kind of protection. The chances then are that people who are up to no good may be more easily identifiable.
I think the scheme is good for members and will be good for football. There is also considerable scope for improving the financial wherewithal of clubs, in particular the Welsh clubs which were mentioned earlier as being in such dire straits.
In this Chamber we are incredibly cocooned, it seems to me. I find that there is an enormous amount of support for the Bill outside the Chamber from people who want an end to football hooliganism. If this Bill when enacted does anything to reduce or go some way towards eliminating football hooliganism, then those people who attend football matches with their identification cards will be better protected. My hope is that football clubs and their supporters associations will be healthier and stronger for it.
So I am sorry that noble Lords see this in a very negative light. My hope is that when we give identification cards to old age pensioners attending football matches it is not because they are potential hooligans but because we wish to protect those people going to football matches to enjoy what they see. That is a good football match.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in part of her remarks the noble Baroness seemed to be making a Second Reading speech on the general principles of the Bill. Frankly, as one who is well beyond the old age pension scale since I am now in my middle seventies I am amazed to be told that it is patronising for pensioners to be given cheap facilities anywhere. I have in my hand my British Rail pass. I do not live in Greater London, therefore I am not as fortunate as other Members of the House who have free transport in London. My district council will not provide it, but I have the British Rail pass.
98
I think I mentioned during the previous debate that I go to see my football team. I know that somebody jocundly said that only pensioners would go to see my team; but I think that is unfair since they are now sixth in the Fourth Division table. I go along to every single Leyton Orient home game with my next-door neighbour who is 78, three years older than I. Nobody anticipates what we shall jump over the barriers—I only wish I could because I get trouble in my leg. Nobody visualises that. It is suggested that it is patronising to allow this; but we have heard from my noble friend that 89 of the 92 clubs already have special admission rules for pensioners, and they work properly.
Let us consider the pleasure that older people get from going down to see their football team on a Saturday afternoon, as my noble friend says, at a considerably reduced rate. It may be argued that it is not to the benefit of the football teams to recognise pensioners and give them cheap rates. However it is something that they appreciate. Pensioners would resent being told that their cheap admittance on a Saturday afternoon is patronising them. They believe that it is something to which they are entitled and I think that clubs are anxious to give them that facility. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was not objecting to the fact that they are given a reduced rate for going into the match. I was saying that the issue of identification cards would be a protection for them rather than singling them out as potential hooligans.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I already have a membership card from my football club, but if anyone can assure me that if I had a card it would make me safer and that pensioners will be made safer, frankly that seems to be turning logic completely on its head. I shall not make a Second Reading speech because I want to keep hooligans out of football. However, to suggest that giving a membership card to pensioners will help them to keep hooligans out of football seems to me to be absolutely crass nonsense. I am sorry to put it as strongly as that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think that we have heard some very powerful and cogent arguments in favour of the amendment. I should have thought that the Government could accept it. I was rather surprised to hear Government Back-Benchers exercising their ingenuity in objecting to singling out old age pensioners when they were perfectly prepared to accept government Amendment No. 27 which singles out disabled persons and accompanied children under 10.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point on the amendment which has not yet been made although it may have been referred to in the earlier discussion at the Committee stage. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration—the operation and mechanics—of the scheme by the Football Membership Authority, when the time comes and the scheme has finally been drafted and

99
approved, will take time, money and work. For each application for a membership identity card inquiries will have to be made. Certain checks will be made and then the card will be issued. Let us accept that we are not worried about the terraces being festooned with rioting old age pensioners. We all accept that that is not the problem. We also accept that the problems of hooliganism are not in the grounds but outside.
The simple point that I should like to make to the Minister is that there are work and expense involved in the administration of the scheme for the clubs concerned. If at a stroke old age pensioners are automatically allowed in, the work in respect of those hundreds of thousands of people who go to football matches every Saturday will be reduced. That is another point which should be considered. Certainly those people do not need protection. I have had a season ticket for Old Trafford to watch Manchester United for 20 years. I go there fairly regularly and I have never felt in need of protection, whether by a card or in any other way. At a stroke much of the burden of the work and expense in the operation of this scheme could be removed merely by saying that old age pensioners are exempt.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, appered to suggest that the Bill was not strict enough. For those of us who consider that the great part of the Bill is authoritarian nonsense, motivated by panic, there is a lot to be said for supporting any amendments which make it even stricter. If, for example, there was an amendment to provide that women, children and pensioners should be compulsorily strip-searched in the freezing rain at the turnstiles, that would help to bring the Bill into disrepute and ensure its hasty repeal. I think that that is a temptation we should resist. Although I did not put my name down to this amendment, I gladly support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested that no pensioner had ever been convicted of a football-related offence. I am sure that he is absolutely right, and I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be able to prove otherwise.
There is one good reason in support of this amendment which has not been mentioned. It is a sad thing that far too many pensioners as a result of misplaced pride refuse to take up social security benefits to which they are absolutely entitled. They consider that accepting these benefits constitutes charity and is in a sense beneath their dignity, however much one tries to explain to them that they are entitled to them and that it is not a question of charity. I am certain that exactly the same kind of thing is likely to happen in respect of applications for membership cards.
Old people tend to be conservative with a small "c"—politically they may have quite different views and are likely to have quite different views if this Bill goes through unamended. Older people are normally reluctant to change the habits of a lifetime. The consequence of that is that there will be a great many old people who love football but who will not be
100
prepared to apply for membership cards and will be deprived of one of their few remaining pleasures.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that all noble Lords derived varying amounts of pleasure from the description of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of mythical rioting pensioners. However, we must face the Government's intention with regard to this amendment. We believe that for the scheme to work it needs to work in totality. We see it giving benefit to all who are members. We do not see it as a scheme which will place onerous difficulties upon pensioners.
We are providing a scheme which will achieve that which my noble friend Lady Blatch quite rightly pointed out. This is a matter which has hardly been discussed in your Lordships' House since the beginning of the Second Reading debate, it is the possibility that football might soar in popularity because we are doing something about trying to get rid of hooliganism.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to say "Come on" from a seated position on the Front Bench opposite. The fact of the matter is that the Government are committed to doing something about soccer hooliganism. We are doing something about it with the Bill that is before your Lordships' House. Pensioners are a group of vulnerable people who will benefit from the results of the Bill.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, say earlier this afternoon that at Wembley yesterday there was only one arrest. My Lords, 65 people were arrested; there were 17 ejections. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has constantly spoken of one arrest in 10,000. I am not the best mathematician, but it is jolly nearly one in 1,000 on the basis of those figures. The fact of the matter is that that is not the story of a happy sport.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how many of them were old age pensioners? If this measure is for their safety and they do not ever riot, they will be just as safe even if they do not have tickets.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the assumption of the noble Baroness is that the Bill will have no effect. We believe that the Bill will have an effect. That effect will be to substantially reduce soccer violence. If that is substantially reduced, the sport's good name will be restored. If one of the happy outcomes of the Bill is that protection and the ease of attending a football match are greatly improved, then most Members of your Lordships' House should support the Bill.
As I have said in this House on more than one occasion, the object of exclusion is to exclude the hooligans. The object of the Bill is to provide protection not only to pensioners but to everyone. It is very easy for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to present and deploy an argument which, so far as I can make out, denies the existence of soccer violence.
I have found it extraordinary how rarely over the past few months the problem has even been mentioned. It is constantly presented as if the

101
problem is already under control and the Government are interfering in something which has been cured. That is not true. We are acting for the protection of pensioners and everyone else who loves football. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and setting aside his split infinitive which I shall ignore for the moment—he still has not replied to my noble friend. How many of those people who he told us were charged were old age pensioners? That is more relevant to the amendment which is before the House than the reply which the noble Lord has just given.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, it was not relevant. Secondly, I should be amazed if there was a single pensioner. We are talking about the effect of the violence on the weak in society, but the existence of that violence appears to be denied on the other side of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, did the noble Lord really need to say something as silly as that?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not clear from what the Minister has said that the only reason for the inclusion of old age pensioners is to make the scheme economically viable? The Minister has said repeatedly, not only today, but during previous stages of the Bill, that in order to make it safer for old age pensioners to attend football matches they must have an identity pass. Does the Minister really believe that by making it harder for old age pensioners to go to a football match more of them will be attracted? The truth is the opposite.
I happen to have with me a concessionary fare pass issued to me as an old age pensioner living in Greater Manchester, where there are 2,750,000 people. I should assume, and I think rightly, that the overwhelming number of old age pensioners in Greater Manchester have such a pass. I could also have a pass for London, but living in the City of Westminster where Lady Porter leads the council I do not think that the council could afford to give me one. In the Greater Manchester area there are the two Manchester football teams, Manchester City and Manchester United; there is Oldham Athletic; Bolton; Bury, and Rochdale. There are tens of thousands of football supporters in that area who can be identified immediately by a pass which has their photograph on it.
What reason can the Minister and the Government give me for perpetuating or duplicating the situation by asking old age pensioners to go through that
102
procedure once again? As I said, I do not know how many football teams are covered by the old GLC area, but I should imagine that that is the largest catchment area for football followers in England. A similar situation applies in the West Midlands. Many of those areas have a concessionary or free travel permit or facility for old age pensioners. As I understand it, such schemes must be accompanied by an identifying photograph which is part of the permit. I do not understand why the Government insist that there is a need to go through that type of exercise again. The Minister repeated what he said at previous stages; namely, that old age pensioners need such a permit for protection. That argument will not wash and he would gain far more credibility and acceptance for the Bill if he looked at the situation a little more seriously and gave better reasons than he has done so far.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am a little puzzled about this matter and wonder whether my noble friend can help me. He said earlier that the Government believe in the totality of the scheme and that it should embrace everyone. I agree with him in that, but, if that is the case, why has he introduced an amendment to make certain exclusions? That must surely open the very floodgates that have led to the number of amendments tabled by noble Lords this evening. It seems to me that, if we are to have some exclusions, some of those that have been tabled—particularly this one—have a considerable amount of merit. I believe in the totality of the scheme, but the only way one can have totality is to have no exclusions whatever. One cannot go half way. I believe that my noble friend has made life a little more difficult for himself in this matter by moving the amendment that we are now trying to amend, because it opens the floodgates. As I said on Second Reading—I regret that I have not been here for the other stages of the Bill—we either have a blanket identity card system with no exceptions and everyone knows where they stand, or we have exceptions. This amendment allows for a reasonable exception.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to help the noble Viscount. The reason why we have the limited exemptions in the amendment that we are discussing is that they were recommended in the working party document. There is some rationality behind the limited exemptions that the Government offer. We cannot have an "either/or" situation. We are trying to meet up with the real world and deal on a common sense basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have not spoken to this amendment. If I had done so, I should not be speaking now; I know that that would break standing orders and I would not wish to do that.
However, the Minister must understand that some of us feel very deeply about the Bill and believe that it is an illiberal Bill. On the other hand, we understand that the Government are committed to the Bill and that they will have the football spectators' scheme come what may. We can understand that, but what I cannot understand is why they wilfully insist that a section of the population which is already easily identified at the football grounds should be made to join a football scheme and carry an ID card when, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has pointed out, virtually all football grounds now have separate entrances for pensioners. All pensioners must do is produce their pension books, pay and go through. We simply cannot understand why the Government insist that, as well has having their pension books, they must join the scheme. That seems to be a wilful imposition on pensioners. I hope that the Government will think about this matter. They have the opportunity now genuinely to say that there is no need to inconvenience this section of the population and therefore it will not be done. That is what I feel about the matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, might at least have replied to his noble friend Lord Mountgarret, but apparently he does not choose to do so. I commend him on the fact that he did not return to some of the more ill judged arguments made at Committee stage. The House did not hear anything more about chaos at the turnstiles, for instance. That was rather good news. The argument did not sound too impressive on the last occasion. It would sound even less impressive today after it has been pointed out that 89 clubs have separate turnstiles for old age pensioners. All we have heard are the merits of the totality of the scheme dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret.
Before turning to some of the more interesting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I should like to deal with the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, which were logically impeccable. I understand the bureaucratic argument, or call it what you will, that there should be no exemptions at all. That was the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In order to reassure us that she was not a firm supporter of whatever the Government did on any occasion, which I think perhaps was suggested in a previous debate, she indicated to us that she was a rebel on this question and thought that the Government had made a serious misjudgment in making exemptions for disabled people and children under the age of 10. Such a truly absurd argument almost defies rational analysis. Are we to have seven and eight year-old members of the scheme with photographs going through this piece of bureaucratic nonsense?
The way the noble Baroness approached this measure concerned me a great deal. Indeed, as she
104
became more enthusiastic for a policy against all exemptions, I began to wonder whether she felt that this Bill went far enough. The logic of her position would be that over a period of time this legislation would come to apply to rugby league, rugby union, cricket, horse racing—where certainly there has been violence in the past—and indeed Wimbledon. I see no other logical position for the Baroness to take up.
I rejoice that, at least, until now, the Government have not adopted such a policy. The noble Baroness, who, so far as I am aware, does not have a financial interest in football, told us that the one piece of good news about this Bill was that the finances of football and the position of Welsh football in particular would improve. When she takes a financial interest in perhaps one of the Welsh clubs, I am sure that we shall be extremely reassured by her wish to give even more eloquent testimony to her belief in her own arguments. However, I shall be surprised if she does so.
As we learnt when the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, rose to speak, the fact of the matter is that the Government have no serious arguments to deploy on this amendment. They have none at all. All we had from the noble Lord was the extraordinary statement about the number of arrests that had taken place this weekend at Wembley. Presumably he used that argument during the present debate for some reason. He was asked by my noble friend Lady Seear how many of those arrested were old age pensioners but he was totally unable to give an answer. That raised an interesting question as to why he had used the argument in the first instance.
Since he has used the argument, and given the fact that I suspect that we shall have some debates at Third Reading—if not going over this precise ground they will no doubt cover similar ground—I invite him to ask the Metropolitan Police how many of these people were old age pensioners. It will no doubt have this information. Since he has used the argument, he is now obliged to give an answer on that precise question to the noble Baroness. I hope that he will do so in a letter to my noble friend Lady Seear before Third Reading. I am quite sure that if the Metropolitan Police has the information, as I suspect it does, it will be anxious to assist the noble Lord.
The final argument of the noble Lord consisted of two points. First, he said that the Government did not believe that to bring old age pensioners into the scheme would impose an onerous duty upon them. If one considers the fact that clubs at the moment believe that they will lose possibly 20 per cent. of their present gate as a result of the introduction of this scheme and that part of that 20 per cent. will consist of old age pensioners, that argument seems to have very little to commend it.
Finally, the noble Lord said that he was astonished, amazed—I cannot remember the precise words—that a number of us who had had serious doubts about the Bill no longer indicated our enthusiasm for dealing with the problem of soccer hooliganism. I do not think that in looking around

105
for an argument, he believes something quite as threadbare as that. The fact is that all of us deplore soccer hooliganism. Our opposition to this Bill is that at its best it is entirely irrelevant to the problem of soccer hooliganism. It will not deal with the increasing problem of violence outside football grounds. The figures of the noble Lord in relation to Wembley indicated that most of the trouble arose outside the football ground. The more that we discuss this Bill the more foolish, threadbare and ridiculous it appears. I wish to press the amendment.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32), as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Bonham-Carter. L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Craigavon, V.

Seear, B.

David, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmondon, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Hylton, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rochdale, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dormer, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.11 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 27 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 13, at end insert—
106
("( ) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of—

(i) no more than two parents or other persons accompanying a child under the age of 16 years;

(ii) that child,

where admission of all such persons is restricted to an area designated by a responsible person for the use of families.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we ask the Minister to deliver the recommendation set out in the Minister for Sport's working party. It has been used as a crutch by the Government more than once during the debates. The working party stated:
"The working party considered, in the interest of encouraging families to attend matches, that children under 16, accompanied by an adult member of the scheme, could be exempt from the scheme provided that: (i) they view the match from a designated family enclosure; and (ii) there is direct access to that family enclosure, not allowing transfer to other areas of the ground".
I use as an illustration Millwall and Watford football clubs which I have attended. The Minister is well briefed in these matters and knows that they are but two illustrations. I also have a note of Manchester City football club, which my noble friend Lord Dean knows better than anyone in this House as a result of his attendance at Maine Road. Luton Town football club will create a new family stand in the near future, as will other clubs.
We seek to provide that a separate form of access will be offered to a closely defined number of persons with a view to encouraging family attendance at matches. Surely that is desirable. There will be instances where an 11 or 12 year-old is bitten by the bug and wishes to attend matches. The only people able to take him may be adults who are not members of the scheme. We wish to encourage family membership. I should like to give as an illustration a visiting relative. The youngster with whom he is staying may wish to attend a match and can do so only if accompanied by an adult. In that instance they will go into clearly defined areas.
Such areas already exist so we do not ask for an exception but a continuation of that provision. I do not chide the Minister for making the exemptions that he has made. However, I believe that those in football will press upon the Minister the fact that more exemptions should be made. I realise the reticence of the Minister and his advisers. The more exemptions which are made, the more criticised the scheme may be because many people will not be affected by it.
The Government would be well advised to give in to the pressure from clubs. We are not talking about irresponsible people but about football clubs which have at heart their own credibility and financial status. They wish to see these provisions developed. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have accepted the principle that young children accompanied by an adult member of the scheme or otherwise authorised by the scheme should be exempt. We introduced an amendment to this effect even though we had not previously promised to do so. Such an exemption

107
makes good practical sense in the context of the scheme. The Opposition's counter-proposal could be highly damaging to the scheme.
In the first place, I am afraid that 16 is too high an age at which to set the level of exemption. This is one point on which the Government now part company from the report of the Minister for Sport's working party. Of course we hope that teenagers will join the scheme. It will be open to clubs to issue cards free of charge to teenagers if they wish. But I am afraid that it is a deeply distressing aspect of modern life that teenagers are involved in crime. Even among 10 to 13 year-olds in 1987, 35,000 boys were found guilty of or cautioned for indictable and summary offences; 1,200 of them involving violence against the person. Among slightly older teenagers, the picture is much worse. Among boys aged between 14 and 16,100,000 were found guilty or cautioned for offences in 1987, nearly 7,000 for offences involving violence against the person.
If the level of exemption were set at 16, we would be encouraging 16, 17 and even 18 year-olds to pretend to qualify. A 16 year-old thug can pretend quite easily to be 15; he cannot pretend to be under 10. If the age of exemption were to be 16, there would be a very strong case for requiring those who claimed exemption to prove their age. We can avoid that need and the danger of attracting teenage hooligans if we set the age at 10.
The second important difference between the Government's approach and the Opposition's is that we propose that the children concerned must be accompanied by an adult member of the scheme or authorised by it. This exemption must not be a loophole to allow hooligans disqualified from membership to enter the ground. Above all, we do not want to encourage hooligans to pick on children and persuade them to act as their "passport" into the ground. Nor, come to that, do we want teenage hooligans to pick on innocent adults and use them as a passport into the ground. The effect of the Opposition amendment could be an open invitation to hooligans to turn designated family areas into the most dangerous, not the safest, parts of the ground.
The way to avoid this abuse of family areas is to limit the exemption to young children accompanied by responsible adults. I recognise that this means that the adults concerned will have to join the scheme or be otherwise authorised by it. But this is a price that must be paid if we are to avoid a serious risk of abuse. It is precisely because the Government want to encourage families to attend football matches that we cannot accept the Opposition amendment.
In the first place, we want families with teenage children to join the national membership scheme and to benefit from it. At the same time, we accept that small children should not be required to join the scheme. So we have an exemption for them in family areas. But those family areas must be kept safe from hooliganism, not provide an open invitation to hooligans as the Opposition amendment would do.
The Government have made a significant move to deal with the position of children under the scheme. I
108
believe that we have moved the right distance, as I said earlier this evening, and that the Opposition is trying to go much too far. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may correct him on a matter of accuracy. He referred to the danger of 16 year-old children pretending to be younger if this amendment is agreed to. The amendment refers not to 16 year-old children but to children under the age of 16 years. Therefore, no child over the age of 15 would benefit if the amendment were agreed to.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand the Government's objection to this amendment and I heard their objection to a similar amendment in Committee. It seems to me that the purpose of this amendment is to encourage the provision of family enclosures at football grounds. That seems to me to be a very helpful development and one which should be encouraged.
I understand the noble Lord's objections to some of these amendments and I listened carefully to his earlier answer and this one was the same; namely, that the Government believe that hooliganism at football grounds is unacceptable. I agree with him entirely on that. The Government believe that the way to get rid of hooliganism in football grounds is to exclude the people responsible for hooliganism.
Here we are talking about family enclosures. I do not know of a single case anywhere in the country where hooliganism has arisen among people in family enclosures. Therefore, if there is no hooliganism coming from family enclosures, why does the scheme apply to those people—because one is not reducing hooliganism but merely stopping something which does not happen?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that kind of argument will cut no ice with this Minister. The fact that there is no hooliganism, that individuals do not need protection and that the clubs have no record of violence does not cut any ice with this Minister, the Minister for Sport or the Government.
The Government are petrified at this possibility —and I took careful note of what the Minister said—that our amendment would be an open invitation to hooligans. Nothing more ludicrous has been said by the Minister than that. It is inconceivable that there would be marauding groups of people, excluded by one device or another from watching a football match, who would be looking for loopholes to exploit. The Minister undoubtedly has his own experiences and his advisers undoubtedly consult a range of people. We know that they do not consult football authorities otherwise the football authorities would tell him that the amendment is what they want.
The Government should decide to examine their premise for this Bill; that is, to encourage the return of family attendance. Incidentally, there never has been a history of family attendance. It is a myth. However, if the Government wish to encourage

109
families they should build upon what Millwall, Luton, Doncaster and Southend—there are dozens—are doing. All we can do is once more expose the shallowness of the responses given to the Minister to read out to the House tonight. It is a very sad way in which to have a parliamentary debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4. line 16, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 37. 38 and 82. In essence, these amendments are designed to improve the appeal procedures for people who are judged to have transgressed the maxims of the scheme. Clause 5 deals with the membership scheme, the contents and penalties. We want to determine a better tribunal procedure.
These amendments—it may be a fatal flaw—have been given to us by people at the sharp end; that is, the supporters and people in the football world. They have not been dreamed up by someone out of touch with such matters. What do we say in this series of amendments? The essence is that we want to have an element of independence in the tribunal. We also want to make sure that the evidence which is sought is of a wider nature than that which is enshrined in the Bill.
I am not at all certain how far the Minister will have to go, but we simply want to improve the procedure under which football fans can be deprived of what for many of them is a lifeline. They may have acted foolishly and deserve punishment but we want to be fair. The amendment is designed to ensure that. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we debated this group of amendments during Committee stage. I said then that the Government regarded it as an essential element in the National Membership Scheme that the FMA should have the power to disqualify, at its discretion, people who misbehave at football matches but who have not necessarily been convicted of a criminal offence. I made the point that individual football clubs already have, and exercise, the right to ban people from their grounds. But, as things stand, someone who is banned from one club is able simply to go to another and cause trouble there. Bans imposed by the FMA at their discretion, on evidence received from the clubs, will apply throughout the league.
It is for this reason that I argued in Committee, and do so again now, that these discretionary powers for the FMA were an invaluable component of the Bill. But I accepted that there was a case for our dealing with these powers in a rather different way from that which the Bill uses at the moment. I undertook to look again at the appeals procedure and at the possibility of limiting the FMA's discretion more clearly on the face of the Bill. I promised to consider bringing forward amendments at a later stage. I regret that it has not been possible for us to reach conclusions on these points in time to
110
bring forward amendments for consideration today. We regarded it as essential that we should consult the Council on Tribunals before doing so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, also considered this to be important. I am afraid that it was not possible to arrange these discussions in time for us to decide on appropriate amendments before today. I can assure the House, however, that these discussions will take place in time for us to reach a view on what amendments we should propose to your Lordships at Third Reading. If we decide that amendments on these issues are necessary—and I fully expect that we shall—then they will be tabled in time for your Lordships to consider them at Third Reading.
The Government's position on these amendments has not changed since Committee. We accept that there is a case for looking again at the appeals procedure provided in the Bill. As I said in Committee, if we have too elaborate a procedure the FMA and the clubs will not use it; and it will mean unacceptable delays for the appellant. I hope that we can produce a better and simpler approach. I also repeat that I am willing to consider spelling out certain restrictions on the FMA's discretion perhaps by limiting the maximum ban that can be imposed to two years; by providing a right for people to be notified of the reasons for their disqualification, and by requiring that the FMA's criteria for disqualification must be reasonable.
The Government remain willing to consider all these possibilities. It is appropriate that we should consult the Council on Tribunals on them. We will do so in good time to come back to your Lordships on Third Reading. In view of these repeated assurances, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, unhappily I did not have sent to me by the Minister's department the letter received by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Fortunately, the noble Lord showed me the letter. I very much hope that in future I shall also receive copies of letters, particularly regarding matters on which I have spoken and on the issue dealt with by the Minister of the Council on Tribunals. I am glad to hear what the noble Lord said concerning the reasons for disqualification. That is absolutely essential. It would be quite monstrous if the reverse were to be the case; for example, if membership were withdrawn from a member of the scheme without having an explanation given for that decision. Were that to be done, I believe that the tribunal itself would face some difficult issues by way of a judicial review were such a policy adopted. I am glad to hear that the Government are thinking of certain moves in that direction.
Given the fact that the noble Lord said that these matters were being considered between now and the Third Reading, I shall now deal with the composition of the appeal tribunal. I am extremely uneasy about it. Let us be clear about the situation. Perhaps I may describe the football club concerned as. the plaintiff. It would say that Mr. X should have his membership of the scheme withdrawn for a specific reason. The member so dealt with shall have the right of appeal

111
to the tribunal. However, who are the members of the tribunal? Strangely enough, they are members of football clubs. In a number of cases they inevitably have close relations with the club that is the plaintiff in the case. As a matter of fundamental justice it does not seem right that the tribunal should consist exclusively of people who are themselves directly involved in football. It may be argued that they are not independent when they are adjudicating on a case, however unfair that belief may be.
The fact of the matter is that a number of people appearing before the tribunal will feel that there was not much chance of obtaining justice because the judges will all be associated with the club that had brought them before the tribunal in the first place. That is why I put down an amendment which, given the fact that the Government are considering these questions, I do not propose to move later. It sought to establish that the majority of the tribunal would not be involved with the Football Membership Authority or indeed even with football.
These are difficult issues. On the basis of what I have been told, I do not believe that the football authorities are overwhelmed with excitement at the prospect of taking on this responsibility. None, inevitably, has had any direct experience of sitting on tribunals of this kind. I am quite sure that they would be prepared to help it as much as they could, but they have serious doubts whether they could carry out this responsibility by themselves. I hope that the Government will look at this question. There is a case for someone involved in football being a member of the authority—I do not deny the need for that—but it is necessary to ensure that the majority of the members of the tribunal are not directly involved with the FMA or even with football itself.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the issue of arranging for dealing with appeals, including the membership of a tribunal or review body, is one of those which we wish to discuss with the Council on Tribunals. I take the noble Lord's point on the importance of the independent members, but I hope he will not press me to say any more at this moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has made a fair offer to the House. We are anxious that consultations and discussions are able to proceed unimpeded by any dispute about what he intends to do. What he says he intends to do meets with the generality of what I have said tonight and on a previous occasion. It is an absolutely crucial point to those who may lose their national football identity cards. For the real football fan—I am not talking about the football hooligan—who has transgressed and deserves punishment, the possibility of being deprived of that lifeline is a serious matter.
We do not want to prejudice or anticipate what the Minister may bring forward. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are very much in
112
line with my own thoughts. The Minister has invited me to withdraw the amendment against the background that he has promised to bring forward at Third Reading something that will meet these points. The Minister smiles. Have I misinterpreted what he said?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not sure that I said exactly that I had promised on every point. The noble Lord would be well advised to read in the Official Report tomorrow what I said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I do nothing else but read in the Official Report what the noble Lord has said. I shall most certainly do that. If I larded what he said, that is the kind of licence which an opposition spokesman is entitled to. It may not be very effective but it is all that we have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) providing for the exercise of the rights accorded to members of the National Football Membership Scheme under Schedule (Rights of members of the National Football Membership Scheme) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 80. This amendment deals with the rights of membership of the scheme. The Minister has said that if one is a member of the scheme one will be entitled to free mail shots. One will be on a computer. It is possible that one's details will be sold to the highest bidder by someone who says to the club, "If you allow us to instal equipment it will cost you nothing because we will get back our money and more by selling the information to other organisations". When I listen to Mr. Colin Moynihan I wonder whether the purpose of the scheme has more to do with the opportunity of exploiting that avenue than with protecting the innocent from the ravages of the hooligan.
We are concerned not only about the rights as regards information to be sold but also those in relation to other matters. Those other rights are set out in the new schedule proposed under Amendment No. 80. If the Minister says, "You must be a member of the scheme", then we are saying to him, "Give membership of the scheme some status and authority".
By means of Amendment No. 80 we are saying that if you are a member of the scheme, then you have,
"(a) the right to participate in the election of representatives to a body".
You also have,
"(b)the right to participate in the election of a committee to monitor the operation of the scheme".

113
And you have,
"(c) the right to call a meeting of members of the scheme;
(d) the right to be notified in writing of the reasons for any proposed withdrawal of membership;
(e) the right to present a defence before any decision regarding membership is made;
(f) the right to appeal against any withdrawal of membership and the right to be represented at such an appeal".
In other words, if there is any value or worth in being a member of a scheme, it should carry with it not only responsibilities but also benefits.
We are also most concerned about this aspect. We may be talking about half a million people here, or perhaps nearly a million, who are members of a national membership scheme. It is a colossal organisation. It is not created just for the convenience of the football clubs, the FMA, the Government or for some direct mail order organisation. If you are a member of the scheme you should have certain rights which go with that membership. Indeed, that is the basis of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in some detail during Committee. The provisions in the schedule focus on the right of members of the scheme in the management and operation of the scheme and in having the FMA's decision reviewed in cases where membership is withdrawn. I said in Committee that I have every sympathy with the sentiments which lie behind the noble Lord's proposals for members' rights in the running of the scheme. It will be for the FMA and the clubs to run and monitor the operation of the scheme. But they will wish to take fully into account the interests of members of the scheme. It is in their own interest to do so. Consultation with members is vital to the success of the scheme, but just as important is the need for the FMA and the clubs to be free to settle the most appropriate way of taking account of members' interests. It would not be helpful to attempt to spell out detailed arrangements like those in the proposed schedule on the face of the Bill.
The other proposed provisions centre on the important right which must be extended to anyone who is disqualified from membership by the FMA to have the authority's decision reviewed. During Committee I said that I would wish to take another look at the FMA's discretionary powers and the rules and procedures to be spelt out in the Bill by which the authority will exercise that discretion to disqualify people from membership. Having made it clear that I have a good deal of sympathy with the principles which lay behind the noble Lord's proposals, I undertook to consider the possibility of bringing forward amendments at a later stage.
I have explained that it has not been possible for us to do that in time for today and that we will be consulting the Council on Tribunals. I have given an assurance that I shall return to this matter on Third Reading. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will do so. However, without in any way wishing to
114
be ungracious to the noble Lord the Minister—who is not, I recognise, in any way responsible for the absurdities contained in the Bill—all I say to him is that the discussions with the Council on Tribunals should of course have taken place before the Bill was ever produced in Parliament.
We accept what the noble Lord said; namely, that these discussions are now taking place and that the Government will put forward their proposals on Third Reading. However, it must be said that all that is taking place at a very late stage in the Bill's proceedings. Moreover, when the Government complain—as, indeed, they have—about the slow progress of the Bill, I should just like to point out to them that if these matters had been handled properly and professionally we would not have had to have two separate debates on the one issue.
Having said that, I should like to ask the noble Lord one further question. Moreover, I am emboldened to do so by the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who of course we welcome to our proceedings.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he is going now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wonder how much longer we shall be kept here tonight. It is now 10.40 p.m. and we have made substantial progress on the Bill. The Government owe us some explanation as to how long we shall he asked to sit here.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the witching hour is a matter of agreement although it has not yet been reached. The witching hour and the agreement are fast approaching. We try to terminate the proceedings at a point which is convenient to the Government and to your Lordships' House. A timescale needs to be observed. If I withdraw the amendment, as I did the series of amendments in Committee, will the Minister say that when he receives the report he will table an amendment on Third Reading which will take account of the gravamen of the matters contained in the schedule relating to the rights accorded to members under the national membership scheme? I am not asking the Minister to say that the matter will be enshrined in the Bill, but, if I withdraw the amendment, I should like to feel that on Report the Minister will bring forward an amendment which relates to the points I am making in this series of amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am asking for some clarification from the Minister first.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that I can go further than I have already gone. We are looking closely at the matter. I cannot say any more than I have said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on the basis that the "matter" includes the content of the amendments, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that when we see the words on the Marshalled List we shall have to decide whether we need to add something further on Third Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for what I consider to be an assurance that these matters may be covered on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("and in this subsection "accompanied children" means persons under the age of 10 years in the charge of an authorised spectator;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 34, at end insertߞ
("(2A) In the application of subsection (2)(e) above, the Authority shall not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information about such records.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wondered whether the Government spokesman might have indicated that this was a convenient hour at which we could finish. There is a voice coming from I know not where behind me which says that we should take Amendment No. 42.
The amendment relates to the use, misuse or abuse of the police records of individuals who find themselves in some difficulty with clubs. The Government previously said:
"The FMA will not have access to police records"—[Official Report, 14/3/89; col. 132.],
but the Government insisted that the clubs might need to use information supplied by the police when recommending disqualification.
We believe that the disclosure to clubs of police records would fall outside the current Home Office guidelines (Circular 45/1986), which relate mainly to applicants for certain kinds of employment, especially where access to children is involved. There is also a provision for automatic disclosure to bodies responsible for maintaining standards in certain professions.
There is certainly no precedent for disclosure of police records in connection with an individual's leisure activity involving no duty or responsibility beyond obeying the common law. The purpose of Amendment No. 40 is that under subsection (2)(e) of the Bill,
"the Authority—
that is the FMA—
"shall not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information about such records".
We think that is a very sensible and protective amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think and hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The amendment in his name would prevent police records being taken into account or being passed to clubs for the purposes of FMA disqualification.
I explained in Committee that the general principle is that information which is held on police records is confidential and may only be released where there are pressing considerations of public interest. Lord Graham's concerns are that police records should not be taken account of or disclosed to clubs in the context of FMA disqualification. I think that is based on a misapprehension. The disqualification in this clause will arise from a request by a club to the FMA. The club will obviously have to put forward grounds for such disqualification and the case may include information which is supplied by the police to them about the behaviour of a certain individual. That behaviour might well have caused offence but might not have been so serious as to justify a charge.
The behaviour may well have resulted in the individual's ejection from the ground and details of such circumstances are routinely made known to club officials. I think it is right in these circumstances that a club should be able to seek disqualification especially if the behaviour was persistent. Clubs should be able to use appropriate information which was supplied by the police in support of it.
However, that is simply a report about a specific incident. It is not general intelligence and it is not confidential criminal records. These amount to entirely straightforward, sensible and practical reasons why that kind of information might justifiably be disclosed by the police to clubs. It ought then to be available to them to use in support of an application to the FMA for someone to be disqualified under Clause 5(2)(e).
I confirm that there is no question of the police providing anything other than the information which is relevant for this purpose. I repeat what I said in Committee: the FMA itself will not have access to police records.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, just so that I am entirely clear as to what the noble Earl has just told us, I shall obviously look at Hansard tomorrow, to study what he said. As I understand it, he stated that the clubs and the FMA will not receive any Criminal Records Office information from the police. That is the first point. The second point is that they will also not be given any criminal intelligence information from the police. The only information they will receive from the police, again as I understand it from what the noble Earl told us, is information directly related to happenings at a football ground, and nothing else.
I hope that I have put what the noble Earl has just told us accurately. If I have done so, then no doubt he will confirm it. Perhaps I may also ask him whether he has consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers and whether it has indicated its

117
agreement to this course of action. That is, given the fact that it is its information.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would prefer the noble Lord to take my interpretation of my words rather than his interpretation of my words. From what he has said, I think that he has gathered the gist of what I tried to intimate correctly. In other words, the police will be able to supply information relating to a certain incident that happened at the football ground, but they will not be able to give police records of any other confidential information. I can assure the noble Lord that ACPO has been consulted.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for teasing out the problem and to the Minister for responding very fairly to a genuine point. We are entitled to seek those assurances. We and those outside the House who advise us in these matters will read what the Minister has said. In those circumstances, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("(2B) In the application of subsection (2)(j) above, the personal data recorded on a membership card shall be limited to the holder's name, address, national and club affiliations, the date of issue of the card, and if necessary, the date and place of the previous match attended and a photograph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 deals with the personal data recorded on the membership card. In his letter to me of 4th April the Minister talked in terms of continuing discussions with the registrar with the possibility of amendments concerning data protection. The Minister stated:
"I can assure you, however, that we will bring forward any amendments which we consider necessary in the light of those discussions for Third Reading.".
The Minister is saying that the generality of this amendment is part of the ongoing discussions and that we can expect to see something coming out of the discussions for Third Reading. We look forward to those discussions. I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment in due course.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as usual the answer is "yes and no". The noble Lord has moved a revised amendment taking account of points made in Committee. It provides for personal details to be included on a card. It provides that those details should be limited to name, address, photograph, national and club allegiance and date of issue and, if necessary, the date and place of the previous match attended. It would appear not to preclude the inclusion of advertising material. This amendment is an improvement on its predecessor. But I am still not convinced that spelling out the form and content of the card in the Bill is a sensible thing to do. The fact that this amendment suggests to the House more categories of information to be included on the card
118
serves to underline the difficulty of attempting to put the details on the face of the Bill. The amendment would preclude the inclusion of the owner's date of birth. This could be a useful check on validity and is something that the FMA will wish to consider. In the light of experience, the FMA and the clubs might wish to include some additional information on the card. For these reasons I think it would be better not to spell out the detail of the card in the Bill.
We remain firmly of the view that the FMA should be free to consider the form and content of the card and settle on what best suits the needs of football and members of the scheme. I emphasised in Committee and do so again today that there is no question here of attempting to ride roughshod over the important issue of data protection. It is our intention that the Data Protection Act shall apply to all aspects of the scheme and we are in discussion with the registrar about this at the present time, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said.
I commend this approach to your Lordships and hope that in the light of what I have said about the need for the FMA to have some flexibility and the assurance that I have given about data protection, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall study what the Minister has said to see whether it coincides with what we seek to achieve. I accept without reservation the Minister's genuine desire to make sure that individuals will have their personal details protected, whether or not they are covered by the Data Protection Act, and his desire to ensure that membership of the scheme will not mean that their details are generally available. We shall wait to read what the Minister has said. We shall take advice from others—not least the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has been giving us its views on these mattters. We may come back again to this matter at Third Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("administrator of the scheme") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.