HL Deb 02 November 1989 vol 512 cc382-8

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 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.

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.

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.

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.