Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 14 March 1989 vol 505 cc85-157

3.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 5 [National membership scheme: contents and penalties]:

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 53A:

Page 4, line 6, at end insert— ("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme as guests of members of the scheme.;").

The noble Lord said: The Committee returns to consideration of the group of individuals which I believe need not be members of the football membership scheme in order to gain admission to a match.

On an earlier occasion the Minister was helpful to the Committee when he dealt with a range of exemptions which he and his colleagues believed to he sensible. On that occasion the Minister said: I am, however, willing to consider the possibility of an amendment to the Bill to refer by name, but not in detail, to the strictly limited groups for which the scheme will need to make exemption".—[Offical Report, 7/3/89; col. 1394.] He itemised the disabled, guests of clubs, organised school parties and foreign visitors. In all those exemptions he laid great store on the club taking responsibility for the issuing of guest cards.

I hope the Minister will acknowledge the fact that many people are not regular supporters of football but could be induced to become so if, in a casual way, they are introduced to the game in a good atmosphere and in a sensible way. That is the raison d'être of the group of people to which I refer.

The Minister and his colleagues must be aware that a member of the scheme may be at home or at his club with friends who are not members. On the spur of the moment they may decide that they would like to see the local team play. That often happens. Some of the big clubs tell me that 15 per cent. of their attendance figures at home matches is made up of casual supporters.

I have been in touch with a club which I hope the Minister will accept has impeccable credentials in relation to the argument; it is Luton Town. That club runs a scheme which has the approval of the Minister and his colleagues. I inquired about the way in which it dealt with casual supporters. A representative told me that members of its scheme may buy seats and guest tickets for all areas from the ticket office until kick-off. I should like to stress the point that previously some nonsense has been talked about a casual visitor becoming an authorised spectator by going through a procedure on the morning of the match. If he wanted to see the match he must attend in the morning with the required validation and would be given some kind of admission ticket. He must then return in the afternoon to see the match.

No one has experience of the way in which the scheme will work. The Committee will discuss the phasing and testing later in the debate. However, Luton Town does not believe that the suggestion is sensible. A member of its scheme can go along with his validation and, in effect, buy three pieces of plastic. They are the admission cards for his guests.

Luton Town Football Club has sent me copies of its available literature, in which it is stated: A member may invite up to three guests, not necessarily Luton Town supporters, to each match on condition that he is responsible for his guests' good behaviour. Members must accompany guests at points of entry to the ground. Luton Town will refuse entry to anyone whose appearance or behaviour could provoke a disturbance, including supporters of visiting teams". We know what Luton Town has done and I respect its decision. It has experience and it has prohibited all visiting supporters from gaining admission.

More than once the Minister has said that the Government wish to have football run by football authorities. I assure the Minister that there is not an element inside football administration—whether supporters, police, or whoever—which would object to a method whereby a bona fide, clean member of the new scheme could bring along his guests. One must bear in mind that in order to do so the member must have applied for and been given a valid ticket. He must have satisfied the FMA, and thereby the Secretary of State, of his bona fides. He must not have been the subject of an exclusion order or a term of imprisonment or have been involved in violence. He is one of the 9,999 out of every 10,000 people in respect of whom there is no difficulty. We ask the Minister whether there is not to he some trust somewhere.

Given that the Bill will become an Act, under my amendment it will be possible for any Member of the Committee to become a member of a scheme. It is also possible that their guests may behave in such a manner as to cause them to be the subject of ejection, arrest, conviction, and so forth. In that case the club will not be responsible. The responsibility will lie with the individual member.

I asked the Luton Town representative about the club's experience of problems caused by members' guests. He said "There is no trouble at all". The member realises that there are serious penalties. If the member says, "I am prepared to vouch for the good behaviour of my guests", and those guests turn out to be troublemakers, the Luton supporter loses his right of membership. The membership provides certain benefits. Luton are doing very well. They are reaching cup finals and there are a number of benefits which the member would lose. This will apply to every club—that is, that there will be a penalty. I do not object to that.

I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment if the Minister tells me that among the generality of exemptions which he will bring forward at the next stage—and let us bear in mind that until we see his form of words we must rely on his good faith, which of course I accept—will be the guests of members of the scheme. A member has a lot at stake because he can lose his membership. Members will want to encourage their friends, neighbours and relatives who may perhaps say, "I have never been a member of the scheme although I should have been. There is a good match on this afternoon, how can I go?" Instead of having to go through a lot of bureaucracy, I should like it to be possible for such a respectable person, man or woman, to say, "Come along with me," and to go along to the proper place and show his validated card to enable his guest to enter the ground.

I realise that the Goverment may say that one cannot be sure that the guests of members will not cause trouble. We know that at present only one out of 10,000 causes trouble. I should think that a person who has his own membership at stake will be careful. The member will not take in a person off the street who has asked him to do so. Somebody who is stupid enough to do that will have to take the consequences. We are talking about a genuine member who wishes to protect his reputation, the reputation of the club and the good name of football by taking in bona fide guests who may attend for the first time and like the atmosphere. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues have abysmally failed to take on board the atmosphere, partly of confrontation, partly of partisanship but partly of excitement, which is all part of the ambience to which those of us who follow football wish to introduce our friends. I hope that the Minister has something helpful to say on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I should have thought that the principle behind this amendment would be acceptable to my noble friend. It is in keeping with the undertakings he has already given on other amendments. I believe that it would remove much of the doubt which many people have as to the scheme being too restrictive and too bureaucratic.

I do not know of any established club which does not allow a member to take a guest under laid-down conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said that if the wording of this amendment is not correct then he is prepared to accept other wording provided the principle of being able to take in a guest is retained. I should have thought that that would be acceptable in the light of what my noble friend has said on previous amendments and would be most helpful in getting through the Committee stage of this Bill.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

I am glad to take this early opportunity today to restate the Government's intentions in relation to exemptions from the national membership scheme. In our debate last week, I accepted the amendment moved by the noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Harris and Lord Carter, whose effect was that the scheme must make provision for exemptions of specified descriptions of persons on the terms and conditions specified in the scheme, rather than that it may do so, as the Bill was first drafted.

I also undertook to consider the possibility of a further amendment, which we would bring forward at Report stage, to refer specifically, on the face of the Bill, to two categories of exemption from the scheme, subject to terms and conditions to be laid down in the scheme—for disabled people in designated areas and for guests of the club.

Members of the Committee will not be surprised if I also repeat now a point which I made more than once last week about membership. We want as many of those who attend football matches as possible to become members of the scheme and to enjoy the benefits which the scheme will provide; above all the benefits of protection from hooliganism and violence. The only people whom we really want to see excluded from the scheme are the hooligans.

At the same time, the Government accept that there are practical reasons why certain groups need exemption from the scheme: disabled people who cannot go through turnstiles and need access to special areas of the ground; and guests of the club to whom temporary membership cards would be issued and for whom the clubs would take responsibility. This category of guest might deal not only with guests of the directors and of sponsors but also with organised school parties and occasional foreign visitors. It could also be relevant to this amendment, as I shall explain in a moment. The club would wish to ensure that the arrangements for temporary membership cards were satisfactory, not least because its licence to admit spectators might be at stake if they were not.

I have promised to consider an amendment that would refer by name to the disabled and guests of the club on the face of the Bill. But I have also been careful to stress that these exemptions must be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the scheme. This brings me to an important point which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has raised, and I hope that I can answer him very clearly. It will be for the FMA, in other words for the football authorities, in drawing up the scheme to propose what the terms and conditions of the exemptions should be.

The initiative in drawing up the scheme will be for the FMA, within the framework provided by the Bill. It will propose how to deal with the exemptions specified in the Bill and with any other special arrangements which it considers necessary; for example, to deal with international matches at Wembley. I have made clear that we would resist blanket exemptions that would put both the general concept of membership and the security of the scheme at risk, but we expect the FMA to come up with detailed practical proposals on how specific exemptions will work.

This has always been the Government's wish and that of the football authorities themselves. Yes, the football authorities are unhappy with the principle of the scheme but, if there is to be a scheme, they want to be responsible for running it. They have requested, and received, an assurance that they should have first refusal on setting up the FMA. We and they share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that, if I may quote him, football should run football, subject of course to the requirements of the Bill.

I have dwelt on the FMA's role in drawing up the scheme because it is relevant to many of the amendments which we are to discuss today, including this one. I am afraid that the amendment as drafted is not one that we could accept. A general exemption for guests of members of the scheme would provide no means of checking who a member's guests would be. In particular, it would provide no means of preventing someone who had been banned from the scheme from evading the effects of his ban by presenting himself as a member's guest, perhaps with the member's willing co-operation, perhaps even with his unwilling co-operation. I do not think that it would be practical to make individual members of the scheme responsible for the behaviour of their guests.

I am afraid that for these reasons I cannot accept this amendment. But I recognise the argument that members of the scheme may wish to bring to an individual match a guest for whom joining the scheme may not be a sensible option, perhaps because he or she lives abroad. In such circumstances, if the host club is willing to accept responsibility for that person and issue him with a temporary membership card, then I should have thought that it should be possible for it to do so. This is precisely the sort of matter that I think we want the FMA to look at in drawing up the scheme. If it can devise sensible proposals—and of course there must be a reasonable limit on the number of temporary membership cards if the scheme is to remain secure—then I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to approve them.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, drew the attention of the Committee to Luton Town Football Club. I was somewhat surprised by that because the Benches opposite do not usually use Luton Town as their favourite example of the implications for the future of football. The argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is based on a scheme at Luton which, as he described it, is very different from the scheme proposed in the Bill. It is not entirely relevant to the discussion on this amendment.

I hope that we can agree that we have a sensible approach in dealing with this amendment. "Guests of members of the scheme" is too wide and vague a notion, but if there is a good and practical reason why individual members should want to bring along occasional visitors and the club is willing to let the visitors have temporary membership cards, they should be able to do so. The exemption we are considering for guests of the club will cover the situation and it will be for the FMA to work out the details.

The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also drew attention to what he referred to as the bureaucracy of acquiring a card. It is not difficult to fill in an application form, acquire a photograph and collect one of the cards. The Government's position is straightforward. The intention of the Bill is to exclude soccer hooligans. To maintain the integrity of the Bill we need a limited number of exclusions. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendmentt.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister has not made a good case in regard to the central point of my amendment, which is to trust a member of the scheme with his own intelligence and to be aware that his membership of the scheme is at risk if he in any way introduces a potential hooligan into the ground.

I like the way in which the Minister in this amendment, but not in others, relies heavily on the sagacity, good sense and experience of the FMA. I ask the Minister this direct question. If the FMA decides in its wisdom that it would like the kind of exemption which I have put forward—that is, the right of a member to bring along not someone from far away or abroad but his neighbour, a work mate or his club mate—will the FMA be able to introduce that exclusion into the scheme? If the Minister says that that can be done I shall withdraw my amendment. However, the Minister has said, in as many words, that that is not possible.

The Minister nods his head. In other words, the Government are prepared to leave football to manage football as they see it, but before they give football that remit it is told that there are certain aspects that are not within its purview. One of those aspects is that clubs cannot give to ordinary, honest-to-goodness, law-abiding citizens the right to take along a neighbour, friend or relative who might turn up accidentally or who might have been thinking of joining the club scheme.

The Minister referred to Luton as not being a good example. The Minister for Sport has held up Luton as a good example, not of the scheme, but—

Lord Hesketh

Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is slightly confusing what I said. We have the greatest admiration for Luton. What I said was that Luton's scheme is not comparable or applicable to the scheme we are now discussing.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister will understand that he is losing friends at Luton with every statement that he makes. The people of Luton are saying that they have done everything that the Government want. They have a scheme, they have excluded potential hooligans and encouraged the good supporters of football. The Minister is saying that that is not the kind of scheme that the Government have in mind, so the people of Luton, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be unhappy because they cannot win at any level.

The Minister has failed to make out a good case. I intend to test the feeling of the Committee.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Before the noble Lord does that, I was not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in interpreting what my noble friend said. It is within the recollection of the Committee that my noble friend said that he was not against guests going to a match provided that the club itself was satisfied. Therefore, if my hearing is right, it would be better not to put this amendment to a vote which would make it much more difficult to obtain the compromise we want. It is the principle we want to achieve and that is why I supported the noble Lord a few moments ago. If we can have confirmation that at some stage my noble friend can find the words which will give effect to the impression that he certainly left with me, then I should have thought there is no need to take this amendment to a Division.

Lord Hesketh

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We are not opposed to guests in principle. It is how the guests achieve admittance to the ground which is the area of disagreement, as my noble friend points out. I am slightly curious as to whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be tabling an amendment at a later stage which will ban all away supporters at soccer matches. He appears to accuse me of on the one hand not supporting Luton and on the other saying that it is an admirable scheme.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The noble Lord invites me to table amendments and I shall think about it. I am not holding up the Luton experience, as the Minister of Sport has done, as a scheme to be replicated. I simply point out that the Luton supporters of the Government's attitude to football will be bitterly disappointed because, as the Minister said, away fans are not going to be banned, which is part of the Luton experience. The present Luton experience is that a member of the scheme per se is able simply to go along before the kick-off and in effect buy, say, three guests' tickets.

I should like to be clear on this. Is the Minister telling me that when these matters are referred to the FMA it will be within the FMA's power to recommend what I propose in my amendment? Is the Minister saying that the FMA can recommend that a club can issue tickets for casual, one-off attendances by guests of members, however it is dressed up? If that is possible, I will withdraw my amendment.

Lord Hesketh

So long as the club is the issuer, that is correct. The point we desire is that the club should be responsible.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I am grateful to the Minister. He said that provided the club takes the responsibility of allowing a member of the scheme to bring along his guests, the club will be—

Lord Hesketh

That is not what I said. I said that the club must take responsibility for the guest, so the guest must be issued with day membership by the club.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I want to get this clear. In future, when the scheme is in operation, a club will be able to issue an admission ticket to the kind of people I have in mind—that is, casual supporters—and there will be no limit on the number, because one cannot anticipate the number. I have already given a figure of 5,000 or 6,000 for a club with an attendance of 20,000 to 25,000. Is the Minister saying that a club will be empowered to issue guest tickets to casual supporters?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

The noble Lord wants to go too fast. He has won the battle in terms of the general principle. My noble friend said that he does not accept the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that guests should be accepted at the behest of the member. My noble friend said that provided the club, through the member, approves the guests, then that will be acceptable. Tactically, I suggest that we leave the matter there and see how we interpret what has been said before the next stage. To go into the sort of detail that the noble Lord with his enthusiasm and great knowledge is doing is not in keeping with the Committee stage.

Lord Underhill

Before my noble friend speaks again, can the Minister correct a statement I believe he made? I believe he said that the club will need to have a photograph and that the details of the guest will be checked. However, that is totally different from his later reply.

Lord Hesketh

I am slightly confused about what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says that I said because I do not think I said that.

Lord Underhill

If the Minister gives me an assurance that what I said is incorrect I shall be quite happy. Hansard will prove that he said quite definitely that the temporary day card will not require a photograph and will not need to be checked by the club against previous information.

Lord Hesketh

As regards previous information, the computer system will have records on it because there has to be a comparison of information in order that people who are banned from the scheme and who are not members can be checked on the black list. I believe that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls expressed very clearly what I thought I was explaining. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear. The basis of the admission of guests is fine as long as the club accepts the responsibility.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

That is if there are no ifs or buts and provided a club says, "We shall take responsibility for issuing guest cards to guests of the club who are friends of members or even not friends, but who are casual spectators". If the Minister is saying that or something like it, I shall withdraw my amendment. We are speaking about the possibility of between 2,000 and maybe 5,000 people wishing to attend matches casually. They turn up now. If we are to be told that a club is able to issue 3,000 or 4,000 guests' tickets without the paraphernalia required to be a member of the scheme—in this amendment I am speaking about casual visitors who are guests of members—provided those people will be accommodated by the route the Minister has described and not by my route, I shall be satisfied.

Lord Hesketh

I would not wish the Committee to suffer from a misapprehension here. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has not drawn our attention to an important proviso that is very straightforward. I have consistently said that the club will have to accept responsibility. That responsibility carries with it penalties if certain matters go wrong. I do not want the insinuation to go out to the Committee that a club can happily issue 5,000 or 6,000 guest tickets. I do not believe that any club will issue guest tickets with quite the free abandon that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is indicating because of the responsibilities attached to each of the guest passes.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I suppose that strictly it is nothing to do with the Bill, but many a good deal has been lost through niggling over detail too early in the discussions. We are right at the beginning of this Bill. I believe that the noble Lord has gone some way towards accepting the general principle. Rather than try to argue it out on our feet, so to speak, I say leave it. We have all the time in the world to find out exactly how it can be done. For what it is worth, my advice is that, in the light of the advance that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has already made, we should let it go.

Lord Hughes

As an interested spectator but not an applicant for an ID card, I ask the Minister whether the admission card of a guest of the club will have to have a photograph attached to it. If so, that will rule out the people about whom my noble friend is asking.

Lord Hesketh

The guest card will not have a photograph on it.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Can I be clear on what the noble Lord has just said? Perhaps he can confirm whether my analysis of his last statement is correct or otherwise. We have a situation where a member of the scheme wants to take his own guest to a match. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, at its discretion the club can decide whether or not to allow that person into the ground as a guest of a member. As regards the club, the penalty will be if it lets in individuals who thereafter commit offences. It will be exclusively at the discretion of the club whether it did or did not admit a person. I assume that is a correct reading of the situation, and perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that.

Lord Hesketh

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely correct.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 53B:

Page 4, line 6, at end insert— ("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of persons holding a membership card of an existing local football membership scheme, that is to say a scheme for the time being in force made by a football club being the owner of a sports stadium which has accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators;").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to exempt from the scheme the people who are already members of a reputable membership scheme run in a proper way by a club. I have already indicated to the Chamber on other occasions (I shall be happy to indicate further) that there are very few clubs in the country that are not into the business of running some kind of scheme. If I were to use the Luton experience, there are various kinds of members. There are junior members and old-age pensioner members. I believe at Watford they are called the Hornets. There are variations, and it is part of the nexus of giving the club back to the community.

As regards Millwall—I know I have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, at this moment—that is one of the clubs that has gone out of its way not only to produce a scheme for its own sake but to bring into the nexus of football all kinds of people.

It includes schools, old-age pensioners, youth clubs, and the disabled. They are members of a scheme. The reputation of the club, of the individual and of the group is at stake. My amendment says that if it is possible to satisfy the FMA that a sensible scheme is in operation we should exempt the members of the particular schemes from being members of the FMA. That will encourage people to become members of currently operating successful schemes.

I know that there are many local authorities involved. I was written to this week by Sheffield. It is working with Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, the police and the schools. They have got together a scheme that is literally policed by the community. If the Minister wishes to keep out hooligans and is looking for people to help him, he has local authorities, football clubs and many others. They detest as much as the Minister the bad things that are done to the good name of football in the name of so-called football supporters. I look forward to the Minister saying something helpful; namely, that among the exemptions from having to be members of the national scheme will be those who are already members or will become members of schemes that are run by football clubs. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

I believe that we have covered the issue of exemptions very thoroughly. I have explained that the Government see membership of the national scheme not as a burden but as a benefit. Those who are presently members of individual club schemes will certainly appreciate this. They have joined their club's scheme because of the benefit it offers. They will wish to join the national membership scheme for the same reason. The Government accept that there are good grounds for certain groups to be exempt from the scheme. We have listened to the arguments the Committee has advanced and I hope noble Lords will agree that our response on exemptions has been more than reasonable. We have undertaken to deal effectively with the needs of a number of groups the Committee has suggested should be exempted.

I do not believe that there are good grounds for exempting the category of spectator proposed in this amendment; that of members of existing membership schemes in place at clubs with a ground capacity of over 10,000 people. Let us look briefly at the practical issues involved here. How would the clubs validate the existing club membership cards? Are these cards going to be machine readable? If they are, would clubs have to install special readers to check them? If they are not, would turnstile attendants have to disrupt the flow of members of the national scheme, whose cards can be read quickly by the electronic readers, to make visual inspections of the cards of members of other schemes? We should remember too that it would not simply be a case of an individual club having to check its own membership cards and the national membership cards. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out, nearly all of the 92 clubs in the Football League have some form of membership scheme.

If cards from any of these clubs were to be acceptable as an alternative to the national membership card, every club would have to make arrangements to check cards from all the other clubs. I suggest to the Committee that there is more than just a little room for chaos here.

There is too the matter of security. We must ensure that exemption arrangements are not open to abuse and that they do not allow the hooligan to cheat the scheme. It is difficult to see how individual club membership schemes could be applied nationally with anything like the degree of security which the national membership scheme offers. Applications for individual club schemes would not be subject to the checking process we envisage that the Football Membership Authority will undertake for the national scheme. The club card could not be subject to the validity check made on entry to the grounds as the national membership card will be. It could not be checked against the list of banned and invalid cards which the Football Membership Authority will regularly send to the clubs. By accepting individual club membership cards under the national scheme we could run the risk of encouraging troublemakers to attempt to become members of individual club schemes. As the amendment is drafted there would be nothing to prevent someone convicted of a football-related offence and disqualified from membership of the national scheme from joining a local scheme and avoiding the effects of his ban.

I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that there is no case for exemption here and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister referred to room for chaos with this amendment. I assure him that the application of the scheme will provide plenty of opportunity for chaos without the amendment. I understand the noble Lord's reticence about accepting the amendment because it covers too wide an area of potential exclusion. That is a good thing in the sense that literally thousands of people already see the advantages of membership of a scheme of this kind. I am willing to withdraw the amendment. I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord said and I reserve my right to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 53C:

Page 4, line 6, at end insert— ("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators, without their being members of the scheme, of female persons").

The noble Lord said: Although we had a brief discussion on this matter in conjunction with the debate on Amendment No. 53 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, it is necessary for me to say a few words in support of the amendment. I do so for two reasons. First, since last Tuesday a number of people have said to me that perhaps I am guilty of wanting to impose positive discrimination. I deny that straightaway. I do not believe in positive discrimination. There is only one kind of discrimination; that is discrimination full stop. Therefore, I would not be likely to move an amendment positively to discriminate for or against anyone.

Secondly, I am accused of sexism, whatever "sexism" may mean. If it is sexist to try to exempt a section of football supporters when, as I shall show, there are good reasons for exempting them, then I am sexist. But how can I be more sexist than my noble friend Lord Graham was "ageist" in moving Amendment No. 49? That amendment sought to exempt people in receipt of retirement pensions. I move this amendment not because I believe in positive discrimination or because I am in any way sexist. I believe in complete equality of the sexes; no more and no less.

Why then do I move the amendment? I do so because it is the rational thing to do. We are talking about a football scheme which attempts to deal with hooliganism. I find that women have not been involved in football hooliganism. There are no cases of women being arrested for, or convicted of, any offence concerned with their attendance at football matches. Therefore, why on earth should we include this section of the population—about 10 to 15 per cent. of women attend football matches—in a football membership scheme when it is shown clearly that they have not been involved, and are not likely to be involved, in violence? Women in our society are fortunately not violent. That view has been confirmed by a senior police officer.

The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, agreed at col. 1462 of the Official Report of 7th March 1989 that there was no difficulty about identifying women. He said: It is a relatively simple matter to identify women". Therefore the same arguments cannot apply to women as apply, for example, to retirement pensioners because, as the noble Lord agrees, women are easily identifiable. Even in these days of unisex haircuts and clothes styles, they are still easily identifiable in a number of ways with which we are all familiar. It may be argued that men wishing to attend football matches without being members of the scheme will dress up as women. I do not accept that argument. The young men who indulge in football hooliganism want to portray a macho image. They are unlikely to go to football matches in drag.

I hope I have made the case for exempting the female of the species. I feel sure that all Members of the Committee would not wish to discourage women from attending football matches. Women have a calming effect on the male of the species and would therefore have a calming effect on football hooligans. I hope that the amendment will be considered. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. If he is unable to accept it, I trust that he will be able to give some good reasons.

The Earl of Onslow

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am totally sexist on this issue. When I was a young man it was always a compliment to call someone "discriminating". Indeed, it meant that a person had taste and finesse and knew the difference between beauty and ugliness. Moreover, it meant that that person was generally of some intellectual calibre.

It seems to me very sensible that women should be excluded from the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart has drawn a wonderful picture of beer-bellied hooligans with tattooed arms dressed up in drag trying to get into football matches wearing high heels and straw wigs and carrying broken bottles. That is almost what the noble Lord is suggesting will happen: he believes that hooligans will try to get in under this amendment if women are not excluded.

My noble friend's answer to the problem earlier in the Bill's proceedings was really awfully unsatisfactory. I have a terrible sinking suspicion that the same answer will again be given; namely, that it will be of immense benefit to all ladies, be they aged 100 or 103. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the Committee what will be the minimum age for young ladies going to matches. Let us take for example, the case of the mother referred to in our previous debate—she with a baby in a pram in the family enclosure. If that baby is going to be feminine, are we really going to ask a nappy-clad three month old in a pram—or a lady, woman or girl—to go through and apply for a football membership scheme card?

If that is the case, what my noble friend is doing is making a mistake with what is basically a good idea. In other words, they are spoiling a ship for a ha'porth of tar. We know that there is a problem; indeed, all of us who support the idea know that there is a hard core of unattractive people who wish to go to football matches in order to create mayhem and trouble. We also know that they are all male and that they are all probably under 30, or perhaps 40, years of age.

Therefore there can be no advantage either for the female baby in nappies or, again, the lady I have mentioned—namely, my 101 year-old great aunt Vera—neither of whom are likely to cause mayhem or riot. There is no advantage to either of them, or to anyone in that category. Indeed, there is no advantage to women on the whole. Therefore, it seems to be very sensible to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as a good idea. However, I have a terrible feeling that my noble friend will not do so. Moreover, I have an equally terrible feeling that he will produce exactly the same bad arguments that he produced on the last occasion.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Oh dear!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

In supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I must stress that I do not necessarily associate myself with his views as regards women and violence. As a boy I remember going to a match where a woman was so incensed by a referee's decision that she rushed across the ground and started to belabour him with her umbrella. I should add that I was not that referee, nor was it the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because the incident took place at a rugby not a soccer match.

I agree with the noble Lord when he stresses the importance of encouraging women to go to football matches; indeed, they do bring a more civilised influence to the proceedings and make it into a family occasion. Moreover, they should be encouraged to do so for the sake of football and football spectators.

I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will tell the Committee once again that it is the Government's view that the membership scheme is being put forward for the protection of spectators. Therefore the Government want all law-abiding spectators to be members of it. However, there is another side to that argument. The membership scheme certainly restricts and reduces the freedom of the individual. In this case it is very likely that many women who have been accustomed to attending football matches will not go through the process of taking out membership cards. Many women are casual supporters, though not all—indeed, some are regular—and they will not go to the trouble of taking out membership cards.

If the Government do not accept the amendment they will be extending that restriction on the liberty of the individual to go to a football match on a Saturday afternoon to women spectators. I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us a single instance of any female who has ever been prosecuted for violence as a result of an incident at any football ground. I have never heard of such a case; indeed I do not believe that there has been one. Further, if that is true, and there has never been any arrest or charge against a female, I suggest that it is our duty to preserve the liberty and freedom of the female sex to go to football matches when they wish to do so. The Government's argument that there is an element of violence among football spectators certainly applies only to the male sex and has never been seen among the female sex.

Baroness Phillips

I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by my noble friend. I do so especially because I would not like to see him labelled as sexist. That is certainly nonsensical and is obviously a term used by the kind of person who likes to be called "Ms" and who talks about a "chairperson". That is not what the argument is about.

I should like Members of the Committee to envisage some spectators who will be at our local Fulham football ground. I plead again the fact that I am not talking only about the rich clubs; we should be thinking of some of the smaller ones which will be completely bankrupted by the scheme. However, that point is by the way.

My son will be taking, as he always does, his 13 year-old daughter with three of her friends to the match. Sometimes there will be two friends, sometimes three, and sometimes four. They will be visiting Chester the following Saturday and they will go with several other people. They are very typical of the females who go to football matches. Of course they thoroughly enjoy themselves and there is certainly no question of violence.

It is interesting to put on the record that we are obviously not the violent sex; we can do pretty well with our tongues, but we are not the violent sex. Moreover, as I recall, there is only one prison for women, compared to a very large number for males. I see that certain Members of the Committee are not in agreement with me on that issue and I wonder how many prisons there are for women.

A noble Lord

Six!

Baroness Phillips

As I was saying, I understand that someone said it is overcrowded; that, of course, is a different matter. In any event, there are fewer prisons for women than there are for men. Therefore certainly the small number of women who go to matches now—as we have just heard from the noble Lord—will not go if they have to pay to join the membership scheme in addition to paying for a ticket. That is the whole point. Moreover, we do not yet know how much such membership will cost, but it will all add to the cost. If the Minister can only see his way clear to make this small exemption, then he will really be showing us that the Government have the interests of football spectators in general at heart. Indeed they need the popularity.

It was most interesting to see on the television screen last week when watching a football match that protesters were so well organised that every now and again they produced banners which read, "No ID cards". This is not a popular measure and the Government should take that fact on board.

4 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

We discussed this amendment in Committee last Tuesday. I explained then the Government's general position on exemptions and why we do not believe that there are good grounds for exempting women from the scheme. The central premise stands repeating. We want as many law-abiding spectators as possible to join the scheme and enjoy the benefits of membership.

We certainly do not suggest that women pose a special threat of hooliganism. I entirely accept that women on the whole commit less crime than men. The Association of Chief Police Officers does not distinguish between men and women in the summary information on football-related arrests that it collects centrally, but I have no doubt that arrests among women at football matches are low. This is the impression which ACPO also has, though, as I say, there are no central figures on the point.

On the other hand, crime among women is not unknown. The totals for indictable offences in England and Wales in 1987 record some 209,000 female offenders. That figure represents about a quarter of the total for male offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in making the point that not all women are necessarily an advertisement for their sex acknowledged that those who are not constitute a very small proportion but should not be under-estimated.

I do not wish to make too much of this point and of course I accept that the majority of football spectators are men. All I am suggesting is that the scheme would be weakened if from the outset we were to deny ourselves the possibility of disqualifying women who were found to be closely involved in hooliganism. The Committee will appreciate in this context that there is no such exemption in the existing exclusion order powers under Part IV of the Public Order Act 1986.

The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, also made the point that the notion of blanket exemption of women smacked of sexism. This is not a frivolous point. There is no practical reason for exempting women from the scheme. As I said last week, I do not wish to exaggerate the extent to which an exemption for women would create an extra burden of checking people at the entry to grounds; but there would be some practical implications. It is essential that the flow of spectators through turnstiles should move as smoothly as possible. The technology is available to provide for this provided that everyone has the same card. Large-scale exemptions are bound to have some practical effects on the scheme and exempting half the population is an exemption on a very large scale.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Onslow wittily denigrated the idea of anyone attempting to enter a ground dressed as a female, which is far more to the point than a female hooligan. My noble friend Lord Onslow painted an attractive picture of how ridiculous it would be to expect anyone with a beer belly and tattoos to be dressed in high-heeled shoes. I found that a reasonable point of view; but I would remind noble Lords who have taken an interest in soccer hooliganism that it is a speciality of the "Inter-City Firm", in order to obtain entry to grounds, to look as unlike the description of a yobbo that my noble friend gave. It perceives the way to gain entry to football as being well dressed and looking highly respectable.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, spoke of women casual supporters. The guest card is the example to think of in terms of the casual lady going to watch a game. My noble friend Lord Onslow also asked about a child in arms. I can assure him that that will not be the case, but that I shall be coming to that point on a later amendment. I hope that he will accept that assurance.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also spoke about safety. The Government's primary reason for resisting the amendment has nothing to do with their feelings about women and trying to exclude them or make life difficult for them. The Bill's intention is to exclude hooligans and to protect the individual and the weak. The integrity of the Bill and the scheme depend upon limiting exclusions which make it more difficult to operate the scheme. Most women football spectators are law-abiding people whose very presence at a match can do so much to curb bad behaviour and improve the atmosphere at the ground. Women can benefit from being members of the scheme, and the scheme will gain from having them in it. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

As the Minister referred to what I said, will he tell the Committee how a woman spectator will be any safer with an identity card than without one?

Lord Hesketh

For the simple reason that the purpose of the scheme is to exclude hooliganism. That is the threat.

Lord Wigoder

Leaving aside the fact that the official statistics might not disclose the proportion of male and female offenders at football grounds, does the Minister's department have a single press cutting to show a single conviction of a single woman for a single crime of violence at a single football match?

Lord Hesketh

I have always tried to emphasise that our purpose in resisting the amendment, as we have in other areas—for example, in relation to old age pensioners—is to ensure the scheme's integrity. We resist the amendment for that and no other reason.

The Earl of Onslow

Will my noble friend answer the point? The integrity of the scheme argument sounds similar to the reason why the Bourbons did not return to France in 1870, which was because they could not agree on the flag. My noble friend has produced an argument which has nothing to recommend it, but he goes on proposing it. We all want to keep football hooliganism outside football matches. I accept that one of the ways to do that is by football identity cards.

There is no point in giving football identity cards to people who are not hooligans. My noble friend says that there is no record showing the difference between male and female offenders. I do not believe him. He just has not got hold of the figures. When someone is arrested, the name is taken. If they are male, they are put in a male cell, and if they are female they are put in a female cell. Otherwise people might get up to hanky panky. I am sure that my noble friend does not want that in the nick. Presumably the police must know who is arrested and charged and whether they are male or female. Will he ask his advisers and tell us the answer?

Lord Hesketh

I am interested in what my noble friend says. His proposition, which I understand but with which I disagree, is that all groups which are clearly not a threat to the scheme should be excluded. All the advice given to the Government was and is that if we are to attempt to introduce a scheme it must have universality. It is for that reason only that we resist the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

What is the object of the Bill? As I understand it, it is to prevent hooliganism at football grounds. Upon what does the Minister base his argument? It is not now about violence at football grounds. He is talking about the scheme's integrity. What does that mean? As I said last week, it seemed to me that the Minister and his colleagues were so much in love with the bureaucratic procedures of the scheme that they had lost sight of their objectives.

I asked the Minister two questions last week. First, I asked him, as did my noble friend Lord Wigoder a moment ago, how many women have been arrested for violent offences at football grounds. The Minister was unable to answer the question. I then asked him a different question. I asked him to ask ACPO what its impression was of the number of offences committed by women at football grounds. The Minister said: The very straightforward answer is that I do not have that information with me at this moment. I shall write to the noble Lord".—[Official Report, 7/3/89; col. 1466.] Rather to my surprise, I have unhappily not received a letter from the Minister. Perhaps one is on its way. Has he asked ACPO what its impression is of the number of women committing offences at football grounds? What is its answer?

Lord Mellish

Before the Minister answers, I wish to put this on record. The debate we have had on the amendment shows the futility of the Minister's scheme. So many people would be eligible, if we are talking of exemptions. The Government have got it into their mind that this is the only way in which we can deal with hooligans. I have said to the Minister and to the Government that I accept at once that there is a problem with hooligans. We must deal with them. I beg the Minister, even at this late stage, to understand that there is no point in having a specialist committee such as is proposed in the Bill unless it is given authority and power to make recommendations which will be accepted by the Secretary of State. That is not a lot to ask.

If the Minister wishes to get rid of this or any other amendment, all he need say is, "I shall put this to the specialist committee considering the matter". I note that the Leader of the House is listening intently to me. There is no point in having a specialist committee if it is not to be given authority and is not able to make recommendations. I do not think that the Minister is qualified to answer the debate as it now stands.

I have been listening and smiling all the way through the debate at the very idea that if women are exempt as a class—for which I understand the reasons—then all the villains at Millwall will be dressing up in drag, and high-heeled shoes to gain entry. I cannot believe that; but it is what has been said. It shows how silly the debate is becoming. Will the Minister please stop it? Will he understand that we share with him the responsibility; we agree that hooligansim must be removed. We ask that the appropriate committee be given the authority and power to examine matters like this and to make recommendations. In that context, this and every other amendment should fall to the ground.

Lord Hesketh

Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, before turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The committee to which I was referring was the Minister for Sport's advisory committee; we feel strongly that the success of the scheme depends on it being universal. I quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, does not agree, but that is what we believe. It is the basis on which we are proceeding.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if he has not received the letter. I can assure him that I addressed it to him and signed it; so it is en route. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the remarks I made when I began to reply to the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

If we could be told what was in the letter I think we should all be interested.

Lord Hesketh

I am just coming to the point the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made. With regard to the impression of the ACPO, to which he referred, it is that the number of arrests among women at football matches is low. I shall repeat that; it is the answer I suspect the noble Lord wanted.

Lord Mishcon

If Lewis Carroll had been living at the moment and had been seated in the Gallery of the Chamber he would have rushed out and written a book called, "Alice in Football Land".

Before the Committee decides on the matter perhaps I may remind the Minister of the argument he has advanced. It has not been dealt with in the last two speeches. The argument is that if women were members of the scheme they would supply, as I understood it, a gentle atmosphere in the audience at the football match. That would therefore encourage peace in football grounds. Will the Minister examine the logic of that argument? I say that with respect. Will there not be many more women at football grounds if they are not required to have membership cards? If therefore we are encouraging the greater attendance of women at football matches in order to produce tranquility, will not this amendment have the very purpose that the Government have in mind?

Lord Hesketh

The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are, as always, very seductive. But the objective of the Bill is to reduce violence. We believe that it will do so and that because of the membership scheme we shall increase the number of ladies going to football matches.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entirely right. The clubs have stated and the Government have accepted that the effect of the Bill overall is likely to be that there will be fewer casual spectators. If the Government resist the amendment the result will therefore be, as a matter of elementary logic, that fewer women will go to matches.

If the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, says, "We want more women at football grounds because they will induce more peace and harmony", he will surely be eager to accept the amendment—that is, if the central objective of the Government is to lower the amount of violence at football grounds. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, can see the logic of the argument.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

I quite understand the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but in terms of achieving a reduction of violence at football grounds, the primary means will be through the scheme. A welcome additional improvement will be the presence of ladies at football matches. However, in order to make football "user-friendly"—for want of a better phrase—we must exclude hooligans. That is the object of the legislation; that is what we are trying to achieve.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

This has been a fascinating debate. It has lasted much longer than I expected. My noble friend Lord Mishcon's arguments were not only seductive; they were very convincing. That is important. Nothing that the noble Lord has said invalidates the point made by myself and all other speakers that the presence of women at football matches will have a good influence and a calming effect on the football crowds. That must surely be good for football.

The noble Lord says that he wishes to maintain the integrity of the scheme. He says that the integrity of the scheme will be undermined if we exempt 50 per cent. of the population. With respect, what we are doing is to exempt 10 to 15 per cent. of the football-going crowd, not 50 per cent. of the population. Therefore, what he said was misleading.

Although in respect of other groups such as retirement pensioners the noble Lord's argument that they may be difficult to identify has some justification, in respect of women and girls there is no justification. As I have pointed out, the noble Lord accepts that. Since he accepts it, there can be no delay and no suggestion of delay. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene, but perhaps I may finish the point. There is no suggestion of delay at the turnstiles through exempting women from the scheme.

Lord Hesketh

Perhaps I may return to the very early part of the debate on the amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quoted me, saying that I used the words "relatively simple". I used the word "relatively" advisedly. It is relatively simple, but not that simple. Part of the difficulty about all groups of exemptions—glossed over by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, if I may say so, in summarising the debate—is that at Second Reading in your Lordships' House a tremendous amount of time was given to the problems caused by any scheme where hold-ups occurred because alternative forms of identification had to be used. That is a fact we cannot get away from. It is one of the reasons why we are resisting the amendment on grounds of practicality.

Lord Stoddart of Swindow

I do not think that I can go into the theory of relativity in relation to women and whether one can recognize them easily or not. The Minister and the Government are being unduly rigid, as has been pointed out. This is an exemption which they could, and should, allow. Under all the circumstances and bearing in mind the weight of opinion in the debate, I believe it right to test the opinion of the Committee.

4.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53C) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO.1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Gallacher, L.
Airedale, L.	Galpern, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Gladwyn, L.
Alport, L.	Glenamara, L.
Amherst, E.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Attlee, E.	Grey, E.
Aylestone, L.	Hampton, L.
Bancroft, L.	Hanworth, V.
Blease, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Hayter, L.
Bottomley, L.	Hirshfield, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Hooson, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Hughes, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Hunt, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Hylton, L.
	Irvine of Lairg, L.
Carter, L.	Irving of Dartford, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Jacques, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Jay, L.
Craigavon, V.	Jeger, B.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Diamond, L.	Kennet, L.
Donoughmore, E.	Kilbracken, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Leatherland, L.
Ennals, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Ezra, L.	Longford, E.
Falkland, V. [Teller.]	McGregor of Durris, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Fitt, L.	McNair, L

Mason of Barnsley, L.	Stallard, L.
Mellish, L.	Stedman, B.
Mishcon, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Molloy, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]
Monson, L.
Mulley, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Northfield, L.	Swinton, E.
Ogmore, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
O'Neill of the Maine, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Onslow, E.	Turner of Camden, B.
Phillips, B.	Underhill, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Prys-Davies, L.	Whaddon, L.
Raglan, L.	White, B.
Rathcreedan, L.	Wigoder. L.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.	Wilberforce, L.
Rochester, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Ross of Newport, L.	Willis, L.
Rugby, L.	Winstanley, L.
Seebohm, L.	Winterbottom, L
Sefton of Garston, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abercorn, D.	Kimberley, E.
Aldington, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Lauderdale, E.
Alexander of Weedon, L.	Long, V.
Allerton, L.	McAlpine of Moffatt, L.
Annan, L.	McAlpine of West Green, L.
Arran, E.	McFadzean, L.
Bellwin, L.	Mackay of Clash fern, L.
Belstead, L.	Marley, L.
Bessborough, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Birdwood, L.	Merrivale, L.
Blyth, L.	Middleton, L.
Borthwick, L.	Mostyn, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mottistone, L.
Braye, B.	Mountevans, L.
Butterworth, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Caithness, E.	Munster, E.
Caldecote, V.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Nelson of Stafford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Norfolk, D.
Carnock, L.	Norrie, L.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Orkney, E.
Cross, V.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Oxfuird, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Pennock, L.
Dundee, E.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Porritt, L.
Elibank, L.	Portland, D.
Ellenborough, L.	Pym, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Quinton, L.
Ferrers, E.	Radnor, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Renton, L.
Gainford, L.	Rodney, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.	St. Davids, V.
Glenarthur, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Grantchester, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Selborne, E.
Gridley, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Shannon, E.
	Shaughnessy, L.
Halsbury, E.	Shrewsbury, E.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Havers, L.	Stafford, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Henley, L.	Stockton, E.
Hesketh, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Hives, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Holderness, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Sudeley, L.
Hood, V.	Teviot, L.
Hooper, B.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Ingrow, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Thurlow, L.
Kimball, L.	Trafford, L

Trefgarne, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Trumpington, B.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Tryon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.28 p.m.

[Amendment No. 53D not moved.]

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 95. These amendments move us to another part of the Bill. I remind the Committee that Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are designed to take out of the Bill some of the mandatory aspects of the scheme. I ask the Committee to agree to remove paragraph (c) of Clause 5(2). The paragraph provides for, the exclusion from membership, for a period determined under the scheme, of persons who are, by reference to circumstances specified in the scheme, determined under the scheme to be unfit for membership". Amendment No. 55 seeks to delete paragraph (i) of Clause 5(2). The paragraph provides for, establishing a tribunal to hear and determine appeals from decisions made under the scheme refusing or withdrawing membership of it". Paragraph (c) paves the way for the kind of discretionary power which was suggested by the working party of the Minister for Sport; for example, to disqualify anyone arrested at or ejected from a ground, whether or not convicted of an offence. It would also cover the use of confidential police records of past convictions. Deletion of the paragraph would not affect the automatic disqualification prescribed by Clause 6, but it would reduce the risk of a person being banned on the basis of unreliable information or information that could be withheld in the event of an appeal against disqualification. I believe that the only ground for withdrawing membership should be a conviction for a serious football-related offence. Paragraph (i) sets up a tribunal which would be redundant if the FMA no longer had discretionary powers. Amendment No. 56 creates a new tribunal and Amendment No. 95, which is the new schedule, takes that a little further forward.

The appeal tribunal which we are setting up in Amendment No. 95 begins to widen the range of people who will be running the scheme beyond simply members of the FMA. We are concerned here to allow some element of independence, and certainly some element which represents the football supporters. We shall be moving an amendment in a moment or two to add a little more flesh and substance to what the Minister has said more than once—and I agreed with him—that we want the scheme to be run for football by football. A prime requisite of that is not just the players, the administrators, the police or the parliamentarians, but the supporters themselves.

In Amendment No. 95, which we are taking in this group, there are some significant aspects. It states: The tribunal shall consist of at least three persons of whom more than half are not members or employees of the authority. In other words, we want to introduce some element of independence into the tribunal. The amendment goes on: The tribunal shall be empowered to seek evidence from any person who witnessed an incident leading to exclusion from membership under section 5(2)(c) of this Act. We have to take on board the possibility, when we are talking in terms of evidence, that it will be catastrophic for the football fan to be excluded from the scheme and we have not merely to have the words of a player, of the police, or of someone who is of course telling the truth, but who may very well come from one side of the argument; we also want to have people who can be called in aid by the person whose life inside the scheme is threatened. We want to be able to introduce the element of independence in that way.

We also say in Amendment No. 95: The tribunal shall disclose to the appellant all information and sources of information used by the authority in deciding to exclude him from membership, notwithstanding the provisions of section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1984 which might otherwise apply. In other words, we want as full a disclosure as possible to the person whose interest will be vitally affected. We want all that to be made available.

This is a much more democratic and judicially acceptable scheme. It may not suit the book either of the FMA or of the Minister, but we are anxious that the football fans, who are the ones who will be subject to a tribunal, should feel that this is fair and reasonable from the beginning. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

These amendments are concerned with the discretion which the FMA would have to withhold or withdraw membership from the people who misbehave at football matches, but who have not necessarily been convicted of a criminal offence. The question of the treatment of convicted hooligans is the subject of Clause 6 of the Bill on which we have other amendments to consider.

Noble Lords have expressed concern at the possible extent of the discretion which the FMA may have to deal with people who misbehave at football matches. I hope that I can allay that concern by explaining how we envisage this discretion will operate under the scheme. I would not wish to rule out the possibility that certain limitations on the FMA's discretion should be built into the Bill itself.

However, there is one point upon which we need to be very clear. Clubs already have the right to ban anyone they deem unsuitable from entering their club premises and they exercise that right now. No one at present has an absolute right to go to a football match. As I say, clubs can and do ban people whom they do not wish to enter their premises. In theory under the present law all clubs could come together and exchange information as to the undesirable characters.

In practice what happens now when an individual club bans someone from its ground is that he is free to go somewhere else and cause trouble. The Bill offers the means by which we can prevent this and I suggest to noble Lords that it is right that it should do so. If someone behaves in such a way at the Arsenal that the club decides to ban him from its ground, he should not be able simply to switch the focus of his activities to Tottenham Hotspur or West Ham.

There are several types of behaviour which may fall short of a criminal offence but which are entirely undersirable at football matches: for example, the obscene chanting, the racial abuse, the threatening and abusive gestures which still disfigure many matches. Behaviour of this kind is unacceptable both for its own sake and because it may lead to more serious criminal incidents. Then there are people who are persistently and unpleasantly drunk at matches. It can only be in the best interests of football as a whole that it should be possible for people to be banned not just from individual clubs but from all clubs.

However, it is essential that there should be procedures to ensure that people are not banned unfairly. I entirely accept that there must be rules and criteria by which the Football Membership Authority should exercise its discretion. These rules must be clearly set out in the scheme submitted to the Secretary of State for approval; and well publicised at football matches. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport has made it clear that the Government will expect the maximum period for discretionary disqualification to be set at two years. In the light of the remarks already made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I will undertake to consider the possibility of an amendment to the Bill to specify this maximum.

The Football Membership Authority will also need to establish proper procedures for dealing with recommendations from the clubs to disqualify people for misbehaviour They must give those concerned the chance to make representations on their own behalf to claim mistaken identity, for example, or to question the evidence laid against them. I should emphasise that we envisage that it will be the clubs which will make the reports to the FMA recommending disqualification, rather than the police. But those concerned must have the right to challenge the evidence on which a decision to disqualify them has been taken.

It is also essential for the integrity of the scheme that it should be open to the FMA to refuse membership to well-known hooligans at the outset. Of course we must be careful to ensure that the FMA does not refuse an application for membership unfairly, or without giving the person concerned a chance to question a refusal. But it would be highly unsatisfactory if there were no means of excluding from the scheme well-known hooligans who might have a long record of misbehaviour, or people who have been subject to exclusion orders and whose names are already known to the Football Association.

I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone who has ever been subject to an exclusion order should be denied membership of the scheme. But information on exclusion orders is already provided to the Football Association under the Public Order Act. It will therefore be available to the FMA and they may take it into account in considering applications for membership. Anyone whose application is refused will have the right to challenge that refusal and the reasons for it.

The operation of the FMA's discretion to disqualify people from membership will be a crucial aspect of the national membership scheme. It must be subject to proper procedures, but we must be careful not to impose too elaborate an appeals mechanism on the FMA. If we attempt to do so, we shall not create guarantees of civil liberties; we shall simply ensure that the elaborate procedure is never used because neither the clubs nor the authority will use the power that the Bill provides to ban troublemakers from the scheme. The clubs will rely on their existing rights to ban people from their grounds without any procedures for appeal. The opportunity that the Bill offers to create an effective and fair deterrent to hooligan behaviour will be lost.

There is attraction, too, for the appellant in keeping relatively simple the procedure by which he would challenge the FMA's decisions. A complex appeals process would inevitably accumulate substantial delays. In the context of a temporary disqualification from membership, justice would most certainly be delayed and denied. We need to strike a balance to find a procedure for people who are disqualified which is fair without being over elaborate and which allows the person concerned to state his case to an independent adjudicator and to challenge any evidence brought against him.

The detailed rules and procedures will need to be spelled out in the scheme, but it may be that we should deal with certain aspects more fully in the Bill than we do now and I undertake to consider the possibility of bringing forward amendments to this effect at a later stage. I shall look in particular at the possibility of spelling out that the maximum period of disqualification that the FMA will be able to impose should be two years; that those concerned should have a right to be notified of the reasons for their disqualification; and that the criteria by which the FMA's decisions are taken should be reasonable ones.

I have explained the importance that the Government attach to the FMA's discretion to disqualify people from the scheme. But I also recognise the case for imposing clear limits on that discretion. I think that we can strike a reasonable balance and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I should like to ask one or two questions that arise from the Minister's comments. I welcome his statement that there will be some government amendments spelling out a number of the issues in greater detail. No doubt we shall consider them at Report stage.

I accept everything that the Minister said about obscene and racist chanting. It is highly objectionable. But people who become involved in such conduct at present render themselves liable to arrest. I am not sure what the noble Lord is suggesting when he implies that, without such a provision, racist and obscene chanting can continue. Clearly, if a person is arrested and charged with a criminal offence, he can be excluded from the ground in any event by order of the court. That is what we should all prefer.

As I understand it, the Minister argues that the person concerned will not be arrested but that the club will make a complaint to the Football Membership Authority; the chap will be debarred and will then have a right of appeal. I am sure that the police will be gratified to learn that they will be excluded from having to take on any responsibility for that matter. However, in certain circumstances a policeman may be one of the witnesses to what happens but decides for various reasons not to arrest the person concerned. It seems clear to me that in a situation of that sort he will have to give evidence because, without his evidence, no case can be made out to the satisfaction of the authority. Perhaps the Minister will clear up that point. Is he giving an absolute guarantee—it would be welcome if he could give a guarantee—that the police will in no circumstances be involved in the matter?

As the noble Lord will be aware, the police are very aware of the resource implications of the legislation. If policemen are called to give evidence, perhaps from some of the most distant counties of this country, there will be great concern about the resource implications of such a procedure. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would spell out the situation in more detail.

I agree with the Minister that one does not want too elaborate a mechanism. But one also wants to be sure that the principles of natural justice are followed. Perhaps he will tell us whether his department is now consulting the Council on Tribunals whose former chairman is sitting behind him. I believe that if a new body of that sort is to be established it will be highly desirable to take its view of the matter before a final decision is made. I should be grateful if he would assist me on that matter.

Lord Hesketh

To answer the noble Lord's question, I need to return to the current situation; namely, that all clubs have the right to exclude anyone whom they consider to be a menace. The noble Lord says that we know that, but it is important in the context of what follows; otherwise, it is as if we are to impose a scheme that does not already exist. At the moment there is no right of appeal or opportunity to give one's side of the story, but under the new proposals we are essentially trying to codify what already exists and put it on a universal basis so that it can be effective against persistent hooligans.

At the moment it is quite likely that a police officer will go to a servant of a club and say, "X has been behaving in a disgraceful manner, but not to the point at which I feel that I can carry out an arrest". That evidence could be used by an employee or a director of the club and that information will be provided by the club to the FMA. Only in that context would the police go—I do not wish to be misunderstood: only in that context would the police appear to have an involvement. We are not talking about cases in which the police are involved and a crime has been committed. We are trying to formalise the situation and at the same time provide protection for those who are banned by the FMA. We are not trying to extend the present situation and it is fair to say that we are in effect trying to limit the powers which are at present unlimited. With regard to the noble Lord's final point, we are in correspondence with the Council on Tribunals.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am grateful for the Minister's final statement. Perhaps I may take him back to the statement that he made a little earlier about a situation in which a policeman hears someone involved in uttering racist abuse but decides for various reasons not to arrest him. The Minister told us that the policeman concerned would go to a servant of the club—I believe that that was how he described him—and tell him that Mr. X, Mr. Y or whoever it might be, had been involved in just such behaviour. The club would then take action.

With great respect, that cannot be right because such evidence is known as hearsay evidence, which is automatically disqualified from consideration by any tribunal. One cannot say that X said something to Y and then allow Y to use that information as evidence in proceedings of any kind. I must assure the noble Lord that that is right. A policeman's statement to a servant of the club could not possibly be used in evidence before a tribunal. Perhaps the Minister will assist me on that matter. I believe that those advising him will assure him that what I am saying is correct. I should be very surprised if they said that it was incorrect. If they said that it was incorrect, it would cause great anxiety on this side of the House. Perhaps the Minister will assist us on that matter.

Lord Hesketh

As I understand it, the situation that we are discussing does not involve the judicial process. We are essentially codifying the rights that the clubs already have. That is why I believe that the matter does not quite fit the criteria described by the noble Lord.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

With great respect, if the noble Lord reads what I said tomorrow morning, he will find that my point is an altogether different one. We accept that we are not talking about proceeding before a magistrates' court or anything of that sort, but about a situation—these are the Minister's words, not mine—in which a policeman hears someone shouting what he believes to be racist or obscene abuse. He knows who he is. No servant of the club hears it, but the policeman does. That situation will often arise when one considers the number of policemen who are on duty inside a football ground. The policeman goes to a steward and says, "I have just heard that young man using racist abuse. For various reasons I do not propose to arrest him but I am notifying you that that was what he was doing." If the servant of the club did not hear that statement made he cannot possibly be a witness in any proceedings before the tribunal because the evidence is hearsay evidence. That is automatically disqualified from consideration by any tribunal.

If the noble Lord has any doubts on the matter, I can assure him that the Council on Tribunals can confirm the accuracy of that statement. Can he assist us in this matter also? The police service will be concerned about any suggestion that its officers will be summoned to give direct evidence in a situation such as I have just described.

Lord Hesketh

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is correct. It would normally be a matter of hearsay evidence, and the police pointing out misbehaviour would then lead to a club official seeing it for himself. The police officer would therefore draw it to the attention of the club official and, as a result, it would have to be the club official who acted on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, the police officer would not be involved in any subsequent action because the club official would himself have had to see the evidence.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am sorry to persist with this point but there are many outside this Chamber who will be concerned to know the precise position of the Government. I am asking for a clear undertaking from the Minister—I believe that I have it, and he will no doubt confirm whether that is so—that the police will in no circumstances be involved in having to give evidence before the tribunal. As I understand it, the noble Lord has said just that.

I apologise if I am involving myself in wearisome repetition on this point. The servant of the club does not hear the young man shout the obscene abuse; the policeman does. By the time the incident has taken place the young man is almost certainly not involving himself in shouting abuse of this character. There is no way, as I understand it, that the evidence of the club servant could possibly be used at a tribunal unless he personally heard the words. The policeman will have heard it, but the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh has given me an undertaking that in no circumstances will he be asked to give evidence before the tribunal. Is that right?

Lord Hesketh

It would be very dangerous and foolish of me to rule that never, ever would the police be asked to give evidence. However, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made is correct. If the club official did not appear—he is entirely right—the club official would not be able to present evidence.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I shall not persist with the matter. However, I suspect that the police service will be very anxious to receive a clearer undertaking than the noble Lord has found it necessary to give on this matter of policemen giving evidence. It is already concerned, as the noble Lord will be aware, about the very heavy manpower resources that have to be made available at football matches. If it discovers that some of its officers will be summoned to tribunals, that concern will increase very considerably, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise.

I have made the point. I do not propose to follow it up any further.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister has gone some way towards meeting the point of my amendment. The impetus for the amendment has come from a number of quarters, not least the National Council of Civil Liberties, which has studied these matters with care.

The genesis of our amendments is this. Because the withdrawal of the card is so important, it ought not to be undertaken other than by a decision of a court, with the opportunities that a court can provide for the defence of the defendant. My argument is that this is not within the competence of the FMA. However, the Minister has agreed to consider some of the other amendments. He saw the unease that I had at the exclusion from the judicial procedure under the FMA of those whom I believe are primarily involved—the supporters.

Without attempting to use the precise words of the Minister, I accept that he and his advisers are prepared to look again at the judicial procedure whereby an alleged offender may lose his licence to attend—that is, his card. It would be churlish of Members of this Committee not to give them the opportunity to do so.

The noble Lord relies on the present position. I have a copy of the ground regulations for 1988–89. They are quite clear. They state: Any person who fails to comply with instructions from a steward may be ejected from the ground. In general the right of admission is reserved to the club management. The club reserves the right to refuse admission to or eject any person who refuses to be searched", and so on.

The Minister is quite right. Under the existing provisions people who are accused of doing something have very few rights. However, just as other people see an opportunity for involvement when a Bill is going through, the National Federation of Supporters' Clubs has seen an opportunity and wishes to become involved. I have pointed out on a number of occasions, and will be happy to do so again at a relevant time, that a new opportunity exists. In addition to considering whether or not we shall have the card—which the Minister supports—there is a new atmosphere which I believe will be for the good of football. One element of that is the introduction of consideration of supporters' rights. The bodies which represent supporters wish legitimately to have a slice of the action in the future.

Not only has the Minister done his best, but he has made the offer that without prejudice he will look at all the arguments. He has specified the lines along which he wishes to work. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said more than once, until we see the colour of his money—with reference to the words of the Minister's amendments—we must reserve our right to decide whether we wish to amend them. I am satisfied that a good purpose has been served by giving this aspect of the Bill an airing at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 55A:

Page 4, line 25, leave out paragraph (i) and insert— ("(i) providing for the exercise of the rights accorded to members of the National Football Membership Scheme as specified in Schedule (Rights of Members of the National Football Membership Scheme) to this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55A and to speak to Amendment No. 96.

Amendment No. 96 is a new schedule which provides for the rights of members of the national football membership scheme. I shall be satisfied if the Minister states that these are matters which should be left to the FMA. When that is said with sincerity, I am very happy to leave the matter there.

I have already raised the flag on behalf of football supporters. Perhaps the Members of the Committee may benefit if I state simply what this amendment is seeking to provide. It provides the right to participate in the election of representatives to a body that may be established by the administrator—that is, the FMA—to advise on the management of the scheme. We are not taking away anyone's powers. We are not laying down powers that this new body may have. However, through this amendment and through my words, the supporters' clubs want to have an opportunity to help to adminster the scheme. We are not talking about usurping the powers of Parliament of the FMA. The Supporters' clubs want to have the right to participate in the election of a committee to monitor the operations of the scheme; the right to call a meeting of members of the scheme; the right to be notified in writing of the reasons for any proposed withdrawal from the scheme; the right to present a defence before any decision regarding withdrawal of membership is made; and the right of appeal against any withdrawal.

If one considers that 1,000 exclusion orders were issued in the 1987–1988 season, but that the position will get "better" in the future—that there will be not thousands but hundreds of people who may have their membership withdrawn—this amendment provides for those who have the interests of supporters at heart to be involved in some way in such withdrawals.

I can assure the Minister that the people who dislike more intensely than he or anyone else the inconvenience that the good supporters are put to by the bad supporters are the vast majority of good supporters. I was given an interesting illustration in the recent England v. Albania match. There was no encouragement for British supporters to go abroad, but some supporters went and the vast majority of them were what the Minister would call a credit to British football. I was told as recently as today that a tiny minority were members of the National Front. They misbehaved absolutely appallingly and abused the privilege of entering a foreign country. Fortunately there was no international incident. Besides the local police, the people who disliked that behaviour were the recognised good supporters. They know as well as anyone the bad eggs, who do not have any credence anywhere.

I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment as it is not one I wish to press, but the purpose of it is to persuade the Minister to tell me that this is the kind of matter he would expect to be taken on board by the FMA in carrying out its duties and functions. I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

I explained when we were discussing the noble Lord's previous amendments that the Government regard the operation of the FMA's discretion to disqualify people from membership as a crucial aspect of the national membership scheme. I have told the Committee that I entirely accept that there must be rules and criteria by which the FMA should exercise its discretionary powers. Clearly it is important that anyone who is disqualified from membership by the authority should have the right to make representations against its decision.

I explained in our discussion on the noble Lord's previous amendments, Nos. 54 and 55, that the detailed rules and procedures by which the FMA will exercise its discretion to disqualify people from membership will need to be spelt out in the scheme. I have said that it may be that we should deal with certain aspects more fully in the Bill than we do now. I have undertaken to consider the possibility of bringing forward amendments at a later stage. I have a good deal of sympathy with the principles behind the proposals the noble Lord makes concerning the rights of members to challenge decisions by the FMA to withdraw membership.

I shall take full account of the noble Lord's proposals in taking another look at the FMA's discretionary powers. I see that an important issue here is the need to be fair to the people affected by the decisions of the FMA and the need to ensure that arrangements do not become over-complex and bureaucratic.

The other provisions in the noble Lord's proposed schedule dealing with rights for members seem to me to raise considerable practical difficulties. I am not sure whether the proposals are intended to compel the creation of a body to advise the Football Membership Authority on the management of the scheme and a committee to monitor the operation of the scheme at an individual club. It will of course be the FMA which will be responsible for the management of the scheme. It will be for the authority to decide with the clubs how best to go about this. It will be for the club to devise its own arrangements on the day-to-day running of the scheme. The authority and the clubs will clearly wish to monitor the operation of the scheme.

Whatever arrangements the FMA and the clubs make to manage, operate and monitor the scheme, they will wish to take full account of the interests of members of the scheme. It is in the interests of the authority and the clubs to do so and they will wish to work out the best way of consulting members. It might be possible for the arrangements to involve elections in the way the noble Lord proposes. This is something that the Football Membership Authority should be looking at. It will be for the authority and the clubs to come up with sensible arrangements for consulting members of the scheme. I do not think it would be helpful to tie football's hands by attempting to spell out detailed consultation arrangements on the face of the Bill.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I am grateful for what the Minister has said about the amendment, fully recognising that he has sympathy with the desire of members of the scheme to influence their own scheme. The Minister understands that if the scheme becomes a reality we are expecting a group of people who together will total 500,000, 600,000 or even 1 million individuals. It is a colossal voluntary body—voluntary in the sense that they are compulsorily made to join the scheme—that will have the opportunity to use its muscle. The group recognises the propriety of these matters, the sovereignty of Parliament and that it very much depends on the good will of the clubs. I liked what the Minister said; he thought it sensible that the clubs would influence the FMA. The FMA could decide how best to get the fans on its side. That does not need to be spelt out in precise words at this stage.

We wanted to test the attitude of the Government, not necessarily their views. I am satisfied that the Minister has conveyed to me that the attitude of the Government is that they see the sense of discussions between the FMA and whoever is seen to be the most appropriate body. One of the problems is that there is no cohesive body representing football fans. Some clubs have good groups, but others have not. I make no claim for their cohesiveness, but they will want to try to make a scheme work if it is implemented. They are opposed to the scheme. As my badge says, "Fans say 'No' to ID card". At least that is off my chest, although the badge is still there. The fans are saying to me and to the Committee that when the dust settles they want to make sure that their interests are protected. The Minister agrees that that is a reasonable request, but it is something to he taken on board by the FMA, so I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 4, line 27, at end insert ("and (j) that citizens of other countries of the European Community are entitled to attend on presentation of a passport.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has been tabled to find out the Government's precise position in relation to foreign visitors. I quote the opinion of the Minister of Sport's working party in paragraph 17 of Chapter 2 It reads: Exemption may also be justified for foreign visitors attending a single domestic match, at the discretion of the club. Clubs could maintain a small stock of temporary membership cards, valid for one match only, which could be issued to foreign visitors, against proof of their identity (passport or national identity card). The club should be responsible for their behaviour". That is the view of the working party and the amendment is addressed to the position of a citizen from a country in the European Community.

How precisely will the Government administer this? On previous occasions I have asked about Italian waiters, for example, living in London, possessing an Italian passport. If the working party's recommendation is accepted, I understand that if they wish to attend a single match they will be entitled to do so. Is that correct or not?

I am not quite clear how the club is compelled to be responsible for people's conduct while in the ground. I can understand it in relation to some of the other exemptions, but how can a club possibly be responsible for the behaviour of an unknown foreigner who presents his passport and asks to be admitted? I should be grateful if the noble Lord would assist us.

However, it is not just a question of an Italian waiter who lives in London and wishes to attend a single match. The position remains the same for the possessor of an Irish Republic passport who lives in Manchester. Is he also to been enabled to attend a single match without any difficulty? His next-door neighbour who does not have the good fortune to hold an Irish Republic passport will not be able to get into the ground on that basis. Indeed he will commit a serious criminal offence if he tries to do so. I find this Bill generally, and our discussions on a whole series of issues (particularly those at the beginning of this afternoon), rather like wading through thick glue.

I find the issue to be one of the more perplexing. I understand the goodwill of the Minister for Sport's working party in relation to foreign visitors. However, I find it exceptionally difficult to understand how the scheme will be administered with any fairness and justice. I should be grateful if the Minister will assist the Committee by saying how it will be done. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

I need not rehearse the Government's position on exemptions—

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Hear, Hear!

Lord Hesketh

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be grateful. Members of the Committee will be clear about that. It is a central premise of the scheme that everyone—of whatever nationality and wherever they live—who intends to visit Football League matches on a regular basis should join the scheme. This principle certainly extends to member states of the European Community.

As far as the occasional foreign visitors are concerned, we think that the best way of fitting them into the scheme is as guests of the club, with the club issuing temporary membership cards.

Tour operators already make arrangements with clubs about handling organised parties of foreign visitors. That principle could be extended under the membership scheme. The tour operator could provide the club with a list of names, against which the club would issue temporary membership cards. We envisage the FMA devising appropriate arrangements for organised parties and individual foreign visitors under which temporary membership cards would be issued. It is possible that the presentation of passports might have a part to play in this process; that is something which the FMA will wish to look at.

One final point that we ought not to lose sight of is the fact that there may come a time when foreign visitors may not always be in possession of a passport when in this country

I hope that Members will agree that it is sensible, and in the best interest of the foreign spectators and the clubs, for the Football Membership Authority and the clubs to work out arrangements for treating foreign visitors as club guests. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned citizens from the Irish Republic. As far as I am aware, they do not need a British passport to visit this country but can come whenever they wish. Four of the largest clubs in the country are situated in the North-West. They are the two Liverpool clubs and the two Manchester clubs, and they provide the largest catchment areas in which people from the Irish Republic can come and settle. Many supporters have lived in this country for many years and have become British citizens.

However, a surprising number of people from the Irish Republic class themselves as being regular supporters of Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool or Everton. They are not so insignificant in number. What would be the situation in respect of those people? If one meets them on holiday they will immediately say, "Whenever I can I come over pretty regularly to watch United". I am sure that the same applies to Liverpool. Some of them can be classed as regular supporters of those four clubs. I do not know whether the same situation applies to clubs in other parts of the country but it could create a problem in the catchment area of those four clubs.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

In my opening reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I pointed out that it is the intention that those who regularly attend a club—for example, Manchester United or Manchester City—regardless of whether they are English or foreign nationals, should have a regular membership rather than try to use the temporary membership scheme.

The clubs will keep lists of their temporary membership scheme. They will be in the business of discouraging people from using that scheme because it involves them in "bureaucracy"—to use a word which is being used often this afternoon—and they will encourage people to join the scheme as a full member.

Alternatively, if a foreign visitor goes to a club with a friend who is a member of a scheme, the club will be far more likely to grant him a temporary guest card. It is unlikely that an unknown person attending the club will persistently do so as an unknown figure. If he intends to support a particular team he will wish to take advantage of the scheme, because it will be simpler for him to hold his own card permanently rather than go through the process of trying to acquire a temporary membership card.

Lord Dean of Beswick

The Minister has put forward a complicated idea. However, if the person is a citizen of the Irish Republic is it not possible that, under the Bill as it now stands, he would be outside the jurisdiction of the law? I do not know the answer and I am asking the Minister to reply.

Is it not right that if an indigenous Englishman attempted to break the law, he and the club could find themselves in court concerning the activities of a non-applicant trying to gain entrance to the ground? In respect of a citizen of the Irish Republic only the club could be deemed to be in criminal conflict. It is a difficult situation. Can a citizen of the Irish Republic be prosecuted under the Bill? Laws have previously been passed in this country exempting citizens of the Irish Republic but how do they stand under this Bill?

Lord Hesketh

If a foreign passport holder acquires a guest membership card, which was issued in good faith by the club, and then commits an offence, the club will have the defence of saying that it issued the card in good faith. However, the fact of the matter is that the clubs will not wish to issue endless repetitive temporary membership cards because it will be troublesome for them to do so.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Does the Minister make that statement on the basis of what he has been told by the Football Association or the Football League, or is it his judgment on the matter?

I should like to take the Minister through his speech. I understand the first point that he made concerning what he described as "organised parties" from abroad. A number of London clubs and others elsewhere have regular group visits from people in other countries of the European Community. I understand that if they are "one off visitors they will be admitted. However, some may wish to return several times during the season. I am not clear whether they will be causing the Government offence by being what is described as "regular visitors".

I fear that the Minister did not attempt to answer the point I made in the second leg of my argument, except by saying that he thought clubs would not wish to encourage irregular visitors from the European Community who were not part of an organised party. Why should they not do so? What is the conceivable objection to allowing a businessman who visits this country once a year to go to a football match and say, "Here is my passport. The Government have made an exclusion for foreign passport holders and I wish to be admitted to the ground"? Surely the Minister will not say that such people should be debarred.

In fact the Minister did not say that they should be debarred; he said that the clubs would not wish to entertain such applications. I should like to know whether that is the view of the Football Association and the Football League, or whether it is the view of his department.

Lord Hesketh

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will not be surprised if I say that, in my present position, I cannot speak on behalf of the Football League or the Fooball Association—

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I asked whether they had been consulted. When the Minister said that clubs would not wish to do this, that and the other I assumed that he did so on the basis of having been so informed by the clubs. Is that right? Has he even asked the clubs for their view on the matter?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Very dangerous!

Lord Hesketh

At the start of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, drew our attention to paragraph 17 of the report on which the FA and the league were represented. I may have expressed myself badly with regard to the individual attending a soccer match in the United Kingdom in good faith. If the club gives a temporary membership card in good faith and the individual subsequently commits an offence, the club's defence, which is entirely reasonable, is that it gave the card in good faith.

Perhaps I may return briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the position of Irish passport holders living in the United Kingdom. As I have said, we envisage that it will be possible for a club to issue a foreign visitor a temporary membership card valid for one match only on the production of proof of identity, which might be his passport. It will be difficult to prevent Irish passport holders living in England making use of such a procedure. However, I do not believe that that need cause us too much concern. I should expect the FMA to ask clubs to maintain lists of those to whom they have issued temporary membership cards, given the need to adopt appropriate safeguards in relation to their licence. The clubs will want to maintain such lists. Therefore, the Irishman will not be able to continue obtaining temporary membership cards from the same club.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I take the noble Lord's point, but it depends on one's definition of "regular attender". Does it mean one match in the season, or four or five matches? I understand the logic of the noble Lord's point when he says that if a person goes to every home game he should not be able to obtain entry on the basis of being a foreign passport holder. However, he may be a person who visits this country two or three times a year and wishes to attend a match. As I understand it, that would be a matter for the club.

The noble Lord earlier indicated that clubs will take a certain view about people who regularly use that procedure. However, when I challenged him as to whether or not he had consulted the Football Association or the Football League he said that he was not speaking for them. It did not occur to me that he was, because, as he knows, both are passionately opposed to this Bill. Therefore, he does not have to reassure us on that point. However, I expected him to say whether they had been consulted. Perhaps I may ask him that direct question on the issue of foreign passport holders and the view which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that clubs will take. Did he say that on the basis of his own opinion of the matter, or did he make the point following discussions with the Football Association and the Football League?

Lord Hesketh

We are proposing that the FMA and the clubs will agree this among themselves. Perhaps I may move to the grey area, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, points out, between a man who goes to a game once a year and a man who goes to every home game. For example—and I take the example used by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—the club would issue to a French businessman a temporary membership card. That would be no problem, and if no offence was committed, he would be able to proceed. However, if he committed an offence, the next time he tried to obtain a temporary membership card he would be unable to do so.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I have now twice asked the noble Lord a direct question. I hope that on the third occasion he will answer it. Did he consult the Football Association and the Football League before he made the statement which he did this afternoon yes or no?

Lord Hesketh

As I said earlier, I do not speak for either of those bodies. We propose—and they will be able to read this debate—that the FMA, which will be run by the FA and the league, as I pointed out earlier this afternoon, will want to happen that which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wants; namely, that football will be run by football. That is a problem which is perfectly suited to them to sort out.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I have now asked the question three times and on each occasion the noble Lord has declined to answer. He was the one who prayed in aid the attitude of the clubs to this position. I simply asked him whether he had consulted the Football Association or the Football League. I assume that he has not. If that is so, why does he not simply say so?

Lord Hesketh

At the start of this debate I repeated to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with the greatest respect, paragraph 17 of the Minister's working party on which the football authorities were represented.

Lord Underhill

In the light of what the Minister has said on this amendment, perhaps he will look through his replies to amendment after amendment. He may then realise the number of occasions where he wishes to have temporary membership cards for particular matches and the number of categories he wants to be guests of the club. We have said that the small clubs are in danger and he wants them to keep lists of temporary memberships and guests. Does he realise what that will mean for small clubs? I shall not mention the name of my club, which is popularly known, but it has an attendance of between 3,500 and 4,000. It is one of the few clubs which has a full-time female secretary and also a female assistant. I do not have the faintest idea what other clerical staff there are. However, does the Minister realise how much bureaucratic administration special guests and temporary membership will create, particularly for the smaller clubs?

Lord Hesketh

I am slightly confused by the noble Lord. One reason that the Government have resisted so many exemptions is in order to prevent the scheme being too bureaucratic. On the other hand, the noble Lord draws to our attention an example of its being made more bureaucratic. I should like to think that we are somewhere in the middle of that and casting the right course.

This has not been mentioned on the Benches opposite but I strongly believe that the result of this scheme will benefit particularly the small clubs, because the reputation of football will be restored and that will have a direct economic result.

Lord Underhill

It may be that I did not make myself clear. We are not worried about the exceptions, but the way in which the Minister proposes to deal with them. That is a problem which will create difficulties for the smaller clubs.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Perhaps I may offer a few words of solace to the Minister. He referred to the general exemptions for foreigners who come here as part of the tourist industry. I have been approached by the British Inward Tour Operators Association (BITOA), which is very concerned about the damage that may be done to its ability to induce foreigners to come here with part of the package being attendance at a big match. It told me that the clubs which visitors most frequently wish to see are Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United.

I have had no reaction from that association, but I am sure that the proposal by the Minister that the tour operator will take responsibility for submitting to the club a list of the people on whose behalf it wishes one guest ticket to be issued, with the reputation of the club and the tour operator being bound up in that, will be very well received by that very important and influential body in the tourist industry. That is completely separate to the point here, but I believe that now and again the Minister should feel that something can be said in favour of what he has said.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I have rarely had to ask a Minister the same question four times and at the end of that not receive an intelligible reply. The Minister attempted to indicate that paragraph 17 of the report answers my question. As he well knows, it does nothing of the sort. I find it disturbing that he was not able to rise and justify the assertion which he made earlier. We shall certainly return to this matter, because having listened to the noble Lord, I believe that he has raised more questions than he has answered.

The Committee should be well aware of what is involved in the situation now confronting us. First, there is no difficulty as regards organised tours of foreign visitors. All of us recognise the special position of such people. What the Minister has confirmed is that a foreign passport holder, be he Italian or a citizen of the Irish Republic, who is resident in this country will be able to enter a football ground under the provisions of the Bill on presentation of his passport or other identity document. Such people will be in a happy position because, unlike citizens of the United Kingdom who will have no such right, they will be able to enter the grounds without being members of the scheme. They will not be able to do it on a regular basis but perhaps three, four, five or six times a season. It is a matter of some interest that we are solemnly discussing an arrangement whereby foreign nationals will have rights in this country that are denied to citizens of the United Kingdom. I find that, like most of the provisions in this Bill, truly astonishing.

I have made my point. We shall be coming back to this matter and asking far more detailed questions in future when I hope we shall get more persuasive answers than we have had today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

5.30 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

Before the Committee decides on that, can my noble friend on the Front Bench ascertain before the next stage of the Bill what will be the effects of the article in the European treaty which requires that there shall be no trade discrimination and how this will affect the Bill? We shall look seriously silly, if it is possible to look sillier in regard to this Bill, if we are carted off to the European Court and told that we are conducting trade discrimination. I believe my noble friend should look at that point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 58A:

Page 4, line 27, at end insert— ("(j) providing for representation for club members on bodies or groups established within football clubs to administer and run membership arrangements.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is another which seeks to advance and enhance the interests of football supporters. We are asking that the clubs should have a mechanism which provides for bona fide supporters clubs with members of the national scheme within a football club to be involved in administering and running membership arrangements.

Again, I expect the Minister to say that these are matters that are best left to the FMA. I seek to write them on the face of the Bill. I can understand the Minister resisting the amendment, but I should be grateful if he could say something helpful. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

This amendment would mean that the scheme must provide for representation of club members on bodies or groups established within football clubs to administer and run membership arrangements. As with the suggested bodies and committees proposed in the previous amendment concerning members' rights, we are not sure whether it is the noble Lord's intention that football clubs should be compelled to establish the bodies or groups envisaged in this amendment; but that is what the amendment would appear to attempt to achieve, and I cannot commend it to the Committee. However, I shall come to the hope and aspirations that the noble Lord mentioned.

Individual football clubs will wish to decide within the terms of the scheme how to go about the day-to- day running of the scheme and how best to administer it. In doing so we very much hope that the clubs will consult their members and take full account of their views. Some clubs may see the need to establish a special body or group as envisaged in the amendment. We hope that those who do will provide a way of representing the interests of members on it. It will be in everyone's interests that they do so.

However, other clubs may prefer to handle matters differently and not set up a formal body. We hope that those clubs will nevertheless pay the same attention to the interests of their membership. Clubs will wish to develop their relationships with their members in their own way and in the light of what best suits the club and its membership. We do not think, therefore, that it would be helpful to attempt to make a body such as that referred to in the amendment a compulsory feature of the scheme.

We are not saying that the interests of members of clubs are unimportant—quite the reverse. We hope clubs will realise that members are extremely important. If the club takes a positive attitude towards the development of the scheme, it can work to the benefit of both club and members. Clubs will be doing themselves a disservice if they do not take advantage of the opportunity that the scheme offers to know their members and develop their relationship with them. Those clubs which do this successfully will be able to look forward to expanding their membership.

Any club wishing to make a success of its business will of course pay full heed to the interests of its members. It would be foolish not to do so. Clubs will know that in complying with the scheme it will be in their interests to take into account the views of their members. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, this is a matter for football. The Football Membership Authority and the clubs are the best people to devise sensible consultation arrangements.

In view of the arguments I have expressed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

The Minister has made heavy weather of the subject. I put to him and the Committee that supporters clubs are prevalent in every section of football. Not only are there local football clubs but there is a national association co-ordinating their activities. It is a very responsible body. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when we come to the next stage of the Bill.

I am president of a supporters club and therefore I must declare an interest, being a Capital Canary. There are many others which are all very well run organisations devoted to the service of football and to the clubs. I highly recommend any move in the direction proposed by the amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Perhaps I may say without offence that I am grateful for what the Minister said. It is common sense. I use the phrase, which may be clumsy, that there will undoubtedly be a new era in the running, supporting and perhaps the playing of football after the legislation is enacted. It is right that the Minister should say what I consider to be helpful words and give a nudge or a push to the FMA.

It is more important for the individual clubs, because although my noble friend says that in his experience, which is long and valuable, there are clubs which treat their supporters generously or helpfully, there are, I am sorry to say, others where the relationship between the club and the body which seeks to represent the supporters is far from ideal. That may well be due to clashes of personality or it may be due to a schism created 10 or 20 years ago which has never been healed. I believe that the relationship between a football club and its supporters will be given a shot in the arm by this amendment.

However, the Minister said all that I could reasonably expect him to say at this stage. I hope that all concerned outside this Chamber will read what has been said and if they want my advice I shall certainly give it. You do not look a gift-horse in the mouth; at least not more than once or twice a night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 59:

Page 4, line 27, at end insert— ("(2A) In the application of subsection (2)(h) above, the contents of a membership card shall be limited to the holder's name, address and club affiliation, the date of issue of the card, and if necessary the date and place of the previous match attended.").

The noble Lord said: This is the first crucial amendment to an important element of the Bill. Clause 5 deals with those parts of the scheme in which it is mandatory to include certain provisions. At the moment Clause 5(2)(h) contains a mandatory provision in the scheme, before it is approved by the Secretary of State, which reads: regulating the form and contents of membership cards". What we are asking the Committee to accept is, In the application of subsection (2)(h) above, the contents of a membership card shall be limited to the holder's name, address and club affiliation, the date of issue of the card, and if necessary the date and place of the previous match attended". I am certain that, without having had any discussion, the Minister realises that we are moving into an area of possible infringements of civil liberties and possible resentment that has been expressed even this afternoon as regards the objection of individuals of whatever sex to giving more detail than is necessary.

This amendment seeks to limit the amount of information contained on the membership card. We must bear in mind that cards can be stolen, lost, bought, exchanged or forged. We are mindful of the fact that there will be some people who will deliberately seek to abuse and exploit a card. I very much hope that the Minister will recognise that this is a valid point. At the moment there is no limit on the face of the Bill to the data that can be stored on a card with or without the holder's knowledge. That is very important.

We believe that the card is literally a sacred document. If the Minister wants a piece of card made of plastic or otherwise that is the passport to get into a football ground and to demonstrate that the holder has a clean record, then it does not need to carry any more information than that which is specified in my amendment. We have yet to come to the use to which a club may put the information that is given to it. The question of data protection is the subject of later amendments. I believe that this amendment is sensible. It is raised by the National Council for Civil liberties, which is mindful of these matters, and quite rightly so. I, too, believe it to be a very sensible amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

This amendment prescribes the details to be carried on the national membership scheme card. It limits these to the owner's name and address, club affiliation, date of issue of the card and the date and place of the previous match attended. I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I fully understand his concern at the prospect of the membership card carrying details of its holder's attendance at past matches and the possibility of cards being programmed with other information unbeknown to the holder. I share that concern. In our view the information contained on the card should be the minimum necessary to ensure that the membership scheme is effective. I accept that there is no need for a record of attendance to be maintained on the membership card. All that is necessary is that the system provides for the latest use to be recorded so that the card cannot be passed to an unauthorised user for re-use at the same match.

If the membership scheme is to be effective, it is essential that, as far as possible, the membership card is impervious to forgery and fraud. I would remind the Committee of the conclusion reached by the Minister for Sport's working party, which received the main principles of the scheme last summer. The working party concluded that a combination of both a photograph and electronic readability offered the best means of restricting admission to matches to holders of valid cards. If the card did not meet both of these requirements, the opportunities for abuse would be unacceptably wide.

This amendment would not allow a photograph to be used on the card. I am aware that the football authorities doubt the need for a photograph. Their representatives on the Minister's working party made this clear. It was, however, the view of the Government representatives and the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, that a photograph was essential to the integrity of the whole scheme, both to deter fraud and impersonation and to aid identification if the holder were involved in disorder. I have quoted the police view. I wish to emphasise that it is very much the view of the Government as well. If the scheme is to be effective the card must carry a photograph.

I believe that it is worth making one other point about the card carrying a photograph. A photograph is a common feature built into many cards to prevent abuse. The Committee's passes for this House and London Transport cards spring to mind as examples. There is a general acceptance of the value of a photograph in preventing abuse and—this is another importantpoint—getting a photograph is today a very simple matter.

I have another concern about this amendment. It would prevent advertising on the membership card. Many Members have expressed concern at the financial implications of the scheme for football clubs. I have explained that this need not be a problem if the clubs and the Football Membership Authority take a positive approach to the commercial opportunities presented by the scheme. There is surely commercial potential in the membership card carrying advertisements or a sponsor's message as so many clubs' existing membership cards do now. This amendment would deny the football authorities the opportunity to develop this likely and welcome source of income.

There is no question here of riding roughshod over the important issue of data protection. We have accepted that those members who do not want their names to be put on mailing lists should be able to say so. Amendment No. 62 is on this very subject. Part of this amendment would prevent clubs selling advertising space on the cards themselves. There seems no case for that. The amendment also makes no provision for the member's national football allegiance to appear on the membership card. The Minister for Sport's working party recognised that this could prove helpful in the segregation of supporters at international matches and I do not think that we should rule out the possibility of that at this stage.

I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee. In our view the Football Membership Authority should be free to consider the form of membership card which will best suit its needs and those of the scheme, while at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the members. To restrict it as the amendment proposes could cause harm both to football and to the scheme itself. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be able to withdraw the amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

It is interesting how the Minister picks and chooses the parts of the Minister's working party report that he pleads in aid in support of his proposals. The Minister read first from paragraph 9 on page 9: The football representatives did not accept the necessity for the card to carry a photograph of the applicant.". That is part of the report of the Minister for Sport. The noble Lord then says that the police say a photograph is necessary. Ipso facto, he pleads in aid the report of the Minister's working party where in fact there is a difference between the two views.

I have with me a photocopy of the Luton Town Football Club card. The front of it states: This card must be produced at all matches. It does not guarantee admission. Season 88/89. Membership card number (and) member. There is no more detail than that on the card. The only club that can remotely give the Minister the experience of operating his scheme in one form or another is Luton Town Football Club. There is no other club that can be remotely seen by the Minister as doing anything like what he proposes.

The Minister is right as regards the back of the card: it proclaims: Techcard supports The Hatters", which is the nickname for Luton Town. The advertising on the back of the card continues: Photo ID Card Systems Card Design & Development". and so on. That is the advertising aspect of it.

It is quite remarkable that the Minister produces a scheme and then pleads in aid for it that it need not cost the clubs any money because somebody else will pay for the hardwear to operate the scheme. They would not have to pay for the hardware if there was no scheme. So who is to decide what is to go on? You need the hardware to operate the scheme and you pay for it by advertising that is supported on the back of the scheme. I believe that that is a nonsense. The card itself can carry advertisements, but if the purpose of the scheme is to validate a person's admittance as an authorised spectator, we do not have to have advertisements on the back of the card to do that. The Minister is trying to justify the fact that there will be no expenditure from the Government.

The noble Lord says that all other cards have a photograph. Of course they do. The purpose of the photograph is to identify people. When we enter this building we are asked from time to time to show our passes. The passes have a photograph. Very often different policemen will be on duty and they must check the photograph on the card. Is the noble Lord telling us that those operating the turnstiles will be required to look at the card—not necessarily every card but perhaps at random—to ensure that it is in order? That is a recipe for chaos.

I do not object to the fact that the Government want to deal with hooliganism, but what they propose is disastrous for football and is unworkable in practice. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill there has not been one full-hearted speech from behind the Minister in support of the scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has been a regular attender. He is not present at the moment but, to be fair to him, he has said that he supports the principle of the Bill. However, he says that before he puts in the boot. He stands up to say that he supports the principle but then punches hard at the Minister because the way the scheme will operate causes him great anguish.

I wait with interest to hear what other Members of the Committee have to say. If, in spite of what we and the FMA say, the Minister takes the view that a photograph will be part of admission, that will be very dangerous indeed. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

5.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents,80; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Airedale, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Amherst, E.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Aylestone, L.
Birk, B.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Blackstone, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blease, L.	Longford, E.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	McNair, L.
	Mayhew, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Mellish, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Molloy, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Monson, L.
Craigavon, V.	Mulley, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Nicol, B.
Diamond, L.	Northfield, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Ogmore, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Ezra, L.	Phillips, B.
Falkland, V.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Fisher of Rednal, B.
Fitt, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Foot, L.	Rochester, L.
Gallacher, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Galpern, L.	Rugby, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Russell, E.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Grey, E.	Shackleton, L.
Hampton, L.	Stedman, B.
Hanworth, V.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hirshfield, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hylton, L.	Underhill, L.
Jacques, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Jay, L.	White, B.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Winstanley, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Dilhorne, V.
Alexander of Weedon, L.	Dundee, E.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Dunrossil, V.
Allerton, L.	Eden of Winton, L.
Alport, L.	Elibank, L.
Arran, E.	Ferrers, E.
Bellwin, L.	Fortescue, E.
Belstead, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Birdwood, L.	Gibson-Watt, L.
Blyth, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Borthwick, L.	Grantchester, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Gray of Contin, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Greenway, L.
Braye, B.	Gridley, L.
Brentford, V.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Broadbridge, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Havers, L.
Butterworth, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Caithness, E.	Henley, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Hesketh, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Hives, L.
Carnock, L.	Holderness, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Hood, V.
Constantine of Stanmore,	Hooper, B.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Ingrow, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Croft, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Cross, V.	Kimball, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Knutsford, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Lauderdale, E.
Derwent, L.	Lawrence, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Rees, L.
Long, V.	Renton, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Renwick, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Rodney, L.
Marley, L.	St. Davids, V.
Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
	Selborne, E.
Merrivale, L.	Selkirk, E.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Shrewsbury, E.
Morris, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Mostyn, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Mottistone, L.	Stockton, E.
Mountevans, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Munster, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Nelson, E.	Sudeley, L.
Nelson of Stafford, L.	Swansea, L.
Norrie, L.	Swinton, E.
Onslow, E.	Terrington, L.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Orkney, E.	Thorneycroft, L.
Orr-Ewing, L.	Thurlow, L.
Oxfuird, V.	Trafford, L.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Pym, L.	Trumpington, B.
Quinton, L.	Ullswater, V.
Radnor, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Redesdale, L	Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 59A:

Page 4, line 27, at end insert — ("(2A) In the application of subsection (2)(c) above the authority shall seek the advice of clubs participating in the scheme but may not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information on such records.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make it compulsory for the scheme to include certain provisions. Clause 5(2)(c) says that the scheme shall provide: for the exclusion from membership, for a period determined under the scheme, of persons who are, by reference to circumstances specified in the scheme, determined under the scheme to be unfit for membership". What we seek to introduce is: In the application of subsection (2)(c) above the authority shall seek the advice of clubs participating in the scheme but may not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information on such records". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, went some considerable way earlier in the debate towards satisfying me that there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to see that the FMA tries to be fair and reasonable in its disciplinary procedures. However, under the proposed procedures we can see no occasion when the FMA has before it the possibility of a hearing at a tribunal and determining appeals from decisions made by it. Therefore, we believe that it is wholly unnecessary for there to be access to police records on individuals. Moreover, we do not think that clubs should be given information on such records, I beg to move.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

Clause 5(2)(c) to which this amendment relates is the provision that enables the FMA to impose disqualification of its own discretion. That is separate from the automatic disqualification which can take place as the result of a relevant conviction in Clause 6. The amendment would constrain the exercise of the FMA's discretion by requiring it to seek clubs' advice. It would also preclude police records being taken into account or being passed to clubs for the purpose of FMA disqualification.

As regards the police records point, perhaps I may make one general observation. The general principle is that information which is held on police records is confidential and may be released only where there are pressing considerations of public interest so to do.

With regard to the amendment itself and the first limb of it—namely, that the clubs should be consulted—I am bound to say that I am a little uncertain as to whether the amendment is intended to stipulate that the FMA should consult the clubs about the police on disqualification in general or whether it should be in relation to individual cases. Either way I hope that I can set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at ease.

Certainly clubs should have a say in the policy on disqualification, not least because the FMA is envisaged as closely involving the clubs. I am quite sure that under any arrangement the clubs would wish their views to be taken into account and that the FMA would do so. In most cases of FMA disqualification the source of information would be the club or clubs at which a person's alleged misbehaviour took place. But I would be reluctant to agree that disqualification could never result from information from another source.

The second limb of the conditions—that police records should not be taken account of or disclosed to clubs in the context of these disqualifications—seems to be based on a slight misapprehension. The disqualification in this clause will arise from a request by a club to the FMA. The club will obviously have to put forward grounds for such disqualification and the case may include information supplied initially by the police to them about the behaviour of the individual. Such behaviour might well have caused offence but might not have been so serious as to justify a charge. For instance, it may well have resulted in the individual's rejection from the ground, and details of such circumstances are routinely made known to club officials. We think that a club should in those circumstances be able to seek disqualification, especially if the behaviour was persistent. But, as we discussed under Amendments. Nos. 54 and 55, hearsay evidence would not be acceptable before a tribunal. That means that normally a club official would have to witness the misbehaviour which led to a request for the FMA to exercise its discretion.

There is no question of the police providing anything other than the information which is relevant for that purpose. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the FMA will not have access to police records.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The last sentence of the noble Earl's speech is, if I may say so, by far the most important in the statement which he has just made. I think that there was considerable concern as to whether there would be pressure on the police to make their records available. Further, as he will know from the report of the working party—which included an assistant chief constable—in paragraph 7, Chapter 5, it points out that: Police records are regarded as confidential, and have been disclosed only on grounds of national security, for the protection of the vulnerable, and to assist in the administration of justice. Disclosing them to assist the football authorities with a membership scheme would be a significant step, and one which could have wide implications". I must say that I found that sentence to be one of the few in the entire working party report with which I was in total agreement.

However, perhaps I may invite the noble Earl to assist Members of the Committee a little further on the matter. I shall be most grateful for some guidance from him on this issue. When it is a question of a person being convicted of a "football related offence" in the courts, who will have the responsibility for notifying the Football Membership Authority? As he will know, this matter was considered by the working party and it was pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for the police to have the responsibility of notifying the FMA because in many cases, since the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service, the police are not in court when there is a conviction. Therefore I think it would greatly help if the noble Earl could assist the Committee on this matter. Perhaps he can tell us what the outcome of the discussions have been because, as he will know from the recommendations of the working party, there was a suggestion that the various interests involved, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the court authorities, should discuss such questions. Can he tell the Committee the outcome of those negotiations?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

The noble Lord produces a description of what could or might happen in a way that never crossed my mind when I read the Bill. Moreover, I do not think that it has much to do with this amendment. We ought to face up to the fact that the Bill, when it is enacted, should seek to do the job we want; namely, to minimise hooliganism. It is the FMA which is important. It is the FMA which will have to do the job; it is the authority which will make a success or failure of this effort to minimise hooliganism.

I do not think that we should start anticipating what the role of the FMA should be. We should concentrate on seeing that the authority is authoritative and one which has the experience and knowledge to carry out what is a most important task.

It is not even for Parliament to start to anticipate such matters. The speech that the noble Lord has just made bears no relation to the amendment. We will injure the work that we want the FMA to do if we clutter it up with all kinds of restraints and suggestions in advance of its formation. My noble friend's answer was fair enough in all the circumstances. It is not a bad thing to probe in Committee. The amendment would injure the results that will flow from setting up the FMA, whose job it will be to see that we minimise the danger that can arise from crowds at football matches.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I accept the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We have yet to see an amendment, which will be tabled on Report, about the creation of the FMA. The noble Lord believes that the FMA should be given the job of running the scheme. The Minister will not have that for a moment. Never mind that the Secretary' of State has the power to accept or reject the scheme; the Minister seeks to give the FMA a blank sheet with certain caveats and restrictions about what it should and should not do. Clause 5 provides that the scheme must include certain points. They may not all be to the liking of the FMA, but whether it likes them or not it must include them. There is a list of points which it may or may not include. The Government are saying—I understand this point—that they do not want the opprobrium of dotting every "i" and crossing every "t". They want someone else to do that. If there are any problems, those people will carry the can. However, the Government also like the idea of saying to the FMA that there are some things it can do and some that it cannot do.

I take seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He is saying that once we have a Bill, we should leave the experts and their advisers to produce a scheme which the Secretary of State can amend or reject. That is all right; but the Minister has not said that during the past three days nor will he say it during the next few hours. He reserves the right to tell the FMA what the Government believe should be in the scheme. The working party report is the most selectively quoted document. The Minister will pooh-pooh some of its recommendations and grab some of the others. That is the sad part. We say that the FMA should not be influenced by police records.

The Minister was careful when he talked about relevant matters. Who is to decide what is relevant? The person may well have a criminal record for an offence which is not remotely related to violence at football matches, but which when revealed will begin to colour the adjudicators' attitude towards the nature of the man. They may say that if he could commit that offence he might commit the heinous crime of trying to get into a football match without a ticket, or whatever it might be. That is why we say that the FMA should not have access to police records. We have made out the best case we can.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I was hoping that the Minister would be able to assist me. If he would prefer that I deal with the point on clause stand part, I should be happy to do so.

Earl Ferrers

I should be delighted to assist the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I was happy to do so earlier, but the debate then went slightly down a siding. The noble Lord reasonably asked who would notify the FMA of the convictions, and so forth. It will be the courts. If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at Clause 6(8)(b), he will see that it says: Where a court convicts a person of a relevant offence, then … the clerk of the court … or the appropriate officer … (shall as soon as reasonably practicable) give to the administrator of the scheme and to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence was committed notice of the conviction and sentence and of the giving of any certificate that the offence is a relevant offence". In other words, the court will give the FMA that information.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said he was worried because I had used the word "relevant". He felt that that word had a hazy connotation. I know he realises that when we talk about something being relevant in relation to the Bill we are talking about a relevant offence, which is a relevant football offence.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

It is Clause 19.

Earl Ferrers

I do not know why the noble Lord has said that it is Clause 19. I cannot read it all while I am on my feet. A relevant offence is a relevant football offence. That does not include stealing someone's radio from his car. That is not a relevant offence. The offence must be one which is relevant to the scheme. If the noble Lord is worried about that point and wants to explain his worry to me afterwards, I shall be happy to meet him. I do not believe that it is a concern of substance.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for offering to satisfy my fear that matters which might not be strictly relevant could be pleaded in aid. We are worried that the tribunal could give them some substance even though they are not strictly relevant.

The Minister will recall that on earlier amendments we sought to ensure that the punishment, which ultimately means withdrawal of membership, can be meted out only as a result of a court case. We sought to exclude Clause 5(2)(c), which gives the FMA the power to exclude from membership persons who are, by reference to circumstances, determined under the scheme to be unfit for membership. We believe that that point is so important that a court should decide. However, we have passed that point, which remains in the Bill. We are trying to ensure that a non-judicial body which has powers as draconian as those which would deprive a football fan of his opportunity to go to a match should not be influenced by a police record. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall take him up on his offer to discuss the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 59B:

Page 4, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("will").

The noble Lord said: Clause 5, at page 4, line 28, provides that the scheme may make provision. I am trying to write on to the face of the Bill the fact that the scheme will make provision.

We suggest that all the paragraphs in Clause 5(3) should not be left to the discretion of the FMA but shall be mandatory. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

The effect of this amendment would be to remove any significant distinction between those matters listed in Clause 5(2) of the Bill for which the scheme must make provision and those listed in Clause 5(3) for which it may make provision. I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton has chosen to substitute the word "will" for "may" rather than "must", but I am advised that the effect is much the same.

Leaving aside the provision for exemptions, on which I have already accepted an amendment, the Bill provides that the scheme may, rather than must, make provision for three matters. Paragraph (a) deals with the discharge of functions under the scheme by specified persons on terms to be agreed between the administrator and those persons and approved by the Secretary of State. This paragraph is designed to allow for the FMA to give the clubs reponsibility for certain aspects of the scheme—maintaining its equipment, keeping up membership records, for example. I have no doubt that the FMA will wish to devolve such responsibilities to the clubs and I expect that they will be able to agree the terms. But the Bill as presently drafted allows for this, and I do not see the need for compulsion when the devolution of responsibility will in any event ultimately rest upon agreement.

Paragraphs (b) and (d) contain the other matters for which the scheme may make provision under the Bill as drafted. They deal with possible charges for membership cards and with the setting of "reasonable fees" for appeals against decisions of the FMA. I do not think that it would be at all helpful to amend the Bill so as to make it mandatory that the scheme should set charges for membership cards of fees for appeals.

It may be that the FMA will decide to finance the scheme in such a way that no charge is made for membership cards or that no fee is levied for appeals. I do not wish to anticipate those decisions now. It seems to me appropriate to leave them to the discretion of the FMA. The Bill as drafted would leave that discretion; the amendment would take it away. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham may see his way to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am not clear on one matter; that is the question of a hearing before a tribunal. Obviously the young man who may not have been convicted of a criminal offence will be very concerned to ensure that he does not become disqualified from the scheme. It seems necessary to ensure that there is no question of the authority imposing any charge on a person whom it is considering disqualifying from the scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh takes the point. It seems to me that that would be an intolerable burden. Can the Minister give any form of undertaking that there is no question of that being done? If he can do so we shall be reassured. We should be even more reassured if we had something on the face of the Bill. Can the noble Lord help us in the matter?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Keeping strictly to the amendment before us, I would be very reluctant to remove any discretion from the FMA. I should give it more discretion. I am sorry that Clause 5(2) does not include "may" instead of "must", but it looks as though we are stuck with it. The FMA will be the key to all this. I should not remove the discretion which the "may" now gives to the FMA.

I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on most of these points. The difference between the FMA having discretion and the matter having to go to a court, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was saying on the last amendment, is this. When the FMA is formed I expect it to wish to encourage people to go to football matches. Its interest will be not to keep them out. All the amendments seem to give the impression that the FMA will have the power or will have instructions to make it difficult to get in.

The idea behind the legislation and the reason why the football authority is to be in charge of the scheme is to get as many people as possible through the turnstiles. I wish to leave more discretion to it in order to get more people through than would be the case if judicial procedures applied.

The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were very impressive. However, one would not have to listen to him for long before recognising a Home Office man. The whole of his argument stems from that view. He is a very experienced Home Office man but this is not a Home Office matter. We are trying to find a reasonable, friendly way of removing hooliganism from football grounds. I do not anticipate all the problems with people going to the courts. We should be well advised to leave the discretion which the FMA has under the present wording rather than stymie the authority by inserting a mandatory instruction.

Lord Northfield

The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has made that speech at least six times in my hearing. He keeps saying, "Let's leave it to the Football Membership Authority". He has not grasped that the authority does not have discretion. It must submit a scheme through the Minister who can turn it down.

The purpose of all these probing amendments is to find out in advance what the Minister will turn down if the FMA has the courage to propose a course. The amendments are important. They are to probe what the Minister will allow if the FMA recommends it. I wish the noble Lord would stop making the same speech. He has not realised that, unhappily for us, the FMA does not have discretion.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

The noble Lord is not for a minute suggesting that we take away powers of the Secretary of State to have the ultimate word. That is in the Bill; we have agreed it. How can we expect the Secretary of State, in advance and with the advice of a government department or anyone else, to know how he will react to something which has not been submitted to him?

We must approach the matter with a certain reasonableness. I am making the same speech over and over again because the noble Lord seems to be ignoring the point. I have to repeat it until I have got it into his skull. It is not for Parliament to decide in this Bill. All our fire must be reserved to see that we get the right FMA. Everything depends upon having the right people with experience. This is where the reasonableness comes in. I am hoping that no Secretary of State will deliberately turn down advice from such an authoritative source as I trust the FMA will be.

Lord Northfield

That is precisely where the noble Lord is wrong. When we were moving amendments about possible exclusions from the scheme under the earlier part of Clause 2, the Minister made it clear, as a result of our probing, that if the FMA made certain recommendations he would veto them. We did not know that until we explored the matter by probing amendments. That is important. The noble Lord does not seem to realise that there are gross infringements of personal liberty within the Bill. We are trying to discover to what extent those can be ameliorated. We can only do so by ascertaining whether the Minister will veto some of the ameliorations we hoped for.

The Earl of Onslow

I have been accused by the Front Bench opposite of putting the boot in. I shall now take it right out again because I strongly support my noble friend in resisting the amendment. It seems very silly, if one is complaining about the scheme being too wide, that when there is a discretionary clause which allows one to narrow it one then says that the narrowing should be widened. It seems a totally illogical attitude for Members opposite to take. My noble friend on the Front Bench was on this occasion talking sublime common sense.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

It is always very good to hear compliments of that kind from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I was accused by the noble friend of the noble Earl of being a Home Office chap or a Home Office fellow. I do not regard that as one of the most deadly insults to which I have been subjected in my life.

I do not wish to reopen a long and wearisome debate, but I must say that a number of the speeches contained the theme that it was just as satisfactory to have one's case considered by a tribunal appointed by the Football Membership Authority as by a court. That is the argument. But there is of course a major distinction between those two cases. The distinction is that in a magistrate's court one can receive legal aid, there is a right of appeal, and one has the opportunity of being represented by lawyers. At the moment there is no certainty as to what procedure will apply in the case of a tribunal appointed by the FMA. That is one of the many issues we shall have to come back to on Report. I hope that by that time the Government will have received some advice on this very important question from the Council on Tribunals.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 60 not moved.].

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 60A:

Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this paragraph the person designated as licensing authority shall be an officer of a local authority.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72B. Amendment No. 60A concerns the person to be designated as the licensing authority. Clause 5(3)(a) states that the scheme may make provision: for the discharge of functions under the scheme by persons specified in the scheme on such terms as may be agreed with the administrator of the scheme and approved by the Secretary of State". Clause 10 deals with the functions of the licensing authority. Subsection (1) states: The functions in relation to licences conferred or imposed by sections 8 and 9 above shall be functions —

1. (a) of the Secretary of State, or
2. (b) if the Secretary of State appoints a person to discharge those functions on his behalf, of the person so appointed for so long as the appointment continues in force".

We propose that the licensing authority shall be: a metropolitan or non-metropolitan district council within whose area the football ground lies.

The basis for this suggestion is perfectly simple. We do not want layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy. We already have councils of a mixed political complexion. The members of councils change from time to time. But, within a community, a council has the status of what one might call a licence-giving body. Of course, magistrates and other people also grant licences.

The Committee knows that local authorities, including the police and fire authorities, already exercise a licensing function under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in respect of Football League grounds. That function already exists. It would be to these authorities that the administrator of the scheme would turn for relevant information. Therefore, it is superfluous and expensive bureaucracy to require the issue of separate licences by different offices.

This is a genuine amendment. It is a probing amendment. We want the Minister to say a little more about the body which is called the licensing authority. Someone has to perform this function. It is not the function of the Secretary of State or those at No. 2 Marsham Street. Someone has to exercise this function. We are saying that appropriate bodies to exercise the function would be the metropolitan and non-metropolitan district councils. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pointed out, these amendments seek to involve local authorities in the running of the scheme by giving them licensing functions under the Bill. I am not clear from the drafting of Amendment No. 60A whether the licensing authority mentioned is meant to be the same authority as that dealt with by Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill, or a new, separate authority which would have an additional role in checking the performance of the clubs under the scheme.

Any such new authority would have a separate and ill-defined role between that of the FMA, the authority which will license grounds under Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill and the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for the FMA, in taking responsibility for monitoring a club's performance under the national membership scheme, to devolve certain responsibilities to the club in respect of the scheme. I do not see that it would be helpful to involve local authorities in monitoring a club's performance; for example, in keeping its membership records up to date.

I wish now to turn to the licensing provisions in the Bill as presently drafted. The Bill proposes that the spectators should be admitted to a designated football match only if the club or other body hosting the match has a licence to do so. The authority which would issue such licences would be the Secretary of State, or another body appointed by him. One possible alternative for the Secretary of State would be the Football Membership Authority, although so far the position of the football authorities has been to resist taking on this job.

Amendment No. 72A would give the licensing function to local authorities with no role for the Secretary of State. I recognise that local authorities are already involved in the licensing of football grounds through their duties under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. These duties fit in well with their responsibilities under other legislation for the safety of other premises such as fairgrounds, cinemas and other places. But they are no reason to involve local authorities in this legislation.

I suggest there is a great advantage in retaining the licensing responsibility within a small centralised authority which can apply standards uniformly to grounds throughout the country, rather than splitting the responsibilities between many different local authorities and devising some additional means of achieving a uniform approach. Such arrangements can be made to work and do work in other cases. But the chances of achieving consistency and fair treatment between different clubs are much greater with a single authority which will employ a small inspectorate for the purpose.

We are frequently told that government legislation imposes too many duties on local authorities. In this case we believe that a central authority is more appropriate. I do not accept the argument that the responsibilities of the licensing authority under the Bill will cut across those of local authorities under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. The two authorities will have to co-operate in operating their licences, but there are plenty of precedents for different authorities working together in relation to the same premises. Fire officers, the Health and Safety Inspectorate and local authorities' own environmental health officers often work together in relation to a factory or a restaurant, for example. Planning and building control regulations apply to new buildings and they are operated by different people and sometimes by different authorities without conflict.

There is no reason to suppose that the licensing authority proposed by the Bill will not operate in tandem with the separate responsibilities of local authorities and others. I have explained why the Government do not consider it necessary to involve local authorities in the running of the scheme itself. I certainly do not see a good case for giving the responsibility for licensing grounds to local authorities. I suggest it is in the interests of football clubs, and of the consistency between them, that the authority should be a central one, as the Bill provides.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

If that is the case, as the noble Lord suggests, I wish to ask him one or two questions about what he has just said. He will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. The statement that football is going to run football is one of the favourites of the noble Lord, although we know it to be entirely false because the Secretary of State will run football under this Bill.

As I understand it, the FMA will not take on this licensing responsibility if the football authorities themselves are the FMA.

So now we know that the FMA will not do this job. The amendment suggests that it should be the local authorities, with their proven track record as far as the Safety of Sports Grounds Act is concerned. I waited to hear a powerful argument deployed by the noble Lord as to why local authorities should not take it on. But I did not hear one. One good argument would be that they did not want to take it on; that the noble Lord had consulted the local authority associations and they said that they preferred not to do it. But has he consulted the local authority associations or is he just opposed in principle to their doing this? As I understand it without them we shall have the Secretary of State himself taking on this role. That the gentleman in Whitehall knows best is one of the central beliefs of this Administration.

It seems to me astonishing that local authorities, with their substantial experience of dealing with similar issues in the safety at sports grounds legislation, are to be debarred from taking on this function, and that it will be officials of the Secretary of State, or presumably some new authority set up for this special purpose by the Secretary of State.

It seems to me that the Government would lose nothing by allowing local authorities to take on this role if they were prepared to take it up. I very much wish that the noble Lord had not been quite so emphatic in his speech a few moments ago, explaining why that was totally inconceivable. I cannot see any overwhelming argument against them doing it. In fact the situation will be that there will be two separate authorities doing remarkable similar work. There will be the local authorities, which are responsible for the safety at sports grounds legislation, and there will be a different authority involved in licensing under this Bill. This seems to me a fairly daft way of setting about things.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is on to a good point here and I hope that my noble friend, whose speech certainly did not turn him down completely, will look at it again. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, listens only to the part of my noble friend's reply that seems to be adamant about the Secretary of State. What my noble friend said was that it will be the Secretary of State or someone designated by him. The whole indication was that he will designate the task to somebody. Indeed, he would be silly if he did not do so. He cannot be responsible for the whole of the country. So we must apply common sense to this. My noble friend said that the licence will be given by the Secretary of State or someone designated by him. So we ought to concentrate, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, did, on to whom the Secretary of State should designate.

There is a strong case for the local authorties being brought in. We own some hotels and until quite recently, when we were asking for entertainment licences and things of that sort, they used to be given by the magistrates. But a few years ago there was a change and the local authorities, under statute, now have to set up an entertainments licensing committee of the councillors, and they do it. I would have thought, football being an entertainment as well as a sport and a recreation, that it could be added to that committee's work without any trouble, because they would be dovetailing all the general entertainment in the area and football could be put down as one form of entertainment.

My noble friend did not rule out completely a local authority being the designated authority for giving a licence. Can he find it possible to say, in the light of the possibility at this stage of their being as likely as any other group to have this power, that the Government will look at this again? The machinery of local government is such that it could embrace this task without any extra bureaucracy at that end and it would just be another item on its agenda.

There are not a thousand football grounds in an area; there is usually only one. I have Wolver-hampton and Peterborough in my area and the authority that has to do with hotels and other things could easily deal with them. I hope that my noble friend can find it possible to say that he will look at the amendment again, with the idea of not ruling out that a local authority could be the body which would have this power.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Northfield

May I join the noble Lord in pressing the Minister to reconsider, for reasons that I mentioned on an earlier occasion? I hope that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, is only a temporary measure. I hope that after two or three years, when we have calmed down the whole situation, we will revert to something much more normal in football.

I made the point on an earlier occasion concerning Wembley, that the most hopeful sign is that Wembley, because of its impact on the area in which it exists, has had to—and has had to gladly—build up good relations with the local authority. That relationship is not only about safety at football grounds—of course it was the GLC originally but now it must be the London boroughs —and it deals with many other matters. In the case of Wembley there are agreements about how many events shall be taking place in the complex on a particular day because of the number of people coming in and out and the number of cars. There is a relationship between Wembley and the local authority about holding fairs and a market at the huge 60-acre site at Wembley. For all these and other reasons the local authority and Wembley are gradually, steadily and successfully building up a very good relationship.

So would it not be much better to look towards the phasing out of this Bill and to say what will succeed it when the time has come that we can rule out much further violence? As I said on a previous occasion, should we not be building a growing relationship between football grounds and their local authorities so that they will make major decisions about the sort of matters that are involved and that concern the Government? I should like to see that developed. I do not like to see it pushed aside. For that reason alone, looking towards that sort of future, I hope that the Minister will go away and say that he will reconsider whether in the long run it would be a good idea to begin looking at local authorities as possible football licensing authorities.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench on this amendment. Surely the difference, when it comes to safety at football grounds, is that the grounds do not move. The grounds are static and stay there, whereas the people who go there are quintessentially mobile. Therefore it seems logical to me that there should be a central authority which pools all the data and runs things properly.

Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the construction of the FMA is immensely important. If the construction of the FMA is right, it will then give consistent decisions, whereas if the decisions are left to various local authorities they will automatically come to different conclusions, however good and upright they are. It is the essence of a local authority that it should come to a different conclusion on various aspects. Football grounds are in the constituencies of local authorities and they do not move and get on trains. Human beings do move and get on trains and other forms of transport. Therefore in this case the ID card should be centrally administered. That makes a lot of sense and I hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I hope that the Minister will discount what his noble friend has just said, because any scheme that is brought forward—and we have to keep saying this—has to have the rubber stamp of the Secretary of State. So it will be a centralised scheme. I have to say, as a former member in my local government days of a licensing committee, that such committees are not allowed to give local interpretations of national schemes. They have to work within the tramlines that are set within the orders.

I recall that when we were debating the Bill on alcohol control at sports grounds, the Government made great play of the fact that, while it was a national scheme and had to be applied, local authorities and local licensing magistrates had areas where they could vary the scheme slightly. At first, there were some silly actions and over-reaction to the Bill by some licensing authorities which were a little too enthusiastic about what was not in the Bill. I believe that Wembley stadium was one of the first to suffer as a result of being refused a licence by the local licensing magistrates when, under the legislation as it stood, it could have been given a licence without any problem. Nevertheless, such problems were eventually ironed out.

Whether the Minister and the previous speaker who supported him like it or not, the measure involves setting up a separate organisation that will need funding. I should like to ask the Minister whether one particular point has been considered. As a layman, I believe that the licensing body about which he speaks will have all the appearances de facto of a quasi-judicial body. We still live in a democracy, although in some areas that might seem doubtful with the present centralisation of government. So what would happen if a centralised licensing body treated a club a certain way and the club thought it had been treated rather badly? What would happen to the club? Where would it go? Would it obtain a judicial review or could it go to the civil courts to take out an action? Criminal proceedings could be involved in the Bill, so would it have to appeal to the criminal court against a quasi-judicial body? I call the body quasi-judicial. I do not know whether it is anything more than that, but I do not believe that it is anything less. I ask these questions now so that, even if the Minister chooses not to answer them, there will be an opportunity to take them on board.

Finally, I have had experience in local government of a variety of licensing activities in local authority areas. Such activities have been placed under their responsibility. When local authorities and licensing magistrates are given such duties, they do not become part of the general run-of-the-mill activities; there is a tendency to appoint sub-committees which acquire a special expertise in handling the subject with which they are appointed to deal. As local authorities already have a good idea of the concerns of their particular areas, I should have thought that, despite the fact that this is a centralised scheme, the Government would have done well to let this responsibility go to the local authorities and, if necessary, the local licensing authorities. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about what he has said tonight and perhaps give an indication that he may come back with another proposal.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I became convinced that the local authorities had a role to play. Everything that he said led one to that conclusion. It is unfortunate that he will not listen to the argument and agree to the amendment.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that this should be a matter for national administration. I am afraid that I simply do not agree with him. Football is a local activity; it is not a national activity. It may well be that football clubs belong to the Football League and the Football Association, but football is essentially about the locality in which it is played. To make it subject to a great national body is therefore absurd. If the Government want to be seen to be serious about controlling football hooliganism and about involving local people, they should accept the amendment.

My noble friend Lord Northfield is a great optimist. He said that he hoped the Bill would last for only about three years. I am afraid that once it is on the statute book it will be with us for a very long time. It may well be that at a later stage we could insert the title "Football Spectators (Temporary Provisions) Bill", which would limit its effect. We should think about that and see what the Government's attitude is.

As the Minister said, local authorities already have the administrative set-up to deal with the licensing of football clubs. They are the best people to administer it. Furthermore, if a football club has to be closed down or some other count is drawn up against it, that will be done by the local authority, not by the national authority. It will be more likely to be accepted in the locality without too much opposition. I urge the Minister to consider that point seriously because in my view—perhaps I should not say this—if he accepted it, he might do the Government a good turn.

The Earl of Onslow

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he confirm that the Football Association is a national association and that the Football League is a national league rather than a local league?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

I accept those points. Football clubs belong to the national association and the national league on a voluntary basis, but football is essentially a local activity. People do not support football per se. They do not say, "I'm going to a football match"; they say, "I'm going to watch Arsenal", or Reading, Swindon or Millwall. We have heard a great deal about Millwall football team during our debate. Football is essentially a local matter; that is the point that I am trying to put across to the Government.

Lord Hesketh

If the prediction of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is correct, the scheme will have been an unparalleled success. To answer the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, we shall deal with the question of the licence when we come to Amendment No. 72A.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for the point that he raised. I have tried to make clear the Government's position. This is a national scheme. We believe that it must by definition be centrally administered. That is why we have not to date had any disscusions with local authorities, about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked me. However, if they wish to talk to the department, we should be more than happy to discuss the matter with them.

It is most important that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls heard what I said. I shall repeat what I said: one possible alternative to the Secretary of State would be the Football Membership Authority. I went on to say that the football authorities had so far not been keen to take on the job, but the Government have certainly not closed the door to the possibility of the FMA being the licensing authority.

7 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

If the Minister has not closed the door to the possibility of the FMA being the licensing authority, have the Government closed the door to the possibility of local authorities being the licensing authority? We come back to the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the Government want a hands-off situation. I recall that, when Mr. Colin Moynihan held a big press conference in Westminster Hall to explain the scheme to the football administrators, he told them what could and would happen if they failed to carry out their responsibilities: they would lose their licences. A ground could have its licence taken away by Mr. Moynihan or the Secretary of State.

I do not argue about the ultimate power, but let us make no mistake. We are talking about very serious matters. For instance, Clause 7 refers to a person who is responsible within a club; namely, the secretary, the directors and the officials of a club. If they are found to have been guilty of the heinous offence of allowing into the ground spectators who have proved to be hooligans, it results in a black mark and an enormous fine; they can even be sent to prison. Under Clause 7(3)(b) such a person shall be liable, on conviction or indictment to a fine or to imprisonment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both". We shall be dealing with amendments on that point later this evening. It is quite incredible. Let us make no mistake about it. The licence holder has enormous responsibilities. We have gone through a series of amendments for which I am grateful to the Minister, in particular with regard to the very first debate about providing a club with the opportunity to issue cards of admittance to casual guests provided that it takes ultimate responsibility. If the licence holder is let down, and is unable to plead, as Clause 7(2) states, that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence", that person is not only likely to be fined—and there is no limit—or to be sent to prison but, as Mr. Colin Moynihan, who has some responsibility in these matters, said, the club can lose its licence.

If that is the situation, I make a genuine offer to the Minister. I shall withdraw this amendment because we are not at the stage of futile exercises of clocking up victories or defeats. I know where I should stand if there were a vote. However, if we are serious about trying to make progress and to find the best forum to issue licences, I want the Minister to say that his mind is not closed with regard to which forum that should be. We are contemplating the possibility that the FMA—the league and the association—will take away the licence from one of its members. The Minister may think that is possible, but I do not.

Alternatively, a local authority has the good name and reputation of its town to consider, and the peace and good will of its residents, which may be jeopardised because some license holder to which it has given a licence is failing to carry out its functions. I can see the local authority being much more likely to take away the licence than the FMA. I blanch at the possibility of either of them having to consider doing so.

I want the Minister to say that consideration of the future licence issuer is not a closed door either with regard to local authorities, the FMA, or a hybrid body which may be devised. I am not saying that the local authorities are ideal. As has been said, they do not want the task. Somebody has to do it. However, if I had to choose between them, the fairest administrators of a licensing scheme would be the local authorities. Can the Minister assist us with helpful words along the lines that I have indicated.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I correctly summarised what the Minister said in his first speech on this occasion. I was subsequently followed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmer-Nicholls, who repeated what I had said. It was that the Minister would very much like to pass this responsibility over to the Football Association and the Football League through the FMA. They have been told clearly and unmistakably that the football authorities refuse absolutely to take on this responsibility. The reason has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Why should they do the Minister's dirty work for him? Why should they be in a position whereby they would be expelling one of their own clubs from the league. That would be the effect of the withdrawal of a licence. It is to me inconceivable that the football authorities would ever have taken on this role.

That being so, we go to the second stage of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. It is that the Secretary of State would very much like to find someone to take on the responsibility. In the final analysis, he may have to do so himself. However, if not, somebody else will do it. We are interested in the other group of people who may be asked to do this. We are entitled to have a clear answer. These are the Government's proposals. This is an issue of fundamental importance, considering the significance of the licensing arrangements in this Bill.

If the Secretary of State is not to do this, who will? The suggestion made in this amendment is fair and reasonable. It is that if the local authorities are prepared to take it on, the Government are prepared to consider the matter again. When pressed on this point the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, stated that if local authorities asked for a meeting he would be glad to arrange one. I hope that it means something that the Government are prepared to leave the door open.

However, if I may put it bluntly, the noble Lord will not get away with what he has said so far. We know that the football authorities will not take on the responsibility. We know that the Secretary of State does not want to do so. It seems from the first statement of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that whatever group of people were asked to do it, under no circumstances whatever should it be the local authorities. He did not provide a great deal of argument for that refusal but subsequently made the statement that Ministers would be glad to talk to local authorities about it. I hope that it indicates some change in his position. At the moment I find what has been said profoundly unsatisfactory. Although the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, may well decide to withdraw the amendment after the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, speaks, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, should have no doubt that we shall come back again and again on this issue until we have a satisfactory statement from the Government.

Lord Hesketh

There is so far in this debate a fundamental difference in point of view. Members on the Benches opposite feel that a devolved system of licensing is peferable to the point of view that the Government have held: that we should have a central system. I spoke entirely in good faith in what I said concerning local authorities if they want to come to the department and wish to specify some centralised system that might be of interest. However, that does not change the Government's position with regard to a developed system. That is the point. That is the main fundamental disagreement that exists between our two sides today.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I fear that the noble Lord did not answer this question. I hope very much that he will do so now. If the Secretary of State is no to run a centralised system—which he will have to do if the FMA refuses to take it on—there is only one circumstance in which he can escape from doing this job himself: that is, if he appoints another agency. We are entitled to ask what thoughts the Government have on this matter. Will they create yet another bureaucracy, another group of public officials, who will be asked to take on totally separate licensing responsibility? Is that their position? I should be grateful if the Minister would help us on this point.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I am not with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this matter. I do not believe that that is what we are asking at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has virtually said, "For the moment, forget my amendment because in my amendment I lay down that the local authority will be the one to issue licences". In view of my noble friend's answer, he has moved from that position.

It is obvious that the power will be designated to somebody. My noble friend has said that he does not rule out the FMA. I enjoin in asking that at this stage—whatever may come later—he does not rule out the possibility of it being the local authority. That is all the noble Lord is asking. At this stage he is not asking for his amendment to be accepted but that such a possibility should not be ruled out. I do not think that is asking too much.

Lord Northfield

If the licensing authority is to be some creature of the Secretary of State, we ought to know what its powers are, how much responsibility it has and how much discretion it has. We need something in the Bill to tell us what this body is other than simply a creature of the Secretary of State. We believe that it would be much better to have some body to which the system could be devolved in a few years' time and, secondly, a body containing some democratic element to which representations could be made. To say that it is some creature of the Secretary of State leaves us all rather worried as to what we are legislating about.

The Earl of Onslow

Surely this all arises in Clause 10 which provides that, licences conferred or imposed by sections 8 and 9 above shall be functions of the Secretary of State, or if the Secretary of State appoints a person to discharge those functions". That, I had assumed, would be the Football Membership Authority. Surely it is at that stage that we should discuss the important and very vital decision: who will be the members of the authority? The Government's point which seems totally logical, is that it will be a centralised authority and not a local authority. What would happen, for example, if Wolverhampton District Council said that it wanted to be part of it—

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Borough council.

The Earl of Onslow

Borough council, I beg my noble friend's pardon. Or it might be a city council. Norwich City Council could say that it did not want it. We would be in an even bigger muddle, if that is conceivable. Surely it is totally logical to have a centralised authority. By all means let us debate on Clause 10 stand part—because I do not see any suitable amendment on which to discuss it—who will be members of that Football Membership Authority, who will advise the Secretary of State and who will appoint the members. That seems very important. We should not go down the local authority road.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, can help us on one matter. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we can return to this on Clause 10. But, as he will see, the last part of the explanatory memorandum deals with the financial effects of the Bill. The cost is put at £2.5 million per year, taking into account police, Crown Prosecution Service, court and legal aid costs", and so on. In the final paragraph we face the possibility that if the Secretary of State becomes involved there will be minor staffing increases.

Another problem arises. This will be a direct charge on public funds. If the FMA declines—and in my view, quite rightly it will refuse—the cost of the exercise will be passed on to the taxpayer. We are entitled to know what will be the implications if the responsibility is not given to local government which could in my view take it on without any substantial increases given that it has a licensing role at present. With all their talk of value for money and that kind of thing, the Government are really suggesting that it is a totally unnecessary increase in central government expenditure.

Lord Hesketh

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is entirely correct to draw our attention to the final part of the explanatory memorandum which clearly sets out that that might be the outcome. However, I feel that I have gone some way towards meeting the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. The important point that the Government are trying to get across is that whatever the result it must be a central result. I cannot go further than that. I have tried to indicate that we are willing to be flexible.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister makes an interesting point. Local authorities have central bodies. If he is saying that he does not have a fetish against local government per se but is against it because it is disparate around the country, I am saying that were local government to decide that it was willing to take this on, it should be administered centrally. The Minister is saying that he is not in favour of devlolution of power to the perimeter. He wants it managed centrally. Is he saying that if local government comes up with a solution indicating how, with the help of the ADC, the ACC, the AMA and the ALA, or however it is done, a body is created based on local government experience, he would be willing to accept it?

The Minister has said that he rules nothing out except the local authorities. I find that very offensive. I believe that the Minister knows that it is very offensive. Even if he did not intend to be offensive to local government, that is what he is saying. He says, "Whether it is the FMA, I do not know; if it is not the FMA I do not know who else it can be, but it will not be the local authorities".

With great respect, the Minister ought not to come to the Chamber saying that he has been told to tell the Committee that if it is not the FMA and not local government, he is not prepared, or able, or competent to say what it might be. That is offensive. We are trying to engage the Minister in an argument, in a discussion. We are asking for examples of what could happen. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I, without direct authority either from the league or the association, are saying that it is unthinkable that they will take on this role. We could be wrong. Something the Minister has never been prepared to say in debate is that he could be wrong. I am prepared to say that we could be wrong and that the FMA may take on the role. That would remove the Minister. I do not believe that that would be a satisfactory solution. But the FMA may not be prepared to take it on. He has said that of all the groups that might provide the people to run the licensing scheme—which is absolutely fundamental to the future well-being of football—it is not to be the local authorities or the FMA. We are asking who it could be.

The Minister has a duty to the Committee and not least to his own reputation to demonstrate that some possibilities have been kicked around. If he is saying that it is not the FMA and he refuses to use the local authorities and he cannot say who else it might be, he is driven back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that another quango, another body, will be created. The Department of the Environment will be spread in some way or another to take on these responsibilities. It is no good Members of the Committee saying that this is not the place, that there are other places. Those making such points have been here all the time. The Minister's brief does not contain the possibility that later we can discuss this freely. In capital letters at the top the brief there is the word, "Resist". If that is his brief, we are wasting our time. We are however trying to save the Government's and the Minister's reputations.

There is a way out. If the Minister were to say that should I withdraw the amendment he has an open mind about who will people the licensing authority, that is all I am asking for.

Lord Hesketh

I have said that. I go even further—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

You have an open mind?

Lord Hesketh

If the Association of District Councils or the AMA wish to run the licensing authority, I will listen to any proposal they make. I cannot make a commitment, but I shall listen if they want to run a responsible national body.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Is the Minister saying that he said that previously? If he is saying that he said that previously, I shall read very carefully what he said.

Lord Hesketh

I said it just now.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

We have had this melodrama to get him to say those words. If he is saying that the local authorities are prepared to come to him with the proposition that they shall be the licensing authority and he is prepared to listen, that is all we want to know.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

The noble Lord has won.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I do not consider that I have had a victory. At the very last moment the Minister has avoided what for himself and his colleagues in another place could have been a great problem.

Lord Hesketh

Several minutes ago—tens of minutes ago—I said that I would listen to the local authorities.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister said that he would listen to the local authorities against the background that he had already ruled out that local authorities could run it.

Lord Hesketh

I must intervene. That is not what I said at any point this evening. I said that local authorities would be operating on a devolved basis. I said that in my opening remarks. That is very different.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I am prepared to accept without cavil that we on these Benches, together with Members from other sides of the Committee, have completely misunderstood and misheard what the Minister said. We shall read what he said. If what he said was what he reiterated in the final minute, I believe it is a sensible way in which to conclude the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 61A:

Page 4, line 41, at end insert ("(the level of such fees to be determined by reference to the circumstances of appellants)").

The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the types of punishment which will be meted out to those found to be guilty of offences. The Bill provides: for the payment of reasonable fees in connection with appeals and for repayment in circumstances specified in the scheme. We seek to obtain the Minister's acceptance of the insertion of the words: the level of such fees to be determined by reference to the circumstances of appellants. The purpose of the amendment is to provide flexibility for those responsible for carrying that out. What may be reasonable for the Minister and myself may, in many circumstances, be held to be punitive by individuals who are less well-off. They may be unemployed and in saying that I do not mean that they are layabouts. They may be people who have not the same ability as the Minister and myself to meet a sizeable fine. There should exist a mechanism which allows the circumstances of the individual to be taken into account. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

As placed in the Bill, this amendment would require that, if the scheme made provision for the payment of reasonable fees in connection with appeals from decisions taken at the discetion of the FMA to withhold or withdraw membership of the scheme, the assessment of what was "reasonable" would have to be based solely on the circumstances of the appellant. In effect it would require the personal circumstances of every appellant to be investigated and established before the fee for his or her appeal could be determined.

I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind this amendment. I hope that I have already made clear the importance which the Government attach to seeing that those people who are refused membership of the scheme or who are disqualified from it at the discretion of the FMA are given the right to make representations against that decision. The procedure by which they do so must be fair without being over-elaborate.

As presently drafted, the Bill requires that the scheme may provide for the payment of reasonable fees in connection with appeals. This could allow, for instance, the FMA to recover in whole or in part its costs in handling appeals by charging a reasonable fee. But there is no obligation on the FMA to include this provision in the scheme. If it does, then any fee which is set should be reasonable andimportantly—provisions must be made for repayment of the fee in circumstances specified in the scheme. This might perhaps be where an appeal is successful or where the circumstances of an appellant are such that he or she is genuinely unable to meet the fee.

The Bill therefore allows the authority considerable discretion in any arrangements it may make for charging for appeals. This amendment would require the FMA to investigate the circumstances of every appellant before a fee for his or her appeal was determined. It is highly likely that in many cases neither the authority nor the appellant would want, or see the need for, such an inquiry. This might in itself put people off appealing—which I am sure was not the intention of Members. The amendment would also preclude the authority from taking account of any material considerations other than the circumstances of the appellant in deciding whether to charge a fee.

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about the possibility of charging for appeals. It was intended to be helpful to the FMA in order to enable it to charge for appeals if it wished. However, in the light of the noble Lord's comments I shall consider whether we need the power to charge for appeals.

Lord Harris of Geenwich

That is satisfactory—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Handsome!

Lord Harris of Greenwich

We must go into a number of such questions with great care. The Minister referred to the right of an individual who may find himself before a tribunal of the authority to make representations. However, we are not dealing merely with representations. We are dealing with an issue where there is an absolute denial of the facts as put forward by some club stewards, for example. The only way in which a tribunal would be able to make a judgment in such a case would be to hear evidence from all the parties involved. It would be intolerable if, in such conditions, a fee had to be paid before an appeal could be heard.

The Minister has conceded the point and we welcome that. He will recognise the fact that there are many other issues about the tribunal which we shall wish to go into in considerable detail.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister has responded generously to the points that I raised. Without reservation, I accept what he has said. We shall read it, but it sounded eminently sensible and suitable and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 61B not moved.]

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 4, line 47, at end insert— ("(4A) The application form for membership of the scheme shall include a clearly indicated space where the applicant may state his desire for the information supplied to be regarded as confidential, and if he so indicates then the authority shall not disclose the information to any third party.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. I may foreshadow what the Minister may say by recalling an indication that he gave earlier in the debate. The amendment will put on the face of the Bill an acceptance which has been made in ministerial quarters—that is, that many members of the scheme will wish to retain their privacy and that provision should be made in the Bill to allow them to do so.

The Minister has made many references to the fact that the information collated could have a commercial value. On several occasions we have expressed our reluctance to accept that the integrity of the scheme should rest on its being financed by companies in the business of using such information. Perhaps Members of the Committee read an article which appeared in last Sunday's Observer headed: "Engulfed by a junk mail avalanche". It spoke of: The multi-million pound trade in your name, your address and your personal details and intimate aspirations". I was grateful to the Observer for drawing the matter to my attention. Apparently there was a trade event last week at which many people paraded their wares. It is frightening to note how widely information which one believes to be between oneself and the receiver is capable of being spread. Sometimes the applications to which it is put are most horrendous.

The Minister may say that the amendment is unnecessary because protection exists under the Data Protection Act. That is a general surmise. I should like to read a letter which I received from the office of the data protection registrar. It was sent to the National Council for Civil Liberties by Dr. J. N. Woulds, the Assistant Registrar. He states: You are correct that the Data Protection Act 1984 does not contain an explicit obligation on a data user to provide an opt-out". That is what we are talking about—an opt-out.

He continues: However, the Registrar's view of the 'fair obtaining' provision of First Data Protection Principle is that there are circumstances in which an opt-out would be necessary to ensure that the personal data are fairly obtained. Generally, these are when an individual has no choice but to go to a data user for an essential service like, for example, a water supply. In such cases the Registrar would say that not permitting the data subject to opt-out of uses of the data not directly associated with providing the service would amount to unfair obtaining of his personal data. In the context of the Football National Membership Scheme, the Registrar takes a similar view. Being able to attend a football match is a normal expectation for a large number of people, who, if the Bill becomes law, will not be able to attend designated matches unless they join the scheme. Their information would not be fairly obtained if they are required to give it for purposes other than the membership of the Scheme". Therefore, I make what I hope will be a generally accepted point that once the form is drafted and approved and is the law of the football land, it should be possible for a person to say that he does not wish that information to be sold to any group or company which may also pass it on. There is a quite horrendous trade in names and addresses. There are agencies which specialise in buying lists of people and advertising their wares and how much they charge. I believe that is a quite disgraceful possibility which I do not say was in the mind of the Minister or his colleagues. However, writing this on the face of the Bill will ensure that that is not possible. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Monson

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made a most important and valuable point. I strongly support him on Amendment No.62, as I do on Amendments Nos. 63 and 64.

Lord Hesketh

The Government have considerable sympathy with both this amendment and the next. My noble friend Lord Caithness confirmed in his Second Reading speech that it is our intention that members of the scheme should have the full protection of the Data Protection Act 1984, in terms of access to information held about them and in relation to the use to which such information is put. If a member does not want his name and address to be disclosed to a third party—for example, for the purposes of a commercial mailing list—it is certainly our intention that he should be able to make this clear. A box on the application form of the kind envisaged in this amendment would be one means of achieving this protection.

If the application form contains such a box, it would be open to the applicant to tick it or not, as he wishes. No doubt some applicants will do so, but we should not assume that most, still less all, applicants will do so. It will be in the interests of the clubs to show them the benefits of not doing so. Of course, the clubs couldn't put improper pressure on applicants to persuade them to accept direct mailing.

However, if the clubs are sensible and positive about this, they will take advantage of the commercial opportunities of the scheme in a way that will benefit their members, not burden them. Mailing lists are not necessarily a bad thing; they can be used to offer people participation in lotteries, season tickets, information about the club and even allocations of tickets for matches like the Cup Final. If they are sensible, they will limit the direct mailing to club matters and to sponsors in whom their members will genuinely be interested. If they do so, I see no reason why the clubs and their members should not all gain from the commercial development of the scheme.

We should not assume therefore that it will be in the interests of applicants to resist the use of their name for commercial opportunities. As regards the commercial potential of the scheme the clubs will be able to sell advertising space on the membership cards to their sponsors. I see no reason why the commercial development of the scheme should be incompatible with the civil rights of its members. That is why I have no hesitation in saying that the Government will consider the principle of this amendment sympathetically. My initial contact with the data protection registrar suggests that it may not be necessary to spell out a requirement of the kind proposed in the amendment in the Bill. I understand the view of Members of the Committee that adding a provision to the Bill would remove any doubt about the rights of members. But the Bill cannot spell out every detail of the scheme.

With the Committee's agreement I should like to consider further the case for a specific provision in the Bill. If we were to make a specific provision, I should also like to look closely at its drafting. I am concerned that the amendment proposed may go too far; for example, in limiting the necessary exchange of information between the Football Membership Authority and individual clubs or in hampering police investigations.

This is a matter which I should like to discuss further with the data protection registrar, to seek his advice on how best to provide the protection which I accept that members of the scheme should have without making it impossible for the scheme to operate effectively. I therefore seek the Committee's leave to take the amendment away for further consideration. Since I will be consulting the data protection registrar, I hope that Members of the Committee will understand if I do not promise to reach a definite conclusion by Report stage. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I very much hope that if we do not have the information by Report stage we shall have it by Third Reading. I believe that we should be most disinclined to allow the Bill to leave this Chamber with this important issue unresolved. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, appreciates that. I welcome his statement that he has no objections to the principle of this amendment. However, he should also have no doubt about our expectations: that is, that there should be an explicit reference to this issue in the Bill so that there can be no possible misunderstanding.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I rise to say that the Minister has made an offer which I cannot refuse; namely, that he accepts the principle that a person who becomes a member of the scheme by one means or another can ensure that his details will not be sold for commercial purposes. I am satisfied to leave the matter to the Minister.

We are talking about a matter of time-scale. We are now in the second week of March and I realise that there may be no news within the next three or four weeks for the Report stage of the Bill. However, there is then a further stage. I understand the Minister wishing to take advice. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, there should be an amendment or something that will satisfy us—I am talking about something written on the face of the Bill, but I shall listen to what the Minister says—if not within a period of four weeks then within something like five weeks.

Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for what I consider to be an understanding of the anxiety of many people. The intrusion into the privacy and civil liberties of an individual is almost as important an aspect of this Bill as the bureaucracy entailed in becoming a member. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not underestimate—I am sure he will not—the importance attached to his satisfying the Committee and the other place on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran

I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.