Lords Sitting of 2 November 1989

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
The Earl of Woolton The Earl of Woolton —Took the Oath.

IBA: Greek and Turkish Services
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the relative allocations by the Independent Broadcasting Authority of broadcasting time to Greek and Turkish language programmes are in accordance with the responsibilities of the authority, especially in view of the current political situation in Cyprus.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Independent Broadcasting Authority has a duty to ensure that programmes from each station meet the needs of the local population.
The arrangements for Haringey are that the frequency for the area is shared by two ethnic community radio stations, London Greek Radio and WNK, an Afro-Caribbean station. It was originally intended that London Greek Radio should provide two hours of programming in the Turkish language to meet the needs of the smaller Turkish Cypriot community in the area. I understand the IBA has now decided that London Greek Radio will not broadcast programmes in the Turkish language and that the responsibility for broadcasting such programmes will now rest with WNK.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which meets a great many of our worries. However, is it not a fact that some time ago the Government realised the importance and desirability of giving ethnic broadcasts but they also recognised the difficulties of doing so? They had to ensure that anyone who was responsible for a programme was financially viable and that such programmes were not taken over by an undesirable group providing the finance; for example, communists. The Government also had to ensure that a large number of problems which have occurred in this area, such as political problems, did not arise. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the IBA has not been over-clever in its original proposals?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. This is a matter for the IBA. That body has regard to the proposals for a suitable service to increase local listener choice on a self-financing and technically sound basis.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, following the decision that I believe was arrived at last week, have there been any representations by the Turkish community, especially as the broadcasting time of that
338
community has been cut by half? Further, does the Minister agree that these events highlight the importance of making frequency space available to the many aspirant broadcasters, especially among ethnic groups in urban areas? Will he say whether there is a possibility of unused frequencies on the BBC sub-bands being made available for this purpose?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it was an IBA decision after representations from and negotiations with the Turkish community. The proposed new radio authority will be expected to invite proposals for a large number of new stations across the country, some of which will serve ethnic communities. Account will be taken of audience demand and the availability of frequencies.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that for five years the Greeks have had a pirate station. I believe that station has been conducted fairly well. Why have the Government done precisely nothing to stop that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Viscount is correct. I believe that prosecutions have been made in that case.

Wages Councils
3.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet decided whether it is in the public interest that the wages councils be retained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no final decision on the councils' future has yet been taken.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at least one is relieved that a negative decision has not been taken? Is he aware also that there is a widespread feeling not only among employees and their representatives but also among employers that the wages councils perform an essential role? The conclusion that it is hoped the Government will come to is that the councils should be maintained in force. I am not saying that the councils are incapable of improvement, but in principle I and many other people hope that the Government will decide they must remain in being.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's views will obviously be taken into account before a final decision is taken.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister note that those of us who have experience of wages councils have found that the wages that they set, which are the minimum wages permitted, are then adopted by many employers as the maximum?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. Perhaps I should point out that two-thirds of the workers who come under wages council schemes are paid more than the minimum.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in the main the wages councils which are still in existence cover relatively poorly paid and poorly qualified people, often from ethnic minority groups, who are the most exploitable people in the workforce? Does he further agree that it would be in the public interest to ensure that those people have some continuing form of protection?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree entirely with the premise of the noble Baroness. Regarding training, as she knows well, the Government have made great changes in the way in which workers are trained in order to improve the situation across the board.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will the noble Lord remember that wages councils tend to restrain wages among the most successful and cause unemployment among the weakest members of society? Will the Government therefore consider very carefully before developing the system?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a certain amount of evidence to support what my noble friend has said.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in many parts of the country in jobs covered by wages councils wages are paid which are well below the minimum wage set by those councils? He shakes his head; I can give him instances from my own experience in the Norfolk area. Is that not the result of cuts in the number of inspectors, who can no longer enforce the decisions made by the wages councils —cuts which have been made by this Government? Is it not the case that there are fewer wages inspectors than there were when this Government came into office?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. Compliance in that area works out at a rate of between 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is an extremely high rate. There are 71 inspectors who visit annually 30,000 establishments and continue to do a very good job. There has been a slight increase in the number of prosecutions. However, as I said, the level of compliance is very high indeed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the decision will be announced as to whether those relics of the economics of the 1960s and 1970s are to continue?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords: before the end of the year.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that in reaching their decision the Government will take full account of the views of bodies which are well able to give them advice; for example, the Institute of Personnel Management?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. There has already been a major consultation exercise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord gave figures relating to the number of inspectors but he did not answer my question. Is it the case that the number of inspectors has been reduced? If so, does that not cast doubt on the figures for compliance which he gave, since there are insufficient inspectors to do the inspecting?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the number of inspectors is adequate given the high rate of compliance, and that is what counts.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be better to await the result of the government decision and then debate the matter properly when the facts can be fully explored?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would it not be better if the noble Lord were to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has put? He was asked a specific question. If he does not have the answer, should he not admit that and offer to write to the noble Lord later in accordance with normal procedure?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the number of wages inspectors has been cut twice since 1979. In 1980 an increase made by the previous Labour Government was slightly curtailed, reducing the level of inspection which had obtained immediately prior to 1978. However, I must point out that the important point regarding the number of inspectors is the compliance rate. The compliance rate is extremely high and therefore the number of inspectors is adequate.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House what evidence there is to support the statement that wages councils keep wages down?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a substantial amount of evidence, which I shall not read out. Perhaps I could write to the noble Baroness with a list of eight publications issued over the past six or seven years. She will find that the evidence is adequate to back up the various claims that have been made.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a difference of opinion on some aspects of the matter. There is a large body of opinion which takes a different view from that which he has just expressed. Is it not the case, indisputably, that if wages councils were abolished we should be the only member of the EC without any legislative protection for the low paid? Does the Minister agree that the Government will not want to be in a minority of one yet again?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, some other countries have a token minimum wage. This Government do not believe in token gestures.

Cabinet Records
3.20 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the current regulations concerning the release of information about past Cabinet proceedings.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the records of Cabinet proceedings are subject to the provisions of the Public Record Acts 1958 and 1967. Records may be retained or closed for longer periods than 30 years under appropriate sections of the Public Records Act 1958 and in accordance with established criteria. It has been the practice of successive administrations not to disclose the content of records which are so withheld from public release.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether ex-Ministers nowadays abide by the recommendations of the 1976 Radcliffe Committee which were agreed and approved by the Labour Government of the time and by the Conservative Opposition? Do parliamentarians also abide by their Privy Counsellor oath not to reveal in memoirs matters touching any other of their Cabinet colleagues until 15 years later, and then only after checking the memoirs with the Cabinet Office?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the 15-year rule applies to both. My noble friend is quite right in putting his finger on the obligation on former Ministers who want to publish memoirs. They are therefore required to submit their manuscripts to the Secretary of the Cabinet and to conform to the principles set out in the Radcliffe Report of 1976. I must tell my noble friend that, quite honestly, I have not been able to trawl through all the memoirs which have been published. I cannot answer his final point as to whether there are any exceptions.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although the convention of consulting the Cabinet Secretary is still respected, it has nevertheless been greatly attenuated since the Crossman case? It was attenuated because, in the Crossman case, instead of proceeding as everyone, including the publishers, expected, under the Official Secrets Act the Government decided to extend the law of confidence. When the matter came before Lord Widgery he said that, although it was rather a sensational book, there was nevertheless no question of embarrassing anyone and there was nothing that could not be revealed at that time, and he allowed the entire book to be published.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an enormously interesting question. I wish that I could answer it, but sadly it does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that the rules to which he referred and which were also
342
mentioned by his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing are breached in ways other than by memoirs or other books? For example, is it not the case that a Cabinet memorandum about the effect of electricity privatisation on the coal industry, alleging that 1,800 jobs would be lost in the coal industry as a result of privatisation, was leaked? What action is to be taken about that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, now that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has sat down I am delighted to tell him that I have no information to give about a government document, or, if such a document has been leaked, the regrettable circumstances in which that must have occurred.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House bear in mind that the matter should be seen in proportion? For instance, while Mr. Benn —for whom I hold no brief but whose diaries I have just finished reading —goes into great detail about Cabinet proceedings of 13 years ago, we had an example in the course of this year in which, not within 13 years but within 13 hours, the Downing Street Press Office briefed the press, it manifestly so came, to the effect that the Secretary of State for Wales, whom I think was in particular disfavour at the time, had not been called to participate in the Cabinet discussions. There was a grandstand commentary at the time upon Cabinet proceedings. Those matters need to be seen in a certain perspective. It does not fall strongly into the hands of noble Lords opposite to throw not merely stones out of glasshouses but boulders out of crystal palaces.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is habitually fair. I should not have thought that what he has just said about his experience of the Government's publicity services in any way contravened any of the existing rules. The noble Lord says that he has no brief for the right honourable gentleman to whom he referred. The noble Lord once had a brief for him. Perhaps he can answer his own question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether a discussion between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the privatisation of the Bank of England constitutes a proceeding in Cabinet and, if so, what action is to be taken against Mr. Lawson?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall give the same answer that I gave before. I can see nothing in what the noble Lord said which breaches any of the existing rules. However, perhaps I may bring the House back to the Question. This is a Question about the release of information about past Cabinet proceedings and there is nothing further that I can add on that subject.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the convention that when a Cabinet Minister resigns he is entitled to ask Her Majesty's permission to give a resignation speech and, if he obtains it, is free to give the reasons for his resignation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. That is something that has happened, very often with distinction, over the years.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am grateful to the House. I was not seeking to raise the dirt here. I thought that the rules should be known to parliamentarians so that we know where we stand. It is sad that those who breach the rules may be well rewarded and those who feel honour bound not to breach them obtain no rewards at all.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his final supplementary question. Perhaps I may say that I agree with him. Let us hope that the rules are kept.

Employment: NOP Survey Analysis
3.26 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish the article containing the full analysis of the National Opinion Poll survey summarised in paragraph 2.22 of the Green Paper Removing Barriers to Employment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, an article containing a full analysis of the data obtained in the survey carried out by NOP Market Research Limited will be published in the next issue of the Employment Gazette, which will be available on 9th November.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it likely that the article will explain how it comes about that this tiny survey, which asked only 25 people who were in pre-entry closed shops, now tells us that there are 1·3 million in pre-entry closed shops? Where does that figure come from?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to be a little patient and wait until 9th November to find out.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a slender sample upon which to base far-reaching proposals in relation to closed shops? Is it not a fact that closed shops now exist only where there has been a substantial majority in a ballot of the workforce? I believe that 80 per cent. of the workforce must be in favour. Is it not an interference with democracy to try to come along now and make further changes in the current legislation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Question referred to a request for information. The information will be published on 9th November. I do not understand how the noble Baroness can say what she has just said without having looked at the evidence. I am sure that when it comes out on 9th November both the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will be able to ask plenty of questions which I shall be delighted to answer.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we on these Benches have no love for the pre-entry closed shop, a matter that features prominently in this survey? If I may speak more generally, is it not about time that the Government began to think less in terms of continuing restrictive legislation and more about the need to encourage greater co-operation between management and employees and their representatives in the workforce?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that has always been one of the aims of this Government.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the subject of democracy, is it not one of the problems of the closed shop that many employees either agree or collude with trade unions to maintain a closed shop in antithesis to the concept of democracy? Is not that one of the reasons the Government are seeking, as a matter of policy, to put an end to the closed shop?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the pre-entry closed shop later.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the press statement that the Government have already issued, 600,000 of the people in pre-entry closed shops must be provincial actors, since that is the only form of closed shop which operates in that way? Where are the 600,000 actors who are in closed shops, if they are not in Equity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will find the answer to that question next week when he reads the information in the paper.

Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [H.L.] (formerly Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [H.L.]) Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [H.L.] River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three

345
o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the bills are the same in every respect as the bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if the bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the bill is the same, in every respect, as the bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Employment Bill
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 12 [Protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with wearing of safety helmets]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved the following amendment:
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("cannot") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to beguile the House into thinking that because this is a simple amendment it is a simple matter. It is not. It is very complicated indeed. In Committee and Report stages we inserted into the Bill clauses which were not there when the Bill was first presented to this House. Those clauses deal with the position of Sikhs and wearing protective helmets on building sites.
The clauses grant to Sikhs complete immunity from the requirements of the law or any regulations issued under it, even though that immunity may cut right across the policy of the industry to promote safety on building sites. It is absolute and it is complete.
Certain consequences flow from that immunity. One of them concerns what happens if there is cause for proceedings against a Sikh for injury sustained either by him or by others because of his conduct in not wearing a helmet. Under the Bill the law requires that for all such purposes it shall be supposed that the Sikh was wearing a helmet even though he was not. Therefore no action can lie against him for not wearing a helmet. Whatever action may lie against him must be for something that would have occurred had he been wearing a helmet.
That stretches the immunity well into the civil law of compensation and actionable conduct. One cannot really go further; but the Bill does. That is why my amendment seeks to moderate the extremism of the provisions in Clause 12.
Apart from that circumstance, the question of racial discrimination comes into the matter. Under the racial discrimination Acts there exists what is called indirect discrimination —for example, preventing a person doing something or insisting that he shall do something, and although what one asks for may be reasonable in itself, there may be a discriminatory motive behind it. If that exists, indirect discrimination can be alleged: it was not what he was asked to do that was important but the reason why he was asked to do it.
I turn to the position of an employer who feels that in a particular case and under certain circumstances a Sikh who is not willing to wear a helmet had better not remain in a dangerous area but should go to a less dangerous place on the site. In such circumstances the worker may say, "This is all beneath me. This site is no more dangerous than the others. I am just being shifted on racial grounds". It is to that matter that this part of Clause 12 and my amendment relate.
In circumstances of an allegation of indirect racial discrimination the employer has no defence if he attempts to justify the move on grounds of health and safety. He would have to disprove the claim of racial discrimination but he could not enter a justification on his own account. That is why I propose to delete the word "cannot" —he cannot prove and is not allowed to use as a defence that his action was justified in the circumsatnces of the case —and to insert the word "may" in substitution. It will give the employer the possibility of satisfying a court in its discretion that he had a case for what he did apart from the question of racial discrimination.
This is taking the matter into a very obscure and involved position but it is very important because it is probably not understood that under our racial discrimination laws we have deprived people of the right to particular defences, which otherwise would be good in law, simply because they involve the issue of racial discrimination. That is the position now. I believe that applying that position to this situation produces circumstances which are completely indefensible.
I am not raising again the main issue of general immunity. I had some remarks to make at Committee stage and I do not propose to repeat them. I want to deal simply with the amendment. It may be alleged that introducing a discretionary justification for the action of the employer undermines the completeness of the immunity in the clause. We are not undermining it. I suggest that we are modifying it. I believe that we are justified in making such a modification.
If we are prepared to pass this measure, the time will come when such ethnic and religious issues, which are by no means confined to Sikhs, will frighten us all to the extent of letting everybody get their own way. I do not think that we should do that. This matter does not involve questions of religious education or social policy. It is not sought to make lawful marriage to two or three wives or to allow children to go to segregated schools. We shall get that in due course all right but it does not arise here.
The issue here is solely one of safety. In the interests of having no racial discrimination we have tightened the law so much that we have impaired the employers' discretion to act in the interests of safety in circumstances in which it might be alleged that such action constituted indirect discrimination. If that is alleged, an employer's case falls to the ground.
I am not a lawyer, but I hope that I have done as well as possible to explain the amendment. We must take a stand. I believe that that stand is to be taken on the extremism of what we are asked to provide. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
Finally, with great respect, in the time ahead your Lordships' House will be tested very severely on questions of human freedom, our civic rights, our culture and other issues connected with our outlook on life. There are movements afoot —I need not enlarge on them —that will be extremely tiresome to cope with. I do not suggest that there is any such bother here. However, although it has taken three
348
years to get this far, the Government have gone too far in placating the Sikh point of view against the reasonable safeguards of the employer who is trying to maintain safety on his site and to save other people from injury as well as the Sikhs. I believe that we ought to give him the chance of pleading justification and allowing the court to decide whether or not the requirement was justified. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly the amendment that has been proposed and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He will recall that we had a debate on the general proposition at Committee. We had a further quite long debate at Report stage. I do not wish to go into all the issues which were raised. However, I wish to reiterate one or two points that I raised then.
One cannot escape from the fact that if one discriminates in favour of one section of a workforce or a people one is bound to discriminate against another section. It is difficult enough in my experience to persuade the general body of workers to wear safety helmets and other safety clothing under normal circumstances. If they are required to work alongside a group of workers who are exempt from that provision, such persuasion will be even more difficult. For that reason it was unwise to put this provision in the Bill.
Noble Lords may not be aware of this factor. The amendments to the original Bill which now constitute Clauses 11 and 12 are amendments to regulations that have not yet been before the House or another place. We are therefore being asked to amend the provisions of the regulations which we have not seen. That is dangerous. I do not believe that this House or indeed another place should be railroaded (if I may use that term) by the Government in that respect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby asked: how far shall we go along this road of discrimination? During the passage of the Bill through its Report stage I mentioned that many people were becoming concerned about different standards that are applied in our society. I instanced the case of a certain Moslem who called for the murder of one of our fellow citizens —one of his fellow citizens. To my knowledge there has been no such action taken. I suggest to noble Lords that if you, I, or anyone else outside this Chamber, other than perhaps a Moslem priest, had incited people to murder one of our fellow citizens, we should have been arrested, tried and either put in prison or a lunatic asylum. I realise that those are strong words. However, we must be very careful about what we are doing. We must ensure that the laws that we pass are seen to be sensible and fair to the whole of society. If we once start discriminating in favour of one section of society, then our laws will not be observed and they will not be respected in the way that we all wish.
Finally, I can envisage a position where an employer requires all employees in a certain situation to wear safety helmets. Among his employees there may well be a Sikh who says, "I will

349
not do so". Under the present provisions without the amendment, if the employer does not sack him but moves him to another situation, the Sikh may then claim detriment against the employer: that he has been injured in some way, financially or otherwise, by being moved to another position. He has not been sacked but moved to another part of the building site, plant, or whatever the case may be. It is an intolerable position in which to put employers.
I have heard the Government's answer. I have heard what the noble Lord opposite has said in Committee and Report stages. However, I hope that he will accept at least this very simple and essential amendment to protect employers who are trying to safeguard the health and welfare of their employees.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to ask for clarification from the lawyers on the interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, of indirect discrimination. I believe that it is extremely important in this context. As I understand it, it is not a question of intent, but that if a requirement is laid down which cannot be fulfilled by a substantial proportion of one ethnic minority, an employer is guilty of discrimination. However, he is not guilty of discrimination if he can show that that requirement is justifiable.
If that understanding is correct —and I believe that it is —in the case postulated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if an employer said that for a certain job everyone had to wear a helmet, and he moved the Sikh to another job, and he could show that it was justifiable to require that helmets should be worn on the job from which the Sikh had been moved, he would not be guilty of indirect discrimination. It is a matter for the lawyers; but it is a very important point when we are discussing this issue. I do not argue that point, but I am asking the House to decide whether it is possible that the employer could do precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said and not be guilty of indirect discrimination. Will the lawyers comment?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, at times was seeking to go back on the decision of the House taken at earlier stages that in deference to the Sikhs' religion they should be exempted from the obligation to wear helmets in circumstances in which all other workers were bound to wear them. We had a considerable discussion at earlier stages on that point. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by going over it again. The net result is the Bill as it stands. At least it has the merits of being clear.
If the noble Lord's amendment was inserted the Bill would lose a great deal of its clarity and in many circumstances employers would be placed in a position of considerable doubt. If they have to take account of the particular circumstances, which would include the degree of danger to the Sikh and to his fellow workers, they will be left without any guidance about the degree of danger which will exempt them from being prosecuted for
350
discrimination. They will also be left in an area of uncertainty where certainty is required.
Although I do not accept it, I understand the view of those who say that if people's religion demands such a thing they should receive no exemption. However, once it has been decided, as your Lordships' House has decided, that there shall be an exemption in deference to these people's religion —and my view is that one should pay great respect to people's regard for their religion —it is necessary that the situation should be clear. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will leave employers puzzled and uncertain about whether in different circumstances they are entitled to move a Sikh worker from one job to another. In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will not accept an amendment which will undo a good deal of the value of the clause on which the House has spent a great deal of time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the building trade employers' organisation has strongly urged me to move the amendment and is fully behind my actions. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that he need not concern himself with the uncertainty of the employers because they want this measure of possible relief from the rigidity of the Bill as it stands.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has it all wrong. The fact that for whatever reason the building trade employers' organisation —which, incidentally, does not always represent the trade—wishes to put itself in a position of difficulty is no reason why your Lordships should agree to this. In fact, we ought to save them from themselves.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that we on these Benches have been most worried by government amendments proposed in earlier stages. At Report stage we did not press our amendments to a Division but my noble friend Lord McCarthy made clear that we had a number of concerns. We were worried principally on health and safety grounds. Indeed, when speaking about the exemptions the Minister said:
"We are not talking solely about health and safety provisions. The Sikh will be less safe to a certain extent wearing a turban than a helmet".—[Official Report, 30/10/89; cal. 80.]
The Minister has never suggested otherwise.
We were concerned about safety not only as regards the Sikhs but also other people working on the site. We are also concerned about what would happen to site discipline in situations where some Sikh workers were exempt from wearing protective head gear and others were not. We have always regarded it, as a health and safety question. We believe emphatically in religious and racial toleration. However, because we are so worried about safety, we believe that the noble Lord's amendment tabled even at this late stage has merit. It would give some flexibility to employers who employ Sikhs on a construction site.
I am sure that noble Lords know that construction sites are dangerous places. I regret to say that the construction industry has a lamentable accident

351
record with a number of fatalities each year. I have been told by people working in the industry that in recent years fatalities have increased rather than diminished. Health and safety are important factors. For all those reasons the proposed amendment is worthy of consideration and support. It is a small amendment but it gives employers a degree of flexibility. It would enable them to assess whether it is safe to employ a Sikh wearing a helmet in a particularly dangerous situation.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, introduced his amendment in a most elegant and clear manner. I suspect that he did so better than many lawyers could have done.
During the course of the Bill we have debated this subject for more than two and a half hours and covered more than 30 columns of Hansard. But it did not come as a great surprise to learn that the noble Lord was bringing back this important subject for discussion on Third Reading. Perhaps it will not come to him as a great surprise to learn that the Government are unable to accept the amendment because it reverses the intended effect of subsection (1) of Clause 12.
As I explained when we discussed this matter on Report, the decision to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from the regulations concerning the wearing of safety helmets on construction sites was not an easy one to make. There are strong arguments for and against treating Sikhs in the construction industry as a special case. Indeed, many of those arguments have been expressed during the course of our debates. However, having considered the matter fully, the Government decided that the arguments in favour of an exemption, particularly those relating to the hardship that the requirement would impose on the Sikh community, relations with that community and the issue of religious freedom, outweighed those against.
Once the decision had been made to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from the regulations it was only right that the Government took the necessary steps to ensure that the exemption would work in practice. It was for that reason that we introduced Clause 12 in order to make clear the effect of the exemption on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976.
We are certain that the majority of employers will recognise the deeply-held religious beliefs of those turban-wearing Sikhs who wish to take advantage of the exception and will apply it without difficulty. However there may be a small minority who would, despite the exemption, insist that all their employees wear safety helmets and the refusal by turban-wearing Sikhs to comply with such a requirement would in their view be sufficient reason to dismiss or not to employ Sikhs.
Although the employer might apply the requirement equally to all his employees, the proportion of Sikhs who could comply with it would be smaller than the proportion of non-Sikhs. Therefore the requirement could amount to indirect racial discrimination and the employer could be
352
subject to a claim under the 1976 Act. The employer would no doubt justify his action on grounds such as health and safety and the necessity to maintain good relations between employees.
If upheld, such a defence would render the exemption worthless. The Government are therefore of the view that an employer should not be able to argue a claim of indirect racial discrimination by arguing that such a requirement is justifiable. And that is why subsection (1) of Clause 12 makes it clear that a requirement on a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet on a construction site cannot be shown to be justifiable when defending such cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who has a great interest in the subject, said that in making a decision to look after one particular part of society one directly discriminates against others. To a certain extent that may well be true, but in this case we are talking about religious tolerance.
The noble Lord also complained that we were amending regulations which had not yet been through the House. The point is that regulations dealing with health and safety which are passed through both Houses on the negative resolution procedure cannot contain exemptions on grounds other than health and safety. As I made clear during previous discussions, we are not talking about health and safety; we are talking about discrimination against turban-wearing Sikhs.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made an extraordinary speech. I felt that she wanted it both ways. On the one hand, she said how important ethnic minorities were to the Labour Party and to the future of the country and how there is tremendous solidarity between her party and ethnic minorities. On the other hand, the noble Baroness wishes to support an amendment which would possibly increase discrimination against Sikhs. Let us be quite clear about it. The clause removes any prospect of discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he wanted employers to have a choice.
4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the whole burden of my argument is that in our opinion this is not a question of discrimination but a health and safety issue. We are concerned about health and safety here and not discrimination. That is the difference between us and the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am afraid it is not. The noble Baroness read out what I said in Committee. I said that turban-wearing Sikhs would be less safe than if wearing a helmet. That is plain common sense. However, the implication is that we are putting turban-wearing Sikhs in a worse situation than they are at present; and that is not true. We are raising the general level of safety on construction sites by making the wearing of hard hats compulsory.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, except for some people.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course except for some people. We are not increasing the risk of accidents. At present, accidents happen at a certain level without the wearing of hard hats. If we make the wearing of hard hats compulsory then presumably the number of accidents will decrease.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it seems almost by definition that we must be increasing the possibility of accidents. If that is not the case, why are we urging people to wear hard hats and in the law making it compulsory for them to do so? The noble Lord said what seemed to him plain common sense. It seems to me plain common sense that people wear hard hats to avoid accidents. If someone, for whatever reason —and we are not particularly concerned at the moment about that reason although I share my noble friend's reservations about it —will not wear a hard hat, ipso facto there will be a greater danger that that person will have an accident.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that I have not made myself sufficiently clear. At present there is no requirement to wear hard hats on construction sites, so accidents occur. We are bringing in regulations to make the wearing of hard hats compulsory. Therefore, we are raising and not reducing the level of safety.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am on the Minister's side on this matter but we must have better arguments than that. If the hard hats regulation is introduced to reduce accidents and then certain people are exempted from wearing them, as a matter of plain logic, the number of accidents as compared with now will be reduced but there will still be more accidents than if everybody had to wear a hard hat.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put that very clearly and I agree with her. I never said that the accident rate will increase as a result of this exemption. There is no evidence to support that and I have never implied that in any way.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct? As I understand it, Clause 12(1)(b) only applies where the employer has reasonable grounds for believing that the individual worker —that is, the Sikh —would not object to wearing a helmet. Therefore, the amendment says that if he takes that view, he may be justified but he may not. Whether or not he is justified will turn partly, as we have said, on health and safety but it will also turn on whether or not the individual worker would have worn a helmet. That will come into it. This can only apply if there is the compliance of the worker himself. Therefore, we must have a situation where the worker agrees to wear a helmet and where there is a question of health and safety involved. What is wrong with that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would open up a loophole and allow employers to choose to decide themselves whether or not there could possibly be discrimination. That is not the Government's intention. Their intention is to
354
remove doubt altogether. Thus, in the example used by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, where the Sikh was moved to another job, if he claimed he had suffered a detriment, it would be open to the employer to argue that no detriment had been suffered. That is the position under the clause as it stands.
On a more general level, tolerance and respect for religion and freedom of expression are an important part of our heritage. I believe that these discussions on health and safety are ultimately a digression from the main principle. This amendment would lead to confusion and doubt as to the effect of the exemption contained in Clause 11. Therefore, that would undermine its application. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. I am sure that noble Lords will have concluded, in listening to the debate, that the extremities and rigidities of our law regarding racial discrimination are quite extraordinary. It is pursued to the nth degree. That is why in this particular matter if indirect racial discrimination is alleged, no other defence of justification is possible. That must be determined by the court on the ground of indirect racial discrimination. I suggest that that answers the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. If racial discrimination is brought into it, there is no other justification. The matter has to be decided by reference to the allegation of racial discrimination.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it states quite clearly that one can bring in a defence of it being justifiable. There is no question about that. It can be argued that it is justifiable. Your Lordships will remember cases concerning women and the requirement of height. If an employer said that a woman had to be six foot tall and could show that she could not do the job unless she was, then the discrimination was justifiable.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must repeat that the amendment proposes to introduce the opportunity to an employer of advancing justification for what he did in answer to the charge made against him. At present he would not be able to advance any justification for what he did. He would have to advance the case against the allegation of racial discrimination. That is the basis on which, as I understand it, the matter would have to be decided.
Otherwise, what are we talking about? The employers say that they want this degree of easement as regards the rigidity of the proposal in this clause to enable them to advance grounds of justification for what they did as the merit of their case for action. As the Bill stands the law would not permit them to do so. This is an extraordinary situation. It seems to me that we are seeking to justify the disciplines of religious conviction to the exclusion of all other considerations either of justice or even of common sense. This is a situation that your Lordships should not accept. I urge that, having regard to the fact

355
that this Bill has yet to go to another place, your Lordships should express prima facie some doubt about the clause as it stands. Let us have further consideration and thoughts given to it in another place.
It would be, if I may say so with great respect, an ill service to the cause we are here to serve if we were to reject this amendment and allow another place to think that this is our judgment on the merits and the justice of the situation. We are asked to stretch everything that we stand for in justice and in the flexibility of the law against the injustices of rigidity in order to place beyond any doubt whatsoever the case of the Sikh to complete immunity from the regulations which would otherwise be imposed.
This is a matter upon which your Lordships ought to feel very strongly and I must ask the House to pass judgment on the amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally takes his decision, if I may intervene, would it not be better, rather than pressing his amendment at this stage after such full discussion in Committee and Report, if—the argument having been advanced on both sides —it were left for another place to reconsider the position?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am afraid that, at 91, I am suffering from certain deficiencies of hearing and I have not heard what the noble Lord said.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 147.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brightman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Northfield, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Reilly, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Rugby, L.

David, B.

Scanlon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Serota, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shannon, E.

Ennals, L.

Slim, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tryon, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger. B.

Willis, L.

356

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kearton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Aylestone, L.

Knollys, V.

Banks, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Barber, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brookes, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mayhew, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Norfolk, D.

Crathorne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormer, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Effingham, E.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Seear, B.

Fortescue, E.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimond, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Sudeley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hampton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harvington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hertford, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Walpole, L.

Hives, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Holderness, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Hunt, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Ilchester, E.

Young, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
This is not by any means the longest or most complex Bill we have had to deal with in the present Session but it has raised many important and sometimes difficult issues. I would mention in particular the provisions on the employment of young people, the new framework for industrial training and the matter we have discussed again today at some length; namely, the question of the Sikh community and the construction industry. Your Lordships' House has understandably been concerned to explore the implications of these measures very carefully.
It will be no surprise if I say that once again the House has risen to the challenge and proved its worth. The level of debate has been consistently high. Contributions on all sides have been serious, penetrating and to the point. On the government side we might sometimes wish that your Lordships' scrutiny was not quite so penetrating, but taking a broader view we welcome the opportunity to explain and justify the measures we have put forward for your consideration. I hope that we have been able to reassure your Lordships that the Government have considered the arguments carefully and that if at the end of the day we agree to differ it is because we take a different judgment of the issues and not because we take the objections to our proposals lightly.
At this late stage, when we have discussed the issues very carefully and fully, I shall not detain your Lordships further with a detailed exposition of the Bill. I shall conclude by thanking all who have been involved with the Bill for their many and varied contributions. In particular I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in our debates for the serious and courteous way in which they have approached the matter. That is indeed no more than we have come to expect in this House but it is always a pleasure to acknowledge it. I should like to thank my noble friends on this side of the House for their helpful contributions, often based on long and deep experience of industry and commerce. In particular, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Alloway for their many wise and perceptive comments.
I should also like to thank noble Lords opposite for their vigorous but always fair and reasoned contributions. In the best traditions of your Lordships' House they have brought their formidable expertise and powers of analysis to bear on the often complex issues we have been discussing. I single out the balanced and constructive approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who have led their teams so ably. The noble Lords, Lord McCarthy, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Rochester, have also made contributions of the greatest weight and substance. Where else but in this House would we find such a concentration of expertise and knowledge of the issues before us?
I wish not to overlook the assistance we have received from the officers and staff of the
358
House—without whom we would quickly grind to a halt —the officials in my department and all those in the world outside who have been involved in consultations or who have otherwise contributed to consideration of the issues. I thank them all, and I now commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for many of the things that he has said about us and for saying that we provided him with a formidable analysis. He acknowledged the weight and substance of our arguments. He said that he did not take what we said lightly. Unfortunately he did not take it seriously or heavily enough to agree with us on a single amendment that we put forward.
At Second Reading I said that this Bill was the fifth son of Frankenstein. In fact that is wrong because it is the sixth son. There were others in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1988. This is the sixth time that we have sought in this House to narrow and restrict the collective rights of workers, or more particularly as regards this Bill to abolish or circumscribe the individual rights of workers against employers.
We know that this Bill is only the sixth son. The noble Lord told us earlier today that there is a seventh son in the wings dealing with the abolition of the pre-entry closed shop and unofficial strikes. We know that there is an eighth son in the womb, to be concerned with the abolition of the remainder of the wages councils. The ninth son is as yet unconceived —the previous ones were stillborn. However, the Government tell us that sooner or later they will be bringing before us legislation as regards essential services.
So we march on and on —in the words of the Prime Minister in 1983 —"until we get it right". So it is not unreasonable for us to look back now at some of these Bills and to look in more detail at this Bill in order to see the similarities and dissimilarities. The first point to make concerning collective provisions is that the Bill is not as bad as most. There is nothing in this Bill like the withdrawal of immunity in tort in 1982 or the removal of all rights to discipline in trade unions in 1988.
On the other hand, we can say that collectively probably more workers will lose more rights as a result of the Wages Act 1986 than anything proposed in this Bill. In terms of individual rights, probably the undermining of rights to unfair dismissal by the two-year rule and the exemption for small firms are much worse for most people than anything in this Bill. This Bill begins where the others leave off so that the Government are going further and further. If the steps in this Bill are somewhat smaller than those taken in 1980, 1982 and 1988, they are further steps down the road.
It is still the case that we are the only European country, certainly in the EC, which feels that it has to advance economically on the backs of the workers by lowering their standards, by lowering their rights and by taking away their collective privileges and immunities. Naturally we in this House and in the Opposition could not be expected to take this lying

359
down. We have sought to move a considerable number of amendments during the passage of the Bill through the House.
It has been a matter of considerable pleasure and gratification to me that we have found ourselves this time—and also in relation to recent annual Bills that this Government have brought forward on the subject—in conformity and in the same Lobbies more frequently with the other Opposition parties. There is a wider appreciation on this side of the House and outside that this Government have got industrial relations and trades union legislation on the brain. They go on and on. However they may change their economic and political objectives, when it comes to industrial relations they say the same thing year after year after year.
As regards the amendments we have tabled, it is not only this year that we have not received any concessions from the Government. We have had a series of government spokesmen speaking for a series of Bills. We got little from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; we got less from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; nothing from the noble Lord, Lord Young; tea and sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne; while the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, remains, in the current phrase, as unassailable as ever.
Yet the provisions that we have asked for have been modest in the extreme. We have asked for modest changes in the area of narrowing workers' rights against the employers; we asked for a modest reduction in the proposed two-year period of probation. We asked for some modification of the abolition of dismissal procedures for firms with below 20 employees. We asked for a slightly less objective definition of trade union time off. We asked for reasons for dismissal where an employee has worked for less than two years. We asked for some modification of what we regard as the unfair, unjustified and unworkable system of pre-hearing reviews. But the Government stood firm. They conceded nothing whatever throughout the debates.
We had no more success when we sought to advance standards of protection in a modest way —for example, to prevent discrimination at engagement point on grounds of age or disability. Nothing was done. It may be said that that was consistent with the line laid down by previous Ministers in previous Bills. But we received nothing more when we moved into the more novel area of the Bill where the Government are seeking to dismantle protections for women and young persons. One might have thought that in this new area of de-regulation there were particular reasons why the Government might listen to modest amendments. After all, as we said over and over again to the Minister, much of what he was proposing to do was not supported by those who are frequently regarded as the Government's friends. I refer to the CBI, the EEF, the IPM, the BIB and even the Institute of Directors. We read out to the noble Lord over and over again what those parties have said, but to no avail.
360
Much of what the Government wish to do in this area is against international standards and their proposals would undoubtedly sin against EC regulations. We cited those points over and over again but we had no help from the noble Lord. We even cited the words of remaining quangos such as the Health and Safety Commission and the EOC. The changes for which they asked were the basis of many of our amendments. Once again the noble Lord remained as unassailable as ever.
We tried to amend the Bill so that women could refuse to work underground and retain their social security benefit. That was a small, modest and almost pitiful amendment. The noble Lord would have none of it. We tried to allow for a detailed assessment of the proposals to dismantle the regulations on dangerous machinery. The noble Lord would have none of it. Similar proposals were put forward on heavy work and on young people being sent home at night. We mentioned again and again in Committee and on Report that those provisions are undoubtedly against international conventions. The answers were as unsatisfactory, as contradictory and as depressing as ever.
One must mention briefly the general arguments which the noble Lord put forward. I do not have to apologise for concentrating only on the noble Lord's arguments, because the arguments of those few members of his own party who supported him in the debate were identical. They could have read his brief. Perhaps they did —perhaps they wrote it. Everything they said was identical to what the noble Lord said, either before he said it or afterwards.
The argument he used most frequently was, as one might expect, a market argument. There were two contentions; each was mutually contradictory of the other. We were told that there could be no concession to anything we were asking because even our most modest amendments would add to the employer's costs. If they added to the employer's costs, so sensitive and delicately balanced was the labour market that any addition to employers' costs would mean an immediate loss of jobs. So it could not be done. We were also told that no concession was possible because no concession was necessary.
As regards women and young people, we were told that there was now a black hole and that the labour market was moving back in their direction. We were told that there was no need to protect them because their position was so strong. They did not require it because they could demand it, even if they were not unionised or organised.
Economists call the first contention market elasticity, where the elasticity of demand is substantially above unity. They call the second contention market inelasticity. In this case the elasticity of demand is much less than unity. Only this Government can have an elasticity of demand for labour which is both sensitive and insensitive and above unity and below unity.
If the Government did not like that argument they had some others. On HIV protection, the noble Lord actually told us that the people involved did not want it. We were told that they would not want it to be made clear that they could not be unfairly

361
dismissed. However, a little later he told us that they had protection anyway because the tribunals would never agree that such dismissals were fair.
The noble Lord said the same thing about women working in the mines. On the question of consultation and further investigation before the abolition of all protection for young people and women, he said that he had already consulted those who mattered but that unfortunately the Government could not tell us what they had all said. We were never told what the EOC said on these matters. We were told that although the Government believe in consultation they do not believe in telling us the results of consultation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord could not remember what they had said.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The noble Lord could not remember what they had said.
There were many other arguments. The one which I found most annoying was that our amendments, or some of our amendments, were discriminatory themselves, and that in this Bill the Government wanted to eliminate discrimination. There are several points to be made about that. There are provisions in the Bill which the Government say are clearly and openly discriminatory. We discriminate in this Bill in favour of the Oxford and Cambridge women's colleges. I am not against that; but it is discriminatory. We refused to repeal the whole of Section 51. The Equal Opportunities Commission says that that is discriminatory. The very proposal that Sikhs should not be compelled to wear helmets is discriminatory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, discrimination is all right if one can justify it. That is what the law says, that is what the EC says and that is what the fair treatment directive says. The Government say that their discrimination is all right but that our discrimination is all wrong.
We were given a number of other excuses. We were told that we were trying to delay the Government and that our points were covered by our old friend the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. We were told that the Government will issue a consultative document and that the EC will come up on the outside with a consultative document. We were told to wait for those.
We have been faced with a series of excuses in different forms. They were directed at the same objective, which was to refuse to accept all our amendments. I have left until last the defence which I liked least of all. It was a defence put forward by the Minister on 17th October. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn was referring to the terms of the international standards that Britain now does not observe and was making the point that we are generally regarded as the worst country in the European Community. What really annoyed the noble Lord and the Government was that we were thought generally to be below Greece. The noble Lord rose not to refute what my noble friend had said but to say (referring to my noble friend):
"Does he not agree that if that is so, one of the reasons for it might well be that in the past we have had the most powerful,
362
the most dangerous, the most ugly unions of any European country over the past 20 years. That has led us into the severest economic decline … It is only since that has been overcome that this country has begun to perform efficiently economically". —[Official Report, 17/10/89; col. 865.]
Naturally enough, my noble friend asked the noble Lord for a single piece of evidence to show that before 1979 the British trade union movement was regarded as, "the most powerful, the most dangerous, the most ugly". Naturally enough, noble Lords would not expect the Minister to have given any evidence. Indeed, I think he may have thought better of it because the next day (at col. 898 of Hansard) he said:
"I do not hate trade unions. I think that there is a time and a place for everything and that trade unions provide a valuable service at the right time in the right place. However, this is not it".
I ask the Minister to think again if he feels that he must come to the House and make such statements in support of Bills of this kind. I ask him to think seriously whether this is the view taken of the British trade union movement in the ILO in Geneva and in the ICFTU in Brussels.
I suggest to the Minister that there are many trade union movements which are much more powerful than the British trade union movement and which have fought in their countries to bring benefit to their economies. I refer to those in Sweden, Norway, Austria and Australia. I further suggest to him that in the international trade union movement most trade unionists know many more trade unions in many other countries which are more corrupt, more highly paid and less dedicated than the British trade union movement.
I think that the Minister's statement —and I use my words carefully —is a disgrace and an insult to the British trade union movement, coming as it does from a Minister of the Crown. I thought that the Minister looked curiously isolated when he said it. In fact I think that he has been curiously isolated throughout our discussions. He has taken on this burden alone. The boy stood alone on the burning deck in this debate. I do not think that that is accidental. The noble Lord must be careful. The tide is going out for the haters and despiser of the British trade union movement and for those who can think of nothing to do to try to develop the economic power of this country other than to introduce such Bills.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, your Lordships may agree that it is quite a novel idea that a Third Reading speech should be half as long again as a Second Reading speech. I can assure noble Lords that I have no intention of competing in the stakes for the longest speech in the winding up of a Bill. However, I should like to say that I found this Bill extremely disappointing. It is doctrinaire and rigid; it is a Bill of lost opportunities.
My first objection is, as I think is widely accepted, to the amount of new material introduced at a very late stage. We have complained about this on every possible occasion and we must continue to do so. It is quite unreasonable that your Lordships should be expected to accept new material which is presented

363
at a very late stage of the Bill's proceedings. We very much hope that this practice, which has been growing in recent months, will now diminish.
I turn now to the lost opportunities and the dogmatism. They are really the marks of this Bill which are so unacceptable. We tried to get a little common sense applied to the Bill. It contains the removal of such sensible protection as that in regard to hours of work of youngsters of 16 to 18 years of age. The arguments put forward of market protection, or the market doing the job and therefore no other protection being necessary, are so hollow, so unbelievable and so doctrinaire that I cannot believe for one moment that the noble Lord gives them any real credence.
It is hard to believe that a 16 year-old will bargain with the employer to be sent on a training course. This is the last thing a great many 16 year-olds would wish to do. Indeed, most youngsters would be well pleased if they could earn a little more money and not go on a course. This is a very short-term view of the situation. Further, it is completely incompatible with the Government's declared intention to improve the situation at long last —and I give them credit for having done a fair amount to improve the standard of training in this country. But it seems completely contradictory and against all common sense that such an idea should have been introduced into the Bill.
Alongside that factor there is the doctrinaire approach and again the application of market ideas to the minimal protection for people on night work and especially women going home late at night. We ask that there should be some requirement in this respect and that there should be decent arrangements for transport. Can the Government not get off their dogmatic high horse, look at the realities in a case of this sort and introduce sensible adjustments in a reasonable way to match the changes which they are making?
As regards lost opportunities, this is an employment Bill. The whole employment position is changing, as the Government have repeatedly and rightly said. In many parts of the country, although not all, we have moved away from high unemployment to staff shortages. Therefore, it is most important that our legislation should give encouragement to groups of people who can be useful in the labour market but who need assistance to that end. I refer to women on the one hand and old people on the other, and of course disabled people are the third category. We attempted to introduce into an employment Bill encouragement for all those categories of people so that better use could be made of them, quite apart from the humanitarian opportunities which this may give them, in terms of getting a better labour force which would be properly trained.
At this stage, with the recovery in the labour market and faced as we will be with the competition which 1992 will bring, this is the Bill into which such changes ought to have been introduced. However, they have not been. All our attempts to bring them in by way of amendments have been
364
turned down flat, with no concessions whatever. It is extremely disappointing.
I have one final point to make, although I shall not do so in quite the same terms as did the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I was a little surprised at his flowery remarks about how co-operative we have all been on this side of this House. Of course there are times when we must agree in opposing the more ridiculous suggestions of Her Majesty's Government. However, that does not suggest any great intimacy on our part.
The attitude towards trade unions reflected in the Bill is lamentable. The Government claim that they have had a very limited strike record during recent years. Of course they have. It is well known, and well supported statistically, that the number of days lost through strikes when there is high unemployment always fall. It happens without fail. But you cannot rely upon that as an asset towards the development of proper industrial relations of the kind needed when there is a booming economy. The Government have done nothing to prepare the way for sane, progressive industrial relations under conditions of full employment. This will have most serious consequences as soon as we achieve real full employment; indeed, that factor is already showing at present. It was shown by the anxiety of both Chancellors of the Exchequer, as I understand it, as regards the increase in wage claims and wage settlements.
This has been a lost opportunity. Provisions could have been introduced into this Employment Bill which would have helped towards obtaining the kind of industrial relations that we shall need if we are to be a successful economy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is an extremely disappointing Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I respectfully differ from the noble Baroness in what she has just said. It seems to me that, on the contrary, this Bill helps to clear the way, not least by the removal of outdated restrictions, for a new era in which we all hope and believe that there will be a very high level of employment. Therefore it is especially important that there should not be outdated restrictions on the work that people may do or on the way in which they may do it.
Having said that, I have some sympathy with one point made by the noble Baroness. I agree with her that in regard to this Bill there has been to some extent —although, in other Bills to a greater entent —far too much material introduced at a fairly late stage. Moreover, apart from suggesting a lack of adequate forethought before the Bill was introduced, this imposes considerable extra burdens on your Lordships as regards the duty of reviewing, considering and, if necessary, criticising and amending legislation. I hope that my noble friend will pay some attention to that perfectly reasonable observation of the noble Baroness, with which I happen to agree.
I am always fascinated to see the amount of physical exercise that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, takes in the course of a speech. It must account for his obvious high degree of physical

365
fitness. His speech was, on the whole, one with which I am afraid I do not find very much to agree. He said, however, that he thought the Government had trade unions and trade union law on the brain. Broadly speaking, I believe that he has that right, because the Government have been applying their brains, which are the right things to apply, to the tangle of trade union law and practices which they inherited when they came into office in 1979. By successive measures, they have been clearing up a great deal of the mess they found. That undoubtedly involved a great deal of brainwork.
I do not want to weary your Lordships by going fully into the general terms of the Bill, but I welcome the removal of out-of-date restrictions on work by women and young persons. Those restrictions are in many cases irrelevant to modern conditions of work and to the much higher standard of physical fitness of today's young generation compared with that of previous generations. I have only one trifling regret in that context. There is a real problem that once we free young people to be employed at night, once we free women to work underground —once we remove those restrictions —there must be some apprehension as to how those freedoms will begin to operate in practice.
It is important for the Government —I hope that my noble friend will pay attention to this point —to give fair and emphatic guidance to industry as to how the interests of those people, now freed from restriction, are looked after and how care arrangements for them are made as the new freedom begins to operate.
I was sorry that in the case of young people working at night my noble friend at an earlier stage rejected the idea, which had been put forward from the other side of the House as well as this side, that there should be instituted a code of practice produced by the Government to regulate arrangements for night transport and similar practical considerations, when working late hours, when those young people use their new freedoms to work. I hope that the Government will give further thought to that point. My noble friend said that they were contemplating producing a pamphlet, but those of us who have been in government know that governments produce a great many pamphlets and not all of them are given serious attention by everyone; whereas an official code of practice, backed by the Government and notice of which can be taken by the courts, is a much more serious matter.
Although my noble friend no doubt —I understand his problems with the department —felt bound to reject the suggestion of a code of practice, I hope that those responsible in the department and his right honourable friend will give further thought to that point. It would make for an easier transition from the restricted area into the new freedom and prevent it from becoming discredited by a number of silly and unnecessary incidents which could be avoided if proper and sensible arrangements were made to care for young people, in particular, who exercise the new liberty to work at exceptional and late night hours. I hope that my noble friend will pay some attention to that issue.
366
I welcome the Bill as a whole. It is an important measure. Mercifully, it is a great deal shorter than most of the Bills with which your Lordships have been troubled in recent months; and no one complains about that. Nonetheless, it is an important Bill in the whole series of measures on the subject. It carries forward the Government's policy of increased freedom from restriction in the industrial sphere which has already contributed a great deal to this country's economic recovery. I therefore welcome and fully support the Bill.
I should like to say one thing more about my noble friend. All your Lordships will agree that he has conducted the Bill with enormous skill. My noble friend has not been in ministerial office for long, but he seems to have got the hang of it with remarkable celerity and skill. I hope that he will allow me to say, as a friend of them both, how proud and delighted his father and grandfather would be if they could see him today.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Seear explained, in her characteristically forthright way, the view that we take of the Bill as it leaves the House. I wish to add only a few words on the subject of industrial training, not so much concerning the substance of the measures that the Government are introducing as the manner of their introduction.
In a debate that I was privileged to initiate in your Lordships' House last April I said that it was plain from the White Paper Employment for the 1990s that the Government were seeking to effect a cultural change in this country's attitude to training. The Government were not to be reproached for having that aim, but they were to be criticised because they were going about it in a way which showed that they had an impoverished understanding of how to manage change. In my experience of these matters, for what that is worth, there is no credibility in a command strategy that fails to give those having a stake in the problem an adequate say in its solution.
To judge from the Government's treatment of Parliament and of others having an interest in the vital matter of industrial training, they still do not seem to have a grasp of that concept. They may think that their policies can be implemented successfully by better presentation, but in my book if one wants to gain effective acceptance of change one has first to identify, confront and overcome obstacles standing in the way of the minds of those affected by the change, whether, as in this case, they are trainers and employee representatives or, for that matter, teachers, doctors, lawyers or anyone else.
The Government will obtain their Bill, but unless they learn to show more concern for the views of others involved they will not succeed in their objective. Having delivered myself of those strictures, as one who has sat through practically every moment of the Bill's various stages I should like to join in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, not merely for the stamina that he has shown when piloting the Bill through the House on his own but for the courtesy and good humour he has shown throughout our proceedings.
5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I said on Second Reading that this was a rag-bag of a Bill with a number of disparate issues jumbled together. As it has progressed through your Lordships' House, it has become even more of a rag-bag than before. As several of your Lordships have said, we had several lengthy amendments dealing with other subjects added during the Bill's passage. We had amendments dealing with industrial training added to the Bill, when, as we said, there should have been a Bill on the subject. The amendments indicated just how unsatisfactory is the Government's approach to training. The Government, as we know, are absolutely committed to the notion that industrial training must be employer-led, despite the fact that this has not led to good training in the past. Bodies with a good record in this field, like the EITB and the CITB, are apparently to be replaced with successor bodies which will not have a statutory role. If my information is correct —and this has not been denied by the Government —the ending of the statutory role for the EITB and the switch to entirely voluntary training will mean the loss of money from the European Social Fund since it is only available to a country which itself spends some public money on training.
There has been no assurance that good projects embarked upon —like the project for women —will be continued by the successor bodies, nor that necessary projects for ethnic minorities and the disabled will be embarked upon. The whole thing is most unsatisfactory, as is the Government's insistence that tripartitism must go and that unions have no role to play in training. Training looks like becoming a victim of the Government's ideological approach to everything.
So far as concerns the rest of the Bill, we have explained to the Government—but unfortunately they have not listened —that they could have used this Bill as a vehicle for improving the law on discrimination in ways that have been recommended by the Equal Opportunities Commission. We have sought to try to give assurance to unfortunate fellow citizens suffering from HIV or AIDS that they will not be discriminated against in employment as well as having to bear the appalling knowledge that they are suffering from a dreaded disease.
At least in that area, while refusing to accept our amendments, the Minister has indicated that the Government are sympathetic, that more education is needed, that they will update and reissue their guidance and advice, and that no risk should mean no discrimination. We are grateful for those assurances, but as I said at Report we will have to return to the possibility of legislation if the education programme does not appear to be working. We cannot have discrimination in employment added to the burdens that sufferers from AIDS have to bear.
On the matter of women working underground, we tried to ensure that when the Government said it would be a matter of choice for women —genuine choice —that was indeed the case. We endeavoured to provide, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has
368
just said, through our amendments that a woman would not be forced to work underground by a threat of the loss of benefit if she did not. Unfortunately we did not succeed. Despite what the Minister said about our approach discriminating against men, we believe that with such a new departure it would have been justified to allow at least a time when there would be no element of compulsion via the social security system.
We regret also that the Government did not take the opportunity to look at conditions existing underground —for men as well as women —if not via a Royal Commission, which is one of the suggestions we made in Committee, at least possibly by a Health and Safety Executive investigation. This is still a very dangerous industry. Many are killed and injured, even in National Coal Board pits, and the situation is much worse in privately owned pits. We think we are justified in pointing to those facts when the Bill is before your Lordships' House.
In regard to young people, again we have endeavoured in the course of the Bill to write in some limited protections. The Government, unfortunately, are prepared to wipe out all protection for young people formerly covered by various pieces of legislation. If it is felt that those pieces of legislation are out of date or archaic, the opportunity existed for introducing a proper framework or, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, a code of practice for the employment of young people in consultation possibly with the Health and Safety Executive. That is an approach which would have been favoured by a number of organisations but the Government refused to have anything of it.
However, the Government took the opportunity provided by this Bill to remove a few more employee and trade union rights. Restrictions on time off with pay for trade union duties have been tightened, and employees in small firms have lost the right to be told of the disciplinary procedures in existence in writing, while employees with less than two years' employment will lose the right to be told the reasons for their dismissal, if they are dismissed; though of course the clerk at the social security office will be told.
The Government seem to be obsessed by the notion that there are lots of vexatious litigants out there wasting the time of industrial tribunals. There is no evidence at all that that happens on any substantial scale, but we shall now have legislation, when this Bill is passed, requiring deposits of up to £150 prior to IT hearings if a pre-hearing review, which incidentally can be conducted by the chairman sitting alone, takes the view that it is a case of a vexatious or frivolous nature or is unlikely to succeed.
As we have maintained throughout, the people who will be put off by this are not obsessed individuals determined to have their day in court. Somehow or other they will find their £150 deposit. Those who will be put off are the poorer person to whom appearance before a tribunal is an ordeal anyway. Again, we endeavoured to amend this in ways less likely to bear heavily upon such individuals, but we failed to achieve our purpose.

369
So we have had another piece of legislation about employment. I said at Second Reading that I thought it was a nasty little Bill. It is a now a slightly bigger nasty Bill. It is not one that we on these Benches can commend to your Lordships' House, and I join with other noble Lords on this side of the House in saying to the Government, "Don't you think you have done enough as far as trade union legislation is concerned? Don't you think that the time has come to leave unions alone?" As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said so eloquently, British unions are not ugly unions, as the noble Lord the Minister said, I hope inadvertently. I trust that next time round his further comments were meant to withdraw that implication. We have unions that generally speaking have played a major role in improving employee condtions in this country, that are respected internationally and that do not deserve the kind of treatment that has been constantly meted out by this Government.
The unions in this country endeavour to comply with legislation even though that is becoming more and more difficult. Indeed, successive tranches of legislation have made the legal situation more and more difficult to understand and harder and harder to cope with, and there really is now no basis for introducing further legislation. However, this is probably a forlorn hope and all that we can do in this House is to trust that it will not be very long before this and similar legislation is replaced by laws which are more equitable and fairer to the 26 millon who constitute the workforce in the UK.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if I may, I shall briefly respond to some of the points made by noble Lords. I was quite surprised when the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, started off in such a mild way, but my patience was rewarded later because he then gave us an exposition of his favourite hobby-horse for nearly 20 minutes. But I wonder. Even the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, cannot deny the economic success, the huge and continuous reduction in unemployment and the steady rise in wages and living standards that we have seen over the past 10 years. The noble Lord chose to quote me— have to say he did so slightly selectively —without taking into account the situation of the general debate. I do not deny what I said. It reflected fully what I have felt about trade unions in the past, and both the quotes that he used are exactly what I feel now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that this is a disappointing and doctrinaire Bill. I am sorry that the noble Baroness felt that. I hope, though, that she found that some aspects of the Bill were encouraging, particularly those on sex discrimination, and that we were generally heading in the right direction.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, mentioned the fact that we have brought in a considerable amount of new material. That may be so. It is something that we regretted when it was introduced at Committee stage. It was, however, very important material. We have had the chance fully to discuss it and I think that it will benefit the statute book. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also gave credit to initiatives to improve training. I sincerely hope that the initiatives we have introduced will continue to
370
attract her support and be extremely successful in the long term.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter offered me some very kind words. I am extremely grateful to him for that. I should say to my noble friend that the Government never particularly like introducing new material. However, as I said, it was important to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned training. He has an enormous amount of experience in that sphere. We shall have to see how the important changes that the Government are bringing in will work. I am committed to those changes and I am sure that they will vastly improve the situation. I should also tell the noble Lord that the Government listen and consult very carefully with a very wide range of views right across the spectrum of society in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, called this a ragbag of a Bill. I am sorry that she called it that. I am aware that we have covered an enormous amount of subjects. In a way that is what has made the Bill so interesting. The noble Baroness mentioned the changing statutory role of the ITBs. As I have said before, the situation is still being looked at closely. If it is any comfort to the noble Baroness, an announcement will be made very shortly.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the case of industrial tribunals. On the point of vexatious claims, if the noble Baroness is correct in saying that few people bring vexatious claims to industrial tribunals, there will be no need for deposits. There is no compulsion in this Bill for there to be deposits, only when claims are vexatious. We shall have to see over time whether the noble Baroness or the Government are correct, but this has been a good spirited debate.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 160 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page, 1, line 14, at end insert —
'( ) The Secretary of State shall not make a designation under subsection (2) above without giving the Football Membership Authority an opportunity to make representations about the proposed designation, and taking any representations he receives into account.'.
2 Page 1, line 15, after 'above' insert —
'(a)'.
3 Page 1, line 17, at end insert '; and
(b) may provide, in relation to the match or description of match designated by the order or any description of match falling within the designation, that spectators admitted to the ground shall be authorised spectators to the extent, and subject to any restrictions or conditions, determined in pursuance of the order by the licensing authority under this Part of this Act.'.
4Page 2, line 2, after 'if insert —
'(a)'.
5Page 2, line 4, after 'match', insert; or
(b) he is an authorised spectator by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 en bloc.
We are coming to the end of this Bill and its passage through Parliament. It has received a thorough examination in both Houses of Parliament. I think that it is also fair to say that the Bill has aroused a certain amount of controversy inside and outside Parliament. At the same time, I should like to echo the point made by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, in introducing the Third Reading in another place on Monday. Debates on the Bill have been fierce but they have generally been conducted with courtesy and good humour. I thank noble Lords on both sides of the House for that.
We are to consider today a number of amendments made in another place. The most substantial amendments to Part I of the Bill concern the status and powers of the Football Licensing Authority, particularly in relation to safety matters. There are also a large number of amendments introduced in response to requests from the Opposition. The Opposition spokesman in another place, the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Small Heath, recognised this on Monday when he said, in dealing with the first amendment before us today that:
"in this and in other amendments the Minister has sought to meet points that were made in Committee". —[Offical Report, Commons, 30/10/89; col. 22.1
I hope that we can proceed in the same spirit this evening.
Amendment No. 1 requires the Secretary of State, before he designates any matches to which the scheme will apply, to provide the Football Membership Authority with the opportunity to make representations about the proposed designation. The amendment was introduced on Report in another place and fulfils an undertaking to consider a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee. The amendment makes clear that any views expressed by the FMA must be taken into account by the Secretary of State before he makes a designation order under Clause 1(2) of the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the advice of the FMA should be available to the Secretary of State to assist him in reaching decisions about designating matches. This amendment ensures that this will be the case.
372
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 will enable the Secretary of State, when designating a match or matches, to provide that spectators admitted to a ground are authorised spectators subject to any conditions or restrictions attached to the licence. Amendments Nos. 34 and 41 provide that the Football Licensing Authority may include conditions limiting the spectators who may watch a designated football match and on the other hand may direct, in respect of a certain match or matches, the licence to be treated as including special terms and conditions about the admission of spectators.
These amendments concern the application of the national membership scheme to international matches and to matches between Football League and non-League clubs. Your Lordships will recall that this was a matter of some lengthy debate in this House. The Government have made it clear, throughout the Bill's progress through Parliament, that it is our intention that matches played at Wembley and matches between League and non-League teams played at a League ground should have special arrangements within the national scheme. As I was at pains to emphasise to your Lordships at an earlier stage of the Bill there must be special arrangements under which supporters of a foreign team playing in this country or of a non-League team playing a one-off match at a League ground are to be authorised to attend designated matches.
The Football Licensing Authority will have an essential role to play in these special arrangements. The FLA will discuss with the local police, the club, or in the case of Wembley with the Wembley authorities, just what the arrangements should be. It will be able to take full account of the circumstances of the individual match and of the ground, and decide on the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular match should be played. It may wish to make different arrangements at different matches for different parts of the ground. These amendments will enable the FLA 1.o decide on the most appropriate way of handling these matches within the scheme.
Amendment No. 34 provides that the licence issued by the Football Licensing Authority to football clubs in order that they may admit spectators to a designated match, may include conditions requiring admittance to be refused to specified descriptions of spectators. The amendment thus allows for the possibility that an individual club or clubs might be required to ban a specified group of supporters for a specific match or series of matches. This is a reserve power, to be used if, for example, an individual club was regularly experiencing serious problems with away supporters. Noble Lords will be aware that the Football Association has sometimes taken action in respect of supporters travelling to away matches. The amendment was introduced in response to a request from the Police Federation to my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport.
The main purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill provides sufficient flexibility to enable the Football Licensing Authority to deal sensibly with the range of circumstances that it may

373
face —in particular at international matches, at matches between League and non-League teams and in the event that special problems may arise for individual clubs. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish to begin by echoing the words of my right honourable friend in another place. In Committee the Minister gave a number of undertakings which are now seen on the face of the Bill. My right honourable friend acknowledged that, and I do so now. However, what we are looking at are the words that the Government have injected into the Bill. This will provide us with the opportunity to seek clarification.
In speaking to the first group of amendments, the noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 3. I am bound to say to the Minister that I still require clarification here. That may not be the fault of the Minister; it may be my fault or it may be the fault of others. In col. 23 of the Official Report of another place the Minister responsible for sport used an illustration of an Italian supporter making a one-off trip to Wembley. That is the issue that engaged the attention of this House for many hours over many amendments. I hope the Minister will be a little more precise about the likely procedure in these cases.
The Minister said that the licensing authority will, in issuing a licence, ensure that, within the terms of the licence, provisions will be made for the exclusion from the scheme of individuals in certain circumstances, in certain parts of grounds and in other such circumstances. Are we to understand that with perhaps 92 separate licences there will possibly be 92 separate sets of conditions? Are we to understand that every licence will be tailor-made to suit the circumstances of the ground? Will the football club, the licensing authority and the police, in all of those circumstances, be able to reach different conclusions as to how the licence will apply to a ground, for example at St. James's Park in Newcastle or at White Hart Lane? They are all sensible, responsible people who are knowledgeable about football, but they are to be left to come to their own different conclusions as to how to exercise the powers in the Bill. The Minister needs to tell us whether, as I understand is the case, under the Bill a wide disparity of conditions can apply within the licence.
Secondly, can the Minister say a little more about who the licensing authority will be? We had great arguments about whether it was to be the Football Membership Authority. We on this side suggested that the local authority might be the licensing authority. The Bill includes a provision for a licensing authority: this is our opportunity to ask the Minister to spell out in more detail who will be the licensing authority. If it is to be one central body then that will be another quango. It will be another body peopled with the Minister's placemen and placewomen for the purpose of ensuring that the licence provisions are carried out. Can the Minister tell us who will do that?
374
I understand what the amendment seeks to achieve. I cannot understand from what the Minister has said how what we have been led to believe would happen, will happen. We have the benefit of the proceedings in another place. Regarding this very amendment it was said that:
"No doubt the Football Licensing Authority will wish to discuss with the local police, with the club or, in the case of Wembley, with the Wembley authorities just what the special arrangements for the matches should be. They will be able to lake full account of the circumstances of the individual match and of the ground and decide the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular game can be played. They may wish to make different arrangements at different matches and for different parts of the ground. It is important that they must be free to decide what is best in any particular case".—[official Report, Commons, 30/10/89; col. 23.]
I should like the Minister to help the House and the football authorities by indicating whether that means that those knowledgeable people may decide collectively that people who come front abroad —or as the case may be, from Scotland to England —are not required to be in possession of an ID card. If that is possible within the remit of the licensing authority will the Minister tell us? Does the Minister realise that that blows a wide hole in the argument that the control and management of games and grounds is as watertight as it could be.
That is my first essay on the series of amendments. As the Minister knows, I have put down amendments of my own, together with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. We shall pursue those with a little more vigour than I am pursuing this one. I simply ask the Minister to help the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to repeat all the admirable arguments which we put at the Committee stage of the Bill when we discussed it some months ago.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I welcome some of the amendments which have been made. I am glad that the Government have moved on the point which I raised in relation to the chairman of the authority and his connection with the industry.
However, without in any sense wishing to be disagreeable so early in the proceedings perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that the Bill arrived as a foolish Bill and it will leave this House as a foolish Bill. Sooner or later there will be a government, not led by the present Prime Minister, which will provide an opportunity for us to discuss the matter on its merits.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I shall be brief, because my voice is a little less reliable than I would like it to be.
I welcome the amendments, which seem to me to leave the original concepts of the Bill intact while addressing the problem that I raised at Second Reading; namely, that of my foreign visitors. It is to be welcomed that at international matches the authorisation mechanism will accommodate the considerable numbers of foreign visitors so that they can attend matches. I am also pleased that movements of groups of foreign fans coming to

375
watch league or cup football will be accommodated by the guest membership scheme.
I believe that the industry can work with those arrangements. However, there still seems to be one problem. It relates not to those coming to international matches or to league or cup matches in groups, but to those who come as individuals to watch football in Britain. I took advice from Tottenham Hotspur on the subject this morning. The club estimates that this year its home and league cup programme might attract 12,000 foreign customers. Of those, perhaps 8,000 will come in groups and will thus be covered by the guest membership scheme. However, 4,000 will be individuals who will not be so easy to deal with.
I seek only one assurance: that as guest membership is evolved to deal with those individual travellers —who are a small but highly rated element of our tourist traffic —the systems that are developed will be as user-friendly as possible, and that they will be kept under review if they are seen to be detrimental to the traffic that I have discussed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the Minister replies perhaps I could take up the point raised by my noble friend. He asked about the nature of the licensing authority. I noticed that in the column of Hansard to which my noble friend referred it is indicated that the licensing authority will discuss the arrangements for certain matches with the local police. On 18th November the first round of the FA Cup will be played. Twenty non-league clubs will take part. Presumably special arrangements will have to be discussed for those matches. Will the licensing authority travel around the country and discuss those arrangements with the local police? If not, those are just words that mean nothing at all.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, expands on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The reason for flexibility is perfectly straightforward. There is an enormous difference between an Italy-England game at Wembley and a first round FA Cup match between Towcester Town —which by some miracle has managed to make it into a league stadium—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Or Northampton Town.
Lord Hesketh: My Lord, I chose Towcester Town because it is an even smaller town which does not even have a grandstand.
Those examples are taken from each end of the spectrum. The arrangements which would be appropriate for those two games would be very different. I mentioned earlier three examples —an international game played at Wembley, a run-of-the-mill league game played in the divisions, and the entry of non-league clubs in cup competition. Regarding the point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, essentially there would be three fundamental licences. Of course, there will be horses for courses and special circumstances will appertain, and I would not suggest that there will be only three
376
basic licences. I should say that there will be three basics from which we shall work.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, concerning the attendance of the individual, it will be for the clubs to be able to admit the individual tourist —the 4,000 out of the 12,000 at Tottenham whom he mentioned. As he knows, it is administratively easier to deal with a group, but we do not wish to disbar the individual.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, took the view that this was, to use his words, a silly Bill on the way in and that it is a silly Bill on the way out, but I believe that there are many people who take a contrary view. I must remind the House that, interestingly, the Bill has always had a tremendous amount of support in the country, perhaps from those who are not so interested in football.
The other key point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, brought to our attention was the role of the FLA and the fact that it did not leave this House as a quango, but comes back as a quango. As the noble Lord will be well aware, there were tragic occurrences after the Bill left this House. In the light of events after the passage of the Bill, the licensing requirements, both for today and for the future, require an extension of the powers. We shall deal with that change in the FLA when we come to the next group of amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like the Minister to be a little more helpful because I asked a direct question about who is the licensing authority. Clause 11 states that:
"The appointment of a person to be the licensing authority shall be on such terms as may be agreed".
Will the Minister be a little more specific? Are we talking about a person? What do we mean by that? Will the man or woman who is to be the licensing authority have the function of going all over the country to consult the police forces and 92 football clubs? If that is not the case —and that is how I read it —the Minister must tell us what or whom we are talking about. We tried to be specific on the last occasion, but it was not possible. It is down to the licensing authority to discuss the issue with the local clubs. Perhaps the Minister wishes to intervene.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with great respect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is out of order. In answering him I said that we would come on to that point in the next group of amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is speaking to Amendment No. 3 which includes the words:
"determined in pursuance of the order by the licensing authority".
If he alludes in his amendment to a licensing authority, I should have thought that the House would agree that I am entitled to ask for elucidation of what that means. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, need not rise to his feet. I am perfectly willing to wait until later, but the point needs to be addressed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saw me move in my seat merely to try to indicate to him that, if he had said, "Before the noble Lord sits down", he would have been in order. I am sure that he did not intend to make a second or third speech because that would have been out of order. Had he used the words, "Before the noble Lord sits down", he would have been in order.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, after the noble Earl has sat down, I should say that I am very grateful.
The Minister has failed to satisfy me on the contents of the amendment, but there will be other opportunities and I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I hope that, having passed up this opportunity and failed to obtain answers, we do not find that, when the real opportunity comes, we still do not obtain the answers. People outside the House are fed up with the fact that the Bill will lay upon them responsibilities. Yet, when they try to carry out those responsibilities and things go wrong, it will not be the Government who will take responsibility for the problems; it will be the hapless people outside who are called licensing authorities, football membership authorities or whatever.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert —
( ) Where a person is charged under subsection (1) above with an offence of entering or remaining on premises, and was at the time of the alleged offence not disqualified from being a member of the national football membership scheme, it shall be a defence to prove that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. For the convenience of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 31 and 38.
This group of amendments provides, in one form or another, for emergency admission to grounds. Following the debates in this House and in another place, we have given careful thought to whether it was right for the offence of unlawful entry in Clause 2(1) to be absolute; that is, to have no defence provided in the Bill. We have come round to the view that it would be right to provide such a defence and Amendment No. 6 achieves that with one important qualification: it will not extend to people who are disqualified from the scheme.
The primary responsibility for the safe operation of a football ground lies with the club, although the club will of course rely on the professional expertise of the police in matters of crowd control and public order. Learning a lesson from Hillsborough, we believe that it is imperative that provision for dealing with admission in circumstances of emergency should be detailed in the licence which should be tailored to each ground's particular circumstances. Amendment No. 17 introduces a requirement for the scheme to provide that.
378
Following Hillsborough, a great deal of concern has been expressed at the possibility of a dangerous crush developing outside the grounds —the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about that point —despite everything that we are doing to try to avoid such an occurrence. In those circumstances, it would be essential to reduce the risks of serious injury or loss of life to those who are outside the ground and they would have to be admitted quickly and safely without normal checks on membership.
In those circumstances, it would be impractical to distinguish with certainty between members and non-members of the scheme and we now consider it right to exempt from the offence innocent people who are not members of the scheme; for example, those who joined the queue unaware of the requirement for a card or who were unintentionally caught up in the crowd. As I said, that does not, and should not, include those who are already disqualified from the scheme.
Amendment No. 31 qualifies the offence in Clause 8(1) of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises by the new defence that the responsible person did so in an emergency. Similarly, Amendment No. 38 requires the licensing authority to consider arrangements to deal with emergencies when granting a licence to admit spectators. That therefore puts implicitly within the scope of a licence the provision to admit spectators in an emergency, safeguarding the licensee from an offence of admitting spectators in breach of a licence condition in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not think that any of us will oppose the amendment, but I am bound to say that in my view it will lead to the creation of a state of almost total confusion so far as concerns the law.
Perhaps we may examine what the amendment says. It provides a defence for someone who has entered the ground in the circumstances described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, if he can prove:
"that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so".
If the Bill stated that the only people who could take action of that kind were the police, there would be no ambiguity. An officer in uniform could give him his consent to enter the ground. That would provide the person possibly charged with an offence with the defence specified in the amendment.
However, as we now know, the Government have been resolutely opposed to giving the police overall responsibility in this matter. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said on Monday of this week:
"The evidence to show that the supporter was inside the ground unlawfully will be given either by the club or the police, one of which will have declared the emergency. The inability to identify the person who has declared the emergency should not therefore prove to be a problem".

379
I should have thought that that was a very profound non sequitur. He went on to say that:
"the primary response for the declaration of an emergency will belong to the police, although there will also be a responsibility belonging to the club as the licence holder. One would expect clubs and police to negotiate". [Official Report, Commons, 30/10/89; col. 38.]
He says "negotiate" —in those circumstances when tens of thousands of people are trying to get into a football ground in the last few minutes! Or is there some other meaning to be read into the words of the noble Earl's colleague?
As I indicated, I still find it hard to understand why the Government have not given the police that clear and explicit authority. I believe that there will be great confusion caused by the division between the police and the club. No one will have a clear view of the matter to know who in fact is responsible; nor will the person who enters the ground in the circumstances which the noble Earl specified when he opened the debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate that in deference to our procedures I should not intervene in the Minister's speech or raise any points when he has sat down. Therefore any matters I need to raise should be mentioned at this point.
I understand what the Minister and his colleagues are driving at in this amendment. It takes account of the kind of circumstances that we outlined. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made his point very clearly. I agree with him that in trying to be helpful the Minister has confused the situation even more. There has been no collusion with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, I am certain that my copy of Hansard is riddled with question marks and queries in the same place as his and we both noted the words of the Minister in another place.
Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether this series of amendments is that to which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, referred, and whether this will be the proper place to obtain information on the licensing authority. If in fact it is not —and I believe that I heard the noble Earl mention Amendment No. 7 —it is in the next series of amendments and is a pleasure that has been only deferred.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to support the arguments of both noble Lords who have spoken. As a magistrate, I tried to work out the practicalities involved. I seem to recall, particularly in the traffic courts, that people quite frequently pleaded that what they had done was lawful because someone had told them that they could do it. That plea was always rejected because there was no evidence that the other person had lawful authority to tell him that he could do it.
There seems to be an equal ambiguity here: the spectator had reason to believe that he could enter because a person who appeared to him to have lawful authority told him so. The mind boggles at that. Think of it in an emergency situation with people rushing about saying, "I have the lawful authority to allow you to do this" and "Why have you not got a ticket?".
380
I am bound to say, not to be too finicky, that I always thought that legislation was not supposed to have a double negative:
"was at the time of the alleged offence not disqualified."
There must be a better and clearer way of stating that. I can only think that it will add to the confusion.
When we make the law, I wonder how far we think of its practical application. It is only when one sees people struggling to apply the laws that one realises how important it is that everything should be completely clear so that everyone knows exactly what is meant.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, before the Minister gives his answer, perhaps I may make this point. I believe that he said in his opening that he would speak to Amendment No. 17. I am not sure whether that is in the grouping on the list and whether Amendment No. 17A would also be included. If he wants to refer to emergencies, perhaps when he replies he can say slightly more about the nature and degree of the emergency to which he refers and what is in the mind of the Government.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. My noble friend Lord Hesketh is not very often wrong. He does not often made a mistake. However, he made one terrible mistake this afternoon. He implied that this amendment was the amendment on which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, should have asked his questions. In fact it is the next amendment. However, if that is the worst mistake that my noble friend should make, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will concede that it was not a very big one.
I find it very amusing that some of your Lordships are enormously agreeable and understanding outside the Chamber but inside the Chamber it seems difficult to persuade some noble Lords that matters are perfectly reasonable. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Harris, vigorously castigating the Government when this Bill was discussed in this House before, because of what would happen in an emergency. People would not be allowed into the ground because they would have to be shown to have a card. We took on board all those complaints and suggestions and came up with some amendments which simply state that if there is an emergency people will be allowed to be on the ground without creating an offence. I fail to see how, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, that adds to the confusion. It is perfectly clear that if there is an emergency and gates have to be opened so that people do get into a ground when they are not in possession of a card, they will not be creating an offence provided that they are shown not to have been disqualified.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is always concerned about responsibility. I think it right to make it plain that anywhere outside the match it is the responsibility of the police to control the crowd because it is in a public place. Once in the football ground, which is private property, it is the responsibility of the club in combination with the

381
police. The police do have responsibilities there but the overriding responsibility lies with the club.
If there is an emergency the police themselves can open the gates. They can do that under common law. They can instruct the club to open the gates and clearly the club will oblige because if it did not it would be obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. So in all those matters I do not see that there is any real cause for disquiet about where the responsibility lies. Of course there will be involvement with the police and the club but that is understandable because they are on private land.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, asked: what is an emergency? We shall come to that point later. I do not wish to pre-empt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and possibly it would be better to leave that matter until we come to it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall use the form of words recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may ask him a question on what he has just said. He appeared to suggest that noble Lords who raised the question of an emergency situation were being extremely tiresome because we would not accept uncritically what the Government had produced.
We welcome the fact that the Government are now dealing with the situation but we are puzzled about the form of words in this amendment. As I tried to explain to the noble Earl, it is providing a defence in a court and the question arises as to who in fact appears to the person who finds himself in court to have lawful authority to tell him to go into the ground in an emergency situation. That is the point. If the police have a clear responsibility in this matter in the way that the noble Earl suggests, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out on several occasions it would be immensely helpful to have that on the face of the Bill. However, the noble Earl went on to say, as did his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that the club also has a position in this matter.
I am trying to point out the ambiguity created by that situation. If a club steward on the highway encourages people to go through the gates in an emergency situation, does that or does that not constitute a position in which the spectator has an absolute defence. That is the issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am hesitant to rise again. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, used the magic words "before the noble Earl sits down" although I had in fact sat down. He now invites me to rise and to break the rules of order by making a second speech. Naturally I would wish to do anything to accommodate the noble Lord. Having said that, I have almost forgotten what the noble Lord asked me.
He was concerned about who allowed the people into the football ground. I have explained that if there is an emergency and the club opens the gates, people will go into the ground who may not have the authority to do so. I have explained that the police may open gates and as a result people may go into the ground who do not have a right to be there.
382
If the noble Lord reads the amendment he will see that where a person is charged under subsection (1),
"it shall be a defence to prove that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so".
In that case it will be either the club's servant to whom it has delegated, or the police.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it either?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is either.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 27, and refer to the amendment to government Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 8A, tabled by the noble Lords opposite.
This group of government amendments was brought forward largely in response to points raised by the Opposition both in this House and another place. It concerns the chairmanship and membership of the Football Membership Authority and imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament in the event that he should remove the designation of a body such as the FMA as soon as possible after he does so. The question of the role of football supporters' organisations in the preparation of the scheme is the subject of the Opposition's amendment and of a later government amendment.
The Bill as introduced in your Lordships' House did not deal with the constitution of the FMA because the FMA will be a private company, not a quango, like the NRA or the Football Licensing Authority for that matter.
Perhaps I may dwell on this matter for a moment to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because we have now moved towards the direction of the FLA. In Amendment No. 30 we find the description that he requires which incorporates a chairman and between four and eight other members. We should not therefore be in the business of spelling out the detailed rules on how the FMA will operate, as we have to do for the FLA. However, we recognised that there was a strong desire to see certain aspects of the chairmanship and membership spelled out in the Bill.
The government amendments require that the authority shall have a chairman independent of any financial interest or other area of potential conflict with football and that it should have six other members. Two of those six members will be nominated by the Secretary of State; the remaining four will be approved by him and will, we hope, be agreed with the football authorities, if they take on the responsibility for the FMA. The chairman will also be approved by the Secretary of State, in agreement, we expect, with the football authorities. The amendment does not refer to the football authorities by name, because we must take account

383
of the remote possibility that they may not decide to take on the FMA. At the same time, the working party set up by the FA and the Football League to prepare for the FMA has been hard at work since the Bill's Committee stage and we envisage that they will together set up the company which the Secretary of State will designate as the FMA.
The government amendments do not refer by name to members appointed to represent the interests of football supporters. We have by no means ruled out the possibility that a representative of football supporters might be appointed, as the Minister for Sport made clear at Report stage in another place on Monday. I do not think that it is necessary or, in fact, particularly helpful to refer to the football supporters organisations by name, as the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seeks to do. For one thing we cannot be sure that a body named in this way will still exist in a few years time. Nor do I think that it is helpful to attempt to insist that the Professional Footballers' Association should be represented. Of course we accept that the views of players are important to the running of football but we cannot fill up all the places on the FMA in advance. We believe that the Opposition's amendment does not work, for a body corporate cannot include representatives in this way. I suggest that the priority is not so much who the individual members of the authority are as to ensure that the football supporters' bodies have a say in what the FMA does.
The Government have always accepted that there is a case for football supporters to be more closely involved in running the game. A subsequent amendment therefore will require the FMA to give the representatives of football supporters an opportunity to make representations about the content of the football membership scheme. I understand that the football authorities' working party on the scheme has already held one meeting with both the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs and the Football Supporters' Association. The Bill has already begun to have a desirable effect and our amendment will ensure that they keep the consultation process going.
This group also includes an amendment which places a duty on the Secretary of State, where he withdraws designation of a body as the FMA, to lay a report before Parliament giving his reasons for the withdrawal as soon as it is appropriate for him to do so. The amendment met a point raised by the Opposition in Committee in another place and I understand that it was accepted at Report stage. I hope that your Lordships will also find it helpful.
These amendments were introduced by the Government in response to points raised by the Opposition. They may not have gone quite so far as the Opposition would have wished but the right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Small Heath was good enough to say that they represented "half a step" in this direction. I hope that noble Lords will accept them in the same spirit. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I believe that it is in order to speak to Amendment No. 8A. At the appropriate time when the amendment is called, I shall then take action.
The Minister is right. Of course we have made progress since the Bill left this House. There have been discussions. The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We were concerned about the independence of the chairman. The Football Membership Authority will either be all powerful or it will be a fall guy. The Government are saying that many powers will be given to the FMA. However, at the end of the day the Secretary of State reserves unto himself three matters: first, he can dismiss the FMA whenever he likes; secondly, he need not renew its remit; and thirdly, when it produces the scheme he reserves the right to amend, reject, or substitute his own scheme, in place of it.
The Minister and the Government cannot have it both ways, which is what they are attempting to do. They are attempting to place powers and responsibilities on various bodies such as the licensing authority, the FMA, the Football Association, the Football League, and the football clubs, and at the same time they are reserving the right to reject or rubbish what they say.
The amendment states that as well as the independent chairman there shall be six other members, two of whom shall be nominated by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will assist the House. How does he envisage that the other four people will be nominated? If the situation is as he has stated, it does not rule out the possibility that some of those four could represent supporters. How will that arise? At the moment, the embryo FMA will consist of nominees of the Football Association and Football League. They would not wish to say that they represented the views of supporters. They do not. That is in no way disparaging or disrespectful to any of the bodies. The Football League and Football Association need the support of supporters' organisations, but they would not pretend to speak for them.
The Minister can be helpful to the House by explaining how the names will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his consideration and approval. For instance, will there be an announcement and a date, or simply a general understanding that if anyone wishes to nominate a person for consideration for one of the four places they may do so in writing by a certain date?
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that on two previous occasions we discussed what we on this side of the House wanted. I did not coin the phrase especially but I said that supporters need a place on the top table. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there will be consultation, that there can be representation and that meetings have taken place. The Minister knows that when the door is closed there is no substitute for being involved in the decision-making. You need to sit down as a member together with others and not merely tell someone else what you hope will happen or try to influence what the FMA will do. You may be outvoted and outnumbered, but at least you are there as a right.

385
I cast no aspersions becaue I think that the Minister and his honourable colleague, the Minister for Sport in another place, are genuinely sympathetic to the views of supporters. Tonight the Minister will deal with another amendment where supporters' views will be taken into account. That is no substitute for being a member of the board, the club or the management committee, which are the decision-makers. We are saying that at this stage it is right and proper for the Minister to accept the fact that there should be a place among the four as of right. I am not arguing the case put forward in another place that there should be more. We are looking at the people who pay the money and who often do not have the chance to call the tune. Some disparaging remarks were made by a Member in another place when it was asked, "Who do these people think they represent?"
In the absence of a membership scheme the two bodies to which we refer represent the views of supporters. It is a disparate situation because they do not have memberships, registers and so forth but, warts and all, they are the voice of the supporters. We believe that supporters ought to be there.
Colleagues in another place have produced petitions with more than 400 signatures, and they are genuinely sought. Many may have been duplicated, but it is about the average attendance at a Saturday match at our league grounds. Almost every supporter has petitioned against the value of the scheme. The Minister for Sport in another place said that there is little point in taking note of the views of someone who says that he is against the scheme and involving him in the machinery. The Football League and the Football Association are against the scheme. I maintain that the police and many other bodies are also against it. However, the Football Association and others recognise the parliamentary reality —that there will be a Bill and an attempt made to make it work.
Among those who will make the Bill better than it might otherwise be if it gets off the ground are the supporters of 92 clubs and many others. The Minister needs to answer the allegations that rather than allowing them in, he is effectively keeping them out. That is not the way to make the Bill work.
6 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, when the matter was before the House on a previous occasion I made the point that the essential role of the Football Membership Authority is not clear. I suggested to the Minister, and I reiterated it in a letter to him, that we must be clear about whether the authority will simply administer a static scheme or whether it will have a wider role to advise as experience gathers momentum on any changes which may be needed to the way in which regulations affecting football spectators should be changed. In other words, I suggested that there should be a subsection providing that it must be the duty of the Football Membership Authority to keep under review the working of the Act and to report to the Secretary of State any changes that experience may suggest are required.
386
The noble Lord turned me down and said that he did not believe that such an amendment was necessary. However, now that we are dealing with the matter again the confusion remains. We have a Football Membership Authority which will administer the national membership scheme. It must make an annual report to Parliament. In doing so, can it report to Parliament its views on whether changes are needed in the scheme as provided in Clause 2? Can it say that in the course of administering the scheme it has learnt lessons which it wishes to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State? For example, can it go further and report to the Secretary of State that gathering experience proves that certain types of matches increasingly need to be left out of the operation of the scheme? I put that forward especially as under Amendment No. 1 he has given to the membership authority a role in respect of the designation of football matches. What is the body to do? I repeat, will it simply administer the scheme or will it be able, as I hope, to put before the Secretary of State its experience and knowledge of the way in which the system is working with a view to it being changed?
We need a clear answer to the question, because the football membership scheme has grown up rather like Topsy. It did not exist before and has come into the Bill bit by bit. It was never properly considered in the first place and therefore we are still not clear about how wide its role is intended to be. I ask the noble Lord those questions quite deliberately.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have a very simple question. The Bill provides that:
"the Chairman shall be a person who has no financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman.
We are not dealing with a company and therefore we are not dealing with articles of association in the same way. I am trying to envisage the financial interests that he may have which will affect his performance as a chairman. For example, one assumes that a professional footballer cannot be chairman but can anyone who has any financial interest in the club be the chairman? People have interests in professional clubs and act in a similar way to people in the theatrical world by becoming patrons.
I find the matter most obscure. The body will be most strange. I should like to know about the financial interests of the chairman. I ask the question because, as with many Peers, I have been lobbied by interested parties about the proposal to fit the machines. There is a great deal of confusion about whether it will be carried out by the individual clubs or by one body. What is the financial interest which would interfere with the performance of his functions as chairman?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not seek to answer the question put by the noble Baroness. As I indicated earlier, I am glad that the Government have made this amendment. I believe it would be highly undesirable for the chairman of the authority to be a dirctor of the club or have a financial interest in the club.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. In terms of "prejudicial" I would also include a shareholder or an officer of a company supplying software or hardware for the scheme. It is clearly essential that there is an independent chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to boxing coming up in bits and pieces.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, Topsy.
Lord Hesketh: In that case, I shall move onto the noble Lord's next point because I misheard him and my answer on that would in no way be satisfactory on that point. The situation is very straightforward as regards the six members. Two of those six members are appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no reason why a noted football supporter should not be one of those two nominations by the Secretary of State. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the Secretary of State is a keen Tottenham Hotspur supporter.
I am sure that the Secretary of State wishes, as I do, for the voices and worries of the football supporters to be recognised. Nothing is set in concrete but if the Secretary of State felt that the four other members in no way represented the interest of football supporters, he would be within his rights to say, "I should like to put on a noted football supporter who represents in some way or another the views of such supporters".
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested that in another place disparaging remarks had been made against supporters per se because of the two organisations. That is not the Government's intention. Their intention is that they wish the views of football supporters to be heard but, as I said earlier, we do not feel that two organisations which have not been in existence for very long should be put on the face of the Bill as those representatives. That is all I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I want to make it absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that we in no way deprecate the position of football supporters desirous of their views being heard. Of course that is reinforced by Amendment No. 13, which allows for those views to be heard by the FMA.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, asked about modification of the scheme. Of course, the Secretary of State with the FMA, under Clause 4(5), can decide to do that. If in the light of the scheme it is felt that is a good idea, then I am sure that will be done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say something about the point I made as regards who will put the names before the Secretary of State from which his choice of four will be made?
I have an uneasy feeling that the embryo FMA, which is wholly peopled by the FA and the Football League, will be the channel which produces the names. I want the Minister to say that there will be an invitation so that the Secretary of State will have 12, 15 or 20 names and biographical details which he will look at and then make his choice.
388
The Minister says that the Secretary of State may well feel that the voice of a supporter needs to be there. I should be appalled if anybody on the FMA was not a football supporter. However, we want a voice of the supporters' organisations. These days it is a question of muscle and the numbers in one's army, and it is therefore very important that the views of supporters should be heard. I do not make any great claims for those organisations but they happen to be the best available. Before I decide what to do on Amendment No. 8A, perhaps the Minister can help me on those points.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has not answered my question. Is the role of the football membership authority simply administrative or is it expected that, in pursuance of its work and particularly in its annual report to the Secretary of State —which presumably will be published —it will review the working of the Bill, draw lessons about which matches should or should not be designated and advise the Secretary of State, the Government and the country on that? Will it, as I hope, have the power to say eventually that football is moving into a period of good order and that much of the Bill can be dispensed with in future because the situation has settled down? In other words, is it advisory as well as administrative? I simply want a yes or no answer.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the answer is, effectively, yes. I stated very clearly that the Secretary of State and the FMA can agree to change the scheme, subject to parliamentary approval.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, that is only the membership scheme.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Secretary of State is there and will, when that report is presented, discuss particular points with the FMA. Of course, if the Secretary of State feels that those are sensible and constructive points, then he will ask what should be done about it and whether the scheme should be modified.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the invitation is already there. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport said on Monday that if organisations wish to nominate to the Secretary of State people for the FMA they can do so. He said that on Monday and that is as clear an invitation as I know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Page 3, line 11, at end insert —
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not designate any body corporate as the Football Membership Authority unless he is satisfied that its articles of association make provision securing —

(a) that its Board shall comprise a Chairman and six other members, of whom the Chairman and four of the other members are persons approved by the Secretary of State before their election as Chairman or as member, as the case may be, and the remaining two members are persons nominated by the Secretary of State, and

389

(b) that the Chairman shall be a person who has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman;

and all the members of the Board shall hold office in accordance with the articles of association of the body corporate.
(3B) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body corporate as the Football Membership Authority if he ceases to be satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3A) above.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 8
8A Line 13, at end insert ("and
(c) provided that such body corporate includes representatives of the Professional Footballers' Association and representatives from the Football Supporters' Association.").
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8A. I simply add this. I spoke fully about that part of my amendment which deals with football supporters. In my amendment I also draw attention to another element in football which your Lordships' House may think is important; that is, the players. I honestly believe that the principle that at the top table there should be someone who represents the views of supporters and players is sufficiently important for me to press this matter to a vote.
Moved, That Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 8, be agreed to. —(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blackstone, B.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Northfield, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Phillips, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Seear, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Stedman, B.

Craigavon, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ennals, L.

Underhill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

390

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brookes, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Norfolk, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dormer, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gainford, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Trefgame, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Walpole, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 8 agreed to.
6.25 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out 'withdrawn' and insert `divested'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert —
`( ) Where the Secretary of State withdraws the designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, he shall, as soon as it appears to him to be appropriate to do so, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating his reasons for the withdrawal.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 4, page 3, line 47, after 'section', insert — `(a)'.
12 Page 3, line 47, after 'Association', insert ', the Football Association of Wales'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 4, page 3, line 48, at end insert '; and
(b) give such persons as appear to it to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I have made a slight error, this being the first time I have dealt with Commons amendments in your Lordships' House. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 11 and, in speaking to the amendment, speak to Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, including Opposition Amendment No. 13A; for which I beg your Lordships' forgiveness.
These amendments relate to the preparation and approval of the national membership scheme. Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 require the Football Membership Authority to consult certain interested parties before it draws up or modifies the scheme while Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 clarify the position of the Secretary of State when considering giving his approval to the draft scheme.
Amendment No. 12 adds the Football Association of Wales to the bodies the FMA must consult before it exercises any of its functions under Clause 4 of the Bill. The amendment was introduced by the Government on Report in another place in response to a request by the Opposition for the Welsh FA to be given a statutory role in the consultation process. The Government fully accepted the case for this, particularly as the three Welsh clubs which play in the Football League are not members of the Football Association only of the Football Association of Wales. It is therefore important that the views of the Welsh FA are taken into account by the FMA as the scheme is drawn up or in the event of it being modified. This amendment ensures that this will be the case.
I referred earlier this evening to the Government's wish to see football supporters more closely involved in the running of the game and to have a say in what the FMA does. To help achieve this we introduced Amendment No. 13 on Report in another place. The Amendment requires the Football Membership Authority to give the representatives of football supporters an opportunity to make representations on the detail of the membership scheme to which I referred earlier. The amendment will ensure that football supporters are involved in the drawing up or modification of the scheme and that their views can be taken into account by the FMA. I have explained already why we think it better not to refer to particular supporters' organisations by name. We
392
would also argue that we do not need the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to this amendment. His proposal is to spell out that it is football supporters, whose entry to the ground depends on the successful operation of the ID card verification equipment. I do not think that any of us would dispute the proposition that it is in the interests of supporters to see the scheme working properly. Nor do I question the crucial importance of testing the technology for the scheme properly before it is introduced. It is in all our interests to see that the scheme is not introduced until we are sure that it will work effectively. I do not think, however, that it is necessary or helpful to insert the words which the noble Lord has proposed.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 clarify the drafting of Clause 4. They are necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State has a reasonable degree of discretion as to whether to approve or reject the draft scheme submitted to him by the FMA. The scheme, either as submitted or as modified, must be agreed between the Secretary of State and the FMA so there is no question of the Secretary of State imposing changes which the FMA cannot accept. These amendments simply serve to protect the Secretary of State.
The Government amendments in this group will improve the drafting and simplify the working of the Bill. They will also meet points raised by the Opposition and I hope that they will be acceptable to your Lordships and that the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 13A.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. —(Lord Hesketh.)
6.30 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 13
13A Line 3, after ("supporters") insert (", whose entry to the ground depends upon the successful operation of the identity card verification equipment").
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13A standing in my name. We accept that Amendment No. 13 goes some way towards assuring football supporters that their voices will be heard. I believe that the Minister rightly hit on the reason for this amendment. He said that there is no question of the scheme being put into effect until it has been properly tested. The Minister could help the House by spelling out what he and his colleagues intend to do in order to satisfy themselves that the equipment has been properly tested.
We have heard about a situation in one or two grounds in one or two leagues and over a short period of time which is wholly unacceptable. The Member for Welwyn in another place who is chairman of the Luton Club, admitted that the electronic equipment at his ground had broken down because of condensation. That can happen at any ground. I think in particular of Manchester United where there are more than 100 turnstiles at the ground all of which will have to be serviced. The equipment could break down there.

393
We have been speaking about the occasions when the police will have power to suspend the match without anyone trying to rush the gates or being drunk. If one finds that the orderly use of the turnstiles means that queues become longer and longer it will be the ineffectiveness of the machinery that will cause problems outside the ground. The entry of football supporters to the ground depends on the successful operation of the ID card verification equipment. Supporters are entitled to hear from the Minister what he has done in order to be satisfied that everything is satisfactory at 92 clubs in all weathers and under all circumstances.
I do not intend to be alarmist, but after a tragedy it is no use saying that we did all that we could if it transpires that the Minister has not done all that he could. All he has done is to take a sample of some grounds in some circumstances only to find —horror of horrors —that the circumstances have changed when a future tragedy occurs. I hope the Minister will accept that we want proper testing. What we have heard so far does not satisfy us on that point.
Moved, That Commons Amendment No. 13A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, be agreed to. —(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the only point I wish to make is that it is rather surprising, in the light of what happened only a few months ago, that not a single Member of the Government Front Bench has so far referred to the impending final report from Lord Justice Taylor. He is assisted by two distinguished assessors, one of whom is the chief constable of Lancashire, and he is going to produce a final report within the next few months. A number of those recommendations may have a most direct impact on the provisions of this Bill. That being so, what do the Government propose to do to take account of the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor when the report is produced?
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. I reinforce everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said. I believe that people outside the House will be interested to know whether, as regards the testing of the scheme, the Minister can tell us what timescale he has in mind. I believe that question to be important for many people outside the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I made allusions to the Taylor Report at the very beginning when referring to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I pointed out to him that the arrangements for the Football Licensing Authority had changed very considerably when we came to discuss the matter as regards another amendment and that was because of the tragedy at Hillsborough and the Taylor inquiry which is going on at this moment.
We believe one of the advantages of the scheme is that, with the arrival of the Football Licensing Authority and this Bill, there will be a significant improvement in preventing a future tragedy. We have to await the third component which is the report itself. When it arrives we shall have to wait to see what are the recommendations. As we always
394
said, what comes after that will come before Parliament.
A great deal has been made of testing. I know very little in this world, but I know a little about testing. I have spent many years building vehicles. The fact is that if you are planning a serious undertaking you can assess pretty accurately how long it will take to obtain a technological resolution of the problem that lies in front of you. It may take a little longer, but if professional people tackle the job in a professional way, they will arrive at a professional solution within a fairly reasonable timescale.
The key point is that we are not planning for the scheme to be tested on the basis of a summer's day, with no one who has had a drink, in perfect conditions and with the widest entrances to the grounds. Of course we have to look at grounds that are difficult on a wet night in the middle of winter. In those circumstances the noble Lord's reference to condensation will be attributable.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to point out that he has alluded only to one set of circumstances. I could list 20 circumstances of a changed character, and the Minister knows that. We wish to know over how long a period will the testing take place? Will it take place at large grounds and small grounds? Will the testing take place in conditions such as those at Hillsborough which were not unique? That is a ground built in a residential area with narrow roads for access. We want the Minister to bear in mind that it is for the public to be satisfied. The Minister knows, for example, that the scheme introduced at Plymouth broke down as well as that at Luton. This kind of equipment is likely to break down now and again. We want to know whether we can be satisfied by what will satisfy the Minister.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to —
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am not asking for a reply from the Minister. I occasionally get the feeling that the Government make the rules as they go along. It is difficult to know when one can intervene to make a sensible point. It is important that these machines should be 100 per cent. reliable. If the Minister travels on the Underground he will know of the confusion that has arisen since the installation of the new machines. Those machines are covered and are not subjected to varying weather conditions. It is important that the machines do not break down. I reinforce what my noble friend said. Testing is most important.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not think that I can usefully go further than repeat the words of my noble friend the Minister when he said that we shall not go ahead with implementation until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord said, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 113A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 13 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 4, page 4, line 3, leave out 'may'.
15 Page 4, line 4, after 'requirements' insert 'may if he thinks fit'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Hesketh.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 5, line 12, at end insert 'and requiring that in Wales any application form for membership of the scheme shall also be available in Welsh'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Their purpose is to improve the Bill's drafting in relation to the operation of the scheme.
Amendment No. 16 requires that the national membership scheme must include provision for membership application forms in Wales to be available in the Welsh language. The amendment was introduced on report in another place and fulfils an undertaking to consider a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee.
Amendment No. 19 clarifies the position on charges for membership to be determined under the scheme. The drafting of the Bill as introduced imposed more of a restriction than we intended on the ability of the Football Membership Authority and the clubs to decide how much membership cards will cost. It may be, for example, that different clubs will wish to make different arrangements including issuing cards free or at a reduced fee to particular categories of spectator. This amendment provides flexibility.
Amendment No. 18 is an enabling amendment. It is designed to increase our ability to take account of any relevant recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's final report on his inquiry into the Hillsborough stadium disaster. Its effect will be to allow the Secretary of State to oblige the FMA to include in the scheme, in relation to the admission of spectators, further requirements with which the scheme must comply, let us say, as the result of any relevant proposals from Lord Justice Taylor.
It will be for the FMA to determine how the requirement is to be met. It will also be subject, indirectly, to parliamentary approval in the sense that the Secretary of State will be likely to exercise this power, if at all, before the scheme is submitted
396
and approved and before Parliament is asked to confirm the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme.
I said a moment ago that the purpose of these amendments was to improve the drafting of the Bill in relation to the actual operation of the national membership scheme. I hope that it will be clear that they have that effect and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 5, page 5, line 15, after 'that', insert', except in an emergency,'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Earl Ferrers.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 17
17A At end insert ("including in particular the failure of the electronically controlled entry system").
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification about responsibility. I can do no better than to refer to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who quoted the words of the Minister in another place. The variations on who is responsible make the mind boggle.
My amendment refers directly to a circumstance that will be unique in the sense that electonically controlled entry systems will come about as a result of the Bill. We are talking about the responsible persons, the procedures to be followed and the equipment to be used in relation to any designated football match. We must be sure what constitutes an emergency and who decides whether there is an emergency. Who has responsibility and authority in an emergency? We are especially concerned with the kind of emergency that will occur as a result of a failure of the electronically controlled entry system.
Every one involved in business knows that electronically controlled systems can occasionally go wrong. The Minister told us that until he is satisfied that he has equipment that will never ever go wrong it will not be installed. If he is not satisfied that he has equipment that will never ever go wrong, he ought never ever to be satisfied with the scheme. If he has to wait until then, what are we spending our time in Parliament for? No system is 100 per cent. reliable. We are not saying that a breakdown will produce a tragedy, but knowing as we do the nature of football and of football grounds, and, more importantly, knowing the psychology of football fans, we want the Minister to help the House by saying who will be responsible in the kind of emergency that we believe is likely to happen.

397
I do not say that emergencies will happen often. Manchester United has 92 turnstiles. At Tottenham Hotspur, at Arsenal and at all the large gounds there are banks of electronic turnstiles. It has been argued that these are all separately terminalled, and that just because one breaks down does not mean that they will all break down. If one can break down, two can break down. If two can break down so can more. That cannot be allowed.
Even if it does happen, we want the Minister to say who will be responsible for taking steps to negative a disaster arising from an emergency caused by the breakdown of the electronically controlled entry system. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17, be agreed to. —(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I shall not weary the House by quoting the remarks made by Mr. Peter Lloyd, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. I can give eight examples from the columns of the Committee stage report of another place of the complete confusion there exists over who has authority to determine what should be done in an emergency. In some cases it states quite clearly that the authority rests with the police. Later it refers to the fact that the body responsible is the club. Then further on we find that it is a question of the club and the police getting together. If the Minister disagrees with what I am saying I shall, with the leave of the House, recite those eight points which I have marked.
The important point raised by my noble friend relates to the question of the actual equipment breaking down. Who has the authority in that respect: The columns to which I referred also state that the club and the police should get together in advance and decide what could be the nature of potential emergencies —that they should make a list of all possible emergencies and consider what could be done. In an emergency nothing could be more important than the breakdown of the equipment. That is the issue with which my noble friend's amendment seeks to deal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I suggest that Amendment No. 17A would be wrong in principle simply because, if you pick out one kind of emergency, you are thereby emphasising it in the statute and ignoring other emergencies of equal importance which might arise. It is a fundamental principle that we do not pick out one aspect when others may be relevant.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise the importance which the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Underhill, attach to this amendment. However, I think that it is common ground that all concerned will do everything to avoid failures and congestions of any kind. It is of course prudent to recognise, as does the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that problems could arise and that they must be catered for. But the essential point is that where an emergency arises the right action is taken. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, I do not think it is necessary to distinguish the causes of an emergency.
398
Indeed, if one does so, as he said, it may cast doubt upon other emergencies which, although they are not mentioned, are still emergencies.
The important point is that any emergency needs to be provided for. After all, the failure of an electronically controlled device is only one possible cause of an emergency, and indeed not the cause of the worst possible emergency. It would be a great error to pick out one type of emergency and insert it into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will see the wisdom of that argument and will agree not to press the amendment.
The noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Underhill, asked who was responsible in the case of an emergency. That consideration does not come under the amendment. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to say that this particular emergency should be drawn out as being one which should be specially mentioned in the Bill. We are, after all, dealing with the fact that this part of the Bill allows requirements to be imposed upon responsible persons as regards the procedure to be followed and the equipment to be used in relation to any designated football match to secure that, other than in the case of emergencies, it is followed. I think that it is right to allow for all emergencies and not categorise one as being particularly more important than another.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to press this amendment. But I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is perfectly proper in the context of what is known as the ID card scheme that we address ourselves to the kind of emergency which can arise only as a result of the operation of such a scheme. Of course, if the noble Lord says that we are giving undue prominence to one kind of emergency by so doing, so be it; that is the purpose of the amendment.
On this side of the House we are convinced —and this may not apply only to this side of the House —that there is a grave danger of a breakdown in the electronic equipment. We have Seen evidence to convince us that that is possible. When the breakdown occurs there will be certain consequences. The fact that the machinery does not work does not of itself create an emergency. But as a result of the breakdown I venture to suggest that there will be very many different problems for the police both inside and outside of the ground. That is why we have highlighted this issue.
The Minister has not accepted either that this is a likely event or that it is an exceptional event; it is just one of the series of events which may be constituted as an emergency. In time I believe that we shall see that the kind of emergency which occurs will almost inevitably relate back to the malfunctioning of the electronic equipment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 17, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 5, page 5, line 17, at end insert —
`( ) to such effect, in relation to the admission of spectators to the premises, as the Secretary of State may specify in writing;'.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 18 and ask a question. It concerns an enormous power which is being taken by the Government. It is a power which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said is to be taken to take account of what Lord Justice Taylor may find in his report. But it is a very wide power. If one looks to the beginning of Clause 5 it can be seen that this refers to the national membership scheme. The amendment as drafted provides that the scheme must include provision,
"to such effect, in relation to the admission of spectators to the premises, as the Secretary of State may specify in writing".
Therefore, the Government are taking on the power to write statutory law, and not by statutory instrument or by any measure which is subject to parliamentary approval. It is quite extraordinary. To take the argument to the extreme, the Secretary of State could specify that people with black faces should not be admitted and people with green eyes should not be admitted. It is a wide power which could be used to implement any provision as regards the membership scheme without the approval of Parliament. Surely that cannot have been the intention.
As I understand it, this would also include the power to nullify some of the early part of the clause. Unless I am mistaken, it would give power to the Secretary of State to order in writing alterations to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to nullify the provisions already in the clause. In effect, it is an enormous power to vary the whole operation of this part of the clause. Can we therefore have an assurance either that I am reading this incorrectly or, if I am correct, that a statement will be made to Parliament concerning what the Government propose to put in writing and order to be added to the membership scheme? We cannot have a situation in which this power is put solely into the hands of the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment while speaking to Amendment No. 16. The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate the flexibility in order to accommodate the report of Lord Justice Taylor. In order to accommodate the report changes may have to be introduced. Such changes would then become part of the scheme, which would then return to be considered by Parliament.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord is really telling us that this form of words is being included in the Bill because the Government have chosen to legislate before receiving the final report from Lord Justice Taylor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 5, page 5, line 33, leave out 'imposing charges specified in' and insert `for the imposition of charges under'.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 6 [Phased application of scheme]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. As many as are of that opinion say Content, the contrary Not-Content. The Contents have it.
Clause 7 [Disqualification for membership of scheme]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 23.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that no one has moved the amendments. The Deputy Speaker is putting the amendments without anyone moving that we agree with the Commons.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 6, page 6, line 20, leave out 'of this Act' and insert `above'.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24.
These are purely technical drafting amendments, Clauses 6 and 7 contain cross-references to earlier clauses —Clause 1(2) and Clause 5(7). By changing the cross-references from "of this Act" to "above" we are bringing them into line with the style adopted in the rest of the Bill and most other legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21 to 23.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, they have not been moved.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am putting the amendments en bloc.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, someone has to move that we agree with the Commons.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that I can resolve the problem. I believe that a document appeared today from the Public Bill Office, which I have not seen, which has that form of words on it. Perhaps we should try to resolve that difficulty. The document says "en bloc".
Lord Northfield: My Lords, with all respect to the Deputy Speaker —
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that everyone will agree that someone has to move the Motion. That is what has been suggested. We do not

401
have to get into a great state about it, but someone from the Government Front Bench must move the Motion.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 7, page 6, line 44, leave out from 'with' to end of line and insert 'the date of the conviction.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. In speaking to this Amendment, I shall also speak to government Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 51, 91 and 92.
This group of amendments is concerned mainly with the procedures which will be followed when someone is convicted of a relevant offence and is thereby disqualified from the national membership scheme. We have I hope both clarified the procedures and improved the position of those affected. There are also two amendments concerned with the procedures for the making of a declaration of relevance under the Bill.
The amendments in this group to Clause 7 have two main purposes. First, they provide that the period of mandatory disqualification which is to follow conviction for a relevant offence should begin on the date of conviction rather than on a date to be set under the scheme. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is a simpler approach.
Secondly, they provide for the court to explain to an offender, in "ordinary language" the effect of his or her conviction on his or her membership of the scheme. There will therefore be no reason for the person concerned to be in any doubt that the conviction means that he or she is barred from designated football matches for two or five years, as the case may be. There is also within this group a similar amendment to Part II of the Bill providing for a court to explain to an official in ordinary language the effect of a restriction order imposed on him or her.
There are also two amendments to the procedure governing an application for a declaration of relevance. Their effect is to waive the requirement that the prosecution must give the defendant five days' notice of its intention to seek a declaration of relevance in cases where the court believes that the interests of justice do not require such notice to be given. It may be that the circumstances are so clear that there is no need for notice to be given. If so, in the interests of swift justice, we should allow the court the discretion which the amendments provide.
None of these amendments will have a major effect on the Bill. They serve to clarify and simplify the procedures to be followed under the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that they improve the Bill in the process.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 7, page 6, line 47, leave out 'be withdrawn' and insert 'cease on the date of the conviction'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 7, page 7, line 9, after 'court' insert —
'(i)'
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Clause 7, page 7, line 10, leave out 'of this Act' and insert 'above'.
25 Page 7, line 11, at end insert —
'(ii) shall explain to him in ordinary language the effect of the conviction on his membership of the national football membership scheme; and'.
26 Page7, line 14, leave out 'give' and insert 'send'.
27 Page 7, line 15, leave out 'administrator of the scheme' and insert 'Football Membership Authority'.
28 Page 7, line 19, leave out 'send' and insert 'give'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 28.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert —
'( ) Where, on an appeal against a persons's conviction of the relevant offence or against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in dealing with him for the offence, his conviction is quashed or the sentence is reduced to one which is not a sentence of imprisonment taking immediate effect, the court which determines the appeal or, as the case may be, the court I o which the case is remitted, shall cause notice of the quashing of the conviction or of the sentence imposed to be sent to the persons specified in subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) above and, where his conviction is quashed, the Authority shall re-admit him to membership of the scheme, but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also comment on the amendment to it tabled by noble Lords opposite.
The purpose of the amendment which the Government moved in another place was to ensure that, if someone was convicted of a relevant offence and appealed successfully either against his conviction or against the sentence imposed on him, the FMA would be made aware of his success. The amendment therefore requires the court to notify the FMA and the police of a successful appeal either against a conviction for a relevant offence or against the imposition of a prison sentence for such an

403
offence. The FMA will then arrange for the appellant's membership of the scheme to be reinstated or take note that the mandatory ban has been reduced from five years to two years, as the case may be.
In the terms that the Bill was amended in another place, that would be without prejudice to the FMA's discretionary powers under the scheme to disqualify people from membership. The Opposition have tabled a further amendment here to delete the words "without prejudice" and so forth; but I think that it is important for the FMA to retain the power to ban people according to its own rules. If an appeal succeeds on the grounds of mistaken identity, for example, there would be no reason why the FMA should not wish the person to be reinstated without further ado. There could be other circumstances; for example, where a conviction were set aside on a technicality or a court found that someone's behaviour was not such as to warrant a criminal conviction, but where that behaviour did meet the criteria for disqualification under the national membership scheme. After all, one of the main points of giving the FMA discretionary powers to ban people is to enable it to deal with misbehaviour that does not constitute a criminal offence.
I should also make the point that, if the FMA were to decide against re-instating the membership of someone who had appealed successfully against a conviction of a sentence, it would have to do so according to the procedures required by the scheme. In other words, the authority would have to notify the person concerned in writing of the reasons for its decision and he or she would have the right to challenge it —as anyone affected by the FMA's discretionary powers can.
The government amendment makes sure that someone whose appeal against a conviction is successful can be re-instated into membership. At the same time it safeguards the ability of the FMA to deal consistently with the possibility of discretionary disqualification. I commend it to your Lordships and I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 29
29A Line 11, leave out ("but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership").
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29A. This is one of the more extraordinary elements of this extraordinary Bill. What are we discussing? We are discussing a situation in which a man or woman is charged with a criminal offence and is convicted in the magistrates' court. The FMA is informed and he or she is banned from membership of the scheme. That is clear, and in the context of the Bill cannot be challenged. We then move on to the situation where the person appeals. In an appeal from a magistrates' court decision there is a full re-hearing of the case. Then the appeal is allowed. At that stage the court
404
has to inform the authority that it should re-admit him to membership of the scheme, on the grounds that the earlier decision by the magistrates has been overturned.
What we now have is one of the clearest cases of double jeopardy that I have ever heard, because what then happens, according to the amendment, is that notwithstanding the fact that the case has been tried on two separate occasions —first in the magistrates' court and then in the Crown Court —there is then a risk that the person acquitted can be required to appear before some committee of the FMA and for a third time defend his reputation. Why? What conceivable grounds are used to justify this?
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as though he is conferring some immense advantage on this citizen, says "He will have the right to challenge the ban." What does that amount to? We know what it amounts to because we discussed this matter earlier. There is a high degree of likelihood that he will never be able to confront his accusers in an oral hearing. Therefore, quite possibly, we will have a situation where this person, who has by this time gone through two criminal courts and eventually won, will not on the third occasion have the opportunity to challenge his accusers who, by definition, have failed to persuade a criminal court that the person concerned has committed an offence which would lead to him being banned under the scheme.
I have rarely heard a more preposterous suggestion from any government. It is a flagrant denial of the civil rights of an individual, and I am deeply shocked that the Government are prepared to stand up and attempt to justify a provision of this sort. It is a case, I suspect —if the Government get their way, as I have not the slightest doubt they will —which will eventually go to the European Court of Human Rights and I have little doubt what the result there will be. I beg to move Amendment No. 29A.
Moved, That Amendment No. 29A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 29, be agreed to. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in pleading for the words which we seek to strike out, the Minister said that it could be that the case was quashed on a technicality. The Minister may very well believe, as many people do, that, when someone is proved innocent after he has been found guilty, he is still a villain and has a record and it is the kind of thing which he would do.
The Government are putting on the face of the Bill words which in effect say that, even if a man has fought his way through the courts three times and on the third occasion comes out with his character unbesmirched, there can still be reasons for this punishment to be inflicted upon him which, to a real football fan, would be a very grave punishment.
I wonder why the Government are so vindictive and so punitive in wanting to inject into the Bill a power which, if it were exercised, would bring not only the FMA but the Government into disrepute. Or are the Government really saying that if there is disrepute it is nothing to do with them —it is something to do with the FMA? Personalities,

405
settling scores, getting one's own back and teaching lessons are the kind of phrases which come to my mind. It is not a way in which any government ought to seek to legislate.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am in one way extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because I was aware that the noble Lord might seek to return to the subject of the procedures to be followed by someone who wishes to challenge a discretionary ban imposed by the FMA under the Bill. The reason for this is that I was lucky enough to read with interest his article in the Guardian newspaper last Friday.
I would make only one small factual point which was not mentioned in the article, which is that this subject was put before your Lordships' House at Third Reading on 16th June when an amendment was moved and that amendment was also defeated. It can be fairly said that your Lordships have given the arguments a fair hearing already, but I think I should rehearse the main points of my argument again.
The government amendment at Third Reading, which has upset the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was one of a package concerned with the FMA's power to ban people at their discretion. The effect of this group of amendments was very clearly to strengthen the rights of those affected. They put a maximum of two years on the length of any discretionary ban. They added a requirement that the FMA should notify the person concerned in writing of the reasons for his disqualification. I do not accept the substitution of the independent review procedure for which the Bill now provides in place of the appeals tribunal which was originally envisaged.
I have to say that we believe that it is very much in the interest of those concerned to have their cases heard quickly, especially if the length of their ban is relatively short —say, three or six months. A full-blown tribunal would take far longer to arrange than the period of the ban and we have not excluded the possibility of an oral hearing. It will be for the independent review panel, which is to be established by the FMA, to decide whether an oral hearing is necessary.
But I should remind your Lordships' House that we consulted the Council on Tribunals on this issue, as the noble Lord proposed that we should, and its advice was that the independent review procedure for which the Bill now provides was a more appropriate means of resolving disputes about FMA decisons than a full-blown tribunal.
Finally, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, very elegantly entwined the two legal procedures that he mentioned at the start of his argument, and then stitched them into the lace of the complete argument on the FMA discretionary ban. We should always
406
keep it in mind that there is a very great difference between the first two parts of the supposition and the third.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that was not a desperately persuasive reply. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was kind enough to refer to the article that I wrote for the Guardian last Friday —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A very good one.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am always glad to accept tributes of that kind from the noble Lord, Lord Graham, or anybody else, The Minister appears to object to the fact that I did not say that we were defeated in the House on this issue. Does he not realise that if we had succeeded on that occasion I would not have written an article for the Guardian in the first place? It was entirely because the Government used the Library vote in the way they normally do on this Bill, and secured the majority which they did —because they have a majority in this House —that one had to raise the issue in the first instance.
I should like to make two points, the first of which is about a technicality. The noble Lord implied how appalling it would be if a man acquitted on a technicality did not lose his membership of the scheme as a result. Does not the noble Lord appreciate that if a person wins his appeal he is an innocent man? If the prosecution have mishandled a case, that is a matter for them. The fact is that he is innocent. Does not the noble Lord realise that, as I have pointed out, there will be three separate procedures, two in criminal courts and the third before the independent review panel? The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that there is no particular problem here because the review panel may well decide to have an oral hearing. There is no certainty at all of that. When we tried to insist that all hearings should be oral, the noble Lord resisted it as he is doing this evening. I repeat that this is a flagrant attack on the civil liberties of individuals who have been acquitted in the criminal courts.
I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, studies once again that article in the Guardian, as I am sure he will, he will take the opportunity also to read an article in The Economist which came out last week. The article is particularly appropriate in terms of the argument which the Government have used to justify this amendment. It states:
"The British have been brought up to believe that their liberties are protected by a sovereign Parliament. In the days when parliamentarians were not wedded to the prospect of office, nor in the grip of their party whips, that may have been so. It is not so now. If a government does not want to admit that it has mistakenly trampled on civil liberties, Parliament will not force it to … The Labour government of the 1970s was weak on civil liberties. But the record of Margaret Thatcher's governments is the worst in modern times".
I should add that I was a Member of the Labour government of the 1970s. Everything we have heard tonight justifies the view expressed in the article. We shall vote on the amendment.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Airedale, L.

Northfield, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Dormer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayter, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Walpole, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 29 agreed to.
7.29 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Before Clause 8, insert the following new Clause —
'The Football Licensing Authority.
.—(1) There shall be a body called the Football Licensing Authority (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the licensing authority") which shall perform the functions assigned to it by this Part of this Act.
(2) The licensing authority shall consist of a chairman and not less than 4 nor more than 8 other members.
(3) The chairman and other members of the licensing authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) Schedule (The Football Licensing Authority: Supplementary Provisions) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the licensing authority.
(5) The expenses of the licensing authority shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.
31 Clause 8, page 7, line 42, after `prove', insert `either that the spectators were admitted in an emergency or'.
32 Clause 9, page 8, line 9, at end insert —
`(2A) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence without —

(a) notifying the applicant in writing of the proposed refusal and of the grounds for it;

(b) giving him an opportunity to make representations about them within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the service of the notice; and

(c) taking any representations so made into account in making its decision.'.

33 Page 8, line 16, at end insert 'and, if the Secretary of State gives to the licensing authority a direction under section (Power of Secretary of State to require conditions in licences relating to seating) below, the conditions may include conditions imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators.'.
34 Page 8, line 16, at end insert —
'(4A) A licence to admit spectators may also include conditions requiring specified descriptions of spectators to be refused admittance to the premises to watch designated football matches, or specified descriptions of designated football matches or a particular such match.
(4B) Where a designation order includes the provision authorised by section 1(3)(b) above as respects the admission of spectators to any ground as authorised spectators, the licensing authority may, by notice in writing to the licence holder, direct that, for the purposes of any match or description of match specified in the direction, the licence shall be treated as including such specified terms and conditions as respects the admission of spectators as authorised spectators as the licensing authority considers appropriate; and the licence shall have effect, for that purpose, subject to those terms and conditions.'.
35 Page 8, line 31, after `notice', insert `in writing'.
36 Page 8, line 35, after `holder', insert 'in writing'.
37 Page 8, line 40, leave out `his' and insert 'the'.
38 Page 9, line 2, after `that', insert `except (in the case of the procedures) in an emergency,'.
39 Page 9, line 13, leave out `where he is not the licensing authority,'.
40 Page 9, line 24, at end insert —
`( ) The fees charged on the issue of licences —

(a) may be fixed so as to reimburse the licensing authority their expenses under this Part of this Act; and

(b) shall be paid by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State.'.

41 Page 9, line 29, after 'licence' insert 'or in the case of subsection (4B) in the direction'.
42 Page 9, leave out lines 32 to 34.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 42 en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause —
'Power of Secretary of State to require conditions in licences relating to seating.
. —(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, direct the licensing authority to include in any licence to admit spectators to any specified premises a condition imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators at designated football matches at the premises; and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.
(2) The requirements imposed by a condition in pursuance of this section may relate to the accommodation to be provided at, or the arrangements to be made as respects the spectators admitted to, the premises.
(3) A direction may require the licensing authority to include the condition in the licence when granting it or by way of varying the conditions of a licence.
(4) Before giving a direction under this section in relation to any premises the Secretary of State shall consult the licensing authority which may, if it thinks fit, make recommendations to him.
(5) The licensing authority shall not make any recommendations under subsection (4) above without consulting the local authority in whose area the premises are situated.
(6) The power to make an order containing a direction under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) In this section "local authority' has the same meaning as in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.
The purpose of Amendment No. 43, and of Amendment No. 33, which has already been dealt with, is to enable the Secretary of State to invite the licensing authority to make recommendations about the replacement of standing accommodation with seating at grounds staging designated football matches. The Secretary of State can then decide to direct the licensing authority to make requirements about seating a condition of the licence for the club or clubs concerned, subject to parliamentary approval.
The intention is not to impose all-seater stadia throughout the Football League but rather, where appropriate, to ensure that the seating capacity is increased so that spectators can enjoy a high level of comfort and safety at football matches.
Each direction by the Secretary of State in respect of a club or group of clubs will be subject to specific parliamentary approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I should like simply to ask a question about this important new clause. I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that very careful consultation will take place with the owners of the grounds and the clubs concerned. It is not simply a matter of ordering seats; there is a problem of paying for them. If the power were used at all unreasonably some clubs would have to fold immediately. They could not afford the degree of seating that the Secretary of State might try to impose.
I am aware that grants are available from various funds to help with the cost of seating. Again, it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether there has been consultation about the possibility of increased availability of grants for the cost of such seating. Clubs need to know to what extent they will have to meet those costs, which will mean a considerable change to their profit and loss accounts and capital statements at the end of the year.
It is a very important change indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will give an assurance on the two points that I have raised —namely, consultation with
410
the clubs concerned and the possibility of increased availability of grants to meet the necessary costs.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can certainly provide the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, requires in respect to his first point. Of course there has to be consultation. We cannot possibly decide to impose requirements on football grounds without consultation.
I fear that it will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord that I cannot give him a cast-iron guarantee about grants.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that I did not ask for a cast-iron guarantee. I asked whether the Government would look at the whole issue of the availability of grants to see whether there was some possibility of increasing them, particularly for clubs which will find the burden crippling.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will be aware, the Government's commitment is concerned mainly with safety. We have not made any commitment towards providing further financial assistance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 10, page 9, line 47, leave out `, where he is not the licensing authority,'
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause —
'Licensing authority's powers in relation to safety at football grounds.
. —(1) The licensing authority shall have the function of keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to sports grounds at which designated football matches are played and shall have the powers conferred in relation to those functions by the following provisions of this section.
(2) The licensing authority may, by notice in writing to the local authority concerned, require the local authority to include in any safety certificate such terms and conditions as are specified in the notice; and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the requirement.
(3) Before exercising its power under subsection (2) above to require the inclusion of specified terms and conditions in any safety certificate, the licensing authority shall consult the local authority, the chief officer of police and either the fire authority (where the local authority is in Greater London or a metropolitan county) or the building authority (in any other case).
(4) As respects those terms and conditions, the local authority need not consult the chief officer of police, the fire authority or the building authority under section 3(3) or 4(8) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 before issuing a safety certificate or about any proposal to amend or replace one.
(5) A notice under subsection (2) above may require the issue under that act of a safety certificate incorporating the specified terms or conditions or the amendment under that Act of a safety certificate so that it incorporates the specified terms or conditions,
(6) Any inspector appointed by the licensing authority may, for the purposes of the discharge by the licensing authority of its function under subsection (1) above, on production, if so required, of his authority —

(a) enter at any reasonable time any sports ground at which designated football matches are played;

(b) make such inspection of the ground and such inquiries relating to the ground as he considers necessary; or

(c) examine the safety certificate and any records kept under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 or this Part of this Act, and take copies of such records.

(7) The licensing authority may, by notice in writing to any local authority, require the local authority to furnish to the licensing authority such information relating to the discharge by the local authority of its functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 as is specified in the notice; and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the requirement.
(8) Section 5(3) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (appeals against terms and conditions of safety certificates) shall have effect with the insertion, after paragraph (ii), of the words "but not against the inclusion in a safety certificate of anything required to be included in it by the Football Licensing Authority under section (licensing authority's powers in relation to safety at football grounds) (2) of the Football Spectators act 1989".
(9) Any expression used in this section and in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 has the same meaning in this section as in that Act.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the licensing authority to monitor the performance of local authorities under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and enable it to require changes to be made to safety certificates. Before making such changes the licensing authority has to consult the relevant local authority, the chief officer of police, and either the fire or the building authority. I stress that the exercise of that safety power will require a commencement order that can be debated by Parliament, depending on the business of the House, and in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's final report. I beg to move
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
46 Clause 11, leave out Clause 11.
47 Clause 12, page 11, line 20, leave out 'designated reporting agency' and insert 'police station'.
48 Page 11, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) The "enforcing authority" means such organisation established by the Secretary of State under section 41 of the Police Act 1964 (common services organisations) as the Secretary of State designates for the purposes of this Part of this Act by order made by statutory instrument.'.
49 Page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (7).
50 Clause 13, page 12, line 21, leave out from 'the' to end of line 26 and insert 'police station in England or Wales at which the person subject to the order is to report initially'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I propose to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 90 en bloc.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, it is almost an abuse of our procedures to move so many amendments, some of them quite substantial, without any explanation. If the noble Lord were to stand up and say that nearly all of them are drafting amendments or of no consequence perhaps my fears would be proved groundless. However, it is not proper to move some 40 amendments en bloc without a single word of explanation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I apologise to the House. Before moving the amendments I should have stated to the House that I had agreed with the two Opposition spokesmen that we should proceed to Amendment No. 97A, which is the next Opposition amendment, if they had no objection. If I have caused the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, any offence or distress, I apologise.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the position is that, if there is an objection to moving Amendments Nos. 51 to 90 en bloc, I must take the amendments separately.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have no objection to the amendments being taken in groups. However, they deal with totally different subjects. Some of them are important; some are unimportant. It would have been helpful if the noble Lord had risen to say, for example, that Amendments Nos. 51 to 56 are drafting amendments, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are something else, and so on, so that at least we should know where we stood. As it is Parliament is being asked to be a rubber stamp. It is not proper.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to put Amendment No. 51 to the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 13, page 12, line 28, at end insert 'in ordinary language'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
52 Clause 14, page 12, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 13 and insert —

'(a) to report initially to the police station specified in the order within the period of five days beginning with the date of the making of the order, and

413

(b) subject to any exemption, to report on the occasion of designated football matches when required to do so under section 17(7)(b) below to any police station in England or Wales at the time or between the times specified in the notice by which the requirement is imposed.'.

53 Clause 14, page 13, line 12, leave out 'the designated reporting agency' and insert 'any police station'.
Earl Ferrers: I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, 79 to 88 and 101 all refer to one matter. After the restriction order scheme was conceived we looked carefully at how best its requirements might be carried out. Various organisations were considered for carrying out the role of a reporting agency but from the outset the police service was a strong candidate in terms of its experience in dealing with offenders and its obvious network of local stations.
In consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers we set about developing a scheme which would be effective without imposing an undue burden on the police service. I wrote on 14th September to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others of your Lordships to explain our plans.
We concluded that it would be right for police stations to be the locations to which those subject to restriction orders should register initially and thereafter report as required. However, in order to keep to a minimum the work falling on the local police station only those essentially local functions will need to be dealt with there. The great bulk of administrative work will be carried out in a central enforcing authority. I am pleased to say that the Association of Chief Police Officers is happy with the arrangement as proposed.
The amendments allow offenders to report to the police station and for the administrative work in connection with offenders to be undertaken by the enforcing authority. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was good enough to receive a deputation from the Association of Chief Police Officers, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Knights. We expressed considerable concern about Part II of the Bill in terms of its impact on police resources. As the noble Earl said, he wrote to me on the subject. I am glad that there has been agreement and I believe that that is a far better procedure than the one which was initially proposed in the Bill.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for explaining the matter and I do not want to raise points on it. However, he will realise from what I said earlier that what he has now placed on the record is important, particularly to football clubs —for example, to Wembley, with which I have been associated —in helping them to understand how the Bill is to work. This therefore reinforces my
414
protest —it is not a very strong one; I am not critical —that we cannot take large numbers of amendments en bloc. It is important to set some of the points on the record.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord. As he will realise, various amendments are grouped together because they refer to the same subject. They are grouped together for the convenience of noble Lords as a whole, but on this occasion we might have been a little quick. I am glad to have been able to give him the explanation that he wished.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
54 Clause 16, page 13, leave out line 45 and insert 'enforcing authority;'.
55 Page 14, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'at' in line 3 and insert 'police station (addressed to the officer responsible for the police station)'.
56 Page 14, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert 'enforcing authority; and'.
57 Page 14, leave out lines 20 to 24.
58 Page 14, line 31, leave out 'an agency,' and insert 'a police station'.
59 Page 14, line 35, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert 'enforcing authority'.
60 Clause 17, page 14, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 49 and insert —
'(1) The enforcing authority and the officer responsible for the police station at which he reports initially shall have the following functions as respects any person subject to a restriction order.
(2) On a person reporting initially at the police station, the officer responsible for the station may make such requirements of that person as are determined by the enforcing authority to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to restriction orders.'.
61 Page 15, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
62 Page 15, line 27, leave out 'registered with it, the agency' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
63 Page 15, line 30, leave out 'agency' and insert 'authority'.
64 Page 15, line 31, leave out from third 'to' to end of line 34 and insert 'a police station at the time or between the times specified in the notice;'.
65 Page 15, leave out lines 37 to 44 and insert 'authority shall, if that person is one as respects whom subsection (8) below is satisfied, by notice in writing to that person, require him to report to a police station at the time or between the times specified in the notice'.
66 Page 15, line 45, leave out subsection (8) and insert —
'(8) No requirement to report under subsection (7)(b) above shall be imposed by the enforcing authority on any person unless imposing it is, in their opinion, necessary or expedient in order to reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at, or in connection with, the designated football match; and the authority may establish criteria for determining whether any person or class of person sought to be required to report under that paragraph.'.
67 Page 15, line 49, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 4 on page 16 and insert —
'(9) The enforcing authority, in exercising their functions under this section'.
68 Page 16, line 7, leave out from 'subsection' to 'shall' in line 8 and insert '(2) above'.
69 Clause 18, page 16, line 16, leave out 'designated reporting agency with which he is registered' and insert 'authority empowered to grant exemptions under this section ("the exempting authority")'.
70 Page 16, line 18, at end insert —
'(1A) The enforcing authority may grant exemptions under this section in all cases, but where the application is for an exemption as respects matches to be played within the period of five days beginning with the date of the application, or a particular match to be played within that period, the officer responsible for a police station may, subject to subsection (1B) below, grant the exemption.
(1B) The officer responsible for a police station shall not grant an exemption without referring the question of exemption to the enforcing authority, unless he considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.'.
71 Page 16, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'from' in line 20 and insert '(2) The exempting authority shall exempt the applicant'.
72 Page 16, line 21, leave out 'agency's' and insert 'authority's'.
73 Page 16, line 26, leave out 'agency' and insert 'exempting authority'.
74 Page 16, line 29, leave out 'agency' and insert 'exempting authority'.
75 Page 16, line 30, leave out 'agency' and insert 'authority'.
76 Page 16, line 33, leave out 'agency' and insert 'exempting authority'.
77 Page 16, line 34, leave out 'agency' and insert 'authority'.
78 Page 16, line 36, leave out 'the agency is situated' and insert 'he resides'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 78 inclusive.
This group of amendments establishes the responsibility for the different functions of the restriction order provisions and establishes the mechanisms to enable those responsibilities to be carried out. The amendments to Clause 17 set out clearly and unambiguously the duties of the local police station regarding initial reporting and the duties of the enforcing authorities in respect of the call-up of those who are subject to orders when designated matches are being played abroad.
The amendments to Clause 18 place the responsibility for the consideration of the granting of exemptions from the requirement to report on the enforcing authority, other than in exceptionally urgent cases when, in the interests of speed, that will need to be taken on by the local police station. The police station will have to obtain authority for granting exemption from the enforcing authority unless it is impractical to do so. The enforcing authority will need to be satisfied that special circumstances exist and may anyway wish to seek advice from the applicant's local police station. I believe that it is right to take such decisions centrally, both to relieve the burden on local officers and to ensure a consistent approach to such applications. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Clause 19, page 17, line 9, leave out 'designated reporting agencies' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
80 Page 17, line 16, leave out 'designated reporting agencies' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
81 Page 17, line 17, leave out 'registered with them'.
82 Page 17, line 18, leave out 'them' and insert 'police stations'.
83 Page 17, line 18, leave out from 'of to `to' in line 19 and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
84 Page 17, line 25, leave out 'an agency' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
85 Page 17, leave out line 30 and insert 'a police station'.
86 Page 17, line 31, leave out 'an agency' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
87 Page 17, line 35, leave out `, out of money provided by Parliament,'.
88 Page 17, line 36, leave out 'designated reporting agencies' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 88 inclusive. These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
89 Clause 20, page 18, line 42, at end insert 'and a document in that form shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.'.
90 Page 18, line 42, at end insert—
`( ) In proceedings against a person under this section, the facts stated in such a certificate shall, on production of the certificate and proof that that person is the person whose conviction is certified, be taken to be proved unless the contrary is proved.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
Clause 20 enables the courts to impose restriction orders on those convicted of corresponding offences outside England and Wales. Subsection (9) provides that an Order in Council specifying corresponding offences may also specify the authority in each country which will be responsible for certifying the information required and the form of the certificate which is to be used.
Subsection (10), with which we are concerned here, declares that such a certificate is admissible in the courts of England and Wales. Amendment No. 89 establishes that the certificate is valid unless proof is provided to the contrary. Similarly, Amendment No. 90 establishes the presumption that the facts which are contained in a certificate shall be taken to be proved unless the contrary is shown.
The amendments provide a safeguard for the defendant by requiring proof that the defendant is the person named in the certificate. That will normally be resolved by the court asking the defendant, "Are you the person named in this certificate?", or, if he disputes that he is that person, by reference to the details provided in the certificate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Clause 21, page 19, line 3, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (IA) below,'.
92 Page 19, line 6, at end insert —
`(1A) A court may, in any particular case, make a declaration of relevance notwithstanding that notice to the defendant as required by subsection (1) above has not been given if he consents to waive the giving of full notice or the court is satisfied that the interests of justice do not require more notice to be given.'.
93 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause —
'Financial provision.
.—(1) Any expenses of the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(2) Any fees received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.
94 Clause 24, page 20, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 17 and insert `A statutory instrument appointing a commencement date for section 3 or section (Licensing authority's powers in relation to safety at football grounds) above'.
95 Page 20, line 25, after `Act' insert `, except paragraph 14 of Schedule (The Football Licensing Authority: Supplementary Provisions).'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 inclusive. These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
96 Clause 24, page 20, line 26, leave out subsection (7).
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96.
This amendment deletes the privilege amendment which is contained in Clause 24(7). As noble Lords will know, the privilege amendment is inserted in all Bills which commence in this House and which involve the expenditure of public money. That is so that Commons privileges are not infringed. As is standard practice, its removal is necessary in the Commons and Amendment No. 96 provides for that. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
97 In the schedule, page 21, line 22, at end insert —
'( ) any offence under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (persons found drunk in public places, etc.) of being found drunk in a highway or other public place committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance;
( ) any offence under section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place) committed in a highway or other public place while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respect which the court makes a declaration of relevance;'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97, and I shall speak to Amendment No. 98 at the same time.
These amendments to the schedule of relevant offences were introduced in another place in response to a suggestion made by the Opposition in Standing Committee. The effect of the amendments is that anyone who is convicted of an offence of excessive drinking on the way to or from a football match would be disqualified from the membership scheme and could be liable to a restriction order provided that the court had declared the offence to be football-related.
As the Bill had been drafted, only those offences which were committed on football special coaches and trains would count. Similar offences which were committed on foot or in a car would not. Given the part which alcohol has to play in spectator violence, it is right that we should cover all offences in this way.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Earl Ferrers.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 97
97A Line 4, leave out ("or from").
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97A. I do not intend to make heavy weather of this matter, but I was a little surprised by one element of the Commons amendment. I understand the case for "drunk and disorderly". Clearly people who are drunk and disorderly may become involved in incidents which lead to violence, but so far as concerns the first part we are talking about the provision of the Licensing Act 1872 where a person is found drunk on the highway. If a person is drunk on the highway —an offence which used to be described as "drunk and incapable" —he is almost by definition incapable of creating violence. I do not follow the need for that provision.
Perhaps I may take an extreme example where after a football match someone went to have a meal in a restaurant, drank too much and was then found drunk on the highway after the match. I find it hard to believe that he constitutes any risk to anyone other than himself. Perhaps the noble Earl will be helpful enough to explain the provision.
Moved, That Amendment No. 97A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 97, be agreed to. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will help us in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. He indicated —and I agree —that we are at one in wanting to deal with football-related offences which are in turn related to excessive drinking. We can well understand how such offences may be football-related if they involve someone on his way to a match or during a match. The football ground that I know best is Tottenham Hotspurs. Very often for at least art hour after a football match I see people between the ground and White Hart Lane railway station and Seven Sisters

419
Underground station who, especially since the Government relaxed the drinking laws, legitimately find it convenient to throw off their guise of a football supporter. They are then in effect the same as those hundreds and thousands of other people who traverse those roads. They go into clubs or pubs and become the worse for wear. That is not remotely related to football. It is not a football-related offence.
The Government have to be much clearer as to timescale and circumstance if they want the Bill to be respected and to stand scrutiny. The Minister must know that people outside this House will do everything possible to make the Bill work. The Football Association and the Football League in particular, as well as football clubs, will want to know that they are keeping a clean ship and acting as good citizens. They will want time to get ready and will want the Government to understand their problems.
There are people who have been to a football match, whether they have enjoyed themselves or not, who leave the ground stone cold sober, but in the course of the following hour or so get drunk. Although that has nothing to do with their having been to the match, the Government seem to be saying that they might find themselves in difficulties. They are dealt with not only because they are drunk but in addition because they have been to the match their cards will be withdrawn. I believe that that is punitive.
Although there is agreement on the general sense, the Government will understand that in this case they have gone a little too far. If they do not accept the amendment to the amendment they are buying themselves a lot of trouble.
Earl Ferrers: The passage of this Bill has been remarkable for some curious expressions of opinion and not least this evening with regard to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that he does not see how a man who is drunk on a highway can possibly be capable of creating any violence. The noble Lord must not have been watching events. He knows perfectly well that alcohol has played a very significant part in spectator violence. I regret to say that we have seen ample evidence of nasty incidents that follow excessive drinking on the way back from football matches as well as on the way to them. I do not think the House needs to be reminded of the ugly scenes at motorway stations and so on which have involved groups of drunken football supporters who celebrate victories if their side has won or wallow in misery if it has lost.
The underlying aim throughout the Bill has been to divorce hooliganism from football. That should apply to the journey to the match, the duration of the match itself and the homeward journey. At the moment the Bill allows for a relevant offence to be one in which drunkenness takes place on trains and coaches. We suggest that it should be not only trains and coaches but any form of transport. Even if someone is on his feet, if he has been to a match and as a result is in an inebriated state and then
420
creates mayhem in some place, that ought to be an offence. What matters is that it has to be a relevant offence and that is specified in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps he could deal with the circumstance that I outlined; namely, that of people who have been to a match and have left the ground stone cold sober. Subsequently they do not go home but decide to enjoy themselves in the vicinity of the football ground. They take advantage of having friends who live nearby and go with them into a club or pub. Their connection with football has ceased to exist. They have, as it were, become ordinary citizens. Like thousands of other ordinary citizens they run the risk of becoming drunk and, just like other people, they get drunk. Other people do not lose their football identity card but the person who has left the match, whatever distance he is away from the ground, has his card taken away from him. He loses his card not because he has transgressed any rule but simply because, like many others, he has got drunk after having too much to drink. That has nothing to do with the football match. Will the Minister address that point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the matter is perfectly simple. The noble Lord suggests that if a person who has been to a football match goes back to friends and perhaps celebrates their wedding anniversary and in so doing gets drunk, because he has been to a football match he is incriminated and may lose his card.
But it is up to the courts to decide whether creating mayhem in the place to which he went, having simply celebrated someone's wedding anniversary, is a relevant offence. If the court decides that the person got drunk as a result of enjoying himself in celebrating his friend's wedding anniversary, presumably it will say that that is not a relevant offence. But if the court determines that because the man had gone to a football match and because his side had won he and his friends had celebrated by going to a local motorway station and beating it up, it might decide that that was a relevant offence. It is entirely up to the court to decide.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I indicated, I do not intend to make heavy weather of this amendment. I am particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is present because I believe that there will be an attitude of immense gratitude from members of the Bar about the impending flow of work when issues of that sort are tested. All I can say is that we understand the argument of drunk and disorderly citizens misbehaving.
The noble Earl did not deal with the question of the man who is simply drunk and incapable. I believe that the Government have acceded to pressure in the other place to make this amendment to the Bill. I believe that it goes much too far and creates one law for people who are members of the scheme and a totally different law for those who are not members. However, that is but one of the objections to this ill considered Bill. At this stage I cannot believe that

421
we are likely to amend it in a more satisfactory manner. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 97A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 97, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 97 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
98 In the schedule, page 21, line 32, at end insert —
'( ) any offence under section 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving etc. when under the influence of drink or drugs or with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit) committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance,'.
99 After the schedule, insert the following new schedule—
THE FOOTBALL LICENSING AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Status and capacity
1. —(1) The licensing authority shall be a body corporate.
(2) The licensing authority shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
(3) The Licensing authority shall not be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatsoever, whether general or local.
(4) The licensing authority shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge.
Appointment and tenure of members
2. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State —

(a) to satisfy himself, before he appoints a person to be a member of the licensing authority, that he will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as a member; and

(b) to satisfy himself from time to time with respect to each member that he has no such interest.

3. Any person who is, or whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint to be, a member of the licensing authority shall, whenever requested by the Secretary of State to do so, furnish to him such information as the Secetary of State considers necessary for the performance by him of his duties under paragraph 2 above.
4. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, a person shall hold and vacate office as a member or the chairman of the licensing authority in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
5. A person shall not be appointed as a member of the licensing authority for more than three years at a time.
6. A person may at any time resign his office as a member or the chairman of the licensing authority by giving the Secretary of State a signed notice in writing stating that he resigns that office.
7. Where a member becomes or ceases to be the chairman, the Secretary of State may vary the terms of his appointment as a member of the licensing authority so as to alter the date on which he is to vacate office as a member.
8. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the licensing authority —

(a) has been absent from meetings of the licensing authority for a period longer than three consecutive months without the permission of the licensing authority, or

(b) has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors, or

(c) is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member,

422
the Secretary of State may declare his office as a member of the licensing authority vacant, and notify the declaration in such manner as he thinks fit; and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
9. A person who ceases to be a member, or ceases to be chairman, of the licensing authority shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Remuneration and pensions of members
10. The licensing authority may pay to each member such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.
11. The licensing authority may pay, or make provision for paying, to or in respect of any member such sums by way of pensions, allowances or gratuities as the Secretary of State may determine.
12. Where a person ceases to be a member otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the licensing authority may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.
13. The approval of the Treasury shall be required for any determination under paragraphs 10, l1 or 12 above.
Disqualification of members of licensing authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly
14. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
"The Football Licensing Authority";
and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
Proceedings
15. The quorum of the licensing authority and the arrangements relating to its meetings shall be such as the licensing authority may determine.
16. —(1) A member of the licensing authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in any matter which falls to be considered by the authority shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the licensing authority and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
(2) The member shall not take part after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision with respect to the matter.
17. The validity of any proceedings of the licensing authority shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member or by any failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph 16 above.
Inspectors, officers and employees
18. The licensing authority may appoint such inspectors as it may determine to perform such functions as are assigned to them by or under this Part of this Act.
19. The licensing authority may appoin1 a secretary and such other officers, and take into their employment such other persons, as it may determine.
20. The terms and conditions of appointments under paragraphs 18 and 19 above shall require the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury.
21. The licensing authority shall, as regards such of its inspectors, officers and employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
22. If an inspector, officer or employee of the licensing authority —

(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and

(b) becomes a member of the licensing authority,

he may, if the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the licensing authority were service as an employee of the licensing authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 10 or 11 above.
Accounts and audit
23. The licensing authority shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and shall prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct.
24. The accounts of the licensing authority shall be audited by auditors appointed for each accounting year by the Secretary of State.
25. A person shall not be qualified for appointment for the purposes of paragraph 24 above unless he is —

(a) a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985; or

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;

but a firm may be appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
26. A copy of any accounts of the licensing authority which are audited under paragraph 24 above and of the report made on those accounts by the auditors shall be sent by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it receives them; and the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any accounts or report received by him under this paragraph.
27. The Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.
28. In paragraphs 23 and 24 above, "accounting year" means the period beginning with the day when the licensing authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.
Authentication of licensing authority's seal
29. The application of the seal of the licensing authority shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of the authority or some other person authorised by the authority to act for that purpose and that of one other member.
Presumption of authenticity of documents issued by licensing authority
30. Any document purporting to be an instrument issued by the licensing authority and to be sealed in accordance with paragraph 29 above, or to be signed on behalf of the authority, shall be received in evidence and shall be deemed to be such an instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown.'.
100 In the Title, line 3, after 'spectators', insert 'to provide for the safety of spectators at such matches by means of such licences and the conferment of functions on the licensing authority in relation to safety certificates for grounds at which such matches are played';.
101 Line 4, leave out 'by designated agencies'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 en bloc.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if that is objected to I shall not put the Question in that form.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, these amendments deal with totally different matters. They are not a group which hangs together. To correct myself slightly, they are not totally different, but inserting a totally new schedule into the Bill without any explanation is, I should have thought, almost an abuse of the procedure of the House. However, I shall not press the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it is far from being satisfactory but there is very little that we can say at this stage that will have any effect on this ill considered Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall put the Question that Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 inclusive be agreed to en bloc.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall, have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.