Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 20 February 1989 vol 504 cc462-91

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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". 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.