Lords Sitting of 20 February 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 Carlisle.

Special Constabulary Strength
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the strength of special constables serving in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years, and what steps are in hand to increase their numbers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the strength of the Special Constabulary in England and Wales in 1978 was 16,952. In 1981 it dropped to 14,978. In 1987 it had risen to 16,209. In Scotland the figures were: in 1978, 3,134 and in 1988, 1,747. I have sent my noble friend separately the figures for each of the 10 years in question and I shall arrange for them to be printed in the Official Report.
Recruitment is a matter for individual chief constables. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a conference in December 1987 in order to enable chief officers to discuss matters of increasing the strength and of improving the deployment of special constables.
Following is the table referred to:

Strength of Special Constabulary as at 31st December

England and Wales

Scotland

1978

16,952

3,134

1979

15,960

3,128

1980

15,108

3,005

1981

14,978

2,814

1982

15,160

2,736

1983

15,331

2,634

1984

16,012

2,453

1985

16,161

2,046

1986

16,070

1,964

1987

16,209

1,777

1988

not yet available

1,747

Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. But people in all parts of Parliament, particularly in this House, are anxious to see a reduction in crime and a strengthened relationship between the civil population and police forces all over our country. Are not the specials a rather useful force which can help to bridge that gap? Is it not sad that, whereas uniformed police strength has gone up by 15,000 in the last 10 years, the strength of our specials has substantially gone down? The figures given hide the fact that the number of women in the specials has more than doubled while the number of men has dropped by almost 5,000 in that period. Will my noble friend say what is the outcome of the special conference convened by the Home Secretary? Has it been advantageous? Has recruitment improved?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, after the conference the chief constables reported to their forces the matters under consideration and since then most forces have extended the use of chief constables over the past year. I cannot give my noble friend any specific details about the figures because they are not yet available.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that all parties in this House and noble Lords of no party at all are anxious to see serious crime figures reduced? Having said that, does he agree that the increase in the numbers of special constables is to he encouraged provided that it is properly gained by the use of properly trained people? Is he aware that, presumably for purposes of economy, Sealink Ltd. has done away with the British Transport Police at Harwich, has taken on 25 members of a private security firm—untrained in police duties so far as one knows—and has sworn them in under Section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 as special constables, giving them therefore the right as special constables to operate in that capacity within the port area and a mile outside? Is he further aware that the Police Federation has written to his right honourable friend with regard to that matter? What is the Home Office doing about it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he is in favour of anything being done to reduce the crime figures; we are in total agreement on that. The arrangements that Sealink has made at Parkeston Quay are similar to those at many ports which appoint their employees as special constables under the 1847 Act. The security guards who have been appointed as special constables there have jurisdiction only within the dock and its immediate confines. They cannot act as special constables elsewhere. The policing of docks and ports is a matter for the owners, subject to statute, and I understand that Section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 enables dockmasters to nominate their employees for appointment as special constables. Some docks employ private security firms for that purpose. I am also aware that the Police Federation has written to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It wrote on 15th February, which was only the other day, and my right honourable friend is considering his reply.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, although as he rightly says the numbers of regular police have increased in recent years, it is truly astonishing that there are now fewer special constables than there were when the Government came into office? That being so, what precisely do the Government intend to do about it? Discussions with the chief constables are no doubt most admirable. Will the chief constables put their weight behind some form of national publicity campaign? What specific measures are the Government contemplating to deal with this disturbing shortfall in the recruitment of special constables?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the recruitment of special constables is a matter for chief officers. It has been

389
found that very often local advertising and so forth is much better than national advertising. We convened this conference. A number of proposals were made. However, it is up to chief constables to put them into operation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the number of special constables could be, and should be, increased where possible, but that is a matter for local chief officers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, whatever the position of chief constables, are the Government not concerned at the reduction, both in absolute terms and in proportion to the regular police, in the number of special constables? Are the Government not concerned to reverse that trend? If my noble friend has any difficulty in deciding how to do this, will he consult the one ministerial colleague of his at the Home Office who has practical experience as a special constable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we are concerned if the number of special constables deteriorates. If my noble friend will be good enough to study the Official Report when it is published he will see that over the last few years the numbers have improved.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says no, they have not. According to my figures in 1985 the number was 16,161; in 1986, 16,070; and in 1987, 16,209.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we cannot carry on a conversation. The noble Lord keeps speaking from a sedentary position. Over the last few years the numbers have increased. Of course they may be lower than they were some time ago. I have tried to explain to your Lordships that we convened this conference and we are encouragng chief constables to recruit more special constables.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the numbers of special constables have been reduced significantly since the Government came into office? Will he now answer specifically the question put to him by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? What are the Government intending to do? The noble Earl has said that it is a matter for chief constables. Is it not a matter for the Government also? Does he not consider that he and his department should take some action to deal with what is an extremely disturbing situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the original Answer that I gave to my noble friend indicated—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will realise when he reads it again—that in 1978 the figure was 16,952 and it is now 16,209. I agree that that is a deterioration, if my mathematics is right, of 700 special constables in the course of 10 years.
390
I have explained that we held a conference. We are doing our best to encourage chief constables to recruit special constables. However, in the end it must be a matter for local decision. One cannot find special constables. They have to be attracted, and they have to be attracted locally.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Earl undertake to look into the serious position at Harwich outlined by my noble friend Lord Mishcon involving a large ferry company? Does he recall that in a debate we had recently on crime on the London Underground his noble friend sitting next to him, Lord Brabazon, made it quite clear that while recruitment was taking place the Metropolitan and City Police were going to loan police officers to British Transport Police so that they could be trained? Is not the important point raised by my noble friend the training of these people at Harwich?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, confuses two matters. One is the training of special constables; the other is the fact that Parkeston Quay is private property. Since Sealink became a private company it is entitled to use a private company should it so wish. It has decided to operate its own policing arrangements. This is similar practice to that in other ports; there is nothing different about it. As to whether or not it is desirable, that is a totally different point. I have no reason to believe that it is not desirable, but I am certainly prepared to look into the matter.
Lord Knights: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problem is not so much one of recruitment but of retaining the motivation of volunteers once they have joined? If he does so agree, can he say what factors might be operating to cause so much early wastage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously one has to motivate people once they are special constables. It is up to chief constables to decide when to employ special constables. Since the conference was held, I understand that a great deal of effort has been made to use special constables. However, it is inevitable—as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, will know from his own responsibilities as a chief constable—that different chief constables in different areas take different views on how best to employ special constables.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, although the figure that my noble friend quotes of a difference of only 700 in the total number removes the alarming nature of this fall, is he aware that the fall has occurred during a period when the numbers should have increased? Due to the changed circumstances of society and the consequent need for special constables, is not the position much worse than it ever was? For even a small deterioration to have occurred during such a period compounds the problem. When did we last have a recruiting drive? When did the Rotary Club talk about it?
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure how many of those questions I can answer. I can tell the noble Lord this. It is a factor that he may have inadvertently omitted from his calculations. Special constables are volunteers. One cannot force feed volunteers into joining. My noble friend is concerned to see an increase in police strength. The strength of the police force as a whole has gone up by some 15,000 people. Expenditure on policing has risen from £1·1 billion to £3·7 billion. Special constables are one small facet of this expenditure. They are volunteers. I shall certainly take note of the suggestions made by my noble friend. If he would care to tell me how one can force a person to become a volunteer—other than a person who is already in the army—I should be delighted to know.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 13 minutes have now passed on this Question and it is about time that we moved on?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I could have sworn that it was 30 minutes!
Noble Lords: Next Question.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that an enterprise known as the Guardian Angels, which purports to provide special protection for travellers on the London Underground and which has been imported from New York, is fraught with difficulties and possible danger and should be discouraged? That kind of work is much better done by special constables.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are opposed to private citizens adopting a policing role except as special constables. We are in favour of active citizens playing a full role by acting as the eyes and ears of the police, but not as their arms and legs. If the Guardian Angels act unlawfully or engage in conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, their presence will not be welcomed. In that event they could not expect to be exempted from the ordinary processes of the law.

Cherished Number Plates: Sales
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to have worked out a detailed scheme for selling cherished number plates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, work is continuing on the proposals announced by my right honourable friend on 27th July 1988. Sales need legislation. Further details about the timetable will be given when the legislation is introduced.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he ask his noble friend to consider selling the number plates that are held at Swansea to charitable organisations? In other words,
392
could auctions be organised and the money raised by the auctions dispensed to charities that deal particularly with the disabled and the disabled motorists—for example, PHAB, Motability and many others?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that the idea is attractive in principle, but unfortunately the rules of Government accounting would not allow the department to divert revenue away from the Consolidated Fund and use it as a covert grant in aid. The department is however investigating alternative approaches to make the sales attractive and that will form part of the announcement in due course.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply. One reads and is constantly told that the country's economy is raring away. We have billions to pay off the national debt. Is it not possible for the Minister to put it quite seriously to his honourable friend that the Treasury, instead of clawing everything back, could use the funds to help the disabled? One would have thought that this Tory Government would have considered the caring aspect of getting rid of these number plates.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this issue is already before my right honourable friend. He is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by Motability and the suggestions made by it. We have considered this and as I have said we are still investigating alternative approaches. I should point out that the Government already support organisations such as Motability. My department's mobility advice and vehicle information service dealt with over 6,000 inquiries last year from disabled drivers and again this year we shall be running the Mobility Road Show. We also exempt disabled people from having to pay vehicle excise duty.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, are we to take it from the Minister that the Government support something along the lines of what my noble friend Lady Fisher advocated rather than having newspapers containing columns of advertisements placed by private enterprise for the sale of these number plates? Surely what my noble friend suggests is a far better idea.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, we are talking here of selling taxpayers' and Government assets and therefore we have to abide by the rules. The advertisements for number plate sales which one sees in the newspapers are not affected by the proposals at all.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether there is a readily-available official publication on the Government's accounting rules? If there is not one already, and in view of the noble Lord's reference to the rules, will he ensure that such rules are speedily prepared and made available to the public because at the moment they tend to be rather a mystery?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a very different question from the one on the Order Paper, which is about our proposals for selling cherished number plates. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of the rules which concern government accounting.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any feasible definition of the phrase "cherished number plate"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is very easy to define. It is a number plate that is cherished by somebody and for which somebody is prepared to pay a price.

Illegal Dumping
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to curb the dumping of rubbish, in particular, bottles and tin cans, in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government share the concern indicated by my noble friend and deplore illegal dumping and litter wherever they occur. They have again doubled the grant to the Tidy Britain Group to £3 million in the coming year to test methods of dealing with the problem.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Will the Government make it an enforceable requirement that all bottles and cans that contain drink carry a returnable charge? As far as the cans are concerned, will he also make it illegal for the little bit that opens the can to fall apart when one pulls it out and insist that it should be retained on the can as is common practice in other countries? That would stop children and animals being harmed by the sharp edges.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in reply to the last part of my noble friend's question, I do not think I am in a position to make any "little bits" illegal, but I am afraid that I have some rather disappointing news in relation to returnable charges. I believe that in South Australia they have proved to be very effective. But when the same experiment was conducted in Oregon in the United States the reverse experience occurred and the depositing of litter increased.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this country now has the reputation of being the dirtiest, most untidy and most litter strewn of all of Western Europe, according to foreign visitors? We see it not only in the rural areas but in urban areas too. Do we not need something more than an extra £1 million for the Keep Britain Tidy group? Do not the Government think that our national reputation now deserves a good deal more energy being put in to clean up Britain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have doubled the grant, and the purpose of doubling the grant is to try to find initiatives for a cure. I am sure that all noble Lords in this House are well aware that there is litter everywhere. It is very difficult to try just to enforce the laws. There are already many laws. The programme for the TBG involves 27 projects grouped in order to try to find answers and initiatives to teach people, particularly the young, not to acquire the habit of throwing down litter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has recycling a part to play in this, with metal, glass and paper?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. It is true that recycling is a growing industry and is showing results. There is the Save-A-Can scheme run by the Can Makers Association to enable the recycling of cans as well as bottles so that they do not litter the countryside or the streets of our country.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as someone who for many years has been associated with the Tidy Britain Group, I am delighted that the Government have recently given us additional support. However, in connection with the noble Lord's original Question, could a greater effort be made in the countryside which, after all, is one of the jewels in the crown of this country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point. We are doing our best to educate the public. The difficulty is that litter is proliferating over a vast area, particularly in the countryside, and it is difficult to enforce the law. The long-term answer is to teach people that it is environmentally unacceptable to drop litter.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the survey carried out last year for industry into packaging and the environment? Half the 16 to 24 year-olds interviewed were not aware that it was a criminal offence to drop litter. Does he agree that we should pursue the education of children in schools about care for the environment generally and about litter in particular?
Does the Minister consider that a much higher profile should be given to recycling waste? Figures for this country are poor compared with those for the rest of Europe, and a government initiative is necessary to encourage people to recycle more waste.
Lords Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the last point, the figures for the amount of waste being recycled are rising.
I fully endorse the noble Baroness's first point; the long-term answer is for youngsters to be taught that dropping litter is environmentally unacceptable.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are now in an age where plastic bottles and not glass are creating difficulties in the countryside and they cannot be recycled? Can he assure the House that in future the Government will

395
try to dissuade drinks manufacturers from using plastic bottles?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point and I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many wastepaper bins were placed around the countryside but that they have disappeared? Is the reason for their disappearance, particularly from lay-bys, the fact that no one will empty them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not aware of the disappearance of such litter bins, but I shall endeavour to discover more about them.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that where litter bins are generously placed people will use them? Is he aware that in Italy, a country that I know well, recently the rubbish in the streets has been disappearing as a result of placing litter bins everywhere? It is the responsibility of local authorities to put them in place and to clear them. Will my noble friend try to obtain greater impetus for such a campaign?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that Westminster City Council has a programme of sponsored litter bins in line with the scheme pointed out by my noble friend.
Lord Carter: My Lords, supplementary questions have concentrated on small litter. In asking my question I declare an interest because I farm to the edge of a town in the Midlands. Is the Minister aware that large items of litter such as bedsteads, old armchairs and bicycles cause a great deal of trouble to farmers? Does he have any idea of the damage which can be caused to the inside of a combine harvester by an old bedstead?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that the driver of a combine harvester will spot an old bedstead before trying to plough it up.

Westminster City Council: Finances
3.5 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will hold a public inquiry into the financial affairs of Westminster City Council.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the authority's auditor has the responsibility for inquiring into any complaints about a local authority's financial affairs. I see no need for the Government to hold a public inquiry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a ratepayer in the City of Westminster. Is the Minister aware that I find the council's settlement to its retiring chief executive, Mr.
396
Brooke, of £1 million to be absolutely unbelievable? Is he also aware that when due to government action the metropolitan counties were dissolved, the maximum payment for redundancy or retirement settlements was £200,000? Is he further aware that the population of most of those metropolitan councils was far in excess of that of Westminster City Council?
What new features have been introduced into the payments of retirement or redundancy settlements to chief officers to enable the abnormally high payment of £1 million to be made? Was it in order to cover up the deficiencies of the political leader of the city council, who obviously made an appalling blunder on this occasion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I find it slightly surprising that the noble Lord should question the payment. Mr. Brooke had served in local government for 32 years and he has been paid only that to which he is legally and contractually entitled.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in order to discourage extremism in local government, and because the eccentric behaviour of the leader of Westminster City Council has led not merely to the expenditure of £ 1 million but to a reported protest to Buckingham Palace from the Netherlands Royal Family in respect of the cemeteries affair, would it not be in everyone's interest if Westminster City Council now selected a more responsbile leader?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is the Government's policy not to interfere with local government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, after that extremely good-quality joke, what would the Minister's language have been if a Left-wing Labour authority had behaved in the way in which Lady Porter has behaved in Westminister?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dean. It was that we are discussing a gentleman who has served in local government for 32 years and he is being paid only that to which he is legally and contractually entitled.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the course of the noble Lord's Answer he referred to the responsibility of the district auditors in connection with the financial affairs of the council. Is he aware that many noble Lords believe it to be extraordinary that the district auditor in this case—a private firm which was charged with the investigation of the scandalous transaction in the disposal of cemeteries for 15p—was at the same time offered a consultancy contract to the tune of £78,000 without competition? Does he not consider that there was a division of interest which should receive the Government's attention? Is he also aware that many noble Lords may believe that we should have regard to the Government's responsible impartiality when it comes to a Tory council behaving in that scandalous way in relation to cemeteries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is already a considerable amount of regard: three investigations

397
are being carried out into the sale. The district auditor's report of 2nd November showed serious defects in the council's handling of the sale for which members and officers were responsible but no evidence of fraud or corruption. He is also to hear the ratepayers' objections to accounts at a public hearing next month. The Commission for Local Administration in England found considerable failings amounting to maladministration. The Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad's investigation continues. In the light of all those investigations, there is no case for intervention by the Government.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has told the House that it is the Government's policy not to interfere with local authorities. Therefore, are we to understand that they will now be free to spend the money obtained from the sale of council houses which they have not been allowed to spend?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the financial settlement made between the council and the chief executive upon his retirement. Were any conditions attached to it? Is it a fact that the chief executive is now under an obligation not to reveal or publish anything relating to the council's recent affairs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that Mr. Brooke will remain an employee of Westminster City Council for some time. It will be up to him to deal with any questions put to him by the auditor about events which occurred during the time he was chief executive.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Was it a condition of the settlement made between the chief executive and the council that he should not publish anything which may be in the public interest in relation to the affairs referred to by the noble Lord?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of any condition.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord keeps telling us about the number of years for which the chief executive has served. If that is the case and he is so satisfactory, why has he been sacked? As my noble friend on the Front Bench suggested, is that not in order to cover up what Mr. Brooke knows has been going on in the Westminster City Council?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of that. However, I address the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, to my earlier answer; namely, that Mr. Brooke will remain an employee of the Westminster City Council for some time yet.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that I totally reject his Answer to my first Question? Will he bear in mind that I have spent a
398
long time in local government and can find no case where a chief executive has retired or been retired on anything more than one-fifth of what Mr. Brooke is to receive? Can the Minister say what special circumstances apply where the chief executive of the Westminster City Council, which is less than a fifth as large as any of the Metropolitan country councils, can be forcibly retired on £1 million? I again put the question to him. Does he not understand that it quite clearly appears to everybody outside, other than people trying to protect the leader of the Westminster City Council, that it is hush money in its worst sense?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am slightly confused as to whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is suggesting that Mr. Brooke should be paid less than his legal and contractual entitlement.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989 and the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989 will be taken.

Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("applies") insert ("whether or not in relation to any initial stage").
The noble Lord said: I agree with the grouping of Amendment No. 1 with Amendments Nos. 44, 65

399
and 86 to 89. They run together and indeed, if the Government accept or the Committee approves the first amendment, the others will almost automatically drop into place and will be implemented. Therefore, the grouping is effective and acceptable from every point of view.
I am trying to decide whether one should say that the Bill in its present form is unique or unprecedented. It is one or the other and perhaps could be both. It is unique in the sense that the implementation of the terms of the Bill that we shall examine is left in the hands of an implementing committee made up of football leagues, an administrator, other people and to some extent the Secretary of State. The implementation is left in the hands of those other than the normal machinery which comes into operation when a Bill becomes law. I believe that that is very wise and I accept it. The problem with which this Bill endeavours to deal carries with it practical difficulties. It is very sensible that the implementation of the general terms which Parliament gives for dealing with it should be in the hands of people with practical knowledge of what it is all about and those who know how to organise thousands of people going through football turnstiles to watch a match, with the emotions which sometimes go with that.
In moving my amendments, Members of the Committee will find that I am very much in sympathy with the Bill, the way in which the Bill is drawn up and the proposals for its implementation. Having established the need, which is a matter for Parliament and Government, for regulating the entrance to football grounds on match days, the decisions as to the form of the regulation and its practical implementation should be mainly in the hands of practical people who are aware of the practical problems which arise.
In introducing this Bill to Parliament in its present form, although we have criticisms of many of the details found within it, the Government have done their duty and it is right that they should have done so. It is now for Parliament to do its duty in making the Bill as sensible and acceptable as possible consistent with doing the job which it sets out to do in the most effective way. In the absence of other people outside being able to find an answer to the problems which have arisen, I believe that the Government should be congratulated on saying that it is their duty to do something. This Bill is the result of their considerations.
Up to that point, the Government are on strong ground. They have the whole Committee and, indeed, most of the country with them on the generalities of the matter. I do not believe that anybody is unaware of the dangers of the hooliganism which is being allowed to grow. There is no argument or difference of view on that. Society has to find a way to deal with hooliganism; otherwise we shall deteriorate into anarchy and there will be such unpleasantness that life will not be able to carry on as at present. Therefore, we are all at one in wanting to deal with hooliganism.
I believe that we all agree that football crowds are not the reason why we have hooliganism. It is not
400
football matches or crowds which have caused hooliganism. Nobody says that. To try to suggest that by bringing in such a Bill we are thereby blaming the problem of hooliganism upon football matches is not the aim of anybody dealing with it. However, I believe that it is also generally accepted that, while football crowds and their management are not the reasons for hooliganism, which takes place in places unconnected with sport and in other sports, sadly, football crowds have turned out to be a magnet for an element of hooliganism—and I believe a very small element. At this stage I do not believe that anybody is oblivious of the great efforts which most of the clubs have made. Television cameras and extra facilities have in many instances been able to minimise the problem.
Therefore, we are agreed that we must do something about hooliganism. We are agreed that it is not the fault of the football clubs that we have hooliganism. We are also agreed that football crowds have turned out to be a magnet which, whatever its significance, has something to do with keeping hooliganism alive and making it worse. At this point we must start examining the Bill itself to see whether, in acknowledging what the football clubs have done, it will help or hinder the clubs in the next step that has to be taken—that is, in removing the magnetism from the magnet as regards the contribution of football crowds to hooliganism.
My amendments, running together, do not in any way interfere with the Bill. They do not give instructions as to how the implementation of this general idea has to be carried out. The Government's Bill is left almost intact. What is attempted by some of the other amendments that we shall be dealing with later is another matter. My amendments—at the opening stage of the Bill and therefore perhaps the most important—leave the Bill intact. All that my amendments propose is that the committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State, in working out whatever scheme is to be implemented, should take into account when giving advice the value of confining application of the Bill (in whatever form it is when we finish with it) to trials in a small segment of the country rather than it operating universally. Many people who should know say that the Bill is impracticable; that however good in theory it may seem, in practice it will not work. If it is tried out at a microcosm of grounds that may well produce the answer.
The Government will find that nearly all the criticisms in the innumerable amendments they have to answer during the Committee stage say that however strongly Ministers may feel that their Bill, in theory, will do the trick of removing the attraction from the magnet and that the measure may look and sound all right, in practice it will not work. The critics of the Bill say that the amendments have not been tabled out of prejudice, bias or any anti-Government feeling. Indeed, criticisms come from all parts of the Committee. I have worked in association with noble Lords who sit on all Benches. The Official Opposition, the Cross-Benches, the Liberal and the SDP Benches have all looked at this Bill. The Committee is saying that the theory may look fine, but in practice the Bill will not work.
Whose view should we accept as to whether the Bill is practically as well as theoretically possible? There are those who say, yes, let us have the Bill all at once. That is what is implied: the Bill says that it automatically becomes available for application on enactment. My amendment proposes that before that happens the Bill should be tried out in various segments. The amendments do not even spell out in detail the segments that should be chosen for trial purposes in the preliminary stages. It will be for the Committee to do that.
In suggesting to the Committee that my amendment will assist the Bill and make it more worthwhile I have to put this argument. The Government, with all the experienced civil servants who make up the department—they are good, experienced and know their work—seem to be saying that the Bill must be applied as soon as it is enacted. All the football clubs—not just a few or a majority, but all—who for years have had to cater for crowds through their turnstiles say that the Bill as it stands will not work. The practicalities of that view are there.
My amendments do not seek to alter the Bill. The movers of other amendments say that the Bill is not practicable, but if the Committee accepts my amendment we shall be in a position to say whether or not the Bill is practical before it is universally applied. We shall have had a testing on the ground. That will show whether or not the Bill will work. It seems the correct way to proceed in view of the dangers that could otherwise flow.
What are those dangers? It is not a matter of conjuring up emotive words. The people who have experience of organising crowds say that, however efficient these clever machines may be, however efficient are the people on the turnstiles in carrying out the measures within the Bill as it stands, and however efficient are the police who will be on hand to bolster the general control, if, a quarter of an hour before the match, there is a hold-up affecting those who are eager to see the match and who are emotively affected by what they think they are about to see, then the proposals in the Bill will not work. In the feeling that they are being denied what is their right the apparent hooliganism that will result from that disruption will do immense harm.
I should like to put this point. The theatre has to deal with crowds. The quality and the success of any show is always reflected by the time given to rehearsals. There is a final dress rehearsal. Previews are held to obtain reaction before the show is presented to the public. That usually indicates whether or not the show is a good one.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: May I ask the noble Lord—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may finish this point before the noble Baroness intervenes. The threatre has to deal with crowds and the previews show whether it will be a success or a failure. How many noble Lords would buy an air ticket if a new aeroplane had not had a test flight first? How many
402
noble Lords who have gone through military training of any sort have not had the instruction that time spent on reconnaissance is seldom, if ever, wasted? All that my amendments do—they do not interfere with the Bill—is to suggest or to give an indication to the Committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State that in working out the scheme that they have in mind for implementing the Bill they try it out in segments, as a rehearsal, before applying it throughout the country.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I am seeking information. I am prepared to admit that I am probably slow on the uptake. If the noble Lord's amendment is carried can he tell me whether it will mean that no Bill shall come into force unless it is first tried out in segments and that it will not apply to the country as a whole?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My amendment does not go that far. I thought about that. When I first decided that this was a Bill to which I should pay attention, my first inclination was to do that. I wanted to write into the Bill that it should be tried out in the first or second divisions. If I had tried to do that through my amendment the Bill would not have remained as it is. It would have become a hybrid Bill by sectionalising the people who would be affected by it.
The suggestion to which the noble Baroness referred passed through my mind. It was not a bad idea but it would have altered the nature of the Bill and slowed it up. It would have made it more difficult for the Government and I do not want to do that. I do not wish to delay the time in which something can be done to deal with hooliganism.
I expect some sympathetic response from my noble friend on the Front Bench and I hope that he sees the point of my amendments. The committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State will alone have the power to decide what shall be done. My amendments insist that when other considerations are taken into account they bear in mind the possibilities of the advantages by applying the regulations in sections. If they with their special knowledge and all the information that they will receive from their inquiries say, "It is a nonsense and we believe that these measures should be implemented together and it would cause harm to do otherwise" then I am not altering their powers.
My proposal is to use the knowledge of Members of the Committee and those in another place because many of us have dealings with football clubs. We have seen them built up and we know of the problems at the turnstiles and the difficulties in dealing with crowds. We are not telling the Government what to do; we are merely saying that when they decide what should be done under the Bill we want them seriously to take into account whether applying it in sections would not be safer and better.
It is really an insurance policy. How many Members of the Committee have not insured something or other of their possessions? These measures are merely to try to provide insurance against the practicalities proving insuperable though

403
the theory looks all right. This is insurance and I believe that the committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State would be wise to follow that course. It is no more than that. My noble friend cannot suggest for one moment that with any of my amendments I am wishing to alter the Bill as it now stands. I am not taking anything out; I am not removing any powers and I am not insisting that they use any new powers. I am merely saying that the Government should accept the guidance and should take seriously into account the good sense of having a rehearsal before they put on the show.
I could refer to the details of my amendments but that will take up time and other Members of the Committee wish to make a contribution. I ask noble Lords to take my word that if they read the words of my amendments they will find that they mean what I have just said and no more and no less. Everyone who has to run football matches has said that the practicalities are as I have described them. We should take the precaution of taking out an insurance policy. I hope that, when my amendments are put to the Committee and if my noble friend has not already accepted them, these remarks will give him the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Mellish: I support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I declare at once that in my view this is not a party political matter. I beg all Members of the Committee clearly to understand that. This Bill is about the best interest of football. It has nothing to do with the Conservative or Labour parties or the Liberal Democrats or whatever they call themselves. This Bill is about football and what is best for the clubs.
As I understand the Bill at the moment, it is to bring in a national membership scheme in which every single club in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Divisions will have to comply whether it likes it or not. That is the Bill as it now stands. What this series of amendments is proposing is that we agree with that part of the Bill that sets up a specialist committee that will implement the Government's proposals. We are saying that that specialist committee shall have certain considerations before it prior to implementing a national membership scheme. That is all that we are saying.
We are not denying the Bill. I do not deny that there is hooliganism at football matches and I never have done so. I am president of Millwall Football Club and I know something about hooligans. I know more than enough. But the truth of the situation is that we have to get down to basic hard facts. No club has tried harder than my own to eradicate hooliganism. It has spent a fortune and it has been eradicated. The club has dozens and dozens of police and crowds of people watching everything that is going on. I speak as one with a great deal of personal knowledge. It is not true to say that every game is full of hooliganism. It used to be but it is not so now. For example, last week, Barnsley, which is not a notable team to many people—
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I beg your pardon!
Lord Mellish: I appreciate that it is to the noble Lord, Lord Mason. Barnsley played Everton and there were 32,000 people there. I imagine that it was the biggest crowd that they have had for a long time. The Minister may be interested to know that there was not a single incident at the game, and that was achieved without the provisions of this Bill. I am saying to the Committee that the Bill should not be applied to every single club in the four divisions. It would be mad to do so. You cannot say to clubs like Crewe, Darlington and Hartlepool and other smaller clubs, "Whether you like it or not you are to have a national membership scheme". We have tabled these amendments to enable the Government to think about the terms of reference that they will give to the specialist committee.
My parliamentary experience tells me that if the Government Front Bench has decided, whether we like it or not, that this Bill is to become the law of the land then I am wasting my time and I do not know why I am speaking. I do not know why these amendments are to be moved or why anything should be said on this side of the Committee. That is why I began by saying that this is not a party political matter. Will the Minister please get that into his brain—I almost said "thick head"—but I would not dream of saying that. The fact is that the Bill affects all of us; it concerns all clubs and the vast majority of them do not deserve it.
There are top clubs such as Liverpool and Arsenal which will take the Bill in their stride. They will have no trouble in implementing a national membership scheme. But I believe that the Crewes and Hartlepools of this world and the rest of the tiny clubs at the bottom who form the backbone of football, will find it impossible. I wonder whether Members of the Committee realise that the vast majority of support for clubs comes from what is called casual support. For example, if Leyton Orient win away, which is fairly rare, it gets about 500 extra people at the next home game. Those supporters are called casuals. The average attendance of Leyton Orient which is a Fourth Division team, is about 2,000 to 2,500. It is being suggested that it should be told "Whether you like it or not you are to have a national membership scheme. You have got to be in it in the same way as Arsenal and Liverpool and the rest". I say that is rubbish and absolute nonsense. This measure cannot be applied to all the clubs. They do not know what hooliganism is about and they have never heard of it. Such clubs may have read about it concerning Chelsea but it is nothing to do with them.
The Government are saying that every club should conform. I support the amendment on that principle and that basis. I do not quarrel with the Bill and the Government's intentions. I readily accept Part II of the Bill which is to control the characters who go overseas. I do not deny, and have never done so, that there is hooliganism in the game and it has to be eradicated. I was asked by a very distinguished noble Lord "What will happen if your plans go through and some clubs try the experiment? Will not some of the gangs go to other clubs?" I do not believe that that will happen. I do not believe that the so-called organised gangs will ever bother the Leytons of this world because their football is so lousy.
Lord Underhill: I beg your pardon!
Lord Mellish: That is the truth. It is all about football. The Government are making a general sweep. I do not suppose that these villainous gangs will go up to Hartlepool and muck them about. I ask noble Lords to agree with me that this is not a party political matter. Secondly, will they agree with me that this specialist committee should be established in such a form that it can introduce a trial scheme? Let it be applied to those clubs where it is needed but not to the vast majority of clubs which have nothing to do with hooliganism and should not have the Bill imposed on them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On these Benches we very much appreciate the manner in which the two prime movers of the amendment have sought to engage the attention and support of the Committee. I join them in saying that we are desperately anxious to deal with the problem at a football level and not at a party political level. That is a genuinely held view. Many noble Lords will have come to the Chamber today to hear the arguments. I very much hope that when they come to vote, whether on this amendment or on the others, they will acknowledge that there is a problem to be tackled. On that point, there is literally no dispute in this Chamber, in another place or in the country.
We have a dispute about how it is to be tackled and in what manner the scheme is to be imposed. Having heard the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Mellish, speak, I cannot believe that there can be a more gentle way of examining the seriousness of the Government's intentions. The Government are being invited to accept that lessons must be learnt before the whole panoply of the Bill is visited upon football. As I said at Second Reading, the Minister has his own store of unique experiences as a former director of a football club. He must be proud of the fact that at that level he is more closely in touch with the realities of football than many. Members of the Committee. However, he is not alone. Other Members of the Committee can bring their experience to these matters.
We must listen carefully to the Football Association, the Football League, the clubs, the police, the supporters and other organised groups. They have told us of their fear of what could happen. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that we should see whether the system will work. The Committee has been well served because there have been two demonstrations in Committee rooms upstairs of the manner in which the football membership scheme will operate. One was a computerised scheme and the other scheme, presented by a concern called Check-In, does not rely on computers but operates in a different way.
The Committee needs to be aware of some of the pitfalls. The Minister for Sport has said more than once that he will not bring in a scheme until he is satisfied that it will work. However, we all know that we are not talking about one piece of machinery or about something that can be adjusted. We are talking about what happens at ten minutes to three or at five minutes past three on a Saturday afternoon, not just
406
at one football ground but at perhaps 30 football grounds. That is when the provisions of the Bill will stand or fall.
Perhaps I may be allowed to tell the Committee what has happened in practice. The Minister has said that we have already had the experiment—the experiment was at Luton. We are told that because Luton works, it is a good blueprint. Luton has little relevance to the Bill. The Luton scheme specifically excludes away-fans. If we are thinking in terms of the Luton scheme writ large in the Bill, that means banning away-fans. However they are dealt with, we are talking about two different things.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee what Plymouth Argyle has told us and the football world about its attempt to have an experiment:
"In March 1986 the Second Division club embraced with enthusiasm the principle of entry by identity card, commissioning Aquix to implement a 50 per cent. membership scheme at Home Park. The intention was to introduce controlled access to all sections of the ground well ahead of the Government's proposed deadline. Instead the scheme has been abandoned as unworkable with Aquix writing off nearly £19,000 of their invoice for £60,000. Cliff Hartley, the Plymouth director responsible for crowd control, said 'We thought the Aquix system was just what we were looking for and we went for the full package, exactly what the Government is insisting we should all have. They told me everything would be handled by their computer, not just card reading at the gate but season ticket sales and turnstile returns, everything. It never worked. The card readers supposed to reject and exclude known troublemakers were faulty and a second lot were impracticable. At several matches I had to say to the turnstile operators 'Forget it, let them all through'. There were massive queues and that was with gates of only 8,000."
Members of the Committee need not listen to me saying what I think will happen. I am inviting them to listen to what the man in charge of Plymouth Argyle said did happen. I am not even saying that that will happen at all matches. I am saying that that happened in his experience over a number of matches.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee what has happened at the grounds which attract crowds of around 38,000. There are not many but they are part of the picture. Last November I was on my way home from this place. I normally travel by Clissold Park and go through Arsenal territory. At about 7.30 or 8 p.m., I came upon thick traffic around Green Lanes. The roads were full of cars. It took me a long time to manoeuvre. I could not understand why at 8 p.m. the roads were crowded. I realised afterwards what had happened. Arsenal were playing at home to Liverpool. The traffic had gradually been pushed out and instead of the match starting at 7.30 it was delayed until 7.45 in order to let the fans in. My report says:
"Because of the crush the start was delayed by a quarter of an hour but thousands, including ticket holders, were still struggling to get in when the game began. In spite of this everybody remained good humoured. Add the nuisance of computerised turnstiles to the situation and the mood might have become ugly. One piece of strategically placed chewing gum could well gum up the works".
Computers, as travel agents, air traffic controllers and newspaper sub-editors know, have a habit of breaking down when they are most needed.
We are asking the Government this: "Are you prepared to listen to the voice of experience? Are you prepared to say to the Football Association and the Football League—which are the prime administrators of football in this country and which in any guise will be the football membership

407
authority, either enlarged or added to; they will be the people concerned and are the people who have expressed their displeasure—that there is a need to ensure that the scheme will work in practice?"
I say to the Minister with all due candour that we are concerned about getting the matter right and not about getting it quick, even if it means that there must be some delay. Moreover, although the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that the amendment was not designed to delay, if the idea is taken on board it will delay complete implementation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said, on the same day as Arsenal and Liverpool have to carry this scheme out, who is talking about imposing it on the tiny clubs?
Is this not something which deserves to be worked in gradually? Perhaps by working it in gradually the other lessons will be learnt. Quite frankly, I believe that there will be some wrinkles which can be ironed out. The answer which will come forward is that there may be powers. If the Arsenal situation happens again and those concerned suddenly find that they must let the fans in, then subsequent amendments in the Bill are designed to give a police officer and the football club powers to do so. However, you do not have to do that; you must be able to take your courage in both hands.
Before I sit down I say this to the Minister. This is the first opportunity upon which he and his colleagues can indicate to the Committee, and the other place, and, indeed, millions of fans outside this place, that their ideas are not set in stone, that they are prepared to listen to the voice of experience and that they are prepared to come some way towards those who, like myself, intensely dislike the concept of an ID card.
However, if the Government are not prepared to accept what is a modest amendment, modestly moved, the implication of which can be taken on board very gently, and if the Minister and his advisers are not prepared to move even in that way, this Chamber may be in some difficulty, not only on this amendment but on many others. It does not have to be like that. What we want is a manifest sign from the Government through the Minister that they are prepared to listen and to learn.
Lord Wolfson: I support the aims of the Bill but I share the practical reservations expressed by the noble Lord who so ably moved the amendment. I especially agree that there should be a phasing-in process and that there should be a selective approach. I am rather concerned about certain aspects which I hope Members of the Committee will allow me to mention briefly. Indeed, I am sure that I am not alone in my concern.
First, I am not clear why all age groups must be included when most of the hooliganism is coming from a very small group of youngsters. Secondly, what are the fall-back arrangements in the event of equipment failure? Thirdly, what arrangements are proposed to combat violence in the street, which could easily arise, as has already been mentioned? Fourthly, what arrangements are proposed for international games and cup finals?
408
Finally, the position of small clubs has been made very clear. However, what is the position of casual or foreign visitors? After all, you cannot tell someone coming from our European partners or elsewhere that they cannot get into the ground because they are not a member when they are not aware of how to become one.
The question of late arrival has also been mentioned. I am unhappy about how that will be dealt with. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will take such matters into account and possibly rethink some of them in order to come forward perhaps with some compromise proposals.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must confess that before I came here today I had no doubt in my mind that I should support the amendment. However, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I begin to wonder whether I should. I wonder whether by supporting it I should be wasting my time. In his opening remarks he seemed to be trying to persuade people like myself who are opposed to the Bill that the amendment meant something: before the Government embarked on the whole panoply of a membership scheme, they would have to bring in a pilot scheme. That was my understanding of the amendent before I heard what he said.
However, during his speech the noble Lord seemed to be saying to the Government, "Look here, this amendment really won't hurt your Bill at all; it won't matter if we pass the amendment, because your Bill will not be injured". Quite clearly, if we passed the amendment and if he had convinced me that it meant something, it would be bound to hurt the Bill, if only by delaying its application. But, as I understand it from the remarks he made, even if we pass the amendment all the Government have to say is, "Well, we have considered your proposal and we throw it aside". Then the whole process as outlined in the Bill will continue. I do not wish to delay a vote if there is to be one, so I shall sit down. No doubt at a later stage the noble Lord can explain to me whether I am right in my assumptions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I freely admit that I am no expert at all on football. But having listened to the discussion on the amendment I cannot help wondering whether those who have spoken have made themselves absolutely clear to the Committee. Indeed, we have been talking about the amendment for 43 minutes. It seems to me that it is simply saying, "We do not like the Bill; we want a pilot scheme and we consider that that is what the Government should have".
My understanding of public feeling on this issue is that it is a serious law and order matter. People are extremely worried about what is going on at football matches. Moreover, the Government feel that they have a duty to ask clubs to do something about the situation. If a pilot scheme is all that is wanted, and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said, it is a matter for football and not for the Government, why have the clubs not been able to do something already? It is because they have not been able to do anything about it that the Bill has been introduced. In my view,

409
whatever my noble friend says, the amendment is saying "We don't want the Bill'. It is a wrecking amendment and I shall not support it.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: Pehaps I may just say a word or two at this point. We have heard a great deal of discussion this afternoon and I do not think, with respect, that it has addressed the point which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was making. In my view we are not discussing whether this is a good Bill or a bad Bill in this regard; we are discussing something which I think is a wrecking amendment and which, if it were carried, would wreck the Bill. It would do that simply because, as I understand it, the proposal is that whatever scheme is ultimately decided upon, it should be carried out in sections.
In the first place I think that that proposal is nonsense. I say that because if you are discussing rough play or hooliganism, it is not confined to any particular division; it might be in any of the divisions. It is not feasible to suggest that any scheme which might be agreed upon should be applied sectionally. Indeed, I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. I remember the Minister saying in his winding-up speech that he would not be prepared to adopt a scheme which had not proved technically feasible. I asked him about that because I think it is a very important aspect.
I suggest that if we vote for a scheme at the end of the day, it must be one that the Government have guaranteed will be technologically possible. I think that any scheme would be wrecked if it had to be carried out in sections. Therefore, if my interpretation is right, I too shall vote against the amendment.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I am a supporter of the Bill, but I believe that it should be confined to certain age groups; and we shall come to an amendment on that point later. However, that is not the point upon which I wish to address the Committee now. There was a nasty incident on a train last night between some Tranmere Rovers fans and some others. I forget the name of the football club. If the scheme applied only to, let us say, Plymouth Argyle and Manchester United, I cannot see how it would have any effect on the Tranmere Rovers fans and the other fans who were having a punch-up on the train. If we are going to apply the scheme—there may be better arguments for not applying it, but I do not happen to agree with them—surely we should apply it universally to those people who are liable to take part in the mayhem and violence.
I should like my noble friend to discover whether any people other than young men are involved in this type of trouble. If they are not, we should like to know at a later stage. On the whole, I am against the amendment and I shall support my noble friend in the Lobby.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The temptation to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls,
410
makes it irresistible for me to intervene briefly in the debate. I must declare an interest because I have been a life-long supporter of Cardiff City and Chelsea.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the Committee for that support. I was at Chelsea a week or so ago. Chelsea won 3–2, although Swindon, their adversaries, had scored four goals. The Committee can work out how that happened.
A few weeks previously I was at Cardiff City. There was no trouble at either of those matches because of the organisation that had been developed. I must declare a further interest. I hold a perhaps unique position in this place because for seven or eight years after coming down from Cambridge I was a Football Association referee. If there is any other Member of this place who was a Football Association referee, I should like to join him in one of the hospitality arrangements that we have in this place to talk over past events.
When I became a referee I was told by a distinguished headmaster of a great school that whenever a player suggests to a referee that one's parents are not married because of something one may have missed or done in the course of refereeing, one should take no notice. If he says it a second time, speak to him. If he says it a third time, treat him roughly. When I was refereeing in the then Isthmian League down at Plough Lane a fullback did that. On the third occasion that he referred to my ancestry quite improperly, I gave a free kick against him for ungentlemanly conduct. As a result a goal was scored against his team. I expected to be roughed up and mobbed by the team because a goal had been scored after I had given a free kick. Not at all. That team's players mobbed him and told him to keep his mouth shut while I was refereeing.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful for that applause, because in the course of discussions on the Bill the players' attitude has not been adequately mentioned. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, because when we were at an international conference in Paris he said something against my party. He was then in the other place and so I asked him what his majority was. He said that he had a majority of three and so I told him that I would soon sort that out. I said that I would get a Liberal to stand against him. As a result, the noble Lord is in this place. I hope that the Committee will not hold that against me on this occasion. I support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, because he is talking practical common sense. As he said, all he is saying is that the amendment provides a kind of insurance policy and that is all. I hope that all Members of the Committee will support him on this occasion.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made a remark which deserves to be challenged. He referred to the set-to between

411
Liverpool and Tranmere supporters. That was nothing to do with a football match. It took place outside the ground. Liverpool and Tranmere are not in the same division. The incident was an indication of the general hooliganism and violence that occur outside grounds. It concerns us all, but it has nothing to do with football.
Lord Mishcon: I knew that we had a great deal to be grateful for in respect of the presence in this place of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I had not realised that he was responsible for the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, being here. If there were a division of support for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on that matter I am not quite sure how the voting would go. I hope that it would be in support of him.
I wonder whether in the presence of the right reverend Prelate I might quote what the Almighty said through one of his prophets:
"Come, let us reason together".
I should like to do that now, because otherwise the Committee may gain a wrong impression of the amendment and the way to vote.
Anyone who tried to propose a wrecking amendment would not be in consonance with the traditions of this place. The Bill was announced in the gracious Speech and properly, in accordance with our traditions, received a Second Reading. A Second Reading means that one agrees with the principle of the Bill. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that silly party partisanship will not enter into this matter because we should be failing in our duty if that actuated our minds, especially on this amendment.
We are trying to see that the measure goes through this place with dignity and propriety and in conformity with the principles of accepting the Bill. I note with great respect the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course on Second Reading some of us expressed the doubts that he has expressed, and the matters must be covered. We will come to them in Committee. He was right, if I may say so, to point out some of them. The amendment has nothing to do with such issues except possibly to cover all the difficulties that there might be.
I have heard so often, as the Committee has, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have heard him say that the reason for having statutory instruments in legislation is so that, without putting forward an amending Bill, this place can feel sure that it has kept its sense in legislating by allowing flexibility.
The principle of the national identity card is not in front of us. We are dealing with an identity card for members of football clubs which are designated under the Bill. That principle, for the purpose of the amendment, must be accepted. Many of us, perfectly properly, want flexibility in this sense: we want to see whether the police were right or wrong in their fears; we want to see that no mistakes are made and therefore we say, "Accept the principle of the Bill. Do not legislate in mandatory terms so that the committee, the administrator or the Secretary of State has to do something. Merely point out that he has a duty to consider something".
412
When has this House objected to somebody considering something in legislation? When? I can think of no example where we should have stood up and made valiant speeches saying, "We don't want the Secretary of State to consider something. We don't want an administrator to do so." We have never had an administrator before, we are going to appoint one but we do not say, "We don't want him to consider something". Nor do we say, "We have never had this committee before but we do not want it to have on its agenda to consider something".
All this does is to say in the legislation, "You may come to a contrary view. You may decide that it is not sensible to limit this to the First Division in the first stage and the Second Division in the second stage or to separate it into divisions. You may come to that view and if so, God bless you; you have considered it." All we are saying is: for the sake of flexibility and so that we do not make a cardinal error in carrying out a scheme which we have never had before but the principle of which we are admitting for the purpose of this amendment, please consider it. If the Almighty can say:
"Come, let us reason together",
cannot we also?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke as a referee.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: An ex-referee.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I speak as an ex-member of staff of a Football League club. Among other things I was also a referee of both codes, along with the husband of the present Prime Minister. I wish to answer directly the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. In doing so, I wish to bring to the attention of the House an incident even more recent than that quoted by my noble friend Lord Graham. He spoke of what happened outside and in the neighbourhood of the Arsenal ground last November. I wish to refer your Lordships to what happened at Old Trafford, a club with which I have been familiar for the past 60 years. This happened just two weeks ago. It is an answer to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and also a warning of what can and very likely will happen. It is what many of the police fear will happen if consideration is not given to the way in which the Bill is applied.
Manchester United were playing Queens Park Rangers at an evening match with a 7.30 kick-off. Before the match started, the police asked the management of Manchester United to close all the turnstiles. At Old Trafford there were 92 turnstiles and outside there were 8,000 to 10,000 people. The crowd inside was reduced by that number and there was absolute chaos around the Old Trafford area. Traffic snarled up and there were crowds of people milling around.
Just consider what would have been the position if, in addition to the crowding of the area with fans going to the game, there had also been hold-ups at the turnstiles. I suggest—and this is where I am in opposition to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—and the belief of the police is that in those circumstances there

413
would have been mayhem. That would have had nothing to do with football. It would have been mayhem among supporters who were not inside the ground, who had not had anything to do with the ID cards. It would have been mayhem because there would have been a crush of people at the turnstiles and outside, infuriated by their inability to get into the ground.
The incident which took place on Saturday night between Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers fans had nothing to do with football. If the people who were involved had had ID cards, it would not have stopped the fights on the train. That was where the violence occurred.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and his co-signatories to the amendment because unless an opportunity is given for the experiment to be tried out, however it is decided to try it out, and unless there is a pilot scheme, I fear that when it comes into operation in something like 40 to 50 grounds every Saturday afternoon, there will be real mayhem right across the country. That will have nothing to do with football but will result from the frustration of fans who are held up outside the grounds.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments seek to make mandatory the phased introduction of the membership scheme.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Hesketh: They would make it a requirement on the Football Membership Authority to investigate and report to the Secretary of State on ways of achieving this. Amendment No. 65 would provide that, as part of this process, the Football Membership Authority would have to examine basing the phased introduction of the scheme on the criteria of ground capacity, present club membership and average attendance at home games over the past three seasons. Amendment No. 88 makes trials mandatory. Amendment No. 89 would require the Football Membership Authority to look at the desirability and feasibility of implementing the scheme in the Football League in four stages beginning with Division One clubs and ending with Division Four clubs. This would have to be done before the provisions in Part I of the Bill could take effect. Indeed, as they are drafted they would appear to make no provision for Part I of the Bill ever to come into effect.
Let me deal with two concerns which I believe lie behind the noble Lord's amendments. Noble Lords have expressed concern about whether the technology involved in the scheme will work in practice and about the possibility that the scheme might be introduced before the equipment has been tried and tested. We do not need to introduce complicated phasing arrangements to address these concerns. The Government have already made it clear that the key issue in settling the timetable for introduction is the need to be satisfied about the availability of the right technology. We shall not
414
implement the scheme until we are satisfied that it will work effectively and efficiently. We accept that this means that the equipment will need to be tested at individual clubs before the scheme is implemented in full. Indeed we understand that the football authorities have it in mind to test equipment available from alternative suppliers before making their choice about the supplier they think should be awarded the contract. They may test different types of equipment in one ground for the sake of comparison. To take the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, we are not intending that anyone should have to buy a ticket on an aeroplane that has not been on a test flight.
Concern has been expressed about equipment failure. It is clearly essential that the technology to be employed should be robust. Many noble Lords will have had the opportunity to see the GEC demonstration arranged in this House before our Second Reading debate. One of the features of that system is that the readers are independent of one another. The readers are those pieces of equipment over which a membership card should pass. So if one of the readers failed it would not mean that the whole system would break down. Nor is there any need for the individual readers to be linked to some single great computer.
We should also bear in mind that the technology and experience of running membership schemes is not new to football. Some 90 of the 92 clubs run membership schemes, backed by a range of technology, some of it advanced. Of course, the national membership scheme will make new demands on the technology but much has already been learnt about the conditions of use and about membership cards in match-day conditions. It is simply not the case that this experience is new to football. I have no doubt that the football authorities and the Football Membership Authority will draw on this experience in the implementation process. As soon as the equipment has been chosen, individual clubs will be able to begin testing it at their own grounds.
The other concern that I believe exists is that of the financial impact of the scheme on smaller clubs. There are fears that the scheme will impose a financial burden on clubs and that they might lose support. But there is no good reason to believe that the scheme will have an adverse financial impact on clubs, even the smallest clubs. A number of companies have already offered to set up and run the scheme at no cost to clubs or supporters. Even without commercial development, a leading company has said it could put the scheme in place at a cost to the member of about £3 per annum. This is less than many clubs charge for admission to one match now. If the football authorities and the clubs take a positive approach to marketing the scheme, financing it will not be a problem and it will produce income to football. It will not be a cost upon football.
On attendances, the scheme brings with it the real prospect of attracting back to the game the many tens of thousands of spectators who have been lost to it because of hooliganism or the threat of it. The hooligan problem has been endemic since the 1960s and during that period support for the game has fallen dramatically—from a total attendance at

415
league and cup matches of 35 million in 1967 to 1968 to 21 million last season. Hooliganism has been a major factor in this decline in support. There is a real chance of getting many of these fans back into the grounds. Surely it is in the interest of clubs to take a positive attitude to the scheme and seize this chance.
The hooligan problem is not confined to Divisions One and Two of the Football League. There is trouble too at matches played in the Third and Fourth Division. The opening of the last league season was scarred by the ugly scenes at the Scarborough versus Wolverhampton Wanderers Division Four match. Wolverhampton's away fixtures continue to be subject to all ticket restrictions.
Sadly, there is much more recent evidence of the problems which can occur in the lower divisions. Today's press carries reports of a clash on the Intercity Newcastle to Liverpool train between Tranmere fans returning from a York versus Tranmere Division Four match and Liverpool fans travelling back from their cup tie at Barnsley.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope very much that the noble Lord will not make generalised statements about hooliganism or violence in the lower divisions. He must be aware that on 10th January 1989 in response to Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Douglas Hogg stated in a Written Answer in another place that in Division Four there had been 543 arrests up to 31st October 1988. Yet when my honourable friend Mr. Pendry challenged those figures on 2nd February 1989, Mr. Hogg replied in a Written Answer:
"Following my reply of 10 January, ACPO was informed of a substantial error in the return from one police force".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/89; col. 389.
So the Minister needs to be very careful before he pleads in aid statistics which are often found to be erroneous.
Lord Hesketh: I am not referring to statistics. I am referring to what I and many millions of other people saw on television news last night. Fighting broke out soon after the train left Manchester Victoria Station. The train was extensively damaged and the British Transport Police have set up an inquiry. The argument that the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Football League are unaffected by hooliganism simply does not stand up. If the national membership scheme had been in place, anyone who may be convicted following those incidents would lose his or her membership and be unable to attend future matches. The scheme is relevant to incidents of this kind.
I have another concern about the concept of phasing the introduction of the scheme. It could create the danger of displacing hooligans from clubs in the scheme to those outside it during the phasing process. That was the view of all the members of the Minister for Sport's working party which reviewed the principles of the scheme last summer.
Many Members of the Committee have said that this Bill is not political. It is not a political Bill; it is a Bill which has been introduced because the football authorities felt it was impossible to introduce a
416
voluntary scheme. The Bill has been introduced in response to an urgent problem. The Bill is based on the views of the experts who were in the Minister for Sport's working party. I have explained why I believe that phasing is unnecessary and unhelpful.
Lord Mellish: How can the Minister say that when practically every football club and all the police authorities are against this present scheme? That is rubbish!
Lord Hesketh: I believe that what I have just said is not rubbish. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have one or two questions to ask on the basis of what the Minister has just said. The Minister referred to the working party and the very distinguished members who served on it. I have no doubt that the members were deeply distinguished; but can the Minister explain to me why none of the names of those members has been disclosed? The working party's report, published by the noble Lord's own department, gives no names of the group of people who made the recommendation. I find that one of the more surprising things about the report.
If the Minister will forgive me saying so, a number of specific points have been put to him by Members of the Committee in various parts of the Chamber, not least the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Mellish. I did not hear the Minister on a single occasion refer to a point which had been made in the debate. I hope he will change his style during the rest of our discussions.
Lord Hesketh: With regard to the question of names of members of the working party, it was composed of the organisations who after all are the important parties representing the clubs, and various other interested parties. These included the Football Association, the Football League, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the Minister take on board the fact that both the Football Association and the Football League stated at No. 10 Downing Street that they were opposed to an identity card scheme? As recently as 1st February this year, in response to a letter from the Minister for Sport, those bodies said they had grave reservations about the efficacy of the Bill. Nevertheless, they said they would work with the Government. So the Minister needs to be very careful about spreading around the rumour that people who are opposed to the Bill, but who are members of a working party, are tarred and feathered with the outcome of that report.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have never been more puzzled by a government reply than I was by the reply of my noble friend. I have only one complaint. The noble Lord's opening words were so long. He said that my amendment made it mandatory that certain things would have to be done. He heard that I was chastised by Members on the Benches opposite because we had not made the provisions mandatory.

417
I made it crystal clear—the words of the amendment itself will confirm that—that to try and make the provision mandatory would have made this a hybrid Bill which would have meant that it could not go through the normal procedures. It was because we wanted to avoid the amendments being in the nature of wrecking the Bill that that line was not on. I hope that if my noble friend impressed anyone with his opening words, they will discount them now.
What puzzled me was that my noble friend then went on in his speech, in examining what had been said, to say that he agreed with all of the things that I claimed that my amendment would do. He said that the Government had undertaken to carry out pilot schemes to see whether the scheme worked. He further said that the Government had undertaken to carry out tests before the scheme was implemented throughout the Football League to ensure that the scheme was suitable.
The only reason that my amendment is now more essential than ever, in view of my noble friend's speech, is to make sure that what the Minister said the Government intended to do in any case will be done. All that my amendment will achieve is to make certain that the football committee that has to decide this matter, the administrator who will be appointed, and the Secretary of State who will designate all this, will take into account, in some form or another, the very problems that my noble friend said the Government are very keen to see tackled. The nature of the reply means that if the amendment is not accepted by the Government we must see as a Chamber that that sort of message is taken into account. It gives me no joy; nor, I am certain, does it give my noble friends on this side any joy for the Committee to have to defeat the Government. It gives me no joy again to have reported, in the press, "The Lords defeat the Government on a major matter of interest to the nation". But, in view of the speech of my noble friend, we have that duty.
I know that we on this side of the Committee—I do not know about the other side—have what is known as a strong two-line Whip. I should like to explain to noble friends, who are not as fully acquainted with parliamentary procedure as some of us who have been at it for 39 to 40 years, that the Whip is not an instruction on how to vote. The Whip is for the government of the day, very properly, to indicate how important they think is the measure under discussion. Once we have obeyed their Whip and attended, so recognising the importance of the debate, it is for us as individuals—in the light of the debate, in the light of the arguments, and in the light of the facts—to say how we use our attendance. On this occasion, having listened to the arguments and having examined the amendments as they stand on the Marshalled List, and putting those considerations alongside the very puzzling response of my noble friend on behalf of the Government, I think we should go into the Lobby to say in the kindest, most sensible way that we think the Government would be well advised to allow Parliament—and this Chamber in particular today—to provide them with some strength for what they have in any case said they want to do.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down I should just like to say, in spite of the perfectly reasonable views held to the contrary, that before we vote against the Government we ought to realise how very strongly people outside this Chamber feel about football hooliganism. They are fed up to the back teeth with people creating mayhem and rioting; they want something done. That is why I intend to vote for the Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Earl expresses his view in the form of a question to me. I should like to say that if he examines his life style and mine, both before we came to the House and he will find that I am just as likely to know the feelings of the rank and file people of this country as he is.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amherst, E.

Hughes, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hunt, L.

Attlee, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Auckland, L.

Ilchester, E.

Aylestone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Banks, L.

Jacques, L.

Birk, B.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brain, L.

Kennet, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Derwent, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ennals, L.

Mellish, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mersey, V.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monson, L.

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nelson, E.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Northfield, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Gregson, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Haddington, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hampton, L.

Porritt, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rathcreedan, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Reilly, L.

Hayter, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rochester, L.

419

Russell, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Seear, B.

Trafford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Underhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

White, B.

Soper, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Stedman, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wise, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Knights, L.

Beloff, L.

Knutsford, V.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Luke, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brightman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Manton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Camden, M.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cockfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Croft, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dundee, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles, V.

Pennock, L.

Effingham, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renwick, L.

Erne, E.

Rodney, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rollo, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Germans, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thurlow, L.

Hooper, B.

Tranmire, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Westbury, L.

Joseph, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should immediately declare an interest. I am president of the Cardiff City Football Club and I am very pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that he is a supporter of the club. Looking at the speeches made at Second Reading, I was astonished that there was clearly no case whatever made out for including Wales in the Bill.
Moving the Second Reading, the Minister referred just once to Welsh people. He then went on to talk about preventing convicted hooligans from travelling to English matches abroad. A little later, he referred to the disgraceful scenes involving so-called English football supporters. In the Second Reading debate, there are constant references to "the English disease" and the shame that English Members of your Lordships' House felt at the frequent news about the way in which English football supporters abroad behaved.
As I understand it, this Bill is aimed primarily at the 92 clubs in the Football League. The result of my amendment, if it succeeds, will merely take three clubs out of the Bill; namely, Swansea City Football Club, Cardiff City Football Club and Wrexham Football Club. Until very recently, there were four Welsh clubs in the Football League. Unfortunately, for financial reasons, Newport County has left the league. I am not sure of the result of today's court proceedings, but we may well hear the unfortunate news that Newport County Football Club has disappeared altogether.
It may not be well known in England that, although the results of the three league teams that I have mentioned are carefully studied each Saturday evening by Welsh football supporters, it is not the most important competition for soccer supporters in Wales. The most important competition is the Welsh Cup. It is the most important competition because the winners of the Welsh Cup automatically enter the European Cup Winners' Cup. Two seasons ago, the whole of Wales was rooting for Merthyr Town to beat the famous Italian Team, Atalanta. Unfortunately, it did not win, but to tell you that Merthyr was in the European Cup Winners' Cup gives some idea of the vast difference between soccer in England and soccer in Wales. The three league clubs that I mentioned strive very hard to win the Welsh Cup, which puts Wales on the international scene.
The draw for the 1989 Welsh Cup semi-finals has been made and little Barry Town in South Glamorgan has been drawn against what may seem a soccer giant in Swansea City. Quite frankly, knowing the rivalry between Cardiff and Swansea—I might add that it is friendly rivalry—I hope that Barry will beat Swansea, reach the final, win and play in European Cup football.
There is a reference in the Second Reading debate to Scotland not being included in the Bill. As I understand it, it has not been included in the Bill because it is already in Europe. So is Wales; Wales is

421
in Europe. I wonder whether what will happen to those three Welsh clubs if they are included in this Bill is generally realised. Obviously, it will mean that the very small gates that they now have—between 4,000 and 5,000 and sometimes even fewer at their league games—will almost certainly drive them to the wall. Swansea escaped bankruptcy very recently almost at the doors of the bankruptcy court. It has dragged itself up by its bootstraps.
I also see a reference in the Second Reading debate to Cardiff City being offered £100,000 for one of its players and there was a suggestion that there must therefore be plenty of money in the game. It is true that that money was offered and the offer was in fact accepted last week. It was accepted because Cardiff City, like many other clubs with attendances of 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000, cannot continue in professional football unless it occasionally sells a player. However, if this scheme is imposed on clubs they will be in dire financial straits.
There is another dimension with regard to Wales—the international matches that are played back home. The Committee may remember that England and Scotland no longer play Northern Ireland and Wales in the home championships. I think that that was a disgraceful decision. As I understand it, with regard to England, the decision was taken because the English Football Association has a contract with Wembley under which all England's home games should be played at Wembley. Why on earth England and Wales cannot play each other at Anfield or Hillsborough is beyond me. It would be an evangelical way of letting the people of the north and other parts of England see their national team play. It would also help the finances of Welsh and Northern Ireland soccer.
All the evidence is that, when Wales plays at home, particularly at Ninian Park in Cardiff, it is not in the main the supporters of Cardiff City, Swansea and Wrexham who buy the tickets. It is the people from mid-Wales and from the rural areas. That is the evidence that we have. What will happen to them? In the normal course of events these people would not join a membership scheme because they are not in an area where Football League is played. Will they be banned from watching Wales play, say, West Germany in the European Nations Cup at Ninian Park? That would be the effect.
I see no justification whatever for including Wales in the Bill. It would mean excluding three league clubs from the scheme. As I understood it, a number of Members of the Committee opposite, supported the Government on the last amendment because they felt that it would be a wrecking amendment. Whatever can be said about my amendment, no one can say that it is a wrecking amendment. It simply takes three clubs out of the 92 clubs involved and leaves 89. If the Government insist on going ahead with the scheme, they can have the 89 English clubs with pleasure.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I certainly support the amendment just moved by the noble Lord. As we heard from the noble Lord the Minister at Second Reading, the Government intend to exclude Scotland from the provisions of this Bill. It therefore seems
422
perfectly reasonable to look at the case for excluding Wales.
There were three clubs in the Fourth Division in 1987/88. There was a Written Answer by Mr. Moynihan relating to those clubs on 19th December of last year in the House of Commons. I am taking these statistics from col. 58 of the House of Commons Written Answers. The statistics show this. The average gate at Newport—to which the noble Lord has just referred—is 1,750 people. Are we seriously suggesting bringing in this massive bureaucracy for 1,750 people? The number of arrests—not convictions—in the season was 35.
We then come to Swansea City. An average attendance per match was 4,389. How many arrests were there? There were 10. That means that in the case of Swansea City there was one arrest—not conviction—for every 10,000 people who attended. That is of course not necessarily an arrest within the ground. They might well have been arrests at a local railway station which are, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said earlier, totally irrelevant to this Bill.
We then come to the figures for Cardiff City. The average attendance there was 4,424. There were 43 arrests—where we know not. There were therefore four arrests—again not convictions—for every 10,000 people who attended.
I hope that the Government will show some sense of proportion. Are we going to load these substantial costs on to these small clubs? It is easy for the noble Lord to say, "We have a wonderful scheme, and as a result of the wonderful scheme there will be no costs", because he is not responsible for the financial management of one of these small football clubs. Those who are responsible have indicated their very serious concern about the implications of this legislation. It seems an extremely moderate and reasonable amendment that is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks. Even the most impassioned enthusiast for this legislation cannot describe this as a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Government will for once show some degree of graciousness in this matter and will indicate that they are prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment seeks to exclude Wales from the requirements of Part I of the Bill. It would mean that matches played at the grounds of the three Welsh clubs which play in the Football League—Cardiff City, Swansea and Wrexham—would not be subject to the requirements of the national membership scheme.
It has always been our intention that the national membership scheme should apply thoughout the Football League to all of the 92 clubs which play in it. To exempt matches played between some clubs could severely threaten the effectiveness and integrity of the scheme. There is a real danger that matches outside the scheme would become a target for hooligans banned from attending matches at clubs in the scheme.
The designation of matches in Wales to which the scheme will apply is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales and he has established a working

423
party to advise him on the matter. It is very unlikely that designation will not include the Football League and FA Cup Matches played in Wales when the home team is one of the Welsh League clubs. Excluding Wales would have some odd effects on the Welsh clubs. Supporters of the Welsh clubs would still need to join the scheme if they wished to attend their side's away matches in England. But they would have no protection from visiting hooligans at matches in Wales.
I do not believe that the analogy with Scotland is a fair one. Scotland has its own league. These three clubs in Wales are playing with the other 89 in England south of the Border. The Secretary of State for Wales is consulting about the designation of matches.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on low attendance, of course there are Fourth Division clubs in England which also have low attendance. As I stated in the previous debate, we believe that the costs will not be insupportably high. However, I believe that it would be quite wrong to exempt Wales from the Bill altogether. I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. It is rather sad. He started by stating that consultation has taken place, but he tells us in advance of the outcome that that consultation is unlikely to exclude the Welsh clubs. I do not know what kind of consultation is taking place or who is to be included, if the Secretary of State for Wales is already under some remit from higher authority that whatever the consultation produces it must he ignored unless it is of a certain view.
Members opposite—and there are still some in the Chamber at this time—need to consider very carefully what the Minister is saying. Of course there will be problems. There are difficulties now when a club with no problem is visited by a club with a problem. The clubs overcome it very easily by making the match an all-ticket affair. One club, which I shall not name, has a reputation. It has recognised that its fans cause problems. Whenever the club plays at another ground it is an all-ticket match. These difficulties can be overcome.
There are later amendments which do not relate geographically to Wales, as this amendment does, but to clubs which have a record of non-violence. Where there are two such clubs, the later amendments asks: why make such impositions? Reference has already been made to casual supporters. At clubs such as the one which I occasionally attend, Tottenham Hotspur, one-quarter of an attendance of about 30,000 people is recognised to have come along on spec on that day. That is the position now. If the Minister is going to be so rigid—I am sorry to feel this way on only the second group of amendments—if there is no flexibility in these matters and he states that the Government believe that the legislation should be applied universally, I am very much afraid that we shall have a long and tedious Committee stage of the Bill. That is not wished.
424
The Minister mentioned costs. He and his colleagues have more than once referred to the way in which the costs can be defrayed. Reference has been made to the commercial opportunities that are open. One has to question whether one of the raisons d'être behind the Bill from the Government's point of view is commercial exploitation and not the best interests of football. I very much hope that the Minister, given the opportunity of saying something else, will be prepared to take this amendment away. To start on the premise, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, did, that everything has to be fought for with the Government, is not the way to do it. Members of the Committee in all parts of the Chamber genuinely want the Government to think again about these very important matters.
The practical outcome for clubs in Wales is easy because the Government can concede that they are not right on every issue all the time. I hope the Minister will be kinder in his second bite at the cherry.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is well aware that it is an absolute cornerstone of the Bill that the 92 clubs must be included.
Noble Lords: Why?
Lord Hesketh: Because the Government's advice was that the way to tackle the problem was to try to tackle it with the four divisions, and the three Welsh clubs are part of the four divisions. Were we to do otherwise we would start interfering with the fundamental basis of the advice that the Government received on this matter. That is why I am unable to concede to the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Brooks, the commitment that they would like me to give.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord has made a quite interesting statement. From whom did the Government receive the advice that every club had to be included, irrespective of the different problems or absence of problems associated with those clubs? Is he referring to the working party or to some totally different group of advisers? We should all be immensely in the noble Lord's debt if he were to tell us why he is being so inflexible on the matter. His argument, in so far as I understand it, is that the Government have received this advice from an unknown source. Can he tell us the source?
Lord Underhill: Before the Minister replies will he take cognisance of the fact that the House has passed an important amendment which allows for flexibility? Surely this is a matter which the Government ought now to reconsider, because it is suggested in the amendment we have carried that there should be a phasing-in process and that the scheme should be introduced in an orderly manner. Surely the Government have changed their brief.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend replies, will he take up at once the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about flexibility? If the

425
amendment is passed and Wales is excluded there will be no flexibility whatever on this point.
Lord Hesketh: As I said earlier, the Government were advised by the Minister's working party. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware, we continually have discussions both with the League and with the Association, but the key feature is that we should have an odd situation if three clubs in the League are not parties to the scheme.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I press the Minister a little further? I do so in my capacity as senior vice-president of the Cardiff Business Club and also as a member of the Institute of Directors management committee. I have asked people in Wales who advised that the three clubs should not be excluded. I have not been able to find out who gave that advice—whether it was Welsh advice and whether it was anybody who knew anything about the circumstances of soccer in Wales.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, that I missed the first minute of his presentation on this amendment. I heard him mention my name as I entered the Chamber although I do not know in what capacity, but I am sure it was on a friendly basis. I say this with some diffidence. Once again I have heard a member of the Government—it happens whatever government is in power—misunderstand the position in Wales; something which occurs as regards any Bill before this Committee. Once again the Minister, who has read his brief most carefully and positively, has totally misunderstood the difference between how soccer is dealt with and managed in Wales and England. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Morris, refer to the Welsh Cup. Wales is in the European Cup. Why cannot even that simple parameter be worthy of recognition and not to descend on Welsh clubs the panoply of English dogmatism? The Welsh position is so often forgotten. I should like to support this amendment very strongly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I briefly follow the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is making the very best of a bad job. I feel a good deal of sympathy for him, because I feel sure that if it were left to him he might come to a different decision.
However, the time is long past when committees in London make important judgments about what takes place in Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, this is an issue which is of considerable interest throughout Wales, not only south Wales but north Wales as well.Therefore I plead with the noble Lord to take this away again and to think carefully about it.
I wish to ask him one question. Has this matter been put to the Secretary of State for Wales? If so, what judgment did he make upon it? If he was not consulted I believe the Minister should take this away and make sure that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Peter Walker, is given the opportunity to make a judgment. He is there to make a judgment on this kind of thing. I am sure he would wish to do his best for Wales in these circumstances. On behalf of my colleagues—I am sure that there are a number on the
426
other side who feel as deeply as we do on this issue—I plead with the noble Lord to think again about this. The Government have nothing to lose by thinking very carefully about it. I am quite sure that if further discussion is needed with Ministers and particularly with the Secretary of State for Wales, a number of us would be glad to meet him to underline our arguments once again in favour of treating Wales separately. I appeal urgently to the noble Lord to say that he will take this away.
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as I stated earlier the Secretary of State has a working party. The problem is slightly more complicated than Wales itself because the three clubs we are talking about—Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham—are playing in a transnational league. This is where the real difficulty arises. We are not talking about three clubs playing in the glorious and beautiful isolation of Wales, but three clubs who are playing in a transnational league whereby they are exposed to the activities of the other 89 clubs. Because of that it makes the situation very difficult to remove those three from a transnational league. I can give no commitment, but I can take it away for consultation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: I can understand the problem faced by the Minister, but I am seriously disappointed by his reply. I was hoping that there might be two compelling reasons for him to accept the amendment. First, I had hoped that he would have pity on us after what happened to us in France last Saturday and, secondly, the Tory candidate in the Pontrypridd by-election might save his deposit if he can say that the Government have accepted the amendment. However, in the light of what the Minister has said I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after ("Wales") insert ("in the first division of the Football League").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 11. In one way or another they deal with the central issue: that of experimentation, primarily in the First and Second Divisions. Amendment No. 3 deals with the First Division of the Football League. Amendment No. 4 deals with the First or Second Divisions of the Football League. Amendment No. 8 deals with an experiment for two seasons of a scheme which rests on the premise that the police already categorise matches as A, B or C in relation to their experience of the level of policing required. Amendment No. 11 deals with events involving clubs which have no record of violence.
The Minister has made a sensible proposal in respect of the last amendment. He has indicated that in certain circumstances, such as the possibility of defeat, he is prepared to take away and consider amendments which he dislikes. He has made plain the

427
fact that the Government have a blueprint or master plan embracing all the clubs in all the divisions, and that there is no room for experimental or pilot schemes.
I beg the Minister to remember in particular the comments which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Mellish. The cases which they made for experiments in respect of the amendment which was carried against the wishes of the Government are open to interpretation, yet they give clear indications of what we have in mind. The amendments indicate the fact that there is a world of difference between clubs such as Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle United and those in Manchester and Liverpool. There is a wide gap between clubs in the Second and Third Divisions, and clubs in the Fourth Division are very small. The chairman of Colchester United is on record as telling the Minister that if the scheme as unamended was passed it would mean the death of the Fourth Division. That comment was made not only in the light of the knowledge of his own club, but of other aspects.
I understand that the Minister is not in the business of damaging clubs or causing them unnecessary expense or worry. He is in the business of eradicating the element of violence inside football grounds which can be eradicated as a result of such a scheme. The amendment which rests upon restricting the application of the scheme to the First and Second Division is realistic. Earlier in the debate it was said that First and Second Division clubs are more likely to be able to carry it. The large clubs could be at the risk of losing a large proportion of their attendance from casual supporters. However, they have land, money and ambition.
Tomorrow night my home-town club of Newcastle United will experience a boardroom battle. Millions of pounds have been mentioned not only as being at stake but as having been spent by rival factions which seek to control the destinies of the club. I wish the club well. It is distasteful to people such as myself to see such a fine club in the middle of that battle. However, I make the point because in the case of many clubs we are talking about large sums of money.
Those clubs will be able to begin to operate some kind of scheme if the Minister insists. However, we are raising the question of the small clubs which do not have the time, money or support from their townships. The Minister knows Northampton better than I. As a director of the club for several years he will remember the struggle which he and his co-directors experienced in raising enthusiasm for the football club inside the town. I have seen the statistics—and perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee—but I imagine that in small clubs such as Northampton which do not have a thriving supporter-club nexus, or access to millions of pounds, there will be a real struggle.
The Minister knows more about football management than I who envy the opportunities that he has had. Undoubtedly, he has experienced some headaches and perhaps a raid upon his bank balance. I have not and do not wish to experience that.
428
Football management does not provide a cachet or bring instant glory; it brings many headaches.
When the Minister speaks in terms of advice and consultation, I hope that he will be even-handed in accepting it. In relation to some of the amendments he has stated, "This is after consultation. This is what the working party has recommended". He can take it from me that the clubs in the Third and Fourth Divisions do not want the scheme, are not in favour of it and are very much agitated by the fact that it will be visited upon them.
It is a spectator Bill but little consultation has taken place with the spectators. I know of the problems which arise in consulting an amorphous mass. They are not organised as well as the management or players and are unable to respond. However, people speak on behalf of supporters' clubs, and in the lower divisions there still exists the kind of atmosphere which we know as "the old spirit" of football.
If the Minister can provide the evidence or show that there is as much a problem in the Third and Fourth Divisions as in the First and Second Divisions, I am prepared to look at that and change my attitude. The noble Lord and his Ministerial colleague, Colin Moynihan, have said that they wish to break the link between football and violence. He needs to produce the evidence that there is a need to do so. One finds that the empirical evidence does not exist in relation to the Third and Fourth Divisions. The Minister may say, "You have forgotten what happened at this match and that match", and he will produce the evidence. Some of the evidence which the Minister and his noble friend Lord Caithness have circulated related to matches which were played by clubs in and out of the divisions. Therefore one must be exceedingly careful when quoting such evidence.
I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to examine the possibility of applying the scheme to the First Division or to the First and Second Divisions. Guidance will be given to a body, the composition and powers of which the Committee will consider later. However, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that what will be embraced by the scheme will be left to the FMA and at the same time resist this or the other House having the temerity to give advice to the FMA before it is agreed.
It was said earlier that once the FMA is set up and, under the Bill as currently constructed, it produces a scheme approved by the Secretary of State that is the end of the matter. We shall test whether the Committee believes that that is the end of the matter because the application of this scheme is sufficiently important for the Committee to know what is the final scheme before it becomes law. Therefore, I believe that the Minister has an opportunity to help the Committee and I look forward to hearing from him. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, always speaks with a deceptive appearance of reasonableness and he certainly gave a very agreeable illustration of that this afternoon. First, he referred to the desirability of experiment. I imagine that few Members of the

429
Committee disagree with him about that. However, these amendments which he moves will exclude experiment in all the areas which he seeks to cut out of the Bill. Whatever the results of investigation, it will not be possible to apply the provisions of the Bill to the clubs expressly excluded by these amendments.
Therefore, it is not a question of talking about experiment; it is a question of whether, at this stage, one is to cut out of the provisions of the Bill the clubs below the First Division on Amendment No. 3 and below the Second Division on Amendment No. 4. Equally, it is no use saying that the FMA will have to consider that. It will be excluded from consideration of applying the Bill to the clubs expressly excluded by the legislation. However innocently presented, these amendments will cut out of the effects of the Bill a large number of the clubs in this country.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered one possible effect of that. Once the scheme is in operation, there seems good reason to believe that the hooligans will be excluded from the clubs covered by the scheme. Where will those hooligans go? They will not go home and play ludo but will almost certainly go to football matches to which the provisions of the Bill do not apply. Therefore, they will go to clubs to which the provisions of the Bill have been forbidden to apply by amendment of the Bill.
I believe that this applies to some extent to what was said on the previous amendment. The fact that clubs are not at present troubled by hooligans is no guarantee that when the protection of the Bill is applied to some clubs, those hooligans will therefore not go deliberately to clubs which do not have that protection. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not fall for the seductive cadences and apparent reasonableness of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I hope that he will appreciate that the proposal is to cut out a very large number of the clubs from the protection given by the Bill.
I remind the noble Lord that whatever the clubs may say—and of course from the clubs' point of view there is no doubt that the introduction of this scheme is a nuisance and an expense—I am perfectly certain that the great majority of the public and those members of the public who like to go to football matches and to take their children safely to football matches, welcome the introduction of a system which gives a good chance of rooting out the very real evil of hooliganism. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will not deliberately deprive a large number of excellent football clubs and the crowds who attend them in this country of that protection.
Viscount Craigavon: I have put my name to Amendment No. 4 and I should like to speak in support of most of these amendments. My amendment draws the line after the First and Second Division clubs and will therefore exclude the Third and Fourth Division clubs. In my opinion it is not a wrecking amendment; it is a reasonable balance to draw in terms of sheer practicality. I believe that that is likely to make the scheme work and enable the scheme to solve more problems than it will create.
430
In answer to a previous amendment regarding Welsh clubs we have had the argument that the league should be regarded as a whole. There is obviously a problem when non-league clubs play league clubs or, in the case of my amendment, when First and Second Division clubs play Third and Fourth Division and non-league clubs. In the working party document there is provision for such an occasion. Paragraph 4(a) on page 17 in the chapter entitled "Designated Football Matches" is headed:
"Matches between League and non-League teams".
Obviously the working party had to take account of that kind of occasion.
The working party favours the second option which will allow non-members access to the ground for such matches. The document goes on to state:
"Supporters of the League team would be encouraged to use turnstiles at which their cards would be checked according to national membership scheme procedures but supporters of the non-League team would not have to produce membership cards at the turnstiles allocated to them (though they would have to buy tickets, in advance, from their own clubs)".
We come back to the system of all-ticket games, which is a well-known existing procedure. The next paragraph goes on to say:
"The working party recommends, therefore, that option (ii) should be followed, at least initially. The matches concerned would nonetheless be designated, so that members will be required to produce membership cards on request and risk losing them if they misbehave (the scheme would allow for an appropriate variation)".
As I say, one is mainly trying to deal with cup matches. As Members of the Committee will know, there is a stage of the FA Cup when First and Second Division clubs start to join in.
When one examines the figures of attendances and arrests in the Third and Fourth Divisions, the results are rather startling. The total attendances for the Third Division in the 1987–88 season—and these figures are in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled in another place—was 2,751,275 and the arrests per game were 1·57. In the Fourth Division the arrests per game were 1·68 from a total attendance of 1,772,287.
We mentioned at the beginning of this afternoon's debate a couple of clubs in the Fourth Division. Perhaps I may give two examples. Hartlepool had a total attendance of 48,972 last season and a total of 12 arrests. As has been said before, some of those arrests may quite easily have been outside the ground. Leyton Orient had a total attendance of 90,322 and eight arrests. I agree that I have given good examples but in my view to deal with that scale of problem in that way is bureaucratic overkill and sets up a very top-heavy bureaucratic machinery to deal with a relatively minor problem.
Perhaps I may turn to the matter of costs. There has been a claim that cards will be free, or at least free to football clubs. They are only free in the sense that Green Shield stamps are free. At the end of the day someone has to pay. Under this scheme spectators are likely to have to pay £3 per annum for three years. That is the suggested figure. Often in lower division clubs there are existing membership lists which provide the basis for social activities and existing schemes like lotteries. Because of the additional cost the benefit of those schemes will be taken away from

431
the clubs and given to the managers of the commercial schemes.
Moreover, the poorer Third and Fourth Division clubs will be in a much less advantageous position because of their small number of spectators to make any ground alterations required. The unit cost per spectator will be so much higher than for clubs with a larger spectator base. Third and Fourth Division clubs are the clubs which can least afford the estimated drop-out in casual spectators. That has been estimated at approximately 20 per cent. They will suffer in that respect.
An example has been given today. We had the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. She said that she wanted the whole scheme operating for all divisions at once. I remember that the noble Baroness made an impressive speech on Second Reading basically in favour of the Bill. However, she also said:
"The question has been raised of bankruptcy for some clubs. I think we must accept that some clubs would not survive"—[Official Report, 2/2/89; col. 1267.]
That is not an acceptable consequence. I hope that the Government appreciate that there are these uncertainties and that there is a better chance of getting a scheme working if they concentrate on a narrower target.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I had not intended to speak on the Bill but I have been somewhat frightened by what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Here I should declare an interest as a patron of Featherstone Rovers Rugby League Football Club. Rugby League is not affected by the Bill, thank goodness. However, the thought that if we passed the Bill in toto all the marauding hooligans who cannot beat up people at soccer matches might come to Rugby League matches frightens me. I am fast becoming convinced that I should perhaps support the opposition and endeavour to scupper the Bill. To be serious, I cannot believe that football spectators will join Third and Fourth Division clubs because they can have punch-ups there and cannot at First and Second Division clubs. That is somewhat far-fetched.
I wonder whether there is a way out of this difficulty. I am endeavouring to give a lead to my noble friend who is not having an easy afternoon. Perhaps following earlier events this afternoon he might agree to take the amendment away to see whether it would not fit in with a phasing-in of Third and Fourth Division clubs at a later stage, thereby first seeing how it works with First and Second Division clubs. That might be an acceptable way round the problem.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In general, I am more anxious to understand from the Government what they have in mind and for the Government to understand what we have in mind than I am in forcing Divisions. The ball is in the Minister's court.
Lord Knights: I shall speak briefly. I sympathise very much with some of the views expressed by the proposers of these amendments but I am concerned
432
about some of the practical results. I have in mind the area which I know best, Birmingham. There is Birmingham City in the Second Division, Aston Villa in the First Division, Walsall in the Second Division and Wolverhampton Wanderers in the Third Division. All those clubs are within easy bus rides of each other. If some are to be included and others excluded from the Bill we shall certainly see hooligans who are, for example, banned from Aston Villa making their way to Wolverhampton or even Coventry.
Equally, it should be borne in mind that one of the few successful prosecutions of gangs of football hooligans for conspiracy, and so on, was in respect of Wolverhampton Wanderers, a Third Division club.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Without ID cards and under present law.
Lord Knights: That is true. It indicates that hooliganism centres round some of the smaller Third and Fourth Division clubs, which is where Wolverhampton Wanderers were when all the conspiracy started. Therefore, I would find it difficult to support amendments which seek to exclude some clubs and not others.
Lord Underhill: I hope that noble Lords were impressed, as I was, with the information given by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. I declare my interest. For over 50 years I have been a supporter of what is now a Fourth Division club. It is a club which in the early 1960s was promoted to the First Division but did not like it very much and came out at the end of the season.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is one way of putting it.
Lord Underhill: I am referring to Leyton Orient. I looked at the club's programme last Saturday. It is interesting to see how attendances vary according to the visiting team. It is a fact that there are casual spectators attending football matches who are not regular supporters of a particular club. In the past 10 or 15 years Leyton Orient has had successful FA Cup runs. What has happened? The gate for one week is 3,500 and the next week it is up to 15,000 or 18,000 because people can see the prospect of an exciting Cup match and the possibility of a favourable result. Over half the turnstiles at Leyton Orient are not used for every home game. They are only used when an attractive club is visiting.
There was a meeting of all the club chairmen. I should like the Minister to tell the Committee the attitude of the chairmen, particularly those of Third and Fourth Division clubs.
Some years ago if my club was not playing I would go to Arsenal, West Ham or Tottenham. Frankly, I am not interested, and nor are many hundreds of other Leyton Orient spectators, in going anywhere else but to Leyton Orient to see the team play, despite what my noble friend Lord Mellish said about the standard of football. However, there are casual spectators to be considered.

433
We must consider the financial pressure that there will be on Third and Fourth Division clubs. They are already having difficulty in keeping their heads above water. If Leyton Orient had found it possible to retain some of its best players it could have been in the First Division. They had to be sold to keep the club going and to keep one of the finest playing surfaces in London in decent condition.
I hope that the Minister will realise that this is important for football. If Third or Fourth Division clubs go out of existence and we have only the two super leagues, it will be a tragedy for football. I should like to hear from the Minister exactly what information was given at the meeting with club chairmen, particularly those from the Third and Fourth Divisions.
Viscount Mersey: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has got the cart before the horse. As he may well know, I supported him and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on the first amendment. However, there is the problem of Murphy's Law on which all sides of the Committee agree—the malfunctioning of computer systems. It is normally reckoned to be about 3 per cent. It follows that 3 per cent. of a very big gate is far worse than 3 per cent. of a small gate.
Everton has an average gate of about 35,000. That will mean 1,200 legitimate complaints at every Everton home match. I should have thought, therefore, that the First Division is at extreme risk perhaps more so than the lower divisions. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I do not think this is a good amendment.
Lord Monson: I hesitated before putting my name to Amendment No. 4 because I have a marginal preference for Amendment No. 11, but I believed that Amendment No. 4 might be more acceptable to the Government. If I am mistaken in that assumption then I shall gladly transfer my allegiance to Amendment No. 11. The attendance figures for league games last Saturday, that is two days ago, may have been slightly atypical for two reasons. The first was the exceptionally fine weather. Normally when the weather is bad the less popular clubs are affected to a greater extent than the popular ones. The second reason was the fact that the fifth round of the FA Cup was also being played on that day.
Nevertheless the attendance figures are most instructive and highly relevant to the amendments that we are discussing now and in particular Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The average gate at the three First Division matches was just over 15,000; the average gate at the seven Second Division matches was just over 10,000; the average at the nine Third Division matches was just under 5,000 and at the eight Fourth Division matches it was only 3,360. The First and Second Divisions combined had an average gate of 11,615 whereas the Third and Fourth Divisions combined had an average gate of only 4,196. In other words the average attendance for the Third and Fourth Division matches was only just over one-third of that for the First and Second Division matches: 36.13 per cent. to be precise. One can appreciate the terrible administrative and
434
financial burdens that this scheme would impose upon the Third and Fourth Division clubs.
There is another factor to be considered. I have with me a cutting from a local newspaper which serves a cathedral city and the surrounding area and which has a population of about 80,000. It has a Fourth Division football club, albeit that it was once in the Second Division. The report reveals that pensioners are suffering "terror and torment". They fear that they will live the rest of their lives "in misery". They are suffering "endless abuse and harassment". Some of them do not even dare to walk to the end of the street to go to the pub. Many of them keep their doors locked for the entire evening.
This has come about because hooligans jump up and down on their cars, damaging the bonnets and the roofs. They also urinate upon their cars. To be more specific they urinate on the cars of those pensioners who can afford to run them. They have thrown bricks through the windows of their houses, and some of the pensioners in question have had heart attacks—indeed some of them have had more than one heart attack—as a result of what is happening. The important point to recognise is that none of this has anything whatever to do with football: I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is bearing this in mind. The behaviour in question is described by the authorities as due to "boredom and frustration". Doubtless it has also a lot to do with the anti-disciplinarian attitude that was inculcated in their parents during the 1960s.
The point is that this Bill will do nothing whatever to help these people. I suspect that making it more difficult for the teenagers who are causing the problem to get into football matches will actually make the lives of the old people worse rather than better. Football provides an outlet, but more a verbal than a physical outlet, for these bored young people. It is an occasion to let off steam, partly by yelling at the tops of their voices in support of their own team. Let it also be admitted that they let off steam by boisterously barracking the opposing team and by indulging in a certain amount of minor rowdiness.
Even minor rowdiness is distasteful and certainly not something to be encouraged or welcomed. But for better or worse young male aggression has been a feature of life in Britain for hundreds of years, as many Members of the Committee pointed out at the Second Reading of this Bill. It is better by far that this aggression and surplus energy should be dissipated and absorbed within the confines of the football ground rather than for it to be bottled up and used later on pubs, shopping precincts, cafes, the homes and cars of elderly people or at other sporting events. (The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has just referred to the dangers of this kind of behaviour spilling over into Rugby League.) That is always provided that the rowdiness within the football grounds is of a relatively minor nature, which it normally is in the case of Third and Fourth Division clubs—where such a problem exists at all. Many clubs have no problems whatever.
The expensively dressed men in their mid-twenties and older about whom we read travel long distances in first-class railway compartments to matches carrying Stanley knives and other dangerous

435
weapons with which to scar their rivals. They normally concentrate upon the important and major games in the First and Second Divisions. They consider the Third and Fourth Division games with their small attendances beneath their dignity, if one can ascribe dignity to such people. In other words. for the Third and Fourth Division clubs the scheme is not only financially and administratively burdensome, but also unnecessary.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are designed to limit the application of the scheme to certain matches. I would like to make clear the Government's general position on the principle of excluding certain matches from the scheme. It is our intention that the scheme should apply to all matches between the 92 Football League clubs and to include other matches as the Secretary of State considers it necessary to designate. It is important in the interest of preserving the integrity of the scheme that it should apply to all the clubs in the Football League.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me what was the position as regards the chairmen of the Third and Fourth Division football clubs. He will not be surprised when I tell him that they made strong representations to us that they wanted to have the scheme phased in. The Government's position is that to exclude certain matches could create the danger that hooligans prevented from going to those games covered by the scheme would be displaced to those games outside the scheme.
My noble friend Lord Swinton asked whether people would just go to look for a punch-up. That is what we feel. We believe the position is that if you have a choice of going as a known hooligan to try to get into a First or Second Division football game where you must have a membership card or of going to a Third or Fourth Division game where you would not be in the same situation, it is obviously easier to go to a Third of a Fourth Division game.
We want to see an efficient and effective scheme in place. The more you move away from the premise that the scheme should apply throughout the Football League the more complicated and less effective the scheme becomes. Life gets difficult for both the clubs and the spectators. We must avoid the position where potential spectators are confused about whether or not they have to be a member of the scheme to go to a match. We must take care also to ensure that the job of the police does not become needlessly difficult.
It is against this background that we may consider the idea of restricting the application of the scheme to the First and Second Divisions of the Football League. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpetner pointed out, we cannot expect to beat the problem of football hooliganism by introducing a membership scheme only in the top two divisions of the League. The hooligan problem is not confined to Divisions One and Two. There is trouble too at matches played in the lower divisions. If the scheme were to be applied only at the top, we could increase the possibility of creating a bigger problem lower down.
436
The sad fact is that football hooliganism can strike at any club, at any match, and at any time. These arguments also apply to the proposed amendment about restricting designation to police category A matches for the first two seasons of the scheme's operation. There would be major practical disadvantages too. The amendment could result in the spectator being confused about which matches were and were not covered by the scheme.
I do not think that Amendment No. 11 presents a workable proposition. It seeks to restrict the application of the scheme to clubs which have a history of violence. The Secretary of State would have to consider each individual match played throughout the season to see if one of the participants had had hooligan problems over the previous three-year period. This looks like a recipe for chaos. Clubs and spectators would not know where they were. The more complicated you make the scheme the less effective it will be. There is another sad but important point I should make here. No club can be safe from the threat of hooliganism. Trouble can strike at clubs which have experienced long, relatively quiet periods.
I should make one additional point about Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. My advice is that if accepted, they would make the Bill hybrid. I do not need to tell the Committee what effect hybridity would have on the Bill's passage through Parliament. Various noble Lords including the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Swinton, mentioned what essentially this problem is about as they perceive it and what the opponents of the Bill perceive it to be. The Third and Fourth Divisions will be vulnerable financially to this Bill.
One can take that view or a more positive one. Support for the game has fallen from 35 million people in 1967 to 21 million last year. The Bill will result in people being able to go back to football. I am a parent of young children. As things stand, when they are a little older I am not sure that I would be too happy for them to go unattended to a football game; but once one knows that football will be safe, people will flood back onto the terraces. It is important to consider what the Bill can do that is positive rather than say that we want no change. I hope that the Committee will be able to resist the seductive cadences of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and that the movers will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord has told us, rightly, that there can be trouble outside the First and Second Divisions. That is true, and no one has ever denied it. According to the Written Answer given by his honourable friend Mr. Moynihan in the other place—I gave the Hansard reference earlier this afternoon—trouble, as defined by the noble Lord, in the case of Aldershot in the season 1987–88 amounted to six people in every 10,000 who attend matches. In the case of Blackpool, the figure was four in every 10,000 people who attend. Those are not people arrested within the grounds. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and I had a minor disagreement on how many of these arrests take place within football grounds. It is argued by many that a relatively small minority of the arrests take place within football grounds.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the noble Lord arguing that the only people who cause disturbance and behave as hooligans are those who are arrested? Is he not aware of the fact that when there is widespread hooliganism, the limited number of police available are able to arrest only a small proportion of the malefactors?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Of course, in some cases only a minority of those involved in disturbances are arrested. That is the case if a large number of people are involved in substantial disturbances. I am talking about very nearly non-existent disturbances at a number of football grounds. In a ground such as Aldershot which will be adequately policed by the chief constable of Hampshire, how can one say when the disturbances are on such a small scale that it would be impossible to effect arrests? That is not a serious proposition.
One can go through one team after another in the Third and Fourth Divisions of the English league and find the same story—tiny numbers of arrests. When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke a little earlier he said that there would be immense enthusiasm for this measure among large numbers of football supporters. I think he said that. I found it a little hard to believe that what he said is correct, but that certainly was his view.
I have a report of a public meeting that took place in Bury in January of this year. I am told that it was one of the largest public meetings to have taken place in Bury outside the period of a general election. A principal speaker was a local Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Alistair Burt. There was a full discussion at the meeting, dominated undoubtedly by people who had a close interest in the game. They heard Mr. Burt's view and in a ballot which took place at the end the voting figures were as follows: "I support the Government's ID card scheme for football supporters"—three votes; "I do not support the Government's ID card scheme for football supporters"—246 votes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Recount!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord believes that that is evidence of immense enthusiasm for the Bill among football supporters, I would be rather surprised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord had given way a moment earlier he would have saved himself and the Committee a couple of minutes' time. The point I was seeking to make—and reference to Hansard will show that I did make—was not that in the welter of propaganda from clubs there is any enthusiasm among supporters now, but that what supporters will be immensely pleased with will be the good and orderly conditions which the operation of the Bill will produce and the possibility, as my noble friend the Minister said, for them not only to go peacefully to matches but even to take their children to them which many people dare not do now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In the cases which I have cited where the amount of crowd trouble is minimal
438
and has been for many years, there is clearly no deterrent at the moment to people taking their families to football matches. To be absolutely frank, I was going to quote the Bury example because I thought it was a helpful one in terms of the amendment which we are now discussing. In the case of Bury, it is perhaps wholly understandable why the people at that meeting voted as they did. Here are the figures for Bury in terms of disturbances which took place within and outside Bury football ground. In 23 matches, five people were arrested. That figure is for an entire season. Yet on the basis of the Bill that we have before us, that club, which has a difficult financial position, will be compelled to introduce this huge bureaucratic machinery. I sometimes wonder whether the Government have not lost their sense of proportion in this matter.
Of course we are all against hooliganism, whether it takes place at football grounds, on the London Underground, on British Rail, on housing estates or as an isolated or a more substantial act of vandalism. All that most of us would say is that in the examples I have just given the idea of trying to control entry to the Underground or in some way the admission to housing estates by some strange procedure would receive a great deal of derision in this Chamber. As concerns this proposal, anyone who believes that there will be a substantial reduction in the amount of violence at football grounds if the Bill becomes law will be unpleasantly surprised.
At Second Reading I reported to the House a conversation that I had with six senior police officers of superintendent and chief superintendent rank. All of them had been directly involved as police commanders at football grounds during the past 12 months. Of those senior officers, all believed that those who were barred from entering grounds because they were disqualified from membership of the scheme would still loiter in the streets outside, and then become involved in acts of violence. As senior policemen, their view was that they would not transfer their allegiance to a Third or Fourth Division club. They may be right or they may be wrong.
As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said on a previous occasion, police views differ on this question. I would not suggest for a moment that there is unanimity of opinion in the police service. What I do say is that these experienced senior police officers did not believe that there would be a transfer of loyalty to other clubs. They believed that once disqualified many of these young men would become involved in other acts of violence outside the grounds. In their view, that was one of the problems associated with the passage of this measure.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, feels strongly about the fact that the figures for arrest in the Third and Fourth Division are low. We should keep very much at the forefront of our minds that that is achieved with very high and heavy levels of policing. That cannot lightly be cast aside. It is important that we remember that two of these amendments could well hybridise the Bill.

439
The decisions which are taken here today represent two different views. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, believes that the problems will transfer out of soccer and that such problems extend beyond clubs within the League. However, from this Dispatch Box we believe that there is a direct link between hooliganism and League soccer. If that difference is irreconcilable, so be it. We believe that we must have the four divisions and without the four divisions the scheme begins to fall apart.
Finally, as regards the matter of Bury, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew to the attention of the Committee, as I was not present at the meeting, all I can say is that I suspect in terms of the variation of the supporters it may be rather similar to asking the College of Cardinals to vote for the Reformation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wish to make one or two cardinal points. The noble Lord has been very fair and consistent. I mean that most sincerely. He restated the Government's view and said that it is their intention that this proposal should be universally applied to all 92 clubs. Even though we have had reference to consultations which take place in Wales in respect of the Welsh clubs, and even though we have had indications from the Minister and his colleagues that they are prepared to look at some suggestions, I simply invite the Committee to consider the matter very carefully.
If the Government's view was that they have produced a Bill which is not capable of being amended in any shape or form and there is no way in which it can be amended—for example, revised or improved—we should have a very arrogant Government. However, I do not make that charge. I believe that the Government must be prepared to listen to the arguments.
Reference was made to the meeting at Bury. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us what was undoubtedly a factual, unembellished, account of what took place. Of course there could be other meetings at which other people who would be affected might say that they would prefer to have that kind of Bill. It was not stage-managed; all the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is saying is that a group of people who are passionately involved in football were invited to state a view on the Bill and they said, "We do not want it".
We do not have a national referendum. But the next best thing is this Chamber and the other place. Both places are trying to interpret the reaction of people outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wondered where the potential or active hooligans would go if they were excluded from the First and Second Division. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, speaking from his great experience, which I acknowledge, drew our attention to the situation in a major conurbation. He did so, quite rightly, by mentioning clubs in different divisions. However, there are many conurbations where there are simply football clubs and if people were excluded from one of them under a scheme they would perhaps go to others. But we do not know that. The surmise is that they might.
440
The noble Lord used the interesting analogy of Wolverhampton. He used Wolverhampton to illustrate fairly that violence is present at some clubs which are not in the First and Second Divisions and that it needs to be dealt with. Having regard to his previous professional commitments, thanks to proper and adequate policing and determination by the clubs, those people were dealt with properly by the courts without any ID card scheme. Indeed, 25 people were brought before the courts, convicted of football-related violence and duly dealt with. I have the details here with me but, I shall simply say that they were dealt with by the courts. That can happen now. Violence at Fourth Division grounds can be dealt with by the police and the clubs now; we do not need an ID scheme.
Reference has been made to the situation inside our grounds. Perhaps I may tell the Committee about an outstanding situation. The other day I went to Watford to see the team play Leeds United. It was my first visit to the ground. We know that Watford is in the Second Division. I was sitting in the area where the directors sit. It was not a box, it was a bench in a sense. I looked down and below me was the family members' area, where there were families and many children. I do not mean only seven and eight year-olds; two year- old and three year-old children were running around inside. My attention was then drawn to a young mother with a baby in a pram; she was pushing the pram. I said to my colleague, "That is astounding". She said, "Oh yes, she has been a football fan all her life. She has a child whom she brings along and there is no problem. There is no problem in getting to the ground, no problem in getting in and no problem in sitting down".
There are situations where the full rigour of an ID scheme is not necessary. The Minister might say, as he did in reply to the first set of amendments about Wales and upon this one, that it is necessary. However, I invite him to consider very carefully that if the Bill leaves this Chamber and goes to another place—whether or not amendments are won against the Government—it will be on the premise that the Government are not prepared to consider the possibility that it can be improved. I think that that would be a most dangerous situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, quite rightly raised a point in the light of earlier amendments and Divisions. However, when you put down the amendments you do not expect to win or lose; you put them down with all of the variations in mind. Indeed, I was not the progenitor of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. However, I heard him speak on Second Reading; I was consulted about it and I liked it. Therefore we supported it. But we do not know the outcome. We put down these amendments to exclude the Third and Fourth Divisions because we genuinely believe that there is a case to be made out.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about Amendment No. 11. In the haste of agreeing to groupings, the amendment has slipped in. I can honestly say, on reflection, that it should have been out of this grouping because it deals with a separate principle; namely, the situation where to the satisfaction of the authority there are two clubs

441
such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which have no record of violence. In such a situation we are asking why the Government should want to impose the full rigours of this, with the resultant damage which the noble Viscount, Lord Graigavon, mentioned, even to a small percentage of a small gate.
If a large club such as Tottenham was to lose 5,000 or 6,000 casuals it would mean the loss of a lot of money. However, the club could manage because it would still have 22,000 or 23,000 people. But to a small club which has only 3,000 spectators and which loses the same proportion—for example, 500—it could make a big difference. It could be a loss of, say, £2,000 or £3,000. Therefore when we come to Amendment No. 11 in its proper order I hope to have the opportunity to debate that as a separate issue.
The Minister said that there are bigger problems lower down the League. Of course he is making the case for the four divisions. But why does he stop at the four divisions? There are other leagues and there are clubs within those leagues which are aspiring to move up. Indeed, my local team is Enfield. The team has ambitions. One of the categories of violence which the Minister mentioned in a circular to his colleagues in this and another place concerned a match at Enfield. We must say that the Minister has had no difficulty in excluding by leagues some divisions and some clubs. In other words, the Minister can make arbitrary cut-offs but this place cannot suggest refinements to those arbitrary cut-offs.
The Minister made a poor point when he said that it would be difficult to make exclusions from the scheme by looking at clubs' records; it would be difficult to decide that a club had a poor record, and that some consultation would have to take place. That would not be an onerous task. To be fair to him, the Minister published the information in response to a Question. There is a great deal of information available. A case cannot be made out to suggest that the operation of an exclusion scheme for such clubs would be onerous.
The Minister has said as much as he can on this point. We are not satisfied but there are later stages to the Bill. I have said that we intend to come back to Amendment No. 11, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line II, leave out ("such") and insert ("league or domestic cup").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to League and cup matches only. The purpose of the amendment is to exclude international fixtures played at Wembley Stadium, Ninian Park and the Racecourse ground from the scope of the national membership scheme. Fixtures such as the League and FA Cup finals would not be affected by the amendment. As regards matches at which visiting supporters from countries without membership schemes, including Scotland and Northern Ireland,
442
would not have membership cards, supporters of the home team would not have to show membership cards to gain admittance to such matches.
On Second Reading the Minister dealt with the application of the scheme to Scotland and the visits here of Scottish supporters. He will no doubt be well briefed and will be able to satisfy this place about the problem that we raise in the amendment. There will be serious practical problems at Wembley and other stadia if membership schemes are imposed on international fixtures. The Minister has an obligation to tell us what he and his colleagues believe to be the answer. The Government have not made it clear as to what conditions would be enforced at, for example, a match at Wembley between England and Scotland.
If Scottish supporters are not required to have membership cards what is to stop English supporters without membership cards entering areas of the ground allocated to Scottish supporters? There may be a match between England and Scotland at Wembley. Scottish fans, alleged Scottish fans or pseudo-Scottish fans would be able to enter the ground without a card because the scheme does not exist and yet English fans, who are registered as such, would need to have a card. What is to stop those people who decide to enter those areas allocated to Scottish fans? They would be able to say that they were following Ayr. However, let us suppose that they are the hooligans who are looking for trouble and that they want to get into the enemy camp. They can get in among the Scottish fans and if they are the hooligans who travel about looking for trouble what will the situation be? If the Government require Scottish supporters to be members of a membership scheme how will it be administered when the scheme does not extend to Scotland? The Bill at the moment does not extend to Scotland. Will the police be happy if a large number of Scottish supporters arrive at Wembley without memberships cards and are denied admission to the game?
The Minister understands that there are many people outside this place who will look at the Bill and from their practical experience will ask how it will work. The Minister must say something about the matter.
It is believed that the Government envisage that foreign visitors should use their passports to obtain temporary membership cards or directly to obtain entry to the ground. How will the German, Austrian, Dutch or Spanish supporters be admitted to an international football match at Wembley? If the passport is to be the identity card how will it work? One assumes that the passport will have to be scrutinised. Otherwise what is the point of the passport? One can envisage elderly gatekeepers—many of them are—at dimly lit turnstiles—many of them are—having the problem of examining the passport to decide whether it belongs to the man or woman in question. There must be some kind of scrutiny, but it will be done under pressure as the people come through the door. The Minister must look at that matter.
The alternative which was canvassed, and upon which people have gone silent, was the issue of temporary membership cards earlier on match days.

443
If the foreign visitor must queue at the ground in the morning to obtain some kind of temporary admission and then return in the afternoon, he is not going to come back. It is difficult to say that people must come twice. If he does not have to queue, there will be some bureaucratic device which will mean that the foreigner can enter the ground without any trouble whereas the man or woman who lives around the corner, who decides on match day that he or she wants to go to the match, will have to go through some bureaucratic process. That is not on either.
I hope that the Minister will help the Committee, I have explained the basis and the raison d'être upon which I have moved the amendment. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to designate the football matches to which the requirements of the membership scheme must apply. It would remove from him the ability to apply the scheme to any matches other than those played in a league or domestic cup competition. However, it appears that it would leave him free to designate a match in any domestic league or cup competition—not just those organised by the Football League or Football Association. I suspect that that last effect was not intended.
The intention may have been, however, that none of the provisions of Part I of the Bill would apply to international matches, friendly matches between League sides, and matches played in European competitions. If such matches are excluded from the scheme, they would provide an open invitation to hooligans banned from attending games to which the scheme does not apply. Inevitably, such matches would become a target for banned hooligans.
I cannot accept that such matches should be excluded from Part I of the Bill. We recognise, however, that applying the scheme in full to some of those matches could cause problems. In particular, it is not realistic to expect everyone attending an international match in this country, including foreign nationals supporting their teams, to join the membership scheme.
We accept that international matches raise unusual issues. There is not only the problem of foreign nationals living abroad and visiting this country for the match. I understand that a significant proportion of those who attend international matches at Wembley may be people who never go to domestic matches.
We cannot exempt international matches from Part I of the Bill altogether, or, as I have said, they will simply become a focus for hooligans banned from other grounds. We must also recognise that international matches can provide a particular focus for trouble. The England-Scotland game is the obvious example but it took 1,000 police at Wembley alone to avoid the risk of violence at the England-Holland match last year.
International matches must therefore come within the Bill. Wembley, and any other ground which holds them must have a licence under Part I. The licensing
444
authority must be satisfied that the ground authorities have taken every possible step to avoid trouble. This does not mean that everyone attending a match will be required to join the scheme. It does mean that if there are to be arrangements for people to attend such matches other than as members of the scheme, those arrangements must be as secure as possible. For that reason, the matches must be designated and the ground licensed. In working up a draft scheme to submit to the Secretary of State, this is a matter to which the football authorities will need to give the closest attention. In the case of the England-Scotland game, my honourable friend, the Minister of State in the Scottish Office has made entirely clear that Scottish supporters who buy their tickets in Scotland will only be exempt from the requirement to join the national membership scheme if the Scottish football authorities can devise effective means of preventing those tickets falling into the hands of troublemakers. The Wembley authorities are very well aware of the overriding importance of making their segregation arrangements as secure as possible for England-Scotland matches.
We must also look at the issue of friendly matches between league clubs and matches with European clubs. The Government's present instinct is that friendly matches should be fully part of the scheme; if two league clubs are involved, the word "Friendly" has only too often been entirely inappropriate. The question of matches with European clubs will not be a significant issue until English clubs are re-admitted to European competition. It seems reasonable that the arrangements worked out for international matches should then be applied for matches against European clubs.
The Government take the problems of international and other matches seriously. We recognise that special arrangements will be needed within the overall framework of the scheme. But it must be within that overall framework or there will be no protection for such matches at all. If they are exempt from the requirements of Part I of the Bill, they can only become a focus for hooligans. I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think a number of us will want to read what the noble Lord has said. Frankly, I found it quite impossible to follow the argument which he deployed, particularly in relation to the position of Scottish football supporters. That is not a totally irrelevant issue, given the fact that at the last Scotland versus England match at Wembley, twice as many Scots were arrested by the police as English. Of course the scheme does not apply to Scotland. The Government or the noble Lord used the phrase that there were a number of "unusual issues". That is something of an understatement. What he was really saying was that the Government have not the faintest idea of how to bring international matches into their scheme.
In so far as I was able to follow the point he made in relation to Scottish supporters, as I understood it he said something like this. The Minister of State at the Scottish Office has told the Scottish football authorities that they will have to give some broad

445
undertaking about the behaviour of Scottish fans when they go to Wembley. If the authorities give some broad understanding or commitment or something of that kind, they will be excluded from the scheme. I may have got that absolutely wrong, in which case the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will, I know, be anxious to correct me.
I find the concept extremely difficult. If the Scottish supporter who travels with a ticket from Scotland to watch his national side play at Wembley, presents himself at Wembley Stadium, presumably there will be some arrangement whereby Scots go in at certain entrances and people with foreign passports will go in through other entrances. Some people will have the privilege of having their membership cards scrutinised, with the possibility always that if they try to enter the ground without being a member of the scheme, they will be committing a serious criminal offence. That, as I understand it, is the Government's position. Englishmen— and perhaps Welshmen, we do not know about them at the moment—will be treated in one way; Scotsmen will be treated in a totally different fashion, and others will perhaps be required to show a foreign passport.
During Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, as he may recall, the position of the Irishman who lives in Manchester but has an Irish passport, as many do. How will he be affected by the scheme? I should be immensely grateful if the noble Lord can clear that matter up.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, presents a seductive argument of why this is already rather superfluous, but I must answer him in this way. The object of the Bill is to create a successful scheme. There always was and there always will be a problem with any scheme to improve the state of hooliganism in English soccer when it comes into contact with any outside body. One of those bodies could be a Scottish football supporter coming to an England Scotland game or a German supporter—at the moment it could not be the latter but one hopes that in the not too distant future it might be a German supporter coming to see an England?West Germany game. We understand that there are problems. That is what I tried to explain in what we are hoping will be the outcome. But it is very important that the Football Membership Authority is able to address the problem in what it thinks is the most sensible way of dealing with it.
It would be entirely hypothetical for me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Harris, concerning the gentleman of some fame now: the Irish football supporter in Manchester. Perhaps I may answer in a hypothetical way because I cannot speak for the FMA. If a foreign national wished, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, to go as a regular attender with an Irish passport to, let us say, a Manchester United game, it might be that the FMA would stipulate that anyone who applied for more than one game or two or three games in the passport holder category, might have to become a card holder member. However, that is an entirely hypothetical suggestion, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will appreciate that I cannot speak for the proposed FMA.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The more the noble Lord says about the proposed FMA, the more concerned some of us become. At the moment this is an entirely non-statutory body, the scheme will not be presented for any form of parliamentary approval. Therefore there is no way in which the noble Lord will be able to shuffle the responsibility for answering some of those questions onto a non-existent body; namely, the FMA.
We are entitled to ask the noble Lord what the Government want done in these cases. There are many Irish citizens who live in Manchester and Liverpool. Some of them possess Repub tic of Ireland passports, and there is nothing hypothetical about that at all; it is a practical fact. We want to know whether these people will have privileges over and above going to international matches at Wembley. Let us forget league football and talk about matches at Wembley, it is once-and-for-all in any season, so far as concerns that national team. Regarding these matches at Wembley only, what is the Government's view? First, does the existence of a foreign passport on that single occasion guarantee someone admission to the ground, or does it not? What is the Government's expectation in this matter? What do they want the FMA—their own creature, I may say—to do?
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, that quite substantial questions of European law are involved in this which could easily become a matter of some dispute in the courts. We simply want to know whether or not foreign passport holders are to receive special privileged treatment. I do not think there is anything hypothetical about the question. I should be immensely grateful if the noble Lord can answer today; but I quite understand if he cannot do so.
Lord Hesketh: I did not say that the question was hypothetical, I only said that my answer would be. After three and a half hours of debate in the Committee, this is the first time that I have mentioned the FMA in all truth. It is an occasion on which it is suitable to mention the FMA because one of the main intentions of the Bill is that the scheme will be supervised by and for football. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised a point which must be discussed and that the conclusion will be achieved by that route.
The Earl of Onslow: As the Committee knows, I am a supporter of the Government on the Bill, but I am very worried by the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It seems extremely odd that for international England v. Ireland and England v. Wales matches somebody who is an Irish supporter who lives in Guildford may have to obtain an identity card to go into the Irish or Scots supporters' part of the ground. If he is a Scottish supporter who lives in Oban he does not have to get an identity card. Either everyone should have to get an identity card—on the whole I think that is impossible in view of the European dimension—or there will have to be extra police to overcome the problem that way. International matches will have to be exempted. In spite of being a major supporter of the Government,

447
I see that this particular dilemma is an extremely difficult one for the Government to get themselves out of. I cannot see a way that that can be done, but then I am only a humble Back-Bencher and I do not have the advice of civil servants behind me.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: As I said at the very start of this debate, there will always be a problem when an interface occurs with an outside source. The Government take the view that if we exempted certain grounds—I take Wembley as an example—from Part I of the Bill, they would act as a honeypot for hooligan bees.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Is there any hope that the Government will be able to clarify this matter between now and Report? I very much hope that the Minister, particularly after the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be able to tell us that we shall be given a far clearer indication of answers to questions that I and others have raised. The Minister will appreciate that those questions have not been answered. If he is prepared to undertake to look again at this matter between now and Report, I hope that we shall not press the amendment because undoubtedly there are some difficulties involved, although some of them are of the Government's own making. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, feels the same way. I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he is prepared to look again at this matter because, frankly, in its present form the Bill as drafted is most unsatisfactory.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope that the Minister will be able to say something further on this. This matter is undoubtedly a hot potato. It has been recognised as such ever since the scheme was conceived. The Minister rests his case upon Clause 5(3)(c) which states that the scheme may provide:
"for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of descriptions of person specified in the scheme in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as are so specified".
That is one of the remits of the football membership scheme. The Minister is really saying that the Government recognise that there is a problem. He gave what I think, with great respect to him, was a wholly inoperable means of dealing with the problem. However, the Minister then said that a solution was up to the Football Membership Authority. Clause 5 states that:
"The scheme must include provision".
The clause is very specific on many matters. But as regards the matters we are discussing, it becomes unspecific. The Minister must understand that when Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber—and on the other side too I hope—get up, we are asking questions on behalf of very important people who are doing a very important job. I ask the Minister what the reaction of the Wembley authorities has been to this measure. Is the response of the Wembley authorities on record? I am not privy
448
to that and this is not a catch question. But clearly Wembley must be one of the clubs that will have something to say about this.
When this Bill becomes law the Wembley authorities, like all other law abiding citizens, will try to make it work. But before the Minister makes this Bill into an Act, he must be satisfied that it is workable and enforceable. I noted what the Mnister said as regards Scotland. I believe he said that it would be expected of the Scottish football authorities to make as secure as possible the arrangements for Scottish fans to travel to England. The Minister also suggested that the same safeguards should apply to buying tickets in Scotland. Perhaps 10,000 people with mixed attitudes and intentions will be affected by those provisions. So are we saying that somebody is going to have to say either to the Minister, the FMA, the administrator of the scheme or to Parliament that he has tried to make sure that those 10,000 people will behave themselves?
The Government have already made sure that English fans behave themselves because the Government believe that possession of a card is, ipso facto or prima facie, a passport into a football ground at which there will be no violence. I should like to hear the views of the Scottish Football Authority on this matter. I do not mean the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland; I mean the views of the Scottish Football Authority. Is that authority really going to accept this kind of responsibility? It is unfair to label Scotland in this way, but Scotland serves as an illustration of the damage that has been done and which, regrettably, because of the nature of football, will be done by some fans on some occasions. A school of thought exists which states that the fewer fans there are the better things will be and that the best way to avoid violence is to have nobody inside football grounds who can cause violence.
But the Minister must understand that part of the joy and passion of football is non-violent confrontation, passion and partisanship between two sides. That is what it is all about. At one time there was no violence at football matches, but regrettably today there is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that we should not press this amendment at this stage. But if the kind of flesh that is to be put on the bones is the kind of thing that we have heard tonight, or very little more, I can see that at a future stage we shall have to ask what course is open to us. Although we in this Chamber are very limited in our powers, and although the other place is very limited in its powers, as the Government have a majority and certain intentions, we still have a duty not only to ourselves but also to people outside to raise these kind of questions.
The Minister did little more than sketch in the possible details of the scheme. That was all he could do tonight. But what would happen if the FMA came up with a scheme of its own designed to ensure that Wembley remained a designated ground and therefore had to comply with the arrangements? Is the Minister saying that he and the Government will accept a scheme worked out by the Football Association, the Football League and those bodies that compose the FMA? The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised the very valid point that

449
we have a long way to go before we discuss who appoints bodies, the powers of those bodies and their composition, and who those bodies arc responsible to, not least Parliament.
I should be grateful if the Minister could help the Committee at this stage by answering some questions. Has Wembley been consulted? What are its views? Once the Bill becomes an Act, will the FMA and the administrator have the power to devise their own scheme, or is the Minister really saying that at every turn of events although people will be free to do what they like, they will be advised by the Government as to what will be acceptable to the Government? At the end of the day we know that the scheme, in whatever form it may appear, must be accepted by the Secretary of State. It has to be not only acceptable to him but also be capable of amendment by him.
If these good people produce a scheme which they think is workable and the Secretary of State does not agree and says that he is going to amend it, what is the purpose of Parliament in effect? We are here as parliamentarians trying to do our job. But if the Minister rests his case on the words of the Bill as it is drafted at the moment, that the Secretary of State has power not only to appoint the administrator but also to remove him, and not only to call for a scheme but also to amend it, reject it and to dismiss the FMA, what powers are left to parliamentarians?
We understand the political realities of this Chamber. But we are saying to people outside the Chamber who are involved in football that their house must be put in order. We are telling them that we want them to put it in order as they are in charge of it. But before they do, they can do nothing of their own volition that is not approved by the Minister. Can the Minister and his colleagues accept that there may be some circumstances where people who run football know more about football than the Minister and his colleagues? I am not talking about law and order alone. Although this is a law and order issue, it is also a football issue. So I think the Minister could help the Committee in its intentions if he answered some of those points.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister replies, there is one question that I should like to put to him in connection with the debate which we have just had, to which I have been listening very carefully and with growing concern and bewilderment. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked as parliamentarians to pass a measure which distinguishes the treatment of one citizen of the United Kingdom from another citizen of the United Kingdom, in that if you are Scots you may very well be able to get into a football game at Wembley without an admission card, but if you are English you will not be able to do so. I further understand that the Scots will be able to buy their football tickets, presumably in Scotland, and it is only a ticket that they will need for admission.
We hear a great deal about such persons as ticket touts. Let us suppose that the ticket touts are able to get hold of a number of tickets which they then bring down to England, south of the Border, to sell to the Sassenachs outside Wembley football ground. What
450
then? If the English are able to buy a Scottish ticket then they will be able to get into the match, even though they are not members of the football admission scheme. What measures are we to expect the Government to take about that circumstance? The Minister will not, of course, wish to see the law circumvented in such a way. Does that mean that the Government will now bring forward a Bill to forbid the selling of Scottish football tickets outside Wembley football stadium?
It seems to me that this Bill has not been thought out. I hope the noble Lord will take note of everything that has been said in this debate and take very seriously the request—indeed the plea, the entreaty—that was made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to think very carefully about this Bill, about this clause and about this amendment. He would be well advised to do so. He would not just be helping Parliament and the people of this country, but he might very well be helping the Tory party as well.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, sits down, does he not agree that an unfortunate precedent has already been set for discriminating between citizens of different parts of the United Kingdom in the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed.
Lord Mishcon: I promise the Committee that I shall say only one sentence and it is this. In relation to what the noble Lord who has just spoken has said in regard to football ticket touts, will the Minister consider making all the activities of football touts a criminal offence? Indeed he may get a lot of support in the House if he does.
Lord Carter: It is not just the football tout. It is the Scottish supporter who comes down with a spare ticket which he sells in the pub on the way to the ground.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I ask one very brief question? We have talked a great deal about the Scots, but some similar problems can be associated with Northern Ireland football supporters. No doubt the Minister will take that into account at the same time as he is considering the Scottish issue.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, accuses the Government of acting like a steamroller, but he has only to think of what happened earlier this afternoon to find that that is not entirely the case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You were run over.
Lord Hesketh: I have listened with interest to the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, and Lord Mishcon. I do not think my position entitles me to direct new legislation with regard to the abolition of ticket touts, desirable or not as that may be. We have always been aware that there would be difficulties when people, countries or groups who were outside of the scheme were coming into the scheme. Wembley stadium are

451
keen to see that sensible provisions are made and the discussions between them and my right honourable friend will continue with the formation of the FMA. I mention the FMA because the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, talked about the people who run football. The objective of the FMA is that it will be run by the people who run football, and that is why we believe that in this area, which is difficult, that is the best answer.
But perhaps I may add that if we exclude these grounds or particular games from Part I of the Bill, what effectively will happen is that we shall be declaring open season for a particular type of game. I have worries that if that happens we may be opening a very nasty Pandora's Box which we may come to regret at a later date.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister telling the Committee that the scheme divised by the FMA to deal with this matter, even though it is contrary to the views of the Secretary of State, will prevail?
Lord Hesketh: At the end of the day, I believe there will be a satisfactory and amicable agreement on this, because everyone at this moment wants an agreement. The point that I am trying to make is that we really do not think that we can have an open season at Wembley.
Lord Northfield: On the previous occasion I declared an interest as a director of Wembley. Although I am no longer a director, I have listened with some incredulity to the exchanges this afternoon. I wonder whether the noble Lord realises the problems created for Wembley by the sort of examples that have been bandied around the Committee this afternoon. The problems are enormous. It is not good enough to come to the Committee today and say to noble Lords that the Government really do not know what they want at this stage, and then to ask Parliament and this House to give a carte blanche to go ahead with all sorts of powers over the situation.
We are legislating here and Wembly stadium, like anybody else, will do its best to apply the Government's legislation. But it cannot be fair to ask Parliament at this stage to trust that this will all work out. We ought to be receiving guidance from the Government as to what they expect. We ought to be having answers to the sort of questions that have been asked today; for example—the noble Lord has not yet answered it—what is to happen to foreign visitors? Will they get a special card? Will Wembley have to issue that card? Will they have to make two trips to the stadium to get that card?
We cannot go on with legislation of this kind on a very important national basis and with a national institution, respect for which will be at risk throughout the world if it is forced into a ridiculous set of provisions. I plead with the noble Lord before Report stage to come some way to make some announcement about what is expected. Otherwise Wembley stadium dirctors will need very much to reserve their position, much though they want to co-
452
operate with the Government. I find the exchanges absolutely disheartening and almost incredible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I say to the Minister, with great respect, that substantial questions have been asked that he has failed to answer to our satisfaction. He has given answers, but I hope that when he and his colleagues reflect after this stage he will see that this House will not be satisfied with the answers that it has had. What powers we have, and how we can seek to support our premises in these matters, remain to others and myself to consider between now and the next stage.
The Minister has a great responsibility because there are people inside and outside this House who will try to make the law work. I beg the Minister to consult meaningfully with the people outside the House who know more about football and its administration than I do. If the scheme causes a problem that is not of our doing or of theirs. They dislike the scheme, but if there is to be a scheme they say, "How can we make it work?" The scheme may fall down in any event because it cannot be made to work. We believe that we can demonstrate that it cannot work, but those are major political considerations.
The Minister has tried to do his best. He has failed to satisfy the Committee, but I certainly give him notice in withdrawing this amendment and the others related to it that it is not because we are satisfied but because we genuinely want to test the reality of the Bill and the scheme in the spirit that I have described. He has failed to satisfy us so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("2A) No football match falling within section (Community Football Schemes) shall be a designated football match within the terms of subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: I venture on this amendment for two reasons which I shall state before referring to the wording of the amendment itself. First, I wish to seek to show to the Committee that the Government have not used the authorities available to them when trying to think through the problem of football hooliganism. Secondly, I want to draw attention to what many local authorities and many football clubs which will be designated if the Bill goes through have done to deal with football hooliganism and the improvement of facilities for football on their grounds and for the patrons of the various football clubs.
It may be astonishing to many Committee Members that, although the Football League has been mentioned as having been consulted with regard to voluntary schemes and been found wanting, with the result that this Bill has become necessary, no mention has been made—I ventured humbly to draw attention to this point on Second Reading—of any consultation with the local authorities, which know so well the population in their midst and the football clubs in their areas. I remember well, as I said on

453
Second Reading, the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, from the Benches opposite. He was not only a distinguished Minister of a Conservative Government, but a distinguished leader of the opposition in a place that I used to frequent; namely, County Hall in London. He drew attention—not on Second Reading but on another occasion—to the Government's dismal way of not allocating to local authorities the responsibilities and respect that they deserve if local government is not to perish completely in this country after a long and honourable tradition and history.
This amendment states—I hope that I put it in simple terms—that there should be exempted from desgnation any football club that has gone into a community football scheme which is to be submitted to the authorities after consultation between the club, the local authority in which area the club is situated and the police, and then submitted to those who would have jurisdiction if the Bill were passed.
It may be asked: what have local authorities and clubs done? They have had all the time in the world. Football hooliganism has been with us in a tragic degree for quite a time; a degree so tragic that I believe all of us carry almost a feeling of shame regarding the way in which we have as a result been banned from international events of a certain character. That shame attaches to the whole of the membership of Parliament, whether in the House or the other place, wherever we may be sitting. The Government have made almost an allegation: here are the Football League and football clubs. They had all the time in the world. There were the local authorities. When did they speak? Why was their voice silent?
I hope that I shall not bore the Committee and I promise to deal with the matter as briefly as possible. I mention it because otherwise not only is the public misled as to what has been done and what could be done with regard to the very matters that the Bill is designed to fight, but we too could be misled. From what the Government have said, we would not have been aware of efforts that have successfully been made.
I turn first to Millwall, a club that has been mentioned in our discussions. What has Millwall done? And what has Lewisham done? After all, Millwall comes within the bounds of Lewisham as a local authority. They signed a contract in June 1987. The cost to the council in 1988 was £70,000. That is what Millwall had done by way of co-operation between a club and a local authority. I again stress the fact that a local authority knows its club and its people. What we are doing here—Heaven knows why we are doing it!—is to introduce a supposedly uniform national scheme in which the administrators do not even know the local problems or benefits.
What has been the benefit of the co-operation between local authority and club with regard to Millwall and Lewisham? What have they done? They issue 150 free tickets for every home game. Do we know where they go? They go to children's homes, people with disabilities, the homeless, schools—so that youngsters are trained in the way to behave at a
454
football match—and to youth groups. The pitch and stadium are used for council events. There are schools' and women's football festivals. There is a club involvement in the council's holiday programmes for young people, again to train them how to behave and to show them what debts they owe—so to speak—to the local authority and their football club. Local schools are encouraged to visit the club and to do research work as part of a project to illustrate the changing face of football. There are schemes to tackle racist chanting on the terraces.
What about violence? I shall tell the Committee what the club and the local authority have done about violence directly; I have said what they do indirectly. Violence at home and away has declined. They have recruited John Stalker to advise on police matters. They have reduced entrance fees for pensioners, students and the unemployed, a creche which operates during Saturday games and a family enclosure. All those measures are designed, thought out and carried out between a local authority and a football club—a situation not provided for in any way under this Bill.
I could go on. Sheffield Wednesday has similar schemes although I shall not detail them. Luton Town, Coventry City, Manchester City and Stoke City football clubs have similar arrangements, as has Barnsley Football Club, which was unnecessarily vilified in a joking way by one Committee Member. Its reputation was immediately championed by another whose title contains the name of Barnsley. I am as yet unaware whether that was done for personal advancement or from loyalty to the Barnsley Football Club.
In the Third Division, Southend United and Preston North End have such a scheme. In the Fourth Division, Doncaster Rovers and Halifax Town have such a scheme. Let it not be said that the football clubs individually have not taken this matter seriously and have not tried to do a creative job. Let it not be said that local authorities have universally been absent-minded in these matters and have not co-operated where possible with the clubs in their areas.
It is astounding that the Government's investigation of this problem should result in a diktat about a national scheme, as we have just seen, that was not thought through. Vital details were left out of consideration. In tackling this problem, nobody has said to local authorities, "Try to put a scheme forward in consultation with the police and your local football clubs and we shall look at it at government level to see whether it meets the case in your area." I have moved this amendment in order that the Committee and the Government may consider whether these schemes of co-operation between local authorities and clubs in their area can be given a chance. If the clubs take advantage of that chance and opportunity, they could cease to be designated under this Bill or brought within this national membership scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments seek to exclude from the scheme matches at those clubs operating a community football scheme. The proposed new clause tells us what the noble Lords have in mind as

455
constituting a community football scheme. I am entirely unaware that we have ever held local authorities responsible in any way for the problems. I make that absolutely clear. I should like to make it clear straight away that the Government fully support the concept of community football schemes. I applaud the success of those clubs which are developing community involvement schemes. Nothing but good can flow from clubs getting closer to the community of which they are part. However, we must remember the sad fact that hooliganism is indiscriminate. A successful community scheme, laudable though it is, is no guarantee against the threat of crowd disorder. As with other amendments seeking to exclude certain matches from the scheme, these amendments would also bring with them practical difficulties.
The more one moves away from the Government's basic premise that, to be effective and capable of being operated efficiently, the scheme should be applied across the board to all football matches qualifying for designation under the Bill, the more complicated and less effective one makes the scheme, and the more difficult one makes life for the clubs and the supporters.
I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is trying to do. However, I know that he understands that the central tenet of the Government's position is the principle of universality. It is for that reason that I hope noble Lords will agree to withdraw this amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Although the Minister does not dismiss the schemes—he welcomes them—I am sad that he is not prepared to accept what we suggest: a substitute for the application of a national scheme in certain circumstances. Let us bear in mind that this is not a cosy relationship between the club, the local police and the council. It has to be a pretty good scheme to get all three to work together. It then has to be submitted to the FMA. That is the body which has yet to he created under this Bill. That body has to look at the scheme, which has to be supported by the Secretary of State. The Minister seems to be saying time and again that the reason the Government cannot accept sensible proposals is because they have already decided to exclude anything other than what is already in the Bill. If that is the situation, why does he not tell us that we are wasting our time?
We wish to eliminate bad behaviour. One of the charges against the football fraternity by other Ministers is, "Your have had your chance. You have failed to put your house in order. Now Parliament will make you put your house in order." Against that background, there are clubs with these schemes where the incidence of violence pro rata is lower than in other clubs. That is part of the evidence. The Minister has not taken it into account. Much difficulty is being built up for the Government. That does not displease me but it is unnecessary. I can name one or two chairmen of clubs who I know do not share my political views. They are aghast that the Government are not prepared to give credence to
456
what the clubs are doing. It is costly, time consuming, and it works.
I visited Millwall. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, knows more about Millwall Club than anyone here. He has made reference to it earlier. I can honestly say that where I was sitting—and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will know where that was—there was an atmosphere and ambiance on the terraces created by that club. Millwall has had nasty problems caused by some groups of people over the years. However, the problem has been reduced.
We are asking the Minister to recognise the genuine efforts by groups of people which ought to be rewarded. Otherwise, the Minister is simply saying, "We hear what you say. We do not intend to do anything about it".
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may say two things briefly. There is a real difference of view between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about the principle of universality. The noble Lord also referred to the lack of flexibility by the Government. I draw his attention to the fact that we have reached only Amendment No. 10.
Lord Mellish: Will the Minister answer this question? Amendments have been passed earlier today by the Committee which do not agree with the universality about which the Minister speaks. Will the Minister say what the position now is, or does he not know?
Lord Carr of Hadley: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to give some further thought to this principle between now and Report stage. I draw an analogy from experience in another field. For the greater part of the last decade until a year ago I have been intimately involved in helping to form local business partnerships in an attempt to tackle in the first place youth unemployment, and then adult unemployment also and inner city problems. That was first in my capacity as chairman for about four years of the CBI Special Programmes Unit, and, for three years ending just over a year ago, as chairman of an organisation called Business in the Community.
We have had considerable success although there is a long way to go. However, the fundamental lesson that we learned after the first year or two is that in making progress with these problems—and they are social as well as economic—one must build from the bottom up and not from the top down. I am desperately nervous that the Government are tackling this entirely from the top down. I realise that because of the awful situaton that has arisen with hooliganism at football it may be necessary to start that way. However, I beg the Government to consider at least providing a way out. We cannot go on in a free country in this way for the next hundred years. There must be a moment when people can escape from the system that will unfortunately be forced on them because of the record of troubles we have to deal with.
One must provide local clubs and local communities with the opportunity to escape from this system as soon as possible. Therefore if, for reasons that I think I can understand, the

457
Government are not prepared to allow such provision from the beginning, I hope that at the next stage the Government will be able to say to us, "Yes, but we are going to put forward provisions which will allow local clubs, local grounds, to work their way out of the straitjacket into which unfortunately necessity forces us to put them to begin with." I beg the Government to give consideration to that point.
Lord Northfield: I wonder whether I could add a point in support of the noble Lord, with particular reference to Wembley. One of the problems that Wembley has—it must be easily understood by the Committee—is the immense impact of Wembley on its local community. When hundreds and thousands, and tens of thousands, of people begin to turn up at Wembley games there is an enormous disadvantage for the local community in terms of the clogging of roads, the danger of hooliganism outside and so on. But in the past couple of years, Wembley has built up a very good ongoing relationship with its local authority. It now has a very good understanding of the importance to the community of Wembley and the importance of community relations.
The better way to have solved the Wembley problem was to build on that and to give that opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has said, so that Wembley, under Amendment No. 69, can escape at a crucial point from the net that the Government are trying (not very successfully) to erect. I think the complications will be hideous for Wembley. I hope that Wembley can agree a scheme with its local authority, the local people and the local police that satisfies everybody. I have to keep saying this to the Committee: Wembley has hardly had any violence in its years of history. Why should it not eventually—if not now—be able to escape from the clutches of the Bill?
This is the right way to tackle the problem. If the door is closed by refusing to listen to this kind of amendment, I fear for the worst when the time comes to implement this complicated Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I am much encouraged by the speeches that have been made on the amendment, and I am deeply grateful for the way in which they have appeared from various parts of the Committee. To encourage the Government to adopt that spirit I ask for the view of the Committee to be taken.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 80.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Banks, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Barnett, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

458

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Foot, L.

Nelson, E.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Jay, L.

Stedman. B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mais, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mellish, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Camden, M.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Onslow, E.

Croft, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rees, L.

Dormer, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trafford, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Windlesham, L.

Knights, L.

Young, B.

Knutsford, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to both orders. These orders require parliamentary approval under provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1982. The Construction Board Levy is in exactly the same format as that approved by the House last year. The only change is in the per capita levy rates which for most occupations have been raised in line with wage rates in the industry.
The levy proposals should raise about £56 million. They have been approved by the board and are strongly supported by the employers associations in the industry. They have also been approved by the training commission.
With regard to the Engineering Board, they propose for mainstream engineering establishments a total levy of I per cent. of an employer's payroll. Of that levy 0·07 per cent. will be non-exemptible, a reduction of 0·01 per cent. on last year's rate. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible.
Additionally, firms employing 40 workers or less will be excluded totally from paying levy. Some 68 per cent. of firms will be excluded by this provision because of their size.
For the engineering construction sector the levy proposals are the same as approved last year. The Board anticipates that it will raise some £18·7 million from the levy after allowing for exemptions. This will fund its operating costs and a wide range of training initiatives.
I commend both the orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for presenting the orders to the House. I am aware that orders of this kind are not controversial and that what is being proposed has already been the subject of consultation with all interested parties. However, training is very much on the agenda, not least because there is a Government White Paper on the subject which has yet to be debatedin full by your Lordships' House. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about industry training boards and the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board in particular.
In my view, both those bodies are an advertisement for the tripartite ideal. Both consist of an equal number of industrialists and trade unionists with a number of educationists. Both have had considerable impact on their particular industrial fields. We often voice concern about the bad record in Britain of training and of skill shortages. How much worse the situation would have been had we not had statutory bodies such as the industry training boards?
460
The Engineering Industry Training Board needs to collect the levy—as does the CITB—in order to carry out the functions it performs. The EITB has done a great deal to change the image of engineering and to ensure, for example, that women are beginning to look to the industry for a career. It has worked with the Equal Opportunities Commission and in particular with that commission's campaign for Women into Science and Engineering (the WISE Campaign) to persuade women and girls that engineering is a suitable career. It has introduced its own Women and Technician Training Programme.
The provision of recommendations, specifications and support material for training in transferable skills, and the formal recognition of the completion of training to national standards, has always been an important part of EITB work. Engineering employment has declined over the years, but the decline to April 1988 was the lowest for a decade. It is hardly the fault of the EITB that increasing numbers of engineering graduates are entering commerce rather than industry. Unfortunately there has been a rapid rise in the proportion of first-class engineers entering financial and management services rather than engineering proper. That is because the rewards are so much greater but the EITB can hardly be blamed for that.
The Government now envisage a non-statutory role for industrial training boards. That is foreshadowed in the Government's White Paper and I understand that discussions are already proceeding on that basis. I believe that no evidence has been produced that they will fare better. It is important that there should be national co-ordination and that may well be lost if the roles are changed.
In my view, the Government should be careful about uprooting everything in their zeal for so-called radical reform. The bodies which are working well should be left to continue with their task and given additional support and encouragement.
I support the orders now before your Lordships' House. I wished to make those few remarks in support of the industry training boards on whose behalf the orders are laid.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for the clear way in which he introduced the orders. They follow the usual pattern and my noble friends and I have no objection to them.
Much more significant than the orders is the fact that the Government have published their White Paper, Employment for the 1990s, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has pointed out. It is plain from the White Paper that the Government's plans for sector training organisations have radical implications for the industrial training boards which remain, including the engineering and construction boards. The Government are looking to the boards to put forward proposals for moving as quickly as possible towards becoming independent, non-statutory training organisations fully supported by employers in their sectors. Such boards will not have the power to impose levies by statute.

461
I recognise the fact that this is not the time to enter into an argument about whether training is best organised on a statutory or voluntary basis. No doubt that issue will be discussed in next week's debate on the White Paper which will be introduced by the noble Baroness. I should like to join her in complimenting the Engineering Industry Training Board in particular on its achievements over the past 25 years.
It is significant that the Construction Industry Training Board considers that the arrangements proposed by the Government will not be effective in that industry unless they are underpinned by a statutory levy through which the costs of training to meet the industry's needs can be collectively shared. In its view, voluntary arrangements would result in reduced investment in training by employers with a consequent increase in skills shortages and spiralling wages costs.
For their part the Government have acknowledged that special considerations may apply in the construction industry. They have also acknowledged that there are particular training problems connected with a highly mobile labour force with many small firms involved in labour only sub-contracting.
On that subject, the key statement in the White Paper is that the Government will enter into consultation with each of the statutory industrial training boards and organisations representing employers in their sectors with a view to drawing up an agreed programme and timetable for becoming independent non-statutory bodies. I know from what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said in a debate last week that those discussions are now taking place. However, I should be glad to learn this evening when we may expect to hear the outcome of that process in the case of the construction and engineering boards.
In particular, it would be helpful if we could be given an indication of whether further levy orders of the kind we are now discussing are likely to be needed before successor bodies are in a position to take over the work of the present boards, presumably, when their term of office comes to an end in, I believe, 1991. Any further relevant information of that kind will be most welcome. Meanwhile, on behalf of my noble friends, I am happy to approve the orders now before us.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships. Indeed, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in the tribute she paid to the work of the ITBs, especially to the EITB. She mentioned how that board had very successfully increased the number of women who have been encouraged to become engineers.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned the theme of the recent White Paper and rather questioned the advisability of shifting from a statutory to a non-voluntary basis, as proposed in the White Paper. Of course I do not believe that any useful purpose would come from discussing the matter now as it is not germane to the orders at which we are looking. However, I simply
462
make the comment which is obvious from the White Paper, that the kernel of it is to shift responsibility for training to employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked at what date matters will have developed to a more concrete form. I cannot give him a precise date but I understand that we shall have made substantial progress with consultations by July. He also asked whether, during the transition and before we have made a complete change, further similar orders to the one at which we are now looking will he necessary. I do not know the answer to that but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.
With regard to the orders under discussion, I thank your Lordships for your approval of them and indeed they will help facilitate the work of the boards for the time being so that we can sensibly plan for a transition to more effective arrangements.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 8.20.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.33 p.m. to 8.20 p.m.]

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page I. line 17, at end insert ("Provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the clubs taking par: in the match or matches designated has had a substantial problem of violence or disorder on the part of spectators in the previous three years.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment was debated with Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8 and I indicated then that it would be worth spending just a little further time on it because it is slightly different from the amendments grouped with it. In effect, Amendment No. 11 is specific that clubs can be excluded from the scheme. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that:
"One or more of the clubs taking part in the match or matches designated has had a substantial problem of violence or disorder on the part of spectators in the previous three years".
Where two clubs have a record of, if not no violence very low violence, that, prima facie, should be sufficient for the match between those two clubs not to be a designated match. However, where one of the clubs—the away club—has a poor record I realise that the Secretary of State may well ask how one defines a good or a poor record.
The Minister and his advisers rested heavily on the number of arrests in a ground as being the yardstick. As we have said on more than one occasion, arrests are only the beginning. My noble friend Lord Carter referred to Southampton where the list showed 208 arrests in a season. However, on examination it transpired that of the 208 arrests, which looked horrendous, 108 applied to an event on one day at a railway station miles from the ground. Of the 108 arrested on that occasion only four people were charged by the police and none of them was convicted.
I understand very well that once we get to this kind of nitty-gritty difficulties arise. However, we are seeking to remove from the full rigours of the Bill the impact especially on small grounds. We have the benefit of the league table which the Minister produced. I make no point about its complete accuracy because I understand that if there is anything wrong with the league table it is not the fault of the Minister. He accepted the figures from police sources and the police have been under some pressure. I make no point other than it is clear that at some matches it is virtually certain there will be no violence.
Amendment No. 11 therefore asks the Minister to consider very carefully whether he is prepared, through a list of variations, to consider making some matches non-designated matches. This would be where the two clubs are able to demonstrate good records not for just one season or the previous season but for three seasons. That would be a very good test. If the two clubs can produce records showing that for the past three years their grounds have been virtually free from violence then the proposed match should not be a designated match. That would mean that casual spectators who do not have an ID card can be admitted. I hope the Minister can be of assistance. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As I explained earlier, we do not believe that Amendment No. 11 presents a workable proposition. It would mean that the Secretary of State, in designating matches, would need to satisfy himself that one or both clubs had not had a substantial hooligan problem for the previous three years.
That would appear to require the Secretary of State to consider each individual match played throughout the year to see whether one of the participants had had hooligan problems within three years. As I said, a major difficulty with suggested exemptions of this kind is that they would make the scheme far more complicated and, we believe, less effective.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord says that there would be complications. I do not believe that looking at a complete record will cause much difficulty and trouble. There would be an incentive, a carrot, held out to clubs to maintain violence-free records which would lift them from the burden of this Bill. That is a powerful incentive. Nothing that the Minister said so far—the night is young and our impact into the Bill is short—will encourage clubs to
464
get themselves out of the Bill. The Minister has given us all or nothing at all—all 92 clubs or none. I am not being unkind to him; it is the way things have happened.
We are looking for flexibility from the Government. Perhaps that will come on later amendments—I certainly hope so. My point is that whether it be a small club or a big club, badly behaved supporters or well behaved supporters, it makes no difference—all are treated alike. None is able to be promoted out of the identity card nexus.
Does the Minister appreciate that, in general, whether by incentive, reward, or whatever it is, people respond? By working hard and diligently clubs and supporters can deal with the unruly elements. I do not raise the question of cost—the £5 or £6 involved in becoming a member—but I am told, and I can sense, that there will be a bureaucratic overlay on clubs which is disproportionate to the necessity.
I can understand the Minister saying that the amendment is not desirable from his point of view but I cannot accept that it will be onerous. The Secretary of State, by asking for figures, produced the league tables which he did. He did not seek to make a point, but some elements of the media used the statistics and produced misleading headlines which was not the Minister's fault. The figures were produced simply by asking the police authorities to let him have their records.
Perhaps the Minister is saying that it is difficult to decide the cut-off below which a record is a bad record but he does not have to do it. We have yet to come to the powers and influence of the FMA. It may decide in its scheme to lay down that a club with an arrest ratio of less than 10 per 10,000, or one in 1,000, whatever it may be, for three years is deemed, ipso facto to be a club with a record good enough to exclude it.
If they are treated in the same way as a club with an arrest record of 25 per 1,000, someone will ask, "why are we spending all this money because it makes no difference? We still have the overlay". I am sure that the Minister is not going to accede or to give on this matter. It is another instance where he has missed an opportunity of demonstrating particularly to small clubs that there is a way in which they can escape what they tell me is going to be a financial burden that they cannot afford. In the light of what the Minister has said, I may very well return with this amendment in another form on this precise issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from (-instrument") to end of line 30 and insert ("but no order under that subsection shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: This is the affirmative resolution amendment. We often have discussions in Committee as to whether the affirmative procedure should be used. On many occasions it may reasonably be said that the Executive is often right to

465
resist the over-use of this procedure. But I cannot think of any case since I have been in this Committee where it has been more obviously desirable to have it in a Bill. As I said at Second Reading, what we are debating is an empty shell rather than a piece of carefully considered legislation. We had only to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, just before we rose for the dinner adjournment to realise how ill thought out this entire scheme has been.
He has a most unenviable task in defending a badly thought through Bill. I believe that he has done the very best he can with considerable difficulty. Perhaps I may direct the Committee's attention to why the case for the affirmative resolution is self-evident as regards this piece of legislation. When we look at the Bill it is quite obvious that the whole scheme is to be decided as a result of a discussion between the administrator and the Secretary of State. At the moment what the Bill tells us about the outcome of their discussions is that the Secretary of State will graciously be pleased to lay a copy of the final scheme before both Houses of Parliament. Frankly, that is totally unsatisfactory.
We have heard already in a series of debates today who is going to be in and who is going to be out of the scheme. Undoubtedly some of these issues will be debated later this evening and some on a subsequent occasion. They are central to the Bill. Let us look at some of the questions that are involved. At this stage I am discussing only Part I of the Bill. Will the disabled be in or out? We do not know. Admittedly we still have to discuss it. But that matter is a question for Parliament to determine and not for some form of private dialogue between the administrator and the Secretary of State. Will old age pensioners be in or out? The number of rioting old age pensioners is fairly limited.
I believe that one of the most sensible things that the Government can do as quickly as possible is to make it absolutely clear that this particularly ridiculous idea of making everybody enter the scheme whether 75, 85 or 15 years old is manifestly absurd. That is a matter for Parliament to determine and not the subject for a private dialogue between the administrator and the Secretary of State. We have had discussion about foreigners. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will not mind me returning to the Irish passport holders in Manchester and Liverpool. I believe that they are going to figure in our debates a good deal in the future. It is a matter of some considerable importance as to whether all EC residents are going to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill and will be able simply to show a passport and get into a ground.
Parliament will want to know about that matter before it finally approves the scheme. For that reason Parliament should be invited to make the final decision. There was also the question that we debated just before dinner of the Scots and the Northern Irish. How can matters of this kind be left totally to an administrator who is responsible to nobody except the Secretary of State—he can be dismissed at his pleasure—and a Member of the Government, with Parliament having no rights in the matter whatever. It seems that that would be wholly improper.
I am very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is in the Committee. For a whole series of reasons I am not going to press this matter whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, says. BA I am sure that he will pay attention to some of these really serious issues. I believe that if the Government were minded to move on these matters they would reassure a great number of sensible people who at the moment are filled with great concern about this measure. If the noble Lord were able to influence some of his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to accept this amendment and others at later stages of the Bill, it would quieten some of these fears.
I wish to emphasise the importance of the questions that I have just put. They raise matters of principle and of EC law. They also raise matters of public order. They are essentially issues for Government and Parliament. They should be required to receive the support of Parliament itself. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to a very interesting series of exchanges that took place during the Report stage of the Children Bill when a former Secretary of State for the Environment, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, was dealing with some issues in this general area. In the Official Report of 16th February at col. 362 the noble Lord is referring to the Local Government Finance Bill. He said:
"My concern then was that so many Bills were coming forward which gave quite extraordinary powers, permitting governments in effect to make new law as they go along".
Subsequently at col. 364 he said:
"I feel that the time has come when we ought to look very carefully at the way these powers are being exercised. It is true that the provision is in a fairly common form, but it is now being attached to Bills which I have said are in skeletal form".
That is precisely the issue as regards this Bill. The noble Lord continued:
"I do not now know what is the composition of Cabinet committees, but I recall when in my time the legislation committee was chaired by the Lord Chancellor and the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (Viscount Dilhorne as he became), was most careful to scrutinise the legislation. Where these powers were slipped in he would ask on every occasion 'Why can't you put it in the Bill? That is what you must do so go away and redraft it'. I hope that in future we shall not let these clauses pass without a debate of this kind and that we will seize upon an opportunity to debate the whole problem which is arising now in Bill after Bill".
I believe that is overwhelmingly the view on all sides of the Committee. There is no detail in this Bill. It confers massive powers on a Member of the Cabinet and it is not subject to any form of parliamentary approval.
We then come to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he came to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. He said at col. 367:
"I believe that in regulations of this kind the Government seek as far as possible to obtain consensus out of consultat on".
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, who always pays very strict attention to his responsibilities to this Chamber, can be relied on to honour that obligation. I wonder whether we are really prepared to allow a Secretary of State to have powers of this sort conferred upon him creating a framework of law which, if ignored by the private citizen, will subject him to severe criminal penalties. How can it possibly be right for us to agree to this hole in the corner

467
negotiation between the administrator and the Secretary of State and not have final approval in both Houses of Parliament? I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord's explanation of the amendment brought the Committee's attention to a serious aspect of the Bill. I believe that what he said is correct. He said that the Bill as it stands will allow someone from Ireland who holds a British passport to enter this country and go to a designated football match without being covered by any of the strictures which apply to people living over here. If that is correct, how can we justify allowing people who may want to attend a large gathering with evil intent a privilege while those who live in the area are deemed to be potentially involved in a criminal activity? It is complete and utter nonsense. Those people have never been involved in such activity, but that is what the Bill suggests.
The Government will have to answer why people who hold a different passport and who may have evil intent can be privileged above the normal person from this country who because of the Bill is deemed to be a potential troublemaker. If one takes the Bill to its logical conclusion such people are deemed to be potential criminals. The Government must answer that question in detail. If that is the case ordinary people will not easily swallow it, bearing in mind what has happened in the past.
The Earl of Onslow: I rise to support the Government because there is great merit in the universality principle. One should certainly outlaw rioting old-age pensioners. Judging by the hysterical giggles from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, she could be the one and only rioting old-age pensioner.
When we complain about the amount of delegated legislation and say that there should not be delegated legislation we are in grave danger of allowing not delegated legislation but a hob-nob agreement between the Secretary of State and this new mythical football administrator. That is not good law. I agree with the Government and I want their Bill to be a success. I know that there are nasty people in football. The principle has to be universal. But this provision is not sensibly thought out. As a supporter of the Government, it pains me to see them coming along with ill thought out provisions of this kind. I agree with the substance of what they are doing, but will my noble friend go back to the department and say, "We do not have it totally right. The universal principle is right but somehow we are doing things which are not quite right. We are messing about with the legal system and with Acts of Parliament"?
Lord Airedale: I have never understood why Ministers tend to resist affirmative resolutions and do not welcome them. In a case like this, where the Home Secretary is likely to become extremely unpopular with members of the public over whatever he decides to put into his statutory instrument, would it not be a matter of strength for him to be able to say, "Don't put all the blame on me. This is not entirely my work. I had to get Parliament's affirmative approval for this. If you do not like it, don't blame
468
me, blame Parliament, because it agreed to this affirmatively"? The Minister should welcome being put in that position.
Lord Underhill: Everyone will agree that the facts given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, are convincing. I remind the Committee and the Minister that the amendment with which we are concerned is related to Clause 1(2), which deals with the designated football match. At this stage we do not know who will designate it. All the Bill says is that an administrator will do it. The Minister has said that it will be in the hands of the football authorities—the League and the FA—but we have not yet reached that stage. We are dealing now with the important decisions of how a match is to be designated. That is the most vital principle in the Bill.
To carry this amendment will in no way affect the universality of the Bill. The amendment says that this important issue should be the subject of a debate in Parliament on an affirmative resolution. Time and again I have endeavoured to move amendments for the affirmative procedure to be adopted. The Government have usually resisted. But in this case it is extremely difficult for the Government to resist it. We do not know what the FMA is. We do not know what the designated authority is. We do not know how it will arrive at its decision on what are designated matches.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The Bill as drafted provides for the Secretary of State to designate those football matches to which the national membership scheme and the licensing requirements of the Bill would apply. Designation would be by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that it is the Government's intention to designate all matches involving Football League clubs and the English national team in England. The Secretary of State for Wales is consulting on which matches he should designate there. We have already debated today the importance which the Government attach to including all these matches within the scheme. If Members of this Chamber or another place take objection to the Secretary of State's proposal for designation, the Bill as drafted allows for them to resolve that the order be not made and to prompt a debate upon it. It seems to me that this approach protects Parliament's position fully. I am afraid that I cannot see that it is essential that we should require both Houses to debate the designated list whether they wish to do so or not—as the amendment would require.
It is already clear that by the time the Bill reaches the statute book we will have debated at length the question of which matches should be covered by the scheme. We have been specific from the outset as to what the Government's intentions in relation to designation are. There certainly can be no argument that the negative resolution procedure will allow the Secretary of State to sneak through a list of matches which Parliament has not discussed. The affirmative resolution procedure would require yet another debate on a subject already fully debated.

469
If on some future occasion it should be necessary for the Secretary of State to add further matches to the first list of those designated—for example, because serious problems are developing at a category of matches outside the designated list—he will lay an order to do so. The Bill will then allow Parliament to debate that order if Members wish to do so but it will not require such debates if there is no opposition to the Government's proposals. It seems to me clear that this strikes the right balance. It allows noble Lords to have a debate if they want one; it does not waste their time if none is necessary. I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I indicated in advance that I was not going to press the matter whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, and therefore he will not be surprised that that is precisely what I propose to do. However, with the utmost possible respect to him, I must say that I found it a little odd that he should ask what the point of all this was. All these grave issues would have been debated in Parliament and everyone would know exactly the position.
However, everything that we have heard so far in today's debate indicates that the Government do not even know how to do it themselves. For example, as regards the Wembley stadium argument which we had earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, in a most agreeable way, that of course these were very difficult issues, the Government had not really made up their mind and it was a matter for the Football Membership Authority. Indeed, he said that it was the first time that I had mentioned the name of the Football Membership Authority and he seemed to draw some comfort from that fact.
However, what he said in that debate made it totally clear that the Government do not know what to do on the central question of international matches played at Wembley.With the greatest respect, it is quite impossible for him to come along to this place and say that all those issues will have been totally satisfactorily debated and that therefore there is no need for the scheme.
As I have already indicated, I shall not press the matter to a Division. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will bear in mind not only what people on this side of the Committee have said but also the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is a total supporter of the Bill, as he has made clear on many occasions. So far as concerns this issue, we are not asking for massive changes; we are just asking for the Government to be sensitive for once on an issue which affects the direct interests of Parliament. With that, unless any other noble Lord is especially keen to speak further on the matter, I shall sit down.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise just to make this point to the Minister. If, at the end of the day, the scheme is in a form which is acceptable to the Minister, and it is sensible, what is wrong with putting that before Parliament and saying, "This is the scheme; take it or leave it"? I refer not to the bits of the scheme which will be subject to statutory instruments, but to the whole of the scheme.
470
Is not the Minister aware that there are literally millions of people who will be affected by this proposal. In effect what we are asking for is some parliamentary time, about which a great deal of agitation will be displayed in both places. I think that the Minister must be very unsure of his ability to carry a simple resolution of that kind through this place, if he is not prepared to accept the proposal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris said, this is not the time to press the matter because, regardless of the strength of the argument, it is a thin Committee and we need a lot more debate on the matter. However, I really think that the Minister ought to reflect that, on something which is as important as this, perhaps the Government ought to have the courage to put their proposals before the Committee in a form about which we can say, "Take it, or leave it". By then the FMA will have been formed, the consultations will have taken place, the wrinkles will have been ironed out and the Minister will be much happier. He cannot be happy, nor can his colleagues in another place, at what we have been able to do in the last four or five hours. We wish, in a reasonable way, to raise questions which need to he answered.
I assume that at some stage all of the questions will be answered to the satisfaction of the Minister. Indeed, Mr. Colin Moynihan—his Ministerial colleague—has said that these matters will not be proceeded with until he is satisfied that they can work. We are saying that of all the people who should say, "Yes, you are right"—that is, the supporters, the clubs, the FMA and the police—should not Parliament therefore have the opportunity to say, "We agree" or "We disagree". That is all that the amendment proposes. The matter is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I imagine that there will be another occasion upon which it may be raised.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has made his position clear, as indeed have I. There is a whole series of unresolved questions which must be answered. Given the stance of the Government at the moment, I am not persuaded that such questions will be answered while the Bill goes through Parliament, unless there is an absolute sea-change in the Government's position. That being so, the scheme should be put before Parliament for affirmative resolution. As I said, I have made my position clear on the issues of principle and we shall wait to see, with some hope, whether the Government will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offences relating to unauthorised attendance at designated football matches]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is taken by itself. In order to get the matter into context, I think

471
it would be helpful to Members of the Committee if I were to read Clause 2(1). It reads:
"If a person who is not, in relation to the match, an authorised spectator enters or remains on the premises as a spectator during the period relevant to a designated football match"—
of course those are defined earlier in the Bill—
"that person commits an offence and so does a person who attempts to commit an offence under this subsection of entering premises".
This Bill is in fact saying that the person who attempts to enter a football ground without a ticket clearly commits an offence. In other words, it is an offence if he tries to do so. When we look at Amendment No. 14 which follows, we find the astounding proposal that a person who is not a hooligan, and who is not a convicted criminal, commits a crime if he attempts to get into a match without being a member of the scheme, and ipso facto a term of imprisonment "not exceeding one month" can be visited upon him.
We think that whatever the crimes of people who are found guilty of violence, they deserve to be dealt with by the courts. However, we cannot believe that we are entering into a state of society where a person—be it a man or a woman, a young boy or a young girl, or an old man or old woman—who because of his love of football, or perhaps because of his lackadaisical attitude in applying for membership, and so on, shall have visited upon him in the full panoply of the law a term of imprisonment in such circumstances.
We want the Minister to justify how in his Britain of 1988–89 we have come to a state where it is possible for a person who attempts to get into a football match—he has committed no other crime—without a ticket ipso facto to be sent to prison. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It is important that we should make any attempt to enter a ground for a designated match an offence. By doing so we introduce a powerful deterrent against those refused membership or whose membership has been revoked who might otherwise attempt to gain entry to a designated match, for example, by using a stolen or borrowed card. I must emphasise to the Committee that by this provision we have no wish to catch the genuinely innocent spectator who unknowningly attempts to enter a ground without a membership card in circumstances where one is necessary.
Let us take a look at how this might work in practice. Suppose that a genuinely innocent spectator without a membership card joins a queue to a turnstile. If he has not realised beforehand and turned away, by the time that he reaches the head of the queue he will be asked to present his card. And, if he is not deliberately attempting to enter the ground when not authorised to do so, he will explain that he does not have one. He will not of course be able to get into the match, but that will be the end of the matter. There would be no question of prosecution in such circumstances because he is not attempting to commit an offence, which is the test required by the wording of Clause 2.
It will of course be essential that the introduction and subsequently the operation of the scheme should be given extensive publicity, including clear signs at
472
football grounds. But it is essential that attempting to enter a match except as authorised by the scheme should be an offence if we are to avoid the risk that large numbers of non-members turn up at grounds and attempt to gain entry. We must have an adequate deterrent.
I hope the noble Lords will agree to withdraw this amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter: Will the Minister explain the practicalities of attending a football match? I went to a match recently. A number of young spectators were sitting on the hoardings outside the ground. They could see the whole of the match although they were not in the ground. Would they be committing an offence under the new scheme?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They were sitting on one.
Lord Hesketh: I did not hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. Was the hoarding inside or outside the ground?
Lord Carter: At a number of football grounds young men clamber on the hoardings around the ground. They look into the ground and can see the match. Are they inside or outside the ground? Will they be committing an offence under the new scheme?
Lord Hesketh: I assume that they will not be committing an offence if they are on hoardings outside the ground.
Lord Carter: Oh, oh, that is interesting!
Lord Wigoder: Will the Minister please help me? I am sure that I have missed this point in the Bill. Is there a definition of "person", prescribing a minimum age; or does the clause apply to a child of four, five, six or whatever it may be, who is trying to get into a ground?
Lord Hesketh: The clause applies to two classes of people. It applies to those who are liable to be members of the scheme. But the law will see it in a different light with regard to age because the law is different for various ages regarding certain offences.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That was not what my noble friend Lord Wigoder asked. He asked how a "person" is defined in respect of this matter. Does it include five, six and seven-year olds? We are entitled to a clear answer. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give us the benefit of his advice.
The Earl of Onslow: I am certain that there is a decent precedent for the use of the word "person". I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, knows it well.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What is it?
The Earl of Onslow: I do not know, but I bet the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does. I support my noble friend. If we create an offence, we should make it illegal to attempt to commit that offence. It does not matter whether it is cheating at tiddlywinks, getting into a football match or stealing horses—I accept that none of those is a serious offence—but if something is made an offence, it is reasonable to make it an offence to attempt to commit that offence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The genesis of the amendment is that the punishment for committing or attempting to commit the offence is a term of imprisonment. I am asking the Minister to explain—so far he has not done so—why it is so heinous a crime that committing it deserves a term of imprisonment. There are many things for which people deserve to go to prison. This is a new crime. We shall have a new category of "person". More people will be sent to prison. The Minister has explained what he understands will happen; but that is not what the Bill says. It provides:
"and so does a person who attempts to commit an offence under this subsection of entering premises".
There is a range of possibilities. After a match has started, there may be people outside the ground who may, in the eyes of the police, be a nuisance and who may or may not have cards. Because they are hanging about and refusing to disperse, it will be relatively simple under the Bill to charge them with attempting to enter the ground. They may refuse persistently to move away. With this amendment we are having an early debate on the attack on civil liberties that runs throughout the Bill. I want the Minister to justify how a person attempting to enter a football ground, innocently or provocatively, deserves to be sent to prison. That is what the Bill says. I genuinely want the Minister to justify that point.
Lord Hesketh: Clearly someone standing outside a football ground is not attempting to gain entry to that football ground.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It depends upon what the policeman says.
Lord Hesketh: I disagree with the noble Lord. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. This is not the first offence ever to appear on the statute book. There are plenty of other examples of where people can attempt to commit a crime. Imprisonment is the maximum sentence and not the standard sentence.
Lord Underhill: We should have a thorough understanding of what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that if someone without a card goes up to a turnstile to pay his £3·80, £4·80, or whatever it might be, to enter the ground then he is endeavouring to enter the premises and that is an offence? That is what the clause says. Is the Minister genuinely saying that that is the position, or will he qualify the statement?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may put a practical problem to the Minister. A foreign visitor comes here from a country within the European Community. None of those countries has legislation remotely similar to that proposed in the Bill. He reads about a football match in the newspapers and decides to go to see it. He queues up. He is attempting to commit an offence under the Bill. He is committing a criminal offence which could cause him to be sent to prison. Does the Minister suggest that that is a sensible way to proceed? I shall be interested to know what precedents there are. Whatever the precedents may be, I find that approach astonishing and beyond what is necessary to deal with the problems that the Minister defined when he spoke on Second Reading.
Lord Carter: We learn that the boys on hoardings outside the ground are not trying to enter the ground and so are OK. We saw a demonstration of the Smartcard technology and we discovered that no one is kept out. Even if someone has an invalid card, in he goes. The turnstile always works. Even if they are in error because they have the wrong card, under the use of the Smartcard technology everyone gets into the ground. Everyone who happens to have the wrong card with them or whose card is out of date will be committing an offence. Is that correct?
Lord Hesketh: There are two parts to that question. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other noble Lords, referred to someone arriving—a foreigner or a resident—at the turnstile and asked whether they would be committing an offence. That is not the case. I outlined in the reply I gave to the Committee that the person arriving at the gate, particularly in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which would be relevant, might be a foreigner who was not aware of the law in this country. He might arrive at the turnstile and be asked, "Where is your card?" to which he replies, "I do not have a card", at which point the gatekeeper says, "You cannot enter the ground". That foreigner has in no way committed an offence, but if he then tried to assault the gatekeeper to get into the ground—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to say, with great respect, that he is misunderstanding the criminal law of this country. In my view there is little doubt that a person who carries out the act which the noble Lord has described is attempting to enter the ground. There can be little doubt about that. There is little point in the noble Lord saying that it is not an offence because, as we all know, statements by Ministers cannot be taken into account in proceedings before the courts.
Lord Jay: Surely the weakness of the Minister's case is this. He now tells us that the individual concerned is not committing an offence unless he knows that it is an offence to try to enter that ground. That means he is not committing an offence unless he regards it as an offence. But that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that it is illegal to attempt to enter the ground. It is perfectly possible, without knowing that one is attempting to commit an offence, to attempt to commit what is in fact an offence. Therefore it does not seem to me that the Bill coincides with the defence which the Minister is now making for it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Does the Minister mean that it is not an offence unless the person doing it comes from the United Kingdom? The noble Lord, Lord Harris, makes a very valid point when he talks about people from other parts of the EC not understanding our laws.
Like some Members of the Committee, I happen in the morning to travel on a bus. One might ask, "What is the relevance of that? It is about people understanding our laws. When the No. 24 bus bowls up at Victoria station in the morning, because of the pressure on that bus route usually both doors are opened and people are allowed on at the front and also at the back, provided there is an inspector

475
present to check that people have tickets. Only a matter of two or three weeks ago some people from Germany got on at the back because they thought that was the thing to do and they were allowed on. The bus driver refused to drive off because those foreigners were in breach of the regulations of London Regional Transport. That could happen here. What is the Minister suggesting? Is he suggesting that because they come from other countries in the EC such as Germany or France the provision would not apply to them but if they came from over here it would?
The Bill is a mess. The Minister must do a little better in explaining what the Bill is about and not suggest that there are two standards—one for people indigenous to the country and one for people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, have come over from the Continent to watch a football match. They might quite accidentally commit an offence according to the Bill as it stands. It does not matter what Ministers say or what the Secretary of State says; it is what is in the Bill that matters. I think this should be cleared up.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may try to help my noble friend. I do not think that this is the poisoned chalice. Surely it will be known perfectly well that to attend a League football match without a card will be an offence. That will be known perfectly well—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: By everybody?
The Earl of Onslow: By everybody.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Everywhere?
The Earl of Onslow: Everywhere. All right, it may not be known by some Tadjek tribesmen in Outer Mongolia, but they are not likely or may not be likely to go to see the Arsenal v. Liverpool match. But the people who go to football matches will know that it will be illegal to do so without a card.
It seems to me to follow, as night follows day, that if somebody attempts to do something that is wrong the same punishment is attracted as if they were actually doing something wrong. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will confirm this. He is a legal expert, a Queen's Counsel; he knows perfectly well that if a person attempts to do something wrong the punishment is the same as for doing something wrong. That surely is the core of my noble friend's case.
Lord Wigoder: I leave aside the fact that some very good football is played in Outer Mongolia! I shall revert to the perfectly clear position and I hesitate to put myself forward as an authority, as has been suggested. However, under the first three lines of Clause 2 it is perfectly clear that mens rea is not an ingredient of the offence. If a supporter of Outer Mongolia United or whatever it was came to this country to watch his team in a cup tie of some sort, if he were not an authorised spectator and he entered or remained on the premises he would be committing an offence. It does not have to be proved that he knew it was an offence at the time or that he knew he was doing wrong. He commits an offence and it is an
476
absolute offence. If the principal offence is an absolute offence, I should have thought it must follow that attempting to commit the offence is equally an absolute offence. Therefore my noble friends are right in the contentions they have made about this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Some of us are rather intrigued on one particular issue. I hope the Minister will be able to help us on that. He rightly said that the age of criminal responsibility is 10. Let us therefore assume that someone of the age of 10½or 11 attempts to commit the offence as dealt with in Clause 2(1). The only penalties referred to are a fine or imprisonment for a maximum period of one month. But of course as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will confirm, 10 year-olds are not sent to prison in this country. What happens to them?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I shall deal first with the offence of attempting to commit an offence. This only arises when someone tries to get into a ground without being authorised to do so. If that person is told that he cannot get in without a card and he accepts that advice, he commits no offence. The offence arises if he tries to get in deliberately without a card.
I fear that a difficulty has arisen so far because no mention has been made of the people this offence is designed to catch. We are dealing with very nasty people who will try and gain entry to a football ground. We are dealing with the hooligans who are the object of this Bill. We need to give some thought to why this provision is in the Bill. It is in the Bill as a deterrent because a substantial deterrent is required when one is dealing with hardened soccer hooligans.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like an answer to my question on imprisonment.
Lord Hesketh: Between the ages of 10 and 14 one has to have guilty knowledge. But the one-month sentence is the ultimate sentence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, the Minister has not totally taken the point. What is the maximum sentence on a 10 year-old—the person who has passed the age of criminal responsibility? What is the maximum penalty for such a person? The Bill states that the maximum sentence is one month's imprisonment, but 10 year-olds cannot be sent to prison in this country. That being so, what is the Government's intention on this matter? That is a very clear question and I very much hope the Minister will help us.
Lord Hesketh: One cannot go to prison under the age of 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be well aware. A fine would presumably be imposed on people under 18. That fine is clearly defined in the Bill as:
"not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: So the noble Lord is saying that if one of these nasty people, as he has rightly described some of them, many of whom are teenagers, commits this thoroughly nasty offence, he will not be sent to any form of incarceration. Is that correct?
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord is well aware, the minimum age for a custodial sentence is 14. There will of course be a difference between how the law applies to those who are under the age of 18 and how it applies to those above the age of 18. It will obviously apply more severely to those over the age of 18.
Lord Wigoder: That means that this measure is merely aimed at senile hooligans.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Government often wonder why they are accused of being authoritarian. This is one of the reasons why that happens. But the Government cannot even do that properly. Judging by the debate we have had so far, there is here an Alice In Wonderland situation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, just asked some questions about 10 year-olds. The people concerned may be 12 year-olds or 14 year-olds. It is quite true that 14-year olds can be hooligans. So if they present themselves at the gate without their ID cards, they are hauled away and brought up before the Juvenile Bench, which then fines them a certain sum because they cannot go to prison. But who is to pay their fine? Presumably it will be their parents.
So we shall have in this country a situation in which the simple act of endeavouring to get into a game of football involves people in all kinds of penalties. They can be fined, or if they are over the age of 18 they can be sent to prison. What kind of country are we living in?
We are not talking about some heinous offence. We are not talking about thieving from other people. We are not even talking about direct attacks on individuals by individuals. We are talking about people going to a game of football and, because the authorities are apparently unable or unwilling to deal with the problem of hooliganism, as they should do by methods outside football grounds, the people of this country having imposed on them a series of measures which, if they were not so serious, would be entirely laughable. I cannot help feeling that the Government over this issue have lost their way, because the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister, who has many admirable qualities—
Lord Carter: Name one. Speak for yourself.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is a challenge which I will not accept. My noble friend asked me to name the admirable qualities, but I will not go into them at this moment. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was brought forward as an immediate reaction to a particular event and that is never a good way of preparing legislation. Because of that immediate reaction and because of the speed with which this legislation has been brought forward as we see from this clause, it has not been properly thought out. It is not good legislation and it will land the Government in great trouble, because it will affect a large number of people and in the last analysis it will be treated with contempt by the electorate whom it is supposed to protect.
Lord Hesketh: I have to take issue about this Bill suddenly arriving in your Lordships' House. This Bill is the result of 20 years of building frustration in the general public about the problems of soccer
478
hooliganism. That is a fact and that is why this Bill is here.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not want to be a bore to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, but let me just put this point to him again so as to get his absolutely clear answer. As I understand it, at over 18 the maximum sentence is one month's imprisonment. Is that correct? The noble Lord nods his head. What is the maximum penalty for young men and women under the age of 18? Is it imprisonable or is it custodial, which is the term I should use? Is it custodial in any circumstances? If it is, why is it not in the Bill? If it is not intended, then, given the Government's general attitude, I am mildly surprised that it is not.
Lord Hesketh: Under the age of 14, of course it is not custodial.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Eighteen?
Lord Hesketh: I am sorry, under the age of 18. Under the age of 14 it cannot be custodial in any shape or form. The alternative to that is a fine not exceeding level 3.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: From the age of 14 to the age of 18 the maximum penalty is a fine? Is that right?
Lord Hesketh: For the sake of absolute clarity, I should like to be able to write to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this point.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have demonstrated once again not that here has been any evil intention on the part of the Minister or his colleagues, but that the words on the face of the Bill are capable of being misused, abused and misinterpreted not: merely by those who read it now but by the courts and other tribunals.
The Minister has it within his gift to take away these amendments for consideration and come back to us again in the light of what has been said. I ask him whether he is willing to do that given that I do not intend to press the matter to a Division this evening. We are not in the business of delaying the progress of the Bill as a Division lasting 10 minutes would do. When the Minister reads the exchanges in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see just how unhappy are Members on the other side as well as those on this side of the Committee.
The Minister says that the purpose of the measure is to catch the villain, not the innocent person. But that is not what the Bill says. As we have shown, innocent people will be caught under the Bill. The Minister says that that will not happen because innocent people or those who say that they are innocent even if they are not will be given an opportunity to get out of the problem by the authority and the police.
I should like to feel comfortable that there would be that second opportunity for the innocent person. That would be a second chance for the villain who will have attempted to get in although he may not have committed an offence and may have no record. I understand that some people will attempt to get in in order to cause mayhem and they will be given the

479
opportunity to get away. That is not what the Bill says.
The Minister has failed to take on board any suggestions other than the notion that we want a deterrent that will deter the potential one in 10,000 spectators. We shall write that on the face of the Bill. The Minister and his colleagues should reflect on the fact that—I have used this phrase before—in his Britain, in 1989, we have reached the sorry state that we need to threaten the one person in 10,000 who, without being a member of a scheme, seeks to go to a football match. If he attempts to get in and appears to be someone who is likely not be innocent and could be potentially dangerous, he will face the possibility of a custodial sentence.
I have strayed from Amendment No. 13 into Amendment No. 14 because they are linked together. I shall not repeat myself because we have dealt with all the issues. But, in the light of the comments made, I ask the Minister, before I withdraw my amendment, whether he is prepared to take the issue away and look at it again.
Lord Hesketh: We have reached a slightly confused situation by dealing with Amendment No. 14 as well. We have considered carefully whether imprisonment should be available as a penalty in the event of offences relating to unauthorised attendances at designated matches. It will not be used in all cases. That will be for the courts to decide. We have concluded that there must be an effective deterrent, sufficient to deter professional hooligans—hooligans who may have been banned from the scheme already, perhaps for violent behaviour, and to whom a fine is not a sufficient deterrent. We cannot forget the fact that the Bill is designed to protect the innocent. If we are to protect the innocent, there must be a deterrent for the guilty.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord says that there must be a deterrent. He says that imprisonment is the only answer, yet that, as regards teenagers, there is no custodial penalty despite the fact that a great deal of violence is committed by teenagers. What is the sense of the Government's position? Have they considered any of these issues before putting this ill-considered Bill before Parliament? This is one the strangest debates that I have attended in the 14 years that I have been a Member of this House.
Lord Hesketh: The clear fact of the matter is that there is a system of law in this country and we do not intend to interfere with that. We are simply trying to introduce a deterrent with regard to this Bill. The fact that a person under the age of 18 will not be imprisoned is a fact of the law of this land.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With the greatest respect, the noble Lord is not right. I am sorry to bring in again the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There is a range of custodial penalties for people under the age of 18, as the noble Earl will tell his noble friend if he bothers to consult him. I hope that the noble Lord takes some advice from the Home Office because, with great respect, I doubted in the first instance whether it was sensible for the Department of the Environment to be in charge of this Bill. Everything that has happened so far has confirmed that view.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been given the opportunity to take away these amendments for consideration. One of the objectives of my noble friends on this side of the Committee is to provide people outside the House and those in another place with the arguments that I hope will be used in both places. The more that people outside the Chamber have reported to them faithfully by the media what a nonsense the application of the Bill is—I am not talking about the principle of whether there should be ID cards—and the more that people who share the views of the Minister that something must be done see what it means in practice, the angrier they will be.
The anger of those people outside will not be channelled through Members. It will be channelled through friends of the Minister and colleagues in another place, through their constituencies and at local levels. I hope that they will be made very unhappy indeed. It will also mean that when the Bill reaches another place the Government's inability to satisfy the points that have been raised will be considered very carefully indeed.
The point has been made by many Members on this side of the Committee that one does not need a custodial sentence to deal with the problem. The Minister has elevated to a crime the charge, the guilt—it is laughable—of going into a football match. It is not a matter of being previously convicted or of having a record: it is simply a question of going in in order to transgress. Clause 2(3) states:
"A constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under subsection (1) … may arrest him without a warrant".
It provides not only that a constable reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence but that he has attempted to commit it. The powers that are being given to various people by this Bill, not least the police, are absolutely horrendous and unacceptable. I have attempted to persuade the Minister to come some way on this point. He has failed to do so. I do not intend to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [National membership scheme: the administrator etc.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris, that if either Amendments Nos. 15 or 16 are agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 17, which is also their amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line I, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Football Membership Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") consisting of seven persons appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Football League and the Football Association, which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme.").
The noble Lord said: if I have the option I shall settle for moving Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. However, I understand what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees has said.
We move to a part of the Bill which contains one of the major elements—the question of the Football Membership Authority. The Minister will be aware that apart from a passing reference in a part of the Bill to the Football Membership Authority, it is remarkably silent on this new creature. When one considers Clause 3, at the top of page 3 one can see that we are not talking about a Football Membership Authority but about an administrator.
I move Amendment No. 15, and for the record—in order to demonstrate that it is not our intention to impede the progress of the Bill—I speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19, 21 to 23, 25 to 28, 30, 35 to 37, 40, 42, 60, 68, 72 and 94. They relate to the generality of what the FMA is and the powers that relate thereto. At one time the Minister gave great authority to the FMA and at other times he appeared to us not to decry it exactly, but he is not giving it the powers that it ought to have to do its job. Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure that the Bill is much more precise. In the Bill the FMA is not only the creature of but is subservient to the Secretary of State—not to Parliament, not to one or both Houses, but to the Secretary of State. The key amendment in this group attempts to give some shape to the FMA.
We know from correspondence to which I have been privy but which are not secret or confidential that the premise rests upon the league and the association forming the FMA. They need to collaborate. My understanding is that, although they have gone on record in a letter to the Minister dated 1st February that they still have grave reservations about the efficacy of the scheme (if there is to be an Act and an FMA), they are willing to collaborate with the Government in carrying out the functions and dealing with the powers. However, they make the point that that position has not yet been reached.
One has to look at the interesting question. It is all wrapped up with earlier amendments, even with Amendment No. 1. There seems to be somewhere a hidden agenda concerning speed or timing which is driving the Minister for Sport and, by inference, others to decide that the scheme must be in place, up and operating by an imprecise time. We have heard Ministers talk of the spring of 1990. But if the Minister accepts the guidance of the consultants, Arthur Young, who have been commissioned by the league and the FMA to consider its application with all the best will and good luck in the world, the earliest the scheme can be up and running will be later in 1990.
We want the Minister to tell us what is the constitution of the Football Membership Authority. We give him an opportunity to put some flesh on the bones which he may or may not like: but we are thinking in terms of seven people simply appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Football League and the Football Association.
In Amendment No. 16 we introduce what to the Minister and his colleagues must be a novel idea, that the supporters of football clubs are entitled to a slice
482
of the action. Besides the authorities we are saying that there should not only be the FMA but that peopling the FMA should be done by consultation. The Minister may ask what is the point of consulting them if they are not to be part of a body—
Lord Hesketh: I was under the impression that Amendment No. 16 was in the next group.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I apologise. Amendment No. 16 is separate. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to correct that impression. Amendment No. 18 is the amendment to which I am referring. Many of the amendments in this group are consequential to our original amendment, and so are Amendments Nos. 20, 29 and 38, which we shall be discussing separately.
We are inviting the Minister to be precise. We want to know from him how, when and comprising what the FMA is seen in the minds of the Minister and his advisers. On page 3 of the Bill we notice a number of interesting things. Is the term "the administrator" another name for the FMA? If that is so, why do we not call a spade a spade and talk in terms of the Football Membership Authority?
Under Clause 3(2) is the draconian power that:
"The administrator may at any time resign from office by notice in writing to the Secretary of State".
Clause 3(3) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may at any time remove the administrator from office".
If the administrator is the FMA, and if the FMA is the league and the association, are we being told that it can be removed or that its function shall cease at the whim of the Secretary of State? If the administrator is not to be the league and the association, who can it be? It is unthinkable that the administration of such a scheme will not be in the hands of the football authorities. The Committee needs to be told precisely about that matter.
Under Clause 3(5) we are told that if the performance of the administrator, or of the FMA, is not to the liking of the Secretary of State, he can remove it from office because he believes that it has failed in carrying out its duties. That is a wide-ranging introduction to approximately 20 amendments, many of which are consequential. It is the first opportunity that the Committee or another place has had to understand better what the Government have in mind in setting up the important body which will take enormous decisions affecting and influencing football for a long time.
Can the Minister tell us a little more about that and say why he considers that, regardless of the good men or women appointed to carry out the duties, the Secretary of State requires the ultimate sanctions contained in Clause 3(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)? I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I also find it difficult to understand what the Government are trying to achieve. It may be that I am being dense but I hope that that is not true. In the explanatory memorandum we read:
"Clauses 3 to 5 provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a body to run the scheme".

483
Clause 3(1) states:
"There shall be a person responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme ('the administrator')".
The point is relatively simple. Is it one person or a body, or is there both an administrator and a body? We know nothing about the body; it is referred to in the report of the working party but not in the Bill. Therefore, can the Minister explain the apparent anomaly in the drafting of the explanatory memorandum and the clause?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The Bill refers to the "administrator" who will draw up the scheme, submit it to the Secretary of State for approval and run it. "Administrator" is a neutral word. It does not mean that we have a secret plan to appoint a civil servant to run the scheme or that we are planning to keep the football authorities out of the scheme. It is simply a means of referring to the body who will administrate the scheme. We all know that the words used in legislation and in everyday speech are not always the same.
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill refers to t:'e administrator as the Football Membership Authority. This was the term used by the Minister of Sport's working party on the national membership scheme in its report published last November and it is the phrase we have used ever since.
It has always been the Government's wish that the football authorities should set up and run the FMA, in consultation of course with the Secretary of State. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport has been discussing this with the chairman of the FA and the president of the league in the last two weeks. I am delighted to tell Members of the Committee that those discussions have gone well. The football authorities have set up a working party to prepare a scheme for submission to the Secretary of State. They have agreed that a senior official in my department should attend the meetings of the working party to provide them with advice and they are considering an offer from my honourable friend that the Government should share the costs of preparing the scheme for submission to the Secretary of State. My honourable friend has confirmed that the football authorities will have first refusal for appointment as the FMA. Only if they prove unwilling or unable to draw up an acceptable scheme on an acceptable timetable will the Government actively consider appointing anyone else.
In the face of all this co-operation, I do not think that any sensible person could continue to believe that there is any sinister significance to the use of the word "administrator" in the Bill. However, the Government are keen to dispel all such doubts about their intentions and to avoid wasting the Committee's time on further debate on this subject.
I wish, therefore, to propose to the Members of the Committee that if they will withdraw the amendments on this subject in their name, the Government will bring forward our own amendments at Report stage to see how we can provide in the Bill for the administrator to be known
484
as the Football Membership Authority. I also undertake to consider the possibility of adding a requirement that the FMA should consult the FA and the league in preparing the scheme. Such a requirement would hardly be necessary if the FA and the league are to set up the FMA themselves but I recognise that it may be desirable for this to be spelled out in case they do not form the FMA. I do not see, in fact, how anyone could draw up and run a national membership scheme for football spectators without consulting the FA and the league.
I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to accept my offer to bring forward alternative amendments to their own. I could not advise the Committee to accept the amendments proposed. It does not seem to me appropriate to lay down at this stage the number of members which the FMA should have nor to spell out details of its constitution. The Government are perfectly happy to discuss these matters with the football authorities. Indeed that is one of the purposes of the working party that will draw up the scheme, but I do not think it is helpful to pre-empt these discussions now. I invite the Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments in view of what I have said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that my noble friend will take the same view of the matter as I. We shall not press the amendment today but we shall want to see what the Government suggest. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said. I believe that it is far better to have a membership authority specified in the Bill. I believe that it is necessary to say what the maximum number of members should be because that is a normal statutory approach, if I may so describe it. I also hope that the authority will be required to publish an annual report, which is an important matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will take that into account when he is considering with his officials what form of words to use in the amendments which he will bring forward.
I very much hope that he will also consider the question of independent members on the authority. It is all very well to say that it is a good idea to have the football authorities' co-operation in this matter. Certainly if this Bill goes on to the statute book I would welcome that. However, it is also necessary to consider the public interest in the matter, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will agree. I believe that there should be at least one independent member of the authority. However, speaking for myself, I welcome what he said and look forward to seeing what he proposes on Report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister who has been forthcoming and has met the thrust of these amendments; namely, the uncertainty. However it is right that two points should be raised. First, the Minister said that he hopes that the FMA will be peopled by the league and the association and that they need to come forward with an acceptable timescale. I assume the Minister is saying "acceptable to the Secretary of State". Is he aware that in a letter addressed to the Minister for Sport, the league and the Football Association said:
"We are aiming to begin the scheme in August 1990, although Arthur Young have warned that it may be impractical to begin at so

485
early a date. We are sure you would not wish us to commit ourselves to a timetable that meant we had to cut corners and risk an inoperable scheme."
The best professional advice—not political judgment—is that to try to implement a scheme to give effect to the Bill starting earlier than August 1990 (a later date is hinted at) would mean cutting corners and risking an inoperable scheme.
I appreciate that discussions are going on all the time in a spirit of attempting to look at problems and solving them. However, if at the end of the day we have such a situation, I want the Minister to say what he can about not being tied—I use the term clumsily—to a hidden agenda. The Minister and his colleagues have a date in their minds when they want to be able to say that the scheme is up and running. I want the Minister to tell me that that is not so. They may have a date when they would like it to run but the people who have to run it are saying that, given all the good will in the world, they still need time to put it into operation.
Secondly, is the Minister saying that during the passage of this Bill, perhaps in another place, these further details about precision that we are asking about will be made known? His announcement was welcome, but it is the first time he was able to make it as this is the first Committee day and it was done in response to initiatives from this side of the Committee. Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding that the way in which this scheme will work will be made known, if not in this House—I realise that that may not be possible—at some stage during the passage of the Bill and that Parliament will be told about the agreement which the Minister wants to reach?
Lord Hesketh: By its very nature the situation with the league and the FA is fluid. The Government clearly must have a target and I am well aware of the Arthur Young letters to which the noble Lord referred. The purpose of the present discussions is to see how quickly the scheme can be implemented. The overriding feature to which the noble Lord referred is the workability of the scheme. As he knows from debates earlier today we are very much committed to the scheme working in order for it to be implemented. I wish I could give the noble Lord the precision that he requires but at the moment I cannot do so in quite the way that he wants it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I have an answer to the questions I asked, particularly about the annual report? I am not asking the noble Lord to commit himself finally on the matter but I should be grateful if he could say that the matter will be looked into.
Lord Hesketh: The matter to which the noble Lord refers is the subject of a later amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, but I assume that the noble Lord was hoping to make more rapid progress and we will not have to move the amendment if he can give an indication now that he is prepared to move on the question.
Lord Hesketh: I think I can be positive on that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In the light of the Minister's offer we shall not press the amendments. He fairly indicated that it may not be possible to be more precise. I do not expect the Minister to answer now but, as fluid as the discussions are with the league and the Football Association and as helpful as the league, the association and the government appointee who is discussing how it would work are, I very much hope that there will not be an imperative from some other quarter which says, "We know you have not reached agreement but we intend to implement the scheme" from a date which is seen by the league and the association as raising all sorts of problems.
I realise that the Minister has to make progress in the discussions. I hope that the Committee and another place will take up the point that it will be nonsense for a scheme that may or may not work and that has been worked on by many people to be imposed on the two organisations whose good will is absolutely essential—the Football League and the Football Association. They have the good name of football at stake and they will be seen afterwards if matters go disastrously wrong. It will be said that they should have stuck out against the Government. I happen to know how difficult it is for nongovernmental people to stick out against the Government. They are under pressure. They recognise the political realities as much as we do. They recognise the determination of the Government to get their Bill.
What I am saying is not addressed just to the Minister but also to the Football League and the Football Association. I hope that they will not be forced into agreeing to a scheme which not only in their heart of hearts they say is not workable but which their advisers tell them is fraught with danger. The Minister has been very helpful to us on a series of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (I) and insert—
("(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Football Membership Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the authority") consisting of seven persons appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Football League and the Football Association in consultation with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment speaks in terms of the composition of the FMA. It relies very heavily on the fact that it should be drawn from the Football League and the Football Association. We are talking in terms of consultation with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. At Second Reading I was proud to say that I was wearing the Millwall Football Club tie. For those who cannot read the small print of the badge that I wear, it says:
"Football Supporters Association. Fans say 'No' to ID cards.".
It does not pretend to speak for half a million football fans and makes no pretence of its authority or power. There should be some mechanism to involve this body among those which should be consulted.
Not every club has a football supporters' club. I know that Peterborough and Northampton have. Most clubs have and some are well organised. Some of them work very closely with the clubs. I ask the Minister, if I withdraw the amendment will he say something to indicate that in the grand scheme of things there is a place for the views of the supporters' clubs or associations in this country? I am not asking for a commitment. The fact is that if their lives are going to be affected by the Bill and by the FMA, then I believe that somehow or other they should be brought in. This amendment does not suggest that the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs should be members of the FMA. That is a possibility but I am not asking for that. They should be consulted in some way, however.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to sympathise with the thrust of the amendment though he may not necessarily be able to say that he is prepared to look at it. People outside this Committee are trying to get a sense of the Government's reactions. I appreciate that this is the very first time that the nitty gritty of the Bill can be examined. This may be a clumsy way of introducing the supporters' clubs and the supporters, but there are people outside who dislike the ID card scheme intensely. That is what I am told by most supporters. It would be helpful if they could feel that their views will have some channel into the machinery. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on building up the need for football supporters to be involved in an official capacity. If we try to do that we may make the system unwieldy. Supporters' clubs are essential to the
488
success and good health of their football clubs. We also know of the little rivalries and different points of view among these supporters clubs as distinct from the football clubs, which are responsible for paying the bills and which at the end of the day are responsible for the clubs' good running.
The point of view of football supporters should be taken into account but not in the way suggested in the amendment. It is up to the Football Association and the Football League to take into account what they think their supporters think. They can use the sieve of their special knowledge and can then pass on the good part of what the supporters want, having rid it of some of the acrimony that so often goes on. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in wanting to give any more specific powers within the Bill to the supporters' clubs. I want their views to be taken into account but that should be done through the clubs themselves.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If there is to be an authority I would prefer the football industry, if I may so describe it, to be involved in the running of the scheme. On balance, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that there is a place for the spectators. But there is a problem if the authority consists of people with economic interests. I prefer to have a representative or representatives of the supporters, or, as I indicated earlier when the noble Lord was perhaps not in the Chamber, an independent member. I am slightly nervous about calling an organisation an authority when it represents exclusively the football clubs. They are perfectly entitled to have clearly defined economic objectives which are not necessarily shared by supporters and the general public. I would not want to make a final decision on the matter. It is a difficult issue and I shall wait to see what the Government do when they come forward with the new clause. Then we shall be able to see the matter rather more clearly than we can this evening.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment introduces a new concept—that of requiring the FA and the Football League to consult the representatives of football supporters in nominating members to the FMA. For the reasons which I have given I do not think we need to go into the question of the detailed composition of the FMA at this stage or make decisions on how many members it should have. However, I have sympathy with what I take to be the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment that football supporters' representatives should be involved in the preparation of the national membership scheme and in the running of the FMA. The football authorities are now working on the preparation of the scheme. I very much hope that they will consult both the Football Supporters' Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs in the process. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport met both parties just before Christmas to discuss the Government's proposals. I venture to suggest that the football authorities should do no less. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been more than fair and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("for a period of three years.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to give a period of life to the FMA. I say that in the light of the Minister's comments that we shall get more detail in his amendments at a later stage. What we are proposing is that there ought to be a specified period of appointment for those people who are appointed. We do not like the sword of Damocles which is contained in Clause 3(3), which states that:
"The Secretary of State may at any time remove the administrator from office".
In our view it is sensible that people should know how long they are appointed for, or that the bodies should know how long they will have to operate the scheme. That is not to say that the FMA ipso facto will always be acceptable. It may well be misguided, it may well do things, or wish to do things, but I can see the need for change. However, the purpose of the inclusion of the period of three years is so that the subsection will read:
"('the administrator') … shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for a period of three years".
I do not know whether the Minister or the Government have any views on the sense of what I have said. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I have indeed clearly understood the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Equally, I hope that my noble friend's previous comments on the Government's intentions in relation to the Football Membership Authority—to be appointed by the Secretary of State as administrator—and our willingness to amend the Bill to meet the noble Lord's concerns will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to withdraw the amendment. The effect would be to limit the appointment of the Football Membership Authority to a three-year period. We take it that the thought behind the amendment is that if the football authorities do not take the role of the Football Membership Authority at once, they should have another chance.
We have emphasised the Government's wish that the football authorities should set up the Football Membership Authority and we have described the progress we are making to that end. We cannot see that it would serve any useful purpose to put a three-year limit on the appointment of the Football Membership Authority. The Bill already provides for the administrator to resign, for the administrator to be removed by the Secretary of State, and, where the two parties agree, for the scheme to be modified. This seems to cover all necessary circumstances. If the initial appointment is working well, there is no good reason to bring it to an arbitrary end after three years.
490
It is for those reasons that I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What the Minister said is perfectly fair. We put amendments down in the absence of any clue as to what might happen. We have drawn from the Minister—I do not mean that in an offensive way—and from his ministerial colleague that there is an intention, having withdrawn a raft of amendments, that we shall see a little more daylight at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. Certainly, in the light of that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("in consultation with the football authorities").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 20 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 and 38. All these amendments hang on the consultation which needs to be undertaken with the football authorities. In fact the amendment reads:
"In consultation with the football authorities",
and concerns page 3 line 7 which reads:
"The Secretary of State may at any time remove the administrator from office".
We are saying, now that we are better aware, that for all intents and purposes this will be the FMA. Indeed, it is unthinkable for the FMA to be other than the league and the association. I understand what is in the Government's mind. Although it is not unthinkable, it is their strong wish that there should be the FMA. Therefore, let us assume that that is so. We are saying that if the exercise in Clause 3(3) is that the Secretary of State may at any time remove the league and the authority and thus prevent them from fulfilling the functions of the FMA, surely that should only be done after consultation with the people concerned.
I fully understand that a relationship will develop once the scheme operates, that it is in the best interests of the FMA to make it work and that it is in the Government's best interests to keep it working. We want to ensure that nothing is done to the FMA without collaboration or consultation with the football authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendments provide for consultation with the football authorities, if the FMA, as administrator, is to be removed when the scheme is drawn up and when it is modified. I have already said that the Government accept completely the need for the football authorities to be consulted about any proposed national membership scheme and that I am happy to consider amending the Bill to spell out that point. We need to look at how the amendments might be made in the context of the administrator of the scheme being known as the

491
Football Membership Authority. I do not believe that the amendments as drafted are right. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my undertaking to consider the matter further and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with what the Minister has said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He has eased our minds and we understand that there is no intention to do other than have full consultation with the authorities in respect of the life and functions of the FMA. I look forward, as does my noble friend Lord Harris, to seeing what the Government have in mind and the amendments that they will bring forward. We will examine them closely. From what the Minister has said, I believe that this side of the Committee will accept the amendments if we understand from the football authorities that they meet their desire to be in charge of their remit under the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert
("(7) No order under subsection (6) above shall have effect until a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I dealt with the earlier amendment. I do not want to rehearse the arguments again. We shall come back to the amendment on Report. There are other amendments in the same category with which we shall deal on Report, as I said earlier. I therefore do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [National membership scheme: making, approval, modification etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 43 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past ten o'clock.