Lords Sitting of 25 July 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Message from the Queen
Lord Carter Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address concerning the 100th birthday of Her Majesty. Queen Elizabeth. It gives me great pleasure to convey to Queen Elizabeth the loyal and affectionate sentiments you express on behalf of my Lords, the British people and the Commonwealth on the occasion of her birthday".

Government Priorities
2.36 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their top three priorities for the rest of this Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, judging by the way he has framed his Question, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is clearly looking for a snappy answer, so let me reply. The Government's top three priorities for the remainder of this Parliament are investment, investment and investment. To continue the three-point theme, that investment will focus on a trio of priorities—health, education and transport—to revive and revitalise our public services. This will continue against the background of a stable and growing economy.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her succinct and clear Answer; I am very grateful. I listened with respect to what the noble Baroness said, but has she not perhaps forgotten one other priority for the Government of which she is a distinguished member—that is, to explain to the British people, who are a fairly pragmatic and sensible lot about the difficulties of government and the challenges that face Ministers, that they, as a Government, actually believe in something and have an underlying philosophy? Should not the Minister be advising her colleagues to give up spin; to give up too much reliance on focus groups; to give up looking every day for eye-catching initiatives; and, above all else, should not the Minister be persuading her colleagues and the Government as a whole to give up the impression that they are being blown hither and thither by every passing political breeze?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his flattering remarks
274
about my influence on the Government. I am delighted to respond. I do not think that there is any spin in what I said about the proposals for public investment, but I am very happy to elaborate and will do so. Our proposals are built on the strong economic record from 1997 to date, which has lowered inflation, brought a million new jobs into the economy and created a situation in which we can have record real investment in the public services. As I said, 75 per cent of the increases in public expenditure will be going to main line public services. There will be a 5.4 per cent above inflation increase for education, way above that of the previous Tory government. We are doubling public investment in transport to more than £6 billion. The National Health Service plan, which will be announced later this week, will revive our National Health Service through a 6.1 per cent real terms increase in growth for the next three years, more than double the rate under the Tories. The noble Lord describes that as spin; I describe it as very effective economic management leading to very important public investment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Patten, be well advised to give up spending so much time on the midnight oil to such worthless purpose?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to go further. Perhaps I may refer back to the implications for the education budget—in which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will be particularly interested. The public expenditure increases will mean an extra £40,000 for each primary school; up to £70,000 for a secondary school; and sure-start funding, one of the most important ingredients in the under-fives' programme of creating a good start to education for millions of children, will rise to £500 million. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will be very pleased to see that additional funding for education. I am sure that he will approve of the increases in literacy rates and the decline in class sizes, which are already represented in the education sphere.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has not the noble Baroness forgotten to list also the rise in pensions?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may begin with the minimum income guarantee— or would the noble Lord prefer to consider the rises in the winter fuel allowance, which has been raised to the level of £150 per pensioner per year? There is also the free television licence—which, regrettably, noble Lords in this House seem to have little time to enjoy because of the appalling hours we seem to be working.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, there is also the issue of the rule of law, the protection of life and property and the rise in crime—or have the Government given up on that too?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches tells me it is on page four

275
of my brief; actually it is on page two. There has been a 6 per cent reduction in crime overall since the election, with burglary down by a quarter and car crime down by 17 per cent. The Government have acknowledged the disturbing increase in violent crime and intend to tackle it. With the extra expenditure on crime prevention and action against crime——a 3·8 per cent rise above inflation over the period of the spending review—there will be funding for an extra 4,000 police recruits, which we hope will bring the violent crime figures more into line with the other figures.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may also offer the Government some helpful advice. They should have less legislation; they should have shorter and more lucid Bills.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to the previous question, we would all enjoy shorter hours.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to say that I entirely agree with the Government's priorities of investment in the three issues which the noble Baroness mentioned. However, perhaps I may add a fourth. That is housing. Does she agree that there should be major investment in housing in view of the relatively high proportion of poor housing in this country which causes suffering to people's lives, their health and their heating standards?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be aware, the problem of poor housing is one that has been constantly addressed. The quality of housing, in terms of the numbers of people living in houses which are deemed to be almost beyond repair, needs to he addressed in a number of ways. The noble Lord is quite right to identify that there is a broad swathe of issues in that area. Housing is one; health is another and poor education is another, which is why I referred to the Sure Start programme in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I would say to the noble Lord that he identifies an important priority for restoring the social fabric of this country.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in his supplementary question asked the noble Baroness for an expression of political philosophy. Could we press her not for another list of facts and figures but for a succinct expression of the Government's political philosophy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can do that very succinctly. Their philosophy is to pursue all the issues of social justice, to build the investment of Britain so that we have a sustainable investment, a strong economy, and to create a country where there is opportunity and security for all our citizens.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of a three-fold increase in assaults on
276
young people in young offender institutions over a period of three years? Is she also aware of a three-fold increase in incidents of self-harm and suicide over a period of 10 years? Will investments in the prison estate and training of prison officers who work with young people be among the priorities for investment?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl identifies a worrying trend in young offender institutions. I know that he has been personally involved with this issue. Why young people offend and how they can best be looked after if they are in an institution of the kind the noble Earl describes is at the base of criminal justice and crime prevention policy. Attention needs to be addressed to the social issues which may lead to children being in these unfortunate circumstances at a very young age. One of the emphases of the public spending programme is to increase the number of policemen, and to increase the number of policemen on the beat in local communities who—particularly we hope through the Excellence in Cities programme—will work with schools to try to prevent some of the unhappy circumstances which lead to young people ending up in young offender institutions. I shall write to the noble Earl with regard to the specific question of detailed funding for those institutions.

Centre for Defence Medicine
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to set up the new centre of excellence for the Defence Medical Services.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence's new Centre for Defence Medicine is due to open on 1st April 2001. We are developing the new centre in association with the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust and its academic and clinical partners. The project is going well and we are very pleased with the enthusiasm and commitment of our partners in Birmingham.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that hopeful reply, but is she aware that with the present parlous state of manning in the Defence Medical Services, the establishment of a really credible, high quality Centre for Defence Medicine is of the utmost urgency for their morale and essential recovery? Any slippage from that promised up-and-running date would be disastrous. Since as yet not a sod has been turned at Birmingham to prepare physically for such a centre of excellence, can the Minister tell us how many clinical, academic and research military staff will be assembled there by the due date and what sort of service they will then be able to provide?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that there has

277
been a crisis of morale in the Defence Medical Services following on Options for Change. I am pleased to say that the recruitment figures have now been turned around. The net recruitment figures for the previous year after outflow is taken into account show a plus figure of 199 personnel. So far this year we have a plus figure of 83 personnel, plus another 80 accepted. That shows a very different position from that which pertained in previous years. It is planned to open the hospital with between 70 and 100 personnel, including administrative support. The centre will then build up progressively over the next five to 10 years or so. I should point out to the noble and gallant Lord that there is no requirement for additional buildings; some existing buildings will require refurbishment. That refurbishment is in hand already. We are on course for the opening on 1st April 2001.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the major problems relating to the falling recruitment by the Defence Medical Services over the past few years has been the inability of the Defence Medical Services, with the progressive closure of hospitals, to offer the training, research and academic opportunities which are so vital to the future of that service? Can she be satisfied that the appropriate training facilities will be available in order that progress to consultant status, for example, can be based on a programme that will acceptable to the Royal Colleges which monitor such training, not only in the NHS but also in the Defence Medical Services?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that I can. That is the point of having the centre of excellence in Birmingham. My honourable friend Dr Moonie, the Under-Secretary of State, who has a certain expertise in this area on the medical side, is looking at ways to ensure that recruitment is enhanced. I have been able to tell the House that recruitment figures are moving in the right direction. It is important to remember that the centre of excellence will be not only a centre of excellence for defence medical studies but also a dual focus for a centre of excellence over the particular medical specialities of the individuals concerned. With that dual focus—with the clinical expertise and the teaching expertise—we hope that we shall turn around the problem that we all recognise is inherent in the morale of the Defence Medical Services at present.
Lord Carver: My Lords, who will run the Centre for Defence Medicine? Will it be the Ministry of Defence or the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it will be done through a partnership agreement. Agreements covering the operation of the centre are being negotiated at the moment. They are expected to be signed later this year. But we expect it to be done on a co-operative basis with the NHS trust and the university.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that part of the concern about the small size of the Defence Medical Services relates to closer integration into the National Health Service and, in particular, to the provision of reserves? How much progress has been made in negotiation with hospital trusts about the provision of civilian doctors as reserves for the Defence Medical Services? When the subject was last debated, we were told that there were considerable difficulties in that area.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Under-Secretary of State is looking at ways in which we can improve the recruitment figures. I have been able to tell your Lordships something about improvements in overall recruitment, but I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we look to other sources of recruitment. I discussed this matter with the Under-Secretary of State today in preparation for answering this Question. I can assure the House that he is open to a number of different suggestions and is himself considering a number of options to improve recruitment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, following the engaging monologue that we have just enjoyed from the Lord Privy Seal, can the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that money will be made available, and will continue to be made available, from the Ministry of Defence budget, which is so badly stretched, for the centre of excellence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend answered the questions put to her. She was hardly giving a monologue but answering very sensibly the questions put to her from around the House. I can tell the noble Lord that the Strategic Defence Review provided an additional £ 140 million for the Defence Medical Services. We shall not be closing six hospitals in this country, as the previous government did during the course of the 1990s, and we shall not be closing three in Germany. It is a little difficult for the noble Lord to argue from the record of his government about the record of the present Government, who are investing very considerably in the Defence Medical Services. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wishes to make a point, I suggest that she rises to do so.
Lord Roper: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when a decision will be made on the Royal Army Medical College site, which will become available with the move to Birmingham? Is the imaginative idea to use it for the future of the Chelsea College of Art & Design being given full consideration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this matter is being considered by the Under-Secretary of State. The site at Millbank has now been put on the open market. Several offers have been received for it and they are currently being evaluated.

Zimbabwe
2.53 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are content with the state of relations with Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, given the long, shared history between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe, we are disappointed that our relations with that country are going through a difficult phase. Zimbabwe is facing a number of economic and social challenges which require an urgent common effort. In the event of real reform, which reflects the people of Zimbabwe's clear desire for change, Britain will be ready to build a new relationship with the new Zimbabwe government.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I believe that noble Lords will agree with the sentiments she expressed. Is there not one person outside Zimbabwe who, more than anyone else, has the potential to influence events in Zimbabwe in a helpful manner? I refer to President Mbeki of South Africa. When the Prime Minister met Mr Mbeki in Japan last week, was that not a good opportunity for him to raise the question of Zimbabwe, bearing in mind that the situation in that country is still serious and could become catastrophic? Did the Prime Minister raise that matter with Mr Mbeki and what was the result?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that there has been ongoing contact with Zimbabwe, particularly in relation to President Mbeki's efforts. I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact nature of conversations that occurred in Japan, but I undertake to write to him in relation to that matter. It is right to say that our partners in Africa have played a helpful and significant role and we certainly expect them to continue to work closely with us.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, when will President Mugabe be required to recall the parliament of Zimbabwe, which was elected in the last week of May, rather than govern by using his presidential powers? Can the Government make any representations in this matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a set timetable for recalling parliament. At the moment, the Zimbabwe government are working within that. I am not able to give the noble Duke a specific date for when the parliament will be recalled. However, if it goes beyond that date, those matters will be raised.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does my noble friend's answer mean that the Government would be prepared
280
to resume aid to Zimbabwe provided that we were satisfied with the circumstances in which that aid was deployed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the challenges of Zimbabwe are clear. We have had close contact with all sides of the debate in Zimbabwe. We have met parties and made very clear the basis on which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to help Zimbabwe in relation to the recovery. If Zimbabwe's government show themselves to be serious in relations to those conditions, we have made it clear that we would be willing to consider how that help could be more easily given.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, many of us have great sympathy with those in Zimbabwe, both black and white, who are calling for the return of democracy and who have suffered greatly in doing so. In view of the rather biting criticism of committees of another place, can the Minister give an assurance that we will consider carefully the supply of any further arms to Zimbabwe, given the way in which the Hawk spares were used in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly say that the embargo is in place. It will continue to be in place for so long as we reasonably believe that it is necessary. We shall look very carefully at the way in which Zimbabwe behaves before any change occurs in relation to that position.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given that the rule of law continues to be flouted in Zimbabwe and, as we have just heard, the parliament that was elected has not been recalled, might this not be a instance where for once quiet diplomacy is not the answer but a time when the Movement for Democratic Change must be greatly reinforced and Mr Mugabe put more on his guard by strong calls for the upholding of the rule of law? Cannot the Commonwealth, Mr Mbeki and others be prevailed upon to raise their voices in support of democracy and the rule of law so as to give some hope to people that they will be able to outwit Mr Mugabe's dislike for law and his determination to carry on with the present chaos?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. This Government, in all that they have done in the past few months, have made absolutely clear to Mr Mugabe the importance we place on the rule of law. I should also like noble Lords to take into account the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, who spoke to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 18th July, made clear that the opposition are seeking to work with the government to ensure that democracy prevails and also that the opposition wish to act in a constructive manner. If we wish to see a

281
strong Zimbabwe we have to honour the indications to us while of course continuing to emphasise that the rule of law is of the utmost importance.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if the situation were to improve, as the noble Baroness has indicated the £32 million compensation for land redistribution could then be made available. Given that many farm workers stand to lose considerably as a result of any land redistribution, will they be compensated under that package?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific response. However, I can say that a policy of continuing compulsory uncompensated land acquisition will do nothing to foster the sense of unity that President Mugabe wishes to see and spoke of in his address to the nation on 27th June. Furthermore, that policy will not help the economy, which is already in crisis. We recognise the importance and urgency of the land issue, but any resettlement will need to be arranged in a way that is acceptable to all concerned and that minimises the impact on Zimbabwe's already beleaguered economy. In that context, we very much hope that such issues will be taken into account.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government are in contact with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank? Have any plans been drawn up for decisions to be taken during the period of the Summer Recess? The coming six weeks will be a critical time, not only for the white farmers, but also for the unfortunate farm workers who stand to lose all they have: their livelihoods, their homes, schools and hospitals. That could happen during the weeks when we are not here. What plans have been made?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the IMF will apply the rules it customarily applies. It will take into consideration all proper matters. That is what we would reasonably expect it to do.

Light Aircraft: Noise Pollution
3.1 p.m.
Lord Lloyd-Webber Lord Lloyd-Webber asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to regulate the noise pollution caused by the recreational flying of light aircraft over the countryside, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have recently published a consultation document on noise from civil aircraft. This fulfils a commitment given in the 1998 White Paper, New Deal for Transport, and proposes powers to assist—and, if necessary, to compel—aerodromes to operate noise
282
amelioration measures and for local authorities to enforce these where necessary, with provision for arbitration. We have asked for comments on this consultation paper by 13th October.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he believe that the only rule which applies to light aircraft and recreational flying; namely, that aircraft must fly 500 feet from—not above, but from—a building, is adequate? Does the Minister further believe that that rule will stand in good stead in the light of a case brought under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights concerning individual amenity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was aware that a case is being taken to the court in Strasbourg on this particular issue. Given that, I expect that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the specific case. Clearly, in certain circumstances there may be a perceived infringement of the environment by individual citizens. Under normal circumstances, we would assume that the 500 feet rule would be sufficient to minimise noise heard on the ground. However, the consultation document is in part directed at investigating whether the responsibilities of aerodromes should be enhanced and 'whether the powers of the Secretary of State to regulate aerodromes as regards noise amelioration should be given further attention.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, as regards the consultation document arising from the White Paper, will the same consultation exercise apply to model aircraft? They can be just as much of a nuisance as some light aircraft.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that the consultation paper has not been drafted quite as widely as my noble friend would wish. I do not believe that model aircraft are covered; nor, I regret to say, do I believe that model aircraft are subject to the 500 feet restriction. Model aircraft can cause a nuisance on occasion, but I believe that they are covered by the normal nuisance laws rather than specific aviation law.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, no mention has been made in the consultation document of the noise produced by helicopters, in particular in built-up areas. Does that mean that people will still be able to present written submissions to the consultation on this point, even though no specific proposals as regards helicopter noise appear to have been included in the document?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no restriction has been placed on the subjects to be covered by written submissions to the consultation. I should tell the noble Baroness that the aviation rules covering helicopters are somewhat different. As regards the situation in London, about which I know the noble Baroness is concerned, a system of helicopter routes operates through London which defines the heights at which the

283
craft can fly and the areas in which they can operate. Effectively, most single-engine helicopters must follow the line of the Thames. Although helicopter noise is not covered specifically in the consultation document, any views expressed on the issue will be most welcome.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several low-flying aeroplanes pass over our garden in Scotland over the weekends? One of those aeroplanes makes a peculiar grinding noise when it flies up to disgorge parachutists? That is extremely distressing for people on the ground.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness had experienced aircraft passing over her garden from which parachutists jump—I was "unsighted" on that matter, as they say. Parachuting is subject to separate regulation. So far as I am aware, the same 500 feet rule applies in Scotland because the regulations cover the whole of Great Britain.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in some parts of the country, such as in the Lake District, we wish that we could hear the noise of light aircraft, which is drowned out by the screams of military planes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the rural idyll may quite frequently be interrupted by military planes. However, they too are subject to severe regulation. I am sure that if my noble friend has a particular complaint to make, then my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will respond in her normal courteous way.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I speak as a recreational flyer and as vice-chairman of the Popular Flying Association, which is a regulatory body covering some 1,500 planes which fly under the permit-to-fly system. Is the noble Lord aware that we sympathise fully with my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber? We intend to bring in noise restrictions on all new aircraft and to require the existing fleet to comply where possible.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of that initiative. I believe that it will be helpful and we commend the association for bringing forward those proposals.

Business of the House: Football (Disorder) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with today to allow the Football (Disorder) Bill to be taken through
284
its remaining stages, and again on Friday next to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved as a manuscript amendment to the Motion:
Line 2, leave out "today to allow the Football (Disorder) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages, and again"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, careful scrutiny is one of the best guarantees of good legislation. I hope that all noble Lords will endorse those wise words that were once spoken by the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw. He made that statement in 1995, when he was a member of the Front Bench Opposition.
The intervals laid down between the stages of parliamentary consideration of legislation are crucial to the legislative process. In three circumstances those intervals may justifiably be dispensed with. First, when, for constitutional reasons, this House does not have a full locus on consideration of a piece of legislation. An obvious example of this is in debate on a finance Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will have noted that my amendment does not infringe on the proposal in the Motion that the Finance Bill should be taken through all its stages on Friday of this week. Another example might be consolidated fund Bills, which are in effect a front for supply Bills.
Secondly, when Bills are of a technical and wholly uncontroversial nature, they may sometimes have accelerated processes; but here the intervals of parliamentary process would normally apply. A third category would be in cases of national emergency, when to delay legislation would either seriously damage national security or destroy the whole purpose of a Bill. Obvious examples have been legislation connected with the emergency in Northern Ireland or, in earlier days, matters such as the Ugandan Asians and Commonwealth immigration. But the Football (Disorder) Bill cannot conceivably be reckoned to fall into any of those three categories.
There is a fourth reason why governments may be tempted to accelerate the process of legislation through Parliament; that is, for the convenience of the executive—either to get legislation on to the statute book because of the positive impact that it might make on the reputation of the government of the day, or perhaps even because the drafting of legislation is so defective as to make parliamentary scrutiny an embarrassment.
The intervals laid down have three purposes. The first is to enable parliamentarians to reflect on a Bill during its passage and to decide in that context what further changes may be needed. In the case of the football Bill, the Committee stage was concluded only after five o'clock this morning. Therefore, the later proceedings are not even published in Hansard. Only a handful of Members who remained to the end can know what was decided. It is also clear that, under Standing Order 48, it would not be possible for any amendments to be tabled for Third Reading. That could be a serious handicap in terms of our wish to improve the Bill.
The second reason for the intervals between stages is to allow Ministers and their Civil Service advisers to consider points that have been made in debate and to decide whether, and if so, how, they can be accommodated.
The third reason, and possibly the most important, is to allow the people to have their say in the legislative process. Almost every Bill that comes before Parliament is improved because of the views of the people, whether through professional bodies, pressure groups, lobbies or individuals. Those views are made known to Parliament at each stage in the consideration of a Bill. To take a recent example, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill was immeasurably improved in its passage through Parliament largely as a result of public representations. To some of us, that Bill still falls short of the ideal; but without the changes made to it, it would, frankly, have been an abomination in terms of both liberty and practicality.
I do not believe that it is widely appreciated that our legislative process makes provision, through the intervals between the stages of a Bill, for the people to have a real say, and thus to influence law-making. That applies particularly in this House, where we are relatively free of the inducements of patronage and the fear of party discipline. I hope, therefore, that the House will consider whether the case for immediate enactment of a football Bill, argued as it seems to have been on the date of a particular series of football matches, outweighs the abandonment of proper parliamentary consideration. It is a precious feature of our democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I was taking guests round the Royal Gallery today, and I looked again at the Petition of Rights 1628, which won for us our freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. It has lasted 372 years. If we pass this Bill in the form that it is in at present, that is all that it will last.
The Bill allows someone who is not suspected of any criminal offence—indeed, against whom no charge is contemplated—to be imprisoned on the whim of a police officer, to be remanded in custody merely at the request of the police for a further period which may well amount to a matter of months, and if at the end of the day the police bring no charges because they can find no evidence, there is no cause for compensation to that person.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs. We are being asked to rush through a Bill which abuses our freedom as citizens to an extent which very few Bills do. I understand why the Government are doing this. They will come to regret it. I understand why those on our Front Bench are supporting them. They should regret it already. There is no reason why we should all have to share that shame. I very much hope that we shall support my noble friend in his amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, the delays between the stages of a Bill give everyone time to ponder, think, consider and inwardly digest—and to calm down. It is
286
rather like writing rather a hasty letter and putting it under your pillow at night. In the morning, you may have changed your mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if we accept the Government's attitude that this is a Bill that must reach the statute book before Parliament rises at the end of this week, I suggest that adequate time should be given for its proper consideration. We really cannot say that it can be properly considered if there is no gap at all, even of 24 hours, between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage.
Many years ago, the Committee on Preparation of Legislation of which I had the honour to be chairman, which produced the only advisory document of its kind in the past 130 years, stressed that there must be adequate time between the Committee and Report stages for improving a Bill and making sure that it works properly and is understood by the people.
Admittedly, we have only this week to consider the Bill. But if the Government were wise enough to have Hansard published as soon as possible and considered by us on Thursday, any amendments—and we are not likely to make many—could still be considered by another place on Friday and the Bill could receive Royal Assent before we rise. I do not understand why that system cannot be followed.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I hope that those on the Government Front Bench are pondering those wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is an extremely seasoned and experienced parliamentarian.
When I heard what the Government were planning, it summoned up for me the expression of the great John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has previously made a number of points. The Government are treating the Bill as though it were emergency legislation with the war clouds gathering, instead of seeing it as a response to a particular problem. Regardless of what has been said by those on the Front Bench opposite, I hope that there are enough Members, not only on our Benches—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that we shall be with him if he seeks to divide the House—but on the Cross-Benches, and even on the Benches opposite, who regard this kind of behaviour by a government on legislation as simply not acceptable.
As the Government Chief Whip well knows, he would have lost his business last night had not these Benches co-operated with him in giving him the votes to carry on. We need some "give and take" on the part of the Government. We need space between Report and Third Reading, for all the reasons mentioned.
As was said, there were very few Members in the Chamber last night, but we are working through the Bill and we are improving it. Even as we talked, we saw some initiatives: the effectiveness of tighter rules for the membership of supporters' clubs, not least the Football Association Supporters Club.
A letter from a Leeds director printed in The Times today points out that clubs' life bans are having a salutary effect on behaviour. As the Bill progresses

287
through the House, Members with experience have put forward constructive and good ideas which improve it. However, I think that the Government will now sour the deliberations for the remainder of the Bill. They will also demonstrate a high-handedness which I believe that they will come to regret.
The speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Lucas, are unanswerable by anyone who cares for this House and its proceedings. As has been said, those spaces between deliberations are for a specific purpose. This House abandons them at certain times for certain grave reasons. I do not think that the Bill deserves to be escalated to that height of concern.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there is an easy way for the Government to deal with this issue. They can give us that breathing space between Report and Third Reading which would allow us and outside bodies to carry on the good and constructive work of improving the Bill.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he advocating that we should take Report stage today and put off Third Reading? With respect, I do not think that that is the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said twice that he wanted a gap between Report stage and Third Reading. Does he want that; or does he want to put off the whole Bill for now?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I should prefer to have Report stage today. It is up to the Government's business managers to sort the matter out. But to move from Report stage to Third Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows better than anyone, concertinas a Bill. This is a Bill on football disorder. It does not involve troops crossing frontiers or a major terrorist outrage. Let us have a sense of proportion about the Bill; and let us protect the proceedings of this House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have been involved at the coal-face on this Bill. It has been a rather fruitless exercise. The situation is not fair to the Minister. He has done his very best in impossible circumstances. It is not fair to the House because the Minister cannot have the opportunity to consider the reasoned arguments which have been put to him, even if he agrees with them. I suspect—I do not commit him—that he is fair minded and would wish to give time and credence to many of the points that were made on the Bill. It is also a technical Bill. It has been made ludicrously technical. It involves erosion of individual freedom and many other consequences—criminal consequences.
It is not only unfair to the Minister and the House; it is jolly unfair to the subjects of the Queen—innocents who will be hauled in and treated as criminals. That is one thing that we seek to avoid. We cannot do so today. The Minister must have time to
288
understand why they are breaches of natural justice and why the Bill is oppressive. Unless time is allowed, a great misery of injustice will be done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Attorney-General responds, can he tell the House on what grounds he defends the taking today of Report stage of the Bill when the vast majority of the Members of this House has not been able to read the Committee stage. There is no way we can know on what the Report stage is based.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have two different points to make. First, I am concerned about the precedent that is created. After today it will be impossible to resist this kind of approach to Bills on many other issues. Secondly, I am concerned that in a Bill which is supposed to be about football hooliganism we are about to breach a basic principle of our justice system: that you are innocent until you are proved guilty. For those two reasons, I strongly support my noble friend.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for having moved the amendment. Indeed, the House should be indebted to him for raising an immensely important issue on the timings in our House and the usual intervals.
By now it will be common knowledge that the Official Opposition have accepted the argument made by the Government in another place, and, therefore, in this House, that the Bill needs Royal Assent by the end of this week. That is why we have sought to an extent to co-operate with them on the timings although by no means the contents of the Bill. I hope that when, or if, we reach amendments on certain issues this afternoon not only will they be fully debated, but the Government will lose the debate. I refer in particular to the sunset clause. If anything justifies the appalling nature of some of the powers taken in this Bill, it is the ensuring of a clear cut-off period during which the Government can think again.
What seems to have gone wrong today is that the Government were caught out by the length of the Committee stage last night. I am aware that a Division took place in the small hours of the morning. Only 22 Members of the House voted on the Government side and 17 on the Opposition side. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, it was only because of the co-operation of the Opposition that that business was able to be continued.
However, the greatest miscalculation was in not ensuring that a complete Hansard could be provided. Only those who were present in the House—unfortunately, they included neither myself nor the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—have the faintest idea of the arguments proposed in amendments and the arguments put forward in defence of the Government's position.
Over the course of the past few weeks we have seen a long succession of government Bills which were not dealt with effectively or appropriately in another place

289
but which needed to be amended in this House not just because of pressure from Members of the Opposition parties and the Cross-Benches, but also because of government amendments.
The arrangement today is that the Third Reading should be taken on the nod immediately after Report stage, leaving no room for amendments from any Member of the House including the Government. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General winds up he will explain why the Government believe that there will be no further need to amend this legislation.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford has provided a useful opportunity to debate this matter fully. I hope that the Government will take clear note of what has happened. After the noble and learned Lord has responded on behalf of the Government, I hope that my noble friend Lord Marlesford will feel that the Government have offered enough for him to be able to withdraw his amendment to the Motion.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am also conscious that on my own side that is not a popular move. It may well be that my noble friend will seek to take the matter to a Division. However, I hope that he does not, because many Members have come to the House today expressly to deal with the Bill.
I ask a final question. If, as appears likely given the precedent of last night, debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill continues for many hours into the evening, what will happen to the first day of Committee consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill? Can we agree that if debate goes beyond the dinner hour, the matter should be left until we return in the spill-over?
3.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am gratified to find myself in such agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. As always, I am grateful for his full-hearted support. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the observations made were unanswerable by anyone who cares for this House. I believe it is the time of year when Members of your Lordships' House become a shade too ready to drink too deep of the cup of hyperbole, to put it tactfully.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as a Welsh lawyer, I take that as a tribute.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am glad to see once again that my arguments have proved overwhelming. It goes without saying—and therefore I shall say it—that everyone who is a Member of this House cares for it. What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, in general terms, is completely accurate: normally we abide by standing orders. He pointed to exceptions. There are exceptions of great significance and importance to our fellow citizens.
290
First, the Finance Bill and the debate on the Consolidated Fund are of very substantial importance but, as he rightly observed and demonstrated, stages of those Bills are commonly truncated.
If I noted it correctly, the noble Lord's second category was technical measures. His third category was Bills of national emergency. I believe that he went on to warn your Lordships gently to avoid the convenience of the executive. This has nothing to do with the convenience of the executive, which I shall demonstrate in a moment with your Lordships' patient understanding. It has nothing to do with the reputation of the executive, but a good deal to do with the reputation of our country internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was quite right to distinguish carefully between timings and the content of the Bill. One or two of your Lordships have not resisted the temptation to go to the content of the Bill whereas the Motion is about its timing. Of course, we are up against a tight timetable, which arises from external circumstance. The next match to be played abroad, according to my instructions, is on 2nd September. It is France versus England—(friendly).
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The distinction between timing and content is a little less easy than he suggests. There were many occasions which emerged last night when the Government clearly did not know their own mind. It would assist us in tabling amendments if the Government were to have time to resolve themselves.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, perhaps I may put forward a correction of fact. I understand that the next really sensitive match is on 4th August. It is to be played in Munich between Manchester United and the Munich club.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always in my experience, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right. My briefing was wrong, but I have been corrected by the Chief Whip. I am most obliged for their correction.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was making points of genuine and fundamental importance. Perhaps I may put a wider one to your Lords hips. We are the controllers of our own procedure, Perhaps I might sketch in a little history so that no one might be under the sad misapprehension that all this somehow arose unusually and on the basis of the quirkish determination of the Government Front Bench. Nothing could be further from the fact.
The draft business was discussed, as usual, last Wednesday. It was circulated on Thursday and, I imagine in the usual way, discussed at the various party meetings. That is the fact. As I understand it, the timings were those suggested by the Official Opposition. If I am wrong I shall sit down and withdraw. The business was agreed between the usual channels. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord,

291
Lord Harris of Greenwich, will forgive my pointing out to your Lordships that he is nodding assent to my proposition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was nodding assent to something which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had just said to me.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always knew that we should have completed the expulsion of the hereditaries! Had the noble Earl, Lord Russell, not been in conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what I said was nevertheless right. All the timings were agreed between the usual channels. If I am wrong I shall sit down and withdraw.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I was saying to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. It was that the timing appeared much better until the Government fell apart in the Chamber last night.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government did not fall apart, unless engaging in rational, coherent discussion is falling apart. That may be so among those Benches where presently dwells the noble Earl. But I do not regard having an extensive discussion until, as has been said, 20 minutes past five in the morning as the Government falling apart. I have read Hansard. Many of your Lordships have commended my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lord Bach for the very great care and attention that they have given to the Bill. I have read the earlier copies of Hansard to which I was plainly referring. But since your Lordships and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked me the specific question, I am told, and verily believe, that in the Library there is a typed copy of Hansard containing all of yesterday's and this morning's proceedings. The noble Baroness says "ridiculous". I can only deal with one intervention at a time. I am dealing with the sotto voce intervention made opposite. Now I shall give way, as always, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I was anxious to discover what had happened to three amendments I tabled which were towards the end of the Marshalled List. I asked when the second part of Hansard would be available. I was told that that would not be until tomorrow, but that there was a copy in the Library. I went there and found the part where my amendments should have been discussed. Ten pages covering the amendments moved on my behalf were missing and the staff are busily trying to find them at the moment. So that which is in the Library is not complete and in my particular case can provide no comfort at all.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not know that the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had not been recorded. From what he is saying, I take it that he was not here to move them. As
292
the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I was not here myself. I imagine that the amendments must have been moved on his behalf.
I return to the fundamental point, because it relates to a very important way in which we conduct our business. If agreements are made through the usual channels, it has been my unfailing experience that they are adhered to and honoured. If we are to do business in a different way, it will mean a very different House. If your Lordships want that it is a matter for them because we control our procedure. But as I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was saying, he intended scrupulously to adhere to the business arrangement that had been arrived at. It does not surprise me at all to find that he sticks scrupulously to the agreement and honours the bargain. That has always been my experience of him and, I hope, his experience of our Chief Whip also.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, could he explain to those of us who have never formed part of the usual channels, and are never likely to do so, whether the deliberations in the usual channels took account of the fact that the proceedings would not end until 5.20 a.m. this morning?
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord answers that question, perhaps I may ask him whether what was agreed between the usual channels foresaw what happened in the early hours of this morning. In answering that question, would he consider the helpful suggestion that I made, which was warmly supported by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, that if the Report stage took place on Thursday immediately followed by Third Reading, which is not unexpected, then it seems to me that everyone would be satisfied and the Bill would have proper consideration, which it has no hope of having today?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was the same as that put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. In parenthesis, the noble Lord said that he was unlikely to become a member of the usual channels. It does not behove me to comment on that parenthetical observation, except to say that we are soul brothers because I have never been part of the usual channels either and have no expectation of such glory in this world.
The proposition I am putting is deep. We shall be able to run our business only if we run it in a way which we all know perfectly well. If we have such a system, there are bound to be occasions when one or other of us will be dissatisfied. That is inevitable.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord moves away from that point, would he not agree that the usual channels are our servants and that we are not the servants of the usual channels? Most of the time, it may suit us, for the proper conduct of this House, to go along with what the usual channels suggest. However, when they suggest something that is

293
so outrageous, so at variance with the liberty of the citizen and so inappropriate, as they have now for reasons which we understand and for which they are politically driven, it is our right and proper function respectfully to disagree with their conclusion. It is no fault of the operation of this House that we should occasionally do so, but merely a reassertion of the relationship between us and the usual channels: we are the masters and they are the servants.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Indeed, I thought that I had twice said that we are the controllers of our own ways. But that as a proposition does not determine all. If we are not able to work with the usual channels in the way we all know, the business of the House will not—and I mean it literally—be manageable.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, feels aggrieved on this occasion. I sympathise with and understand that. No one who took part in discussions between the usual channels knew for certain that the sitting yesterday would have continued until 5.20 a.m. but let us not forget that that was partly in order to accommodate other matters in respect of Section 28 about which your Lordships also felt strongly. I do not believe, to coin a phrase, that the argument is answerable by anyone who cares for this House. Unless we stick to and honour our arrangements we shall not be able to run ourselves effectively, efficiently or at all.
Your Lordships will have had two opportunities to amend the Bill. This is not the first time the Standing Order has been dispensed with. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, gave certain examples but perhaps I may give another. In February this year, we took Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of the Northern Ireland Bill all in a single day. Whether your Lordships agreed with that decision or not, I am simply pointing out that this is not setting a precedent which will upset the whole of discovered civilisation as we know it. We did it on that occasion because we are masters of our own machinery and business.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have privately made it known that those of us representing the Northern Ireland constituency areas would not feel greatly aggrieved if the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill were dropped from this part of the Session and brought back immediately after the Recess. It is not a delaying tactic but it seems to me that no benefit is to be gained from having a Second Reading and then a two-months Recess before dealing with the Committee stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know the noble Lord well enough to recognise an offer which I feel unable to refuse. I am sure that his offer was put forward helpfully but it is not something which the Government can contemplate accepting.
Noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is a matter of enormous
294
importance. It needs to be discussed at the earliest possible opportunity. It is extremely serious for all those who live and serve in Northern Ireland and I personally do not think it would be appropriate to put off that stage of that Bill in these circumstances.
I gave that precedent and am returning to the wider precedent for the last time. The usual channels are not infallible. They are the way in which we run our business. I submit to your Lordships that there has been a certain amount of truncation of business, which was agreed. It has been truncated partly because the Chief Whip on our Benches tried to accommodate every possible diverse view about the relative spectrum of importance to be given to different Bills. I do not believe that anyone could dispute that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said and prima facie I agree with it. Why does the noble and learned Lord insist that this Bill has an importance which does not accord with anything said in the debate? It is important that we should discuss the issue fully on Thursday and we have the opportunity to do so. Why does the noble and learned Lord, who is a personal friend of mine, take the view that we cannot take the Bill on Thursday, as the noble Lord suggested?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The reason is that if your Lordships want to make amendments to the Bill, the other place must have an opportunity to consider them and they must then return here. That will not be possible within the timetable of this week, bearing in mind the other business. The alternative is for your Lordships' House to sit next week and to invite, with infinite respect, another place to do the same. I should be happy to invite your Lordships to sit next week and ask for a volunteer to request another place to do the same.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord properly referred to a number of precedents but perhaps I may put to him another. In 1974, when the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was rushed through the House of Commons and through this House, the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, assured the House of Commons that the Bill would be reintroduced in the next Session and be discussed as normal with all legislation. Why are not the Government prepared to give a similar undertaking today?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because we have not yet reached the final stages of the Bill. There has been substantial discussion of it and your Lordships will have to take a decision. The Opposition in another place gave us an assurance, and delivered on the promise, that we would have their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave me a similar indication in the Chamber not on this but on a related Bill the day before the Bill was introduced and a

295
similar question was raised. Your Lordships will have to take a view. There is no prospect of completing this business this week in either Chamber.
I have a little further information. I realise it interrupts what I was seeking to say but it is right to give it to your Lordships in response to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Inquiries have been made and I am told that the overspill record was delivered soon after 9.30 a.m. and that the noble and learned Lord was right in saying that there were missing pages. They were delivered about 20 minutes ago. It is no good to complain. I am giving your Lordships the fullest information that I genuinely have. I should not like to say, "I have in my pocket this piece of paper". I am making a New Year's resolution, beginning tomorrow, that on future occasions I shall cease to try to be helpful.
At least two noble Lords want to intervene. I shall give way, first, if I may, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, as he has the great distinction of being a former Attorney-General.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord realise how proud he makes me to be a member of his profession? Can he even visualise the thunderbolts that he would have been hurling had he been on this side of the Chamber? Does he accept that he is making a beautiful argument in favour of form rather than substance? In his study of such Hansards as have been produced in the time available, did he note the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who said:
"I find it very difficult to accept the proposed new Section 21A as it stands, without much greater consideration being given to it than has been possible because of the way in which the Bill has been brought forward at the last moment".— [Official Report, 24/7/00; col. 157.]
Whatever the position may be with regard to the possibilities for future business in the next two or three days, does that arouse in the noble and learned Lord's mind the real belief that what has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is now the right way forward for democratic and sensible government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to me by an illustrious predecessor. I do not believe that I am simply making a case without form and substance. If I am, your Lordships must adjudicate upon it. Of course, I know what certain noble and learned Lords have said. I repeat that the business was agreed last Wednesday and Thursday and the Bill was introduced in the House last Tuesday. I do not believe that anyone who stayed here last night until twenty past five in the morning could suggest that a fair scrutiny had not been given to the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, may wish to raise a different point.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Would it be unduly cynical of me to wonder whether the urgency behind the proposals that we are discussing derives, as of course it does in the other place, more from a fear of the tabloids than from a fear of football hooligans?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that that is a worthy reflection of the present state of matters. There is significant concern in this country about the serious damage that a small, unrepresentative number of persons do to our international reputation. However, if the noble Lord is right, his remedy is to vote against the Bill and he has had ample opportunity to do so.
I do not believe that I can usefully assist your Lordships further. I believe that we should stick to the course that has been charted and agreed, and I ask your Lordships to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, metaphorically if not literally, perhaps I may, as a very Cross-Bencher, ask a question. He says that the usual channels are not infallible. I make no comment about that. Does it follow also that, when they are proved to be fallible, they cannot retreat and regroup? That appears to be what is being said.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that it is. I was trying to say—and it is obviously my infelicitous forensic skill that has led the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, astray—that if we want to run our business in the way that we do, based on consent and on honouring bargains, some people occasionally may be aggrieved. That is the fundamental point that I sought to make about the running of our House. I believe that when I sit down the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is entitled to his observations.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the case that he has made. I am disappointed in four respects. First, I consider that the Government still do not appreciate the importance of the principle of proper consideration of legislation before it is passed and the crucial part that the intervals between stages of legislation play in that consideration. Secondly, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has made the case that this Bill merits, or ever has merited, the suspension of those procedures. Thirdly, I regard it as unfortunate that it is felt that in the consideration of legislation the obligations entered into by the usual channels should be regarded as paramount. Fourthly, it is an undoubted fact that this legislation has not been considered properly and now, whatever happens immediately, it cannot be.
I can say only that I very much hope that the sunset clause, which at least will limit the damage which this legislation could impose over a period of time, will be passed. I hope also that my intervention will have signposted the feelings of this House that the

297
suspension of the procedure of proper intervals between stages in the consideration of legislation should not again be entered into lightly. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the manuscript amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ackner, L.

Jopling, L.

Addington, L.

Kimball, L.

Alderdice, L.

Kirkham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Barker, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Bell, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Biffen, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Ludford, B.

Bradshaw, L.

McConnell, L.

Bridges, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Brookeborough, V.

Maddock, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L. [Teller]

Chalfont, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Methuen, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montrose, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eames, L.

Newby, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elles, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Erroll, E.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Ezra, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Patten, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Greaves, L.

Plumb, L.

Hamwee, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Quinton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Razzall, L.

Haslam, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hogg, B.

Rennard, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Roper, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Russell, E.

Jacobs, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

298

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Swinfen, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Selborne, E.

Tope, L.

Selsdon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Sharman, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharples, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L. [Teller]

Islwyn, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laming, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Layard, L.

Burlison, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Longford, E.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donoughue, L.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Orme, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gate, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gavron, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gregson, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hayman, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Healey, L.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tenby, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Thornton, B.

299

Tomlinson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Turnberg, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Varley, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Waverley, V.

Young of Old Scone, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and the manuscript amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee
4.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Lea of Crondall be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Walker of Doncaster.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) Bill
4.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Football matches: prevention of violence or disorder]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord Richard: My Lords, are we now proceeding with Report stage on this Bill or is Report stage to be taken tomorrow? It would be useful to have some guidance.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are now taking Report stage. I apologise, but there will now be a discussion through the usual channels to agree how we deal with Third Reading and so forth.
Last Wednesday an agreement was reached, which was circulated to all the party meetings, as my noble friend said last Thursday, and everyone knew that Report and Third Reading were to be taken today. In order to allow for a gap between Report and Third Reading, a suspension of the Standing Order would need to have been tabled yesterday. To do that I would have needed to know that the Committee stage would last until five o'clock this morning. The Opposition Chief Whip will agree with me that yesterday we believed that all yesterday's business would finish by
300
midnight. We revised that estimate at ten o'clock last night to two o'clock. We got it wrong because, quite fairly, it took a lot of time. That is why we are in this position. That agreement, which was clearly reached and understood through the usual channels, was not supported when it came to the vote.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, was the Convenor of the Cross Benches involved in that process and will he be part of the decision-making process that follows?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows that the Convenor of the Cross Benches is not a member of the "usual channels". It is clearly understood that he can speak only for himself and not for his group.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, while we are dealing with niceties, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, where is the Leader of the House? It was her Motion and one would have expected her to have been present to reply to it and to help the Government out of this mess.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is attending an important Cabinet committee. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was tabled quite late. It was not possible for her to rearrange her commitment. Accordingly, she asked me to do the best I could, to be as persuasive as possible to ensure that we had an overwhelming defeat.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Leader of the House would have done better, and more charmingly, than the noble and learned Lord. However, he referred to his noble friend as "learned". I did not know that she was "learned". I congratulate her.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 31, 33 and 34. The aim of the first of this group of amendments is to remove paragraph (c) of Clause 1 which states:
"(c) for enforcing authorities to require persons subject to banning orders to surrender their passports in connection with certain association football matches played outside the United Kingdom".
This amendment was debated at a fairly late hour this morning and, therefore, does not appear in Hansard. As a result I am tempted to redeliver, word for word, the extremely eloquent and persuasive speech that I made on that occasion! However, that may be inappropriate.
The provisions requiring surrender of passports are wholly and entirely unnecessary. In Schedule 1, paragraph 3, new Section 19(2A) states that, at the beginning of a control period in relation to a match or a tournament, if the enforcing authority, as it is called,

301
"is of the opinion that requiring any person subject to a banning order to report is necessary or expedient in order to reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at or in connection with the match, the authority must give"—
the subject of the banning order—
"a notice in writing".
New subsection (2B) states:
"The notice must require that person—

(a) to report to a police station specified in the notice at the time, or between the times, specified in the notice,

(b) if the match is outside the United Kingdom and the order imposes a requirement as to the surrender by him of his passport, to surrender his passport at a police station specified in the notice at the time, or between the times, specified in the notice".

So there are two elements both of which are compulsory: one is attending a police station and the other is surrendering the passport. The obvious course of action is to require the subject of the order to attend the police station at the time when a match is taking place. That already happens in domestic banning orders. Effectively, in the case of a match outside the United Kingdom, that prevents the subject of the banning order travelling to watch the match.
Therefore, what on earth does an order to surrender a passport accomplish that cannot be accomplished by a banning order? Effectively, the answer is nothing. A subject of a banning order is not likely to be persuaded to hand in his passport if he is not willing to comply with such an order anyway. In either case, if he does not comply he will go to gaol. The only possible value of a surrender of a passport is a symbolic one.
It has been said in the press that the Germans prevented hooligans from travelling to Euro 2000 in the Netherlands and Belgium by removing passports from known hooligans. In fact, as became apparent last night, that is wholly untrue. The Germans imposed reporting orders on most of their hooligans. Under German law a passport can be required to be surrendered only for very serious crimes and there is no question of a football hooligan being required to surrender a passport. Sometimes the authorities stamp a passport in such a way as to make it ineligible for admission to the country where a match is to take place. That is something that the Government, in this case, have decided not to do.
The requirement to surrender a passport is wholly unnecessary. It is not only unnecessary but for many people it is also a highly intrusive order. It will have all sorts of effects which may happen at unpredictable times and which may persist for long periods such as a month or more continuously. The requirement to surrender a passport may prevent someone from going abroad for family reasons, for work or even for a pre-booked holiday to Florida, which is thousands of miles from the nearest serious football match.
Admittedly, under Section 20 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 there is a power to apply for exemption from the requirement. That has to be applied for separately each time an exemption is sought and, worse, there is no provision that enables the subject of a banning order who wants to go abroad on a permanent basis—perhaps for a job or
302
to live—to apply for a discharge of the order on the grounds that, in the new circumstances, it is no longer appropriate.
The surrender of a passport is a serious infringement of the right of movement and is almost certainly contrary to European Union law unless it is proportionate to the evil which it is sought to prevent. It may be that if the surrender of a passport was the only possible way in which a hooligan could be prevented from going abroad, that condition might be satisfied. But what is plain here is that, given that a reporting order will do the job just as well, requiring the surrender of a passport in addition is wholly disproportionate, serves no useful purpose, is certainly contrary to European Union law and possibly also to the Human Rights Act.
In those circumstances it is impossible to see why this provision has been included. It should be removed from the Bill as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this provision for the surrender of passports on top of the provision for reporting to the police station could be regarded as belt and braces; as two ways to achieve the same thing. But sometimes it is correct to use belt and braces to ensure that the desirable aim—the prevention of the individual concerned from travelling to a football match—is achieved. Therefore I cannot support Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, will the Minister share with us the legal advice he received in relation to the points made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart on the potential clash of the free movement provisions of the European Union treaties? My noble friend makes a serious point. At a time when efforts are being made to put more flesh on the bones of the free movement provisions, certainly in communications of which I am aware in the European Commission and currently going through the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, this provision appears to be going in the wrong direction. Can the Minister tell us precisely how he responds to this question of a clash between the provisions of the Bill and the rights under the European treaties?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, this amendment was discussed yesterday. Its impact is important. It would remove the provision that banning orders must, save in exceptional circumstances, impose a requirement on recipients to surrender their passports when required to do so by the enforcement authority during control periods.
I am particularly surprised that the noble Lord should choose to return to this amendment. Mandatory surrender of passports is one of two measures in the Bill which had been accepted by all sides, including the Liberal Democrats in another place. The imposition of such a requirement will be a key element in the new structure of controls which this

303
Bill will set up in order to ensure that the requirements of banning orders are complied with, at least so far as they relate to overseas matches.
I made it clear that there is provision for a person to appeal against a requirement to surrender his passport and that the enforcing authority can waive compliance with the condition in certain circumstances—perhaps in some of the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, alluded. Section 19(2A) makes clear that the enforcing authority under the Bill—the football banning orders authority—may only impose passport surrender conditions in relation to specific matches if satisfied that such conditions will reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at that match.
I should also like to repeat that Section 20 of the Football Spectators Act, which does not appear in this Bill because it is not amended in any way by this Bill, already provides for the recipients of banning orders to apply for exemptions from any requirement, and for them to be able to appeal to a magistrates' court if the football banning orders authority refuses the application. That seems to me to be good due process.
The regime we propose to put in place for the surrender of passports, which is closely based on the existing system which was set up for international football banning orders, will be no more stringent than is required to meet the purpose for which it was instituted. As I made clear earlier, this proposal was widely supported.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me to reveal our legal opinion. But it is not customary to do that. However, I addressed this issue in the debates yesterday and made the point—fairly, I believe—that rights of movement in Article 509 of the EC treaty and set out in Directives 73/148 and 64/221, are not absolute rights of free movement. The right to travel to receive services may be restricted in the interests of public policy and public security. Those restrictions must of course be applied on the basis of the personal circumstances of those concerned and on the judgment that those concerned represent a genuine threat to public order.
The scheme of the Football Spectators Act, as amended by this Bill, in our view meets those criteria and represents a balanced and proportionate package of measures. Ultimately, it is our opinion that it is right. We believe that this measure is proportionate; that it will make a contribution to securing the security and public safety that we have debated. And this is a measure which attracted widespread support beyond this House. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am unhappy with the Minister's response. I am of course aware of Section 20; indeed, I referred to it in moving the amendment. Section 20 is amended by this Bill in paragraph 14 of Schedule 2, though those amendments are purely consequential.
The problem here is that there is a serious gap. That is one of the reasons we are particularly concerned. The gap arises because, although of course if there are
304
exceptional circumstances the court is not bound initially to make the banning order and there is a right of appeal against the order, the exceptional circumstances must exist at the date of the banning order or when the appeal is heard. Thereafter there is a considerable gap in time when the banning order continues. Section 20 allows an exemption only on a case-by-case basis; it has to be reapplied for each time.
Given that under new Section 14B(2) of the 1989 Act, a banning order can be made in the absence of a criminal conviction and the Government continue to insist that they are making a civil law order, there plainly ought to be a power to go back to the court to ask for the discharge of the order if it is clear that the subject of the banning order is no longer likely to indulge in violence or disorder. It is because of that gap that we are particularly concerned.
Having said that, I realise that we have to recognise what our priorities are in this Bill. Although it is an important amendment, in our view it is not the most important of those we tabled. Therefore I do not intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out paragraph (d)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to remove the power to make a summary order which will prevent somebody who is thought to be a hooligan or potential hooligan from travelling abroad, even at a time when there is no subsisting banning order against him.
We are dealing here with the last of the Government's four main proposals under the Bill, and the one that has attracted the most widespread opposition among all sections who are concerned about this legislation. Indeed, when this matter was debated last night—I do mean last night, not this morning—it gained widespread support from all sides of the Chamber. There is a serious problem here. One has to consider what this proposal is intended to achieve. It will no doubt be used to stop at some point people who are on their way to an overseas match before they leave the United Kingdom or, indeed, England and Wales.
On Second Reading many speakers, including myself, pointed out that the real hooligans do not turn up in their Union Jack or St George's Cross T-shirts, with their beer bellies hanging out and swilling cans of lager. Indeed, if this legislation is enacted, the serious hooligans will dress tidily and discreetly—although perhaps not quite like your Lordships—and will escape notice. If the police start arresting people on mere suspicion based on their appearance, they will soon find that they have saddled themselves with a lot of very unhappy and innocent people who have been prevented from attending the match that they wanted to see. This will cause a great stink via newspaper reports. Moreover, under the new provision for

305
compensation that I was very glad to see incorporated into the Bill in Committee, the police will have to pay out large sums of money.
Obviously, the police understand all that as well as anyone else. Therefore, they are not likely to spend their time at airports looking for the most likely potential hooligans and arresting people simply because they have a tattoo or a beer belly. Plainly the police will act on the basis of intelligence. They will be told the names of the people with records for whom to watch and, having identified them, they will stop them and inform them that they can go no further.
Therefore, in those circumstances, the question will arise as to why the police did not seek to obtain a banning order earlier, rather than wait until these people arrive at an airport. There are two possible answers. First, they may not have quite enough evidence to justify obtaining a banning order or they may not be satisfied that they have it—in which case they should not have stopped the person, save in very rare circumstances where last-minute information has come to their notice. The second possibility is, frankly, the more likely one Even though the police may have information that could lead to the issuing of a banning order, the police may decide for reasons of cost and time not to seek such an order against a potential hooligan until he has actually set off to attend a match. That seems to me to be a wholly improper use of the power and one that should not be permitted.
If the police are going to apply for banning orders, they should do so in good time so that such an order can be made and the requisite notice served on the person concerned before he leaves home to make his way to a match. However, there is more to it than that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said last night, this is an unprecedented power. It is not just inappropriate; it is an infringement of the rights that have been recognised in this country for a very long time. New Sections 21A, 21B and 21C give the police power to stop and detain someone; to order that person to appear at the magistrates' court within the following 24 hours; and to arrest that person and keep him under arrest if the police officer believes that the suspect is likely to fail to appear in court.
As I said, the Government persistently—and, I believe, contrary to all recognised standards—regard a banning order as a civil rather than a criminal order. Therefore, one has to ask: how on earth is it possible to justify giving powers of detention and arrest, even for 24 hours, as regards someone who has not had a criminal conviction for violence in the past and against whom there is nothing more than a suspicion, a belief, that he may take part in violence if he is allowed to proceed to the football match? Moreover, the police can not only detain someone for 24 hours: the magistrates can also remand him and remand him in custody, which is an extraordinary position for what is allegedly the prelude to the making of a civil order.
It seems to us that this is a wholly improper use of the power that should not be exercisable. The power given to the police to arrest and detain people merely
306
on the basis of suspicion is wholly inappropriate and should be removed firmly and completely from the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this set of amendments attracts me a great deal. However, we now have the opportunity to deal with the final solution on Third Reading. It seems to me that that may be the more appropriate way to deal with this group of amendments. My judgment on these matters will very much depend on what the Minister says. If he can indicate that, as far as concerns Amendment No. 36 and those following it, he has taken note of the points made and admits that there are changes to be made to the Bill—if not now, perhaps at Third Reading—we should surely allow consideration of this part of the legislation to proceed until we reach those amendments.
However, if, as I fear, the Minister has come to the House today with the word "resist" written all over his brief and has no intention of making any accommodation as regards the points that we have all been making on this extremely unsatisfactory part of the Bill, I shall have a great deal of sympathy with the pursuit of these amendments at this stage.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions the answers to which may be helpful. First, have chief constables really recognised that this provision, as drafted, releases a new area of arbitrariness into their hands? Do the Government accept that it is very likely that the provision will be used against those who appear eccentric, those who are slightly drunk and scruffily clad, or those who may have rather extreme forms of supporter kit about their bodies? Indeed, the provision is most unlikely to impact against those who, properly clad and cunning in their careful planning, are out to subvert the enjoyment of the rest of us who like to attend good football matches.
My second question goes to the text of the Bill. My noble friend referred to the provision in Schedule 1 which imports into the legislation the right of a magistrates' court to grant compensation if one of these orders has been obtained wrongfully. The Minister will be aware that there are many actions for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment against the police, which are usually brought in the county court these days. They are tried by juries. Claimants have the opportunity to have their claim judged by their peers. It is possible for them to be awarded damages not only for financial loss but also for injury to their feelings and for the fact that they have lost their liberty for a period of time.
The provision in Schedule 1 which relates to compensation appears to allow compensation to be paid only for actual financial loss suffered. Further, it contains no provision whereby a claimant can ask a jury of his or her peers to decide whether this quite extraordinary new power has been exercised on a proper basis. Will the Minister tell the House whether a

307
person is to retain his or her right to bring a civil action before a jury in a county court if one of these orders has been obtained wrongly? If they are not to retain that right, even if they lose in the magistrates' court that would constitute a scandalous change in the law depriving the citizen of a valued and long held right.
My first question concerned what has been asked of chief constables in relation to arbitrariness. My third concerns what has been asked of chief constables in relation to the burden of dealing with this provision, which is likely to be used almost always in extremely controversial circumstances likely to lead to dispute and applications for compensation. Do chief constables really want this? Does the ACPO really feel that it needs this? Does it consider that it adds anything to the effective powers already in existence? One has a suspicion that although there may be laudable aims behind the Bill, this is a piece of unnecessary window dressing. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions, especially the one about compensation claims and civil actions.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why does he think that new Section 21D, which entitles the magistrates' court to order compensation if satisfied that the person has suffered loss as a result of the giving of the notice, either limits that to actual financial loss or prevents that person from bringing any other claim to which he might be entitled? I hope that the noble Lord will answer that question before he sits down.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the amendment to the provision appears to provide payment of compensation in respect of a loss. If I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. However, the noble Lord did not appear to correct me; he merely asked why I said what I said. I said what I said because I thought that I had read the provision properly. However, the noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer and I am happy to defer to him if he can establish otherwise. What concerns me—this is most important—is that a citizen who may have been the victim of arbitrary action should have recourse not to a magistrates' court, which lives under one set of judicial pressures, but—like every other aggrieved citizen who complains about false imprisonment—to a civil court where there is often a jury and where compensation is at large and unlimited.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I did not take part in the discussion either at Second Reading or Committee stage and for that I apologise. I asked the question of the noble Lord because I could not immediately see why a reference to suffering loss should prevent the magistrates awarding compensation for any loss they thought had been incurred. It is clear that, as a matter of law, courts award compensation for loss of enjoyment, amenity and benefits, for which money can compensate but which is not simply a case of pounds or pence out of one's pocket. As the noble Lord has
308
participated in the Bill to such a large extent, I thought that he might have had some reason for interpreting loss in the rather narrower sense which he put forward.
Further, I assumed—that is why I asked the question—that there must be something in the Bill which takes away rights of citizens to bring claims which otherwise they would have. I hoped that, if there were such a provision, he would have drawn it to your Lordships' attention. For those reasons I inquired about the questions which the noble Lord posed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am now intervening in the noble Lord's speech or whether I am replying to an intervention in mine. However, I crave your Lordships' indulgence. With great respect to the noble Lord, I disagree with him on the interpretation of new Section 21D(1)(b). I suggest to your Lordships that it is likely that on judicial review—if that were the appropriate procedure—or in the administration court, as I believe we have to call it now, loss, as described in the provision, would be limited to financial loss. In any event, the figure for loss is capped at £5,000. However, the figure for loss in a county court is not capped at £5,000. As I understand it, county courts frequently award damages of more than £5,000 in actions for false imprisonment. I am not sure what the hourly or daily rate is now, but £5,000 may well be at the lower end of compensation awards in that context. There is plainly an interesting dispute here which the noble Lord and I could more profitably—in the literal sense—have adjudicated elsewhere, were we on opposite sides. But perhaps the Minister can relieve the public of that expense by answering the questions that have been posed.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that we are all agreed—at least those of us who have discussed the Bill for many hours—that the provision which the amendment seeks to knock out is the most controversial in the Bill. It is also apparently regarded by the Government as the most important power in the Bill and the most potent power to address the mischief of British football hooliganism carried out overseas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we have discussed the clause both in principle and in detail for a long period. I do not believe that these provisions will be much used in practice for the practical reasons which have emerged in the debate and which emerged in more detail overnight. These include the existence of the compensation provisions. I shall not enter into the legal discussion which has taken place as no doubt we shall return to that when we reach the compensation provision later in our discussions. That is one practical reason. The other—which has also been mentioned—constitutes the difficulties that the measure will pose for the police. As I say, I believe that because of those practical difficulties, these provisions will not be much used in practice. I also strongly believe that the power should only be temporary to give us the opportunity to judge whether in practice the power is important and works—whether the Government are, in effect, right—and whether it is a balanced power with regard to civil liberties.

309
I am not minded to deny the Government this power at this stage. We want the Government to be able to tackle British football hooligans who commit offences overseas. We want to do that in the interests of our country and its reputation but also in the interests of football and of ordinary decent fans who wish to attend matches of the character we have discussed. While I doubt whether the power will be as important or as effective as the Government maintain, if they are allowed to try it out for a temporary period we shall be able to judge the truth of their claim and the practical effects of the proposed power.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may add a practical observation to the legal analysis advanced by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. Before doing so, I shall share with your Lordships a certain realisation based on the recent debate between my noble friend Lord Carlile and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is a point which has not been discussed hitherto but which has a great deal of substance. I suspect that there are many more such points in the Bill.
I suspect that some noble Lords will not be content with proposed new Section 21A, whatever pragmatic success it might achieve if enacted. There are such profound civil libertarian objections involved—some of which have been voiced this afternoon and many of which were voiced overnight, perhaps most effectively by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick—that we would not accept it at any price.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would like a suspension of business?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should hate to miss the noble Lord's attention because much hangs on this amendment. Effectively we are talking about the severe, pragmatic, likely consequences of proposed new Section 21A. It is common ground that the Government made strenuous efforts to prevent trouble at Euro 2000; it is common ground that NCIS spent an immense amount of time and effort trying to draw up a list of those who would cause trouble in a competition such as Euro 2000. The Home Secretary has let us know that of the 965 people arrested and deported from Brussels and Holland, only 30 were on that list of 1,000 most-wanted hooligans, if I can call them that. We also know that there were only four prosecutions of the 965, and only two of those for violence, of which one is currently being appealed.
Many noble Lords were not here at whatever hour we debated the matter this morning or last night, so I have to repeat my question to the Government—I have not yet had a reply—on the issue of how the people in the sights of the law enforcement agencies will be targeted? If they are the 1,000 most-wanted hooligans on the NCIS list, we know from the recent evidence in Belgium that they either escape the net somehow, or do not go there, or whatever else. Could it therefore be that the next most likely group to be targeted under the provisions of proposed new Section
310
21A are the 30 per cent of adult males under the age of 30 who have convictions? That group was much referred to by the Home Secretary in another place and when we met him a fortnight ago.
How on earth can one target a group that is hundreds of thousands strong? That is what it boils down to. If 30 per cent of the population of that age group have convictions of this kind, it represents hundreds of thousands of people. How will the law enforcement authorities target them? We debated this sharp, practical point enough last night to leave many of us believing that the poor police will have a simply impossible task in seeking to utilise proposed new Section 21A. If it proves an impossible task and, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, if the exercising of it is likely to be so arbitrary against a particular group that it causes more trouble than it solves, then, besides being obnoxious in legal and civil libertarian terms, proposed new Section 21A is likely to prove ineffective in fact. On that basis—quite apart from the broader legal basis—the House would be well advised to remove this whole provision from the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we spent a lot of time last night trying to get an answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Phillips. It is a vital question in relation to any decision on the state of the Bill as a whole. Clearly, if prevention is to be attempted—which the Minister recommended at great length and with some virtue last night—one must be able to identify the group which is to be prevented. On the one hand, we are shown an NCIS list which is too narrow; on the other hand, a range of people with previous convictions which is too wide. Clearly neither of those will actually be used. Unless we can show some criterion for identifying these people which has some genuine correlation with their propensity to commit disorder, we shall have no way of telling whether the Bill is more likely to impact on the guilty or on the innocent. Unless the Minister can answer that question, the Bill as a whole should fall.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may be useful if I clear up one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his interesting exchange earlier. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about civil actions; he has a long history of asking Written Questions on the subject in another place. I had some involvement in the subject earlier in my career when I was doing research as a law centre worker; I understand fully his point about the importance of a citizen being able to undertake and conduct a civil case in circumstances where they feel they have been wronged.
However, the noble Lord should understand that the provision in the Bill at proposed new Section 21D is designed to give immediate compensation without the need to make a separate application to the county court. Setting that provision into the legislation does nothing to compromise the individual citizen's absolute right—
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am sorry, I d id not mean to interrupt the noble Lord in mid-sentence.

311
However, I think I have anticipated the rest of the sentence. Can the Minister confirm that if a citizen is able to bring a civil action later, then an adverse finding of fact in a summary hearing in front of the magistrates' court will not be capable of being used by the police to put forward, for example, pleas of res judicata in the civil action which later ensues?
I see the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, shaking his head in apparent disbelief. Having been in a rougher end of the trade than he for 30 odd years, I can tell him that these are the kind of issues that arise day by day in county courts up and down the country. Perhaps the Minister will address the question and give the House an answer in addition to the very helpful answer he has given already.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always feel modest in the face of such legal knowledge and expertise. I cannot provide the noble Lord with an off-the-cuff response; I think he appreciates that. The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing in the legislation which compromises the individual citizen's right or ability to undertake a civil action where they feel they have been wronged.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I understand the Minister raising his eyes to the heavens; I promise not to interrupt again on this matter. But does not this illustrate the danger of bringing forth legislation in haste without considering what are not abstruse questions at all? I said to the Minister—and I mean it—that this is the kind of question that arises every day of the week in county courts up and down the land. Should not the Government bring forward legislation in which, at least in a Pepper v. Hart sense, they can resolve ambiguities which will come before the court—or should they not think about this provision again?
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the compensation element within the legislation was brought forward in an effort to be helpful and also to indicate that we fully appreciated the seriousness, and measured the seriousness, which the proposals in the legislation might have for an individual citizen. They were, if you like, a balancing part of the package of provisions. I find it rather strange now that the noble Lord is almost advancing an argument which says, "Well, because you put this compensation clause in, it somehow compromises the individual citizen's right to take civil action in the county court". That is not our intention. Nor is it the intention of the legislation. No doubt people will continue, as they have done for many decades, to pursue civil action where they feel they have been wronged by a public authority—in this instance by the police service.
I turn now to the other issues which are very much at the heart of the debate. While I shall do that at length, I think that what I say will cover most of the issues raised during the debate. It has been a very useful debate. Most noble Lords' concerns in the debate this afternoon and earlier in the day have been
312
focused on the civil liberties end of the business; concerns about those detained or issued with a notice commencing a banning order by consent procedure. Some noble Lords have focused on the pivotal question of implementation. I shall come to how the measure will actually work. Some noble Lords have expressed concerns about thousands of detentions— the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, used that term—and banning orders that might arise from new Sections 21A and 21B. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I thought helpfully, placed those fears into context with his dismissal of the notion of a police officer picking individuals arbitrarily out of a queue and saying, "I want to investigate you". As the noble and learned Lord made clear, the police officer has at that moment to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a condition in new Section 14B(2) has been met. Of course, he is quite correct.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope the Minister can assist me. I heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The question that we should like to have answered is what sort of grounds might it be thought reasonable to proceed upon? What type of evidence in a policeman's possession would warrant taking proceedings under the new section?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I said I would try to answer the questions. That is one of the issues to which I shall return. But, with respect, having listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, I think that he clearly understands the importance of the civil liberties issues. He has addressed also the implementation matters. It is right to concentrate first on what the debate in Committee only touched upon, perhaps almost in passing. That is the experience that has convinced the Government and the police that the measures proposed in Section 21 are a vital component of the Bill. Indeed, I argue that they are crucial if we are to seriously tackle the kind of mindless 'yobbery' and nonsense witnessed in Charleroi, Brussels, Copenhagen and elsewhere during the course of the last football season.
Some noble Lords—I hope many noble Lords—may have seen over the weekend a timely television documentary on football in the 1970s. It was a real trip down memory lane. It featured footage of the then Home Secretary, police and football authorities in a high profile meeting convened to discuss the scourge of football hooliganism. It was a timely reminder of the longevity of the phenomenon and the need for radical measures. These measures, like the extensive use of CCTV, were radical for the day. They attracted opposition and concern. But the nettle was grasped. It can be fairly argued that the domestic manifestation of football disorder was confronted head on and has been dealt with in good measure. Today, we can rightly be proud—as I have said in the past—of our domestic stadia. They are among the safest and most secure in the world. There were no easy solutions then; there are no easy solutions today.
Those of us with a passion for football, and who take pride in our national image, have no choice but to focus on the involvement of English louts in football

313
disorder overseas. Riots in Italy, Marseilles and Copenhagen came and went and we sought succour in pointing the finger at a small minority of dedicated troublemakers staining our national reputation and national game. That view mistakenly persists.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Bach: I am sorry. I hope the noble Lord will sit down for a moment before he asks his question. I should remind the House, not because the noble Lord has just got to his feet but because there have been a series of questions to the Minister while he has been giving his reply, that we are on Report now, not in Committee. If I may read briefly from the Companion so that all noble Lords are equally aware of the position:
"On Report no Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a Lord who has obtained leave of the House, which may only be granted to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech, no new matter being introduced, or to a Minister of the Crown. Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down".
Having reminded noble Lords of our conventions and rules, I invite the noble Lord to ask his question. I hope that noble Lords will allow the Minister to finish what he has to say. Then, if there are matters for elucidation, they will be asked. Then the mover of the amendment no doubt will speak to the amendment again.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the last time I sought to ask a question on Report the noble Lord made the same point. I may be a slow learner, but I receive the message. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Given that the problems with Scottish fans misbehaving over the period he was referring to overseas were solved without legislation, why is it necessary to have legislation in order to deal with the problems afflicting English fans? Does he not think that the remedy might not lie elsewhere, as proved to be the case in Scotland?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very good point. I do not dispute it. It is for that reason that we are setting up a football working group to look at the other range of issues that surround the issue. The noble Lord is a football supporter. The government of which he was a Minister introduced six measures to attempt, through legislation, to curb and deal with football hooliganism. Clearly, in the past he has supported legislation designed to tackle some of the problems we have identified which we are bringing forward to your Lordships' House today.
There is a myth that has survived that it is a problem with just a small minority. I do not believe that that is the case. The truth is that the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 and other widely accepted measures in the Bill will provide the legislative framework necessary to tackle the known football thugs. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others referred yesterday to the hooligans
314
known to NCIS. He has made reference again to that fact. He is right to do so. These people are known to the police; they know how their operate and, as Euro 2000 confirmed, they know how to minimise the impact of their thuggery. We can all take pride in the fact that our police have a world-wide reputation for combating the activities of the known football hooligan. The police use of intelligence and targeted operations are praised throughout Europe. Indeed, they were praised during Euro 2000.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was one of a number of noble Lords who also drew attention to the absence—he did so this afternoon—of known football hooligans among the many hundreds arrested, detained and deported. He was right to draw attention to that point. The dedicated hooligan was effectively removed from the scene during Euro 2000. But, and it is at the heart of the debate, English football disorder was present with a vengeance. The evidence before us is stark. Removing or banning known football troublemakers will not tackle the problem unless—the noble Lord's point—supplemented by other measures.
The Government could not ignore the Euro 2000 experience. We had an obligation to analyse the data before us and determine the best means upon which to act. Noble Lords face a similar test today. The measures contained in new Sections 14B, 21 A and 21 B are the Government's response. They are not knee-jerk; they are calculated; they are measured; and they are a response to the problem of English football disorder based on the evidence. They are radical but necessary.
The information gleaned by the police from the Dutch and Belgian authorities confirms that a significant number of those arrested in Belgium and the Netherlands were known to the police, though not necessarily in a football context.
Many have criminal convictions in their own localities for violence and disorder. They come from that pool of disaffected white males who have increasingly opted to act in an anti-social and violent way in town centres. Many appear to have racist views and a distorted view of patriotism and Englishness. In their case, rioting in Charleroi and Brussels is a football manifestation of a wider social malaise. Alcohol can and does play a crucial part.
Of course, and as we have accepted, legislation alone cannot deal with the problem, but it has a key role to play. New Section 14B will enable the police to seek a banning order by complaint on those who have previously caused or contributed to violence and disorder as soon as evidence linking the individual with football becomes available. However, the reality is that the police will not always be able to make such a link in sufficient time to pursue new Section 14B proceedings before a match or tournament commences. England followers are notorious for making last minute decisions about travelling to watch the England team. Louts are no different. In many cases, local police will have no knowledge that a known hooligan with a propensity for violence, racism

315
or disorder intends to travel until a few days before the match. That would provide insufficient time to pursue a new Section 14B banning order.
We have to build in a long-stop measure designed to meet those circumstances. And that in essence is what new Sections 21A and 21B attempt to do—successfully in my view and in the view of the police. It is a vital component of the Bill. There are no other apparent means for empowering police to protect our national interest in this field and to ensure that innocent citizens abroad are not subject to abuse and violence.
The Government also recognise the need to put in place safeguards. We have already demonstrated our willingness to do so. We have listened and responded to the concerns aired in this House and in the other place. The safeguards may hamper police operations but they recognise, and we know, that the measures we propose must enshrine in law an appropriate balance between individual civil liberties and our national and international interests and responsibilities.
A number of noble Lords queried how new Sections 21A and 21B would operate. Of course, once enacted, it would largely be an operational policing matter. But I recognise that effective scrutiny of the Bill demands some understanding of how the measure would be pursued. I, and others, have already made clear that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Superintendents Association, all strongly support the inclusion of new Sections 21A and 21B, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They would not, and have not, provided that endorsement without carefully thinking through how the measure would work and what it would deliver.
Your Lordships may wish to know that in anticipation of new Sections 14B and 21, the police are already examining what mechanisms they will need to put in place to ensure that new Section 21, in particular, will be effective. The focus will not be on targeting known football hooligans but on developing systems which gather information on individuals against whom there are unspent convictions for, or other substantive evidence of, violence or disorder once a link with football has been established. It will not feature football fans against whom there is no such evidence nor violent or disorderly persons with no connection with football. Local police forces will play a key role, particularly in the build-up to a big match or tournament overseas. They will need to gather information on local thugs and racists once it becomes known that these characters intend travelling overseas to a match. And, I repeat, that could be a matter of hours before the individuals arrive at their point of destination. That is why new Section 21 is so important.
Of course, the information gathered and used for new Section 21 purposes will still have to undergo a thorough examination in the courts. I should stress again that new Sections 14B and 21 provide the police and the courts with an effective means for preventing individuals who are known to be violent and disorderly, but who do not usually demonstrate their
316
tendencies at a football match, from travelling to matches overseas and possibly using violence and causing mayhem. The new Section 14B option is the preferred option—that needs to be understood—but, for the reasons that I have explained, the removal of new Section 21 would significantly reduce the capacity of the police to deal effectively with this menace.
Innocent people have nothing to fear; neither do the overwhelming majority of law-abiding football fans. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in Committee,
"I do not think that there is any risk of random picking of people [by the police]".—[Official Report, 24/7/00; col. 183.]
The powers in new Section 21A and 21B will be used in the same targeted fashion which characterises football-related UK policing operations.
I appreciate that this has been a long contribution on my part. I am sure that every one of your Lordships wishes that restricting the scope of the Bill in the way proposed would still leave us with a Bill that would empower the police and the courts to prevent a reoccurrence of the appalling scenes witnessed in Brussels, Charleroi, Copenhagen and many more places over the past few years. Alas, I do not believe that to be the case. The measures contained in new Section 21 are necessary because the alternative would be to ignore the Euro 2000 experience and the express wish of the police to have the means at their disposal to minimise the risk of those thugs being able to bring further shame on our nation and national game. I urge the House to oppose Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 9 and 35.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was not able to be more supportive. He took the view that new Sections 21A and 21B were unlikely to be used to any significant extent. I am unable to agree with him. The Minister has made it fairly clear that the Government intend that the power should be used quite extensively. It is likely that for a period of at least several months there will be many arrests and detentions under new Sections 21A and 21B and that that will continue until it becomes apparent, as I suspect it will become apparent, that far too high a proportion of those who are arrested have the applications for banning orders against them thrown out by the magistrates' court.
The Minister's speech confirmed very much what I suspected the aims of the police would be and why the Government want to have new Sections 21A and 21B in their armoury. It is clearly intended that those who are suspected of having hooligan tendencies—there may be a great deal of evidence to show that they are hooligans—will not be made the subject of immediate banning orders under new Section 14B but will be kept under watch and proceeded against under new Sections 21A and 21B only at the point at which they show that they have decided and have taken steps to go to a match. All the troubles will result from that.

317
The provision—it is said to be a civil remedy but is plainly in reality a criminal remedy—will not satisfy the tests of human rights. The opinion by Clare Montgomery and Rhodri Thompson, which was referred to extensively in the Committee stage, stated:
"The power conferred on the police to detain persons for the purposes of ascertaining whether section 14B(2) applies to the individual in question does not apparently fall within the scope of any of the exceptions provided for in Article 5(1)(a) to (c) of the ECHR to the general right of liberty and security of person".
In referring to hooliganism in the 1970s, the Minister said that there were no easy solutions then and that there are no easy solutions today. My problem is that I believe that the Government look on the Bill, and in particular the provisions in new Sections 21A and 21B, as being an easy solution. However, I believe that if they attempt to enforce those sections, they will find that this is far from being an easy solution.
The Minister has not moved in any way to satisfy the concerns expressed by myself and my noble friends and, indeed, others who hold similar views on these provisions. I therefore seek leave to test the opinion of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lucas, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ludford, B.

Attlee, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McNally, L.

Barker, B.

Maddock, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biffen, L.

Methuen, L.

Bowness, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bradshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Brightman, L.

Naseby, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Desai, L.

Onslow, E.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Ezra, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.[Teller]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Haslam, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holderness, L.

Roper, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Russell, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Jacobs, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sandberg, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sharman, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

318

Smith of Clifton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vivian, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Warnock, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Watson of Richmond, L

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Layard, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brett, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Molloy, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

David, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gavron, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Slim, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grenfell, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrison, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tenby, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

319

Uddin, B.

Wilkins, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 4:
Insert the following new Clause-

Football (Disorder) Bill

  Extra-territorial offences
  (".-(1) Any act or omission which-

  (a) takes place outside England and Wales, and

  (b) would, if taking place in England or Wales, constitute a relevant offence within the meaning of the Football Spectators Act 1989,

  shall, for the purposes of the law of England and Wales, constitute that offence ("an extra-territorial offence").
  (2) Proceedings for an extra-territorial offence may be taken, and the offence may for the purposes of those proceedings be treated as having been committed, in England or Wales.
  (3) Subject to any contrary provision attaching to any such relevant offence an extra-territorial offence may only be commenced against a person who is either a British citizen or resident in England or Wales.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I crave the indulgence of the House to ask for a correction to be made to the amendment in my name. The words "prosecution of" need to be inserted in line 2, so that the amendment reads:
  "Subject to any contrary provision attaching to any such relevant offence prosecution of an extra-territorial offence",
  and so on.
  I am afraid that I have a terrible sense of déjà vu in relation to this matter—indeed, it seems like a Joycean continuity—but I am afraid that I must run over the main sinews of the justification for the amendment because many noble Lords were not present when we debated it just a few hours ago.
  The first, important point is that the amendment in no sense works against the Bill. It seeks to add to the powers already present the Bill in order to achieve its purposes. It in no way affects or detracts from the other powers. Secondly, I should make clear that the amendment is not entirely a creature of my own imagination. For the wording, I drew on the extraterritorial arrangements in the legislation between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
  The arguments that were adduced against the amendment in last night's debate could be summarised as follows. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that there should be a definition as to whom the extra-territoriality would relate. That is the purpose of
  320
  the addition of subsection (3), which was not in the amendment proposed in Committee. That clarifies a perfectly legitimate point.
  The second objection was that the amendment, if carried, would represent a significant extension of the present, very limited powers of extra-territoriality. That is true; at present, they apply to offences such as piracy, terrorism and paedophilia. I think it fair to say that the justification behind extra-territoriality—or rather, against extra-territoriality—is that it is usually not in the public or national interest. If there is a theft or burglary in Portugal, why should the authorities here have any concern with the matter at all? But in the Bill there is a particular interest and objective, which is precisely to bring to heel our citizens who misbehave, usually in mainland continental Europe. One of the problems repeatedly referred to—and there is no issue between us on this—is that it is a heck of a job to get at the people whom we wish to bring to heel. The amendment would make that task a great deal easier.
  The third objection is that there could be a problem in terms of what lawyers sometimes call the comity of nations. For example, would there be a problem between us and the Belgians with us both having the right to prosecute for the same act? The answer is no. It does not require any further legislation. All that is required in order to avoid that sort of muddle is for British authorities to converse and agree with Belgian authorities—as indeed they did, expensively over Euro 2000—and to decide between them, when offences have been committed that speak to both Belgian law and to our law, who is to take the initiative.
  One of the problems that arose over Euro 2000 was, of course, that of the 965 British people arrested and deported, only two have been prosecuted for violence. I partly understand why that is so. I am sure that the Belgians say, "Why on earth should we go to all the trouble, hassle and expense of prosecuting these over-beered louts? Let's ship 'em out"—and that is what they did, rather indiscriminately. The amendment would mean that instead of a large number getting off scot-free, we should with evidence, as I shall set out, be able to prosecute in this country according to our own laws, in our own way, according to our own standards of proof, without any new-fangled laws, and achieve the deterrent effect without which, frankly, the Bill is a total waste of time.
  I turn briefly to the question of obtaining evidence and the whole issue of arrest. Again, that is a pragmatic partnership matter between the authorities here and those in the country concerned. I emphasise that a great deal of co-operation goes on in main tournaments as it does in regard to important matches. I foresee the Belgians being happy with the prospect of our taking responsibility for our people by prosecuting them here. That would be a severe deterrent to bad behaviour; and that is what they devoutly hope for when British fans go over to Belgium. So I see no problem in terms of arrest.
  Nor do I see any problems over evidence. The same evidence would be required in this country for an offence committed in Belgium as would be required for

  321
  any offence committed here. The simple issue remains whether there is enough evidence. It could be video evidence or direct evidence. We send large numbers of our police and security people over to the Continent for football tournaments anyhow. I do not see that the Belgians would wish to be obstructive in terms of their personnel coming to Britain to give evidence. These are all practical matters which can readily be resolved by sensible talking between the authorities in the countries concerned.
  If one ran into a situation where, for example, the French said, "We are not having anything to do with your law, your people and the rest of it. To hell with you", so be it. We lose nothing by the Bill. It would simply mean that with regard to a particular tournament or match the Bill would be ineffective as regards extra-territoriality.
  The question of expense was raised: would it not be frightfully expensive having to ship over Belgian police or ship over to Belgium considerable numbers of our own police? But we do that anyhow. The expense referred to is piffling compared with the ill that we seek to address and the damage to our national reputation —and indirectly to our chances of holding the tournaments in this country, the commercial benefit of which is enormous.
  The advantages of the amendment are implicit in what I have said. It would give a second string to the bow available to the police and other authorities to combat this insidious problem. It would use existing law, and would avoid altogether the civil libertarian and other issues on which so many noble Lords have been eloquent and about which we feel so strongly.
  Happily, Clause 3 of the Bill as it stands already contains a power to allow the necessary supplementary provisions to be made under the Bill to fill in the gaps that exist with regard to what is a relatively short provision in the amendment. Most happily of all, Schedule 1 provides a complete, work-through set of offences to which the extra-territoriality would relate—something like 23 separate categories of football-related offences are all worked through practically. This amendment simply taps into that provision.
  Finally, the amendment would provide us with the power to deal with some of these thugs ourselves. We should not be reliant on reluctant foreign authorities. Jack Straw made clear how disappointed he was at the Belgian failure to prosecute. We should have the remedy in our own hands, in our own courts, according to our traditional protections. Publicity would undoubtedly ensure when we had had 10, 20 or even 100 exemplary prosecutions. I sincerely hope that the Government will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, and that they will not oppose the addition of extra-territoriality to the Bill's provision. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have a terrible suspicion that, regrettably, the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be dashed. Last night the Government were determined to introduce
  322
  into English law a system which will exacerbate the tendency to detain and ban the innocent, whereas if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is accepted it is most likely that the guilty will be prosecuted. I accept the comment made last night about the slightly novel concept of extending extraterritoriality to what might be termed relatively minor offences. However, the Government do not treat these as minor offences. Basically, the Government believe that football hooligans who travel abroad are nearly as bad as the Black Death or Hitler's invasion of Europe. The Government and the newspapers are becoming hysterical about it. Why else is the Bill being rushed through in nanoseconds and noble Lords are unable to read what was said yesterday in Committee because Hansard has not yet been published?
  Undoubtedly, the Government have panicked and produced rotten, lousy legislation. We might get somewhere if only we could persuade some of the more libertarian Tory Members of the House to vote for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The noble Lord has provided a rescue helicopter for the Government. Here is a lovely way to identify the guilty, prosecute them and punish them in a way that deters others. If that leads to a lack of hooliganism in this country it may be translated into a lack of hooliganism overseas. I wish that I had not heard as much as I did last night, which was depressing beyond peradventure.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, much as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as a civil libertarian. I cannot understand his amendment. It emerged last night in debate that the use of extra-territoriality to deal with football offences is a step too far. The noble Lord has, as it were, internalised his rhetoric against Football hooligans and sought to provide a super-solution which is more violent than the Government's proposals.
  Noble Lords will be aware that I do not like the Bill. I believe that the Government make too much of the issue of football violence. Be that as it may, to extend the concept of extra-territoriality, which is normally concerned with serious offences like paedophilia, to football hooliganism is very worrisome.
  I should like to ask three questions to aid my understanding since I am not a lawyer. First, I do not know whether under subsection (3) of the noble Lord's amendment a British citizen who is resident abroad is subject to extra-territoriality. Secondly, the noble Lord said that if the French wanted to punish football hooligans, so be it; we should not bother. However, I see nothing in the noble Lord's amendment to prevent double jeopardy. If the French punished football hooligans and the British press reported the presence of English thugs abroad those individuals could be punished here on their return. Thirdly, I put a quest ion to my noble friend purely out of curiosity. I believe that the Bill does nothing to prevent English foot ball fans from travelling to an international game in the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Perhaps my reading of the legislation is entirely wrong. However, one does not need a passport to visit Northern Ireland,

  323
  and to travel to the Republic via Northern Ireland is very easy. Perhaps I am pointing out a loophole which will strengthen the Bill at Third Reading. However, while sitting here that thought has come into my mind.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I opposed a broadly similar amendment last night and shall not weary noble Lords by repeating my arguments this afternoon. I spoke at about 11.25 p.m. and so my reasons are already in print—in the unlikely event that anyone will be remotely interested. Of far more interest is that at least two noble and learned Lords have opposed the amendment, largely on the ground that it is undesirable to create extra-territorial offences over and above the very limited grave offences of murder and sexual offences against children. Despite the very persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that this is a step too far. As I said at Second Reading, I believe that a better way to deal with the matter is to encourage more prosecutions on the Continent by offering to accommodate and feed convicted prisoners in this country, as the law already provides.
  The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in reply to criticisms last night suggested that the Liberal Democrat amendment was the lesser of two evils as compared with Sections 21A and 21B. That is so. I do not, however, see why we should put up with either of them, provided that at Third Reading tomorrow we can have another go at watering down Section 21A, even though we are no longer in a position completely to defeat it.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is the last amendment to be dealt with today which we debated yesterday. All of the amendments to be dealt with after this were debated earlier today. That gives noble Lords a small advantage, in that the report of that debate is now available. There is a draft of Hansard in the Library, as the Government Chief Whip informed us earlier, but there is only one copy of it. When I sought to steal it I had to return it rather rapidly. I have not had an opportunity to study it. Therefore, it is not able to assist us in later debates. However, for the purposes of this amendment we have the benefit of the report of the debate last night.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, moved his amendment last night I had some sympathy for it. However, two noble and learned Lords pointed out that the amendment gave rise to problems. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has returned with subsection (3). Since I am not a lawyer, perhaps when the Minister winds up he will inform me whether that subsection deals with the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick; namely, whether if a Belgian hooligan arrived in this country for, say, a holiday he could be arrested when he next came to the UK and be made subject to an English banning order.
  324
  We are aware that extra-territorial jurisdiction works for serious offences. There are provisions to deal with terrorism as between this country and the Republic of Ireland, and there are also provisions to deal with paedophiles. However, there is concern as to whether, if we suddenly widen the power to include this specific offence, we shall begin a new trend.
  My noble friend Lord Onslow was concerned about someone who hurled a brick in the Champs Elysées. Most of my noble friend's analogies last night concerned that part of Paris, which says something about his holiday destinations and the style that he adopts when there. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has also been to the Champs Elysées—or even the Left Bank. Perhaps Montmartre is more suitable. The Government could reassure noble Lords in one respect. Last night we asked what the Government were doing to encourage prosecutions in the country where the offences were committed.
  I do not want to repeat the debate. From listening to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, we know that many of the vast numbers of people arrested were simply caught up in the sweep. Nevertheless, out of those vast numbers there have been only three prosecutions. The view on the Continent seems to be, "Arrest them; put them on the train and ferry; get rid of them as quickly as possible and we don't have to deal with them". That must be unsatisfactory. The Government said that they wanted people to be prosecuted. However, the Minister did not say what help the Government were giving to encourage prosecuting authorities in those countries. Noble Lords might be reassured if the Minister were able to do so. The Minister said that there would be difficulties. If someone were prosecuted because he was filmed on CCTV would the Government have access to that film? These are not strong reasons. Reasons of principle are perhaps stronger arguments against the amendment.
  We started off by being sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, we are concerned about creating a whole new raft of extraterritorial offences. Therefore we shall listen to the Minister's reply with an open mind. It would help if the noble Lord could expand on how the Government can encourage the conviction of more hooligans in the country where the offence is committed.
  Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment which fits into an increasing trend in the European Union towards mutual assistance in criminal matters. The amendment concentrates on gaining convictions—a point that we on these Benches have made consistently. As regards the lesser of two evils, when attempting to steer a path between the devil of continental deportations and the deep blue sea of summary justice it seems valid to provide for a practical and effective way forward.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, makes a valid point about seeking to ensure that the Belgian authorities gain convictions. The problem is that that aim is more in our self interest than that of the Belgians. It will always be easier to deport. After all, that country has had the expense of keeping people in

  325
  custody. It has suffered its worst part whereas for us the damage to our reputation continues. The onus is on this country to do something about it.
  The problems regarding access to evidence could also be addressed within the EU context. It was one of the areas identified for greater effort at the summit meeting of heads of government on justice and home affairs last October in Tampere in Finland. It is not necessarily a question of the harmonisation of criminal law—that alarms many people—but of mutual assistance and more recognition regarding convictions and orders relating to evidence.
  That is a good way forward. The convictions can be secured in Belgium, Holland, France, or wherever. Alternatively, recognising that it is more in our interests than those of the other countries, we should consider the evidence collected and secure convictions at home. I believe that this is one of a narrow range of offences for which extra-territoriality should be considered.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister gathers his brief, I hope that he will respond with an open mind. As the Bill progresses, I have a growing suspicion that we may be finding some of the solutions to soccer hooliganism. But the Government will not regard as key parts of the Bill some of the solutions which will work.
  I suspect that hooliganism will be weaned away from soccer not by the policeman exercising these powers at the points of departure but by a range of measures instituted by clubs and others. I agree with the noble Viscount's point that soccer hooliganism has lacked any kind of "truth and consequence". Individuals go away and cause mayhem and no one is ever prosecuted. The Minister needs to consider how to establish truth and consequence both at home and abroad. The Minister describes the powers that he wants to give police at the points of departure as preventive. I am not so sure that they will be as preventive as the Government hope. When hooligans see their friends being prosecuted, convicted and paying a price for soccer hooliganism, that will be the real deterrent. The Minister should devote his attention to that aspect. That is why I hope that his response indicates an openness of mind.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to be as encouraging as I can. It was an interesting debate last night. Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour which made me sound more negative than I did when we discussed the issue at Second Reading.
  I thought that I had made plain the problems with extra-territorial jurisdiction. The views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, were telling. It remains the case that extra-territorial jurisdiction exists in only fairly limited circumstances—murder, certain serious sex crimes, and piracy, which I think was mentioned during the debate. It is fairly constrained territory.
  I am quite attracted to the amendment. It has had some currency with debate within the Home Office and with the football authorities. It has the benefit of
  326
  convenience in the sense that perhaps it will add greater certainty to outcome. I recognise the strength of the noble Lord's argument on that point. There are problems. Burdens and standards of proof, transportation of evidence and witnesses, the less easy transposition of like offences, and so on, would be real difficulties.
  There is another difficulty. The extra-territorial jurisdiction procedure would relate to criminal offences and therefore to criminal law and procedures. That is an important point. That would mean that retrospective evidence would be excluded from such proceedings. We believe that one of the strengths of new Section 14B(2) is that it is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. That means that the use of retrospective evidence is far more easily squared with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Finally, extra-territorial jurisdiction in our view could never constitute a strategy against football hooliganism. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, saw it almost as the answer when he passionately put forward his argument. We believe that we need these proactive and preventive powers to try to stop likely troublemakers from travelling overseas in the first instance. I think that we are right to push for that. Punishing them afterwards will, for us, always be a second best option. In politics one should never say "never". This particular amendment falls carefully into that category.
  I suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraws his amendment on the basis of an undertaking that we shall bring back a report on the discussion of the first sunset clause so that we can consider what merit and value there is in extra-territorial jurisdiction. I believe that it will be one year for the first period of the sunset clause. Then some further consideration can be given to this matter with a view perhaps to considering legislation at some later date when the opportunity arises.
  I recognise that that is perhaps not what the noble Lord wants and that that undertaking is not as firm and crisp as he would like. We have a measure of interest and sympathy with the direction of the amendment. It may well be part of a wider armoury of measures which we need to consider.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, quite properly asked what we were doing to encourage prosecutions abroad. When I visited the mayors and police chiefs of Charleroi and Eindhoven, I was pretty fulsome in my encouragement that they should adopt a zero or a low-tolerance approach and back that up by using their courts to prosecute those apprehended during the course of the Euro 2000 tournament. They gave me their assurances that they would, as they always do in such circumstances. We had a very happy signing ceremony of protocols where it was agreed that that would take place.
  The Belgian authorities chose to use the exportation route. Because the offence for which arrests were made was "administrative", to use their own description, no prosecutions are likely to ensue except in the few and limited cases which have been widely discussed in the

  327
  British press and to which much reference has been made. That is a great disappointment. I believe that it would be better for justice to be done, and be seen to be done, across Europe when instances of hooliganism take place. That would send a very loud and powerful message and make the hooligans extremely uncomfortable about being prosecuted in another jurisdiction and having to put up with all the inconvenience and unpleasantness that that sometimes brings. We as a Government are keen to work closely with our European partners to encourage them to make full use of their powers within their own jurisdiction where there are similar offences and where persons have been arrested for acts that constitute hooliganism.
  I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will treat my comments as encouraging, sympathetic and practical because that is how I intend them. I trust that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. There is a slight problem in that there were five questions addressed specifically to me. Perhaps I may give one-sentence replies. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked whether their would be double jeopardy. I think not. He asked about British citizens abroad. They would be within the Bill, but it is highly unlikely that we would bother about them. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about Belgian tourists here. They would not come within the territoriality provisions. The objection of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is covered by subsection (3) of the amendment. As regards the misgivings in principle of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, we did not know what his views were after I had endeavoured to persuade him that there was no problem. He did not speak after that.
  I am not worried about the trend towards extraterritoriality because the circumstances warranting that will be few and far between. I believe that the rationale of traditional extra-territoriality will be found consonant with this proposal.
  As regards encouraging others to deal with our hooligans, I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, got a good lunch out of his protocol signing because he got very little else. I fear that that is how it is going to be. Finally, his "problem" as he put it, of the burden and the standards of proof is precisely why we are keen on this amendment. It overcomes the problem which for us is that the burden and standard of proof under the Bill is not as we would have it.
  Having said that, I am grateful for the Minister's comments which were constructive. I accept that such a major incision into the Bill now is problematic. I like to believe that mature consideration will lead to the Government wanting to introduce an amendment such as this fairly soon. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Supplementary]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 2, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("or affirmative instrument")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I move this amendment and speak to government Amendment No. 6. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I can be brief as regards Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. They fulfil the Government's intention as regards Clause 3 of the Bill in complying with the recommendation of the Select Committee's report on the delegated powers.
  The considerations are explained eloquently in the Select Committee's report, which I am sure noble Lords will have read. Therefore, I simply commend the amendment to your Lordships. I shall speak briefly to the noble Lord's amendment. It would make all orders made under Clause 3 of the Bill subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, even those amending orders which themselves were subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
  Perhaps I may attempt to assist the House by emphasising the limited nature of the power to make amendments under Clause 3(1) of the Bill. The suggestion that it gives the Government complete authority to make any changes that they wish in the Bill is unfounded. The power is limited to supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions. I have undertaken to advise the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the arcane legal thinking underlying the difference between transitory and transitional. I said yesterday that I would do that as soon as possible. However, in the time available to me this morning, I have been unable to do the necessary research. The important point is that we accept that any amendments to primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is already provided for by Clause 3(4) of the Bill.
  I have now brought forward an amendment which fully complies with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on the point now that we have been able to ensure that it poses no obstacle, as it was feared it might, to the availability of legal advice and assistance to those who may need it. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord who is a great expert in this field, that his amendment would not necessarily improve the Bill. I ask him to consider not moving it.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the purpose in tabling the amendment was to seek the very tight, analytical exposition that we have just received and to have it on the record. It seems to me to be wholly satisfactory. The other point in tabling the amendment is the very extraordinary width of powers and the arcane distinction which rather foxed me, too. Even

  329
  without elucidation of that matter, I am wholly content. I thank the noble Lord. I shall not move my amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as a member of the devolved legislation committee, and speaking only for myself, perhaps I may express my own gratitude, which is neither transitory nor transitional, for the way in which the Government have responded to our recommendations. They were inspired by exactly the considerations that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway had in mind when he tabled his amendment. The present position will be very satisfactory.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the Committee's recommendation.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, when I moved my amendment earlier this morning the noble Lord, Lord Bach, intervened and said that I would be pleasantly surprised by what he had to say. He has fulfilled his promise by coming forward with Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. We welcome them and thank him.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 2, line 21, at end insert-
  ("In this subsection, "affirmative instrument" means a statutory instrument a draft of which was laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament or the House of Commons.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [Commencement and duration]:
  [Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 9A:
  Page 2, line 43, leave out ("four") and insert ("three").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9A has been tabled by the Government this afternoon during the course of our deliberations. It reflects the Government's intention to take on board some of the concerns and criticisms raised about the extent of the widely noted and acknowledged sunset clause. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, made a valuable contribution to our deliberations. When the Home Secretary had a lively, useful and entertaining meeting in the Committee Room upstairs, the noble Lord suggested that there should be a sunset clause. The Home Secretary, quite within character, said that he thought it was a good idea and that he would take it away and think about what such a clause might look like. We now have two sunset clauses on the face of the Bill. One comes into effect after one year and the second after four years.
  Yesterday, a number of Members of the Committee were critical of the proposal. They believed that there should be a six-month sunset clause followed by a one-year sunset clause. During the course of the Committee I managed reasonably to persuade Members that that was too short a period of time for us to examine, analyse and consider the impact of the legislation. Members of the Committee realised that we had a fair point.
  There are few international football matches within the next six months. Yes, there are some important ones—football fans would say that all international matches are important—but there was a recognition that, perhaps with the exception of the one in Paris in September, they would not attract major problems and that we needed a longer period of time to examine the effectiveness of the measures after enactment of the Bill.
  We rightly made the point that we needed to see how the measures would work over a number of years. Two important competitions are coming up. The run-up games to the final of the World Cup 2002 will provide a severe test—
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord wants to see whether the system is working effectively. Is there any prospect of the evaluation being carried out by an agency independent of the Home Office? That would provide many of us with great reassurance.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It is a matter to which we could give careful consideration as it has some merit. However, we must carry out a proper appraisal. A measure of independence, and certainly advice independent of the Home Office, would add value.
  In addition to the World Cup 2002 there will be the Euro 2004 games which are to be played in Portugal. That is an important competition and qualifying for it will be a major test. The location and time of the matches is yet to be determined because the draw has not been made. But they will obviously be against other European countries and the matches might be a lightning rod for the kind of hooligan acts we have seen during the past few months.
  It is the view of the Government, which will probably be shared by NCIS and the police, that we need to have these measures in place in the run-up to the qualifying games for the World Cup 2002 and Euro 2004. It would be a poor reflection if we had in place a sunset clause which provided only limited cover for that period. If the measures which we believe will be effective were to be removed during the run-up to Euro 2004, no doubt our European competitor countries would have something important to say. They made their views volubly known during Euro 2000. They felt that perhaps we had not gone the extra mile towards putting in place measures which would deal effectively with the hooligan problem.

  331
  For that reason, and because we have carefully reflected on what noble Lords have said, at page 2, line 43, we propose to leave out "four" and insert "three" for the second sunset clause contained in the legislation. That will take us up to 2004 and will provide us with ample opportunity to see whether the measures have been effective; perhaps to have a degree of independent evaluation and to receive those views; for us to work closely with the National Criminal Intelligence Service; for us to continue our close working relationships with the UK-wide police service; and for us to ensure that those measures enable us to make good use of the powers contained within them.
  I recognise that the amendment we have tabled today does not go as far as some Members of your Lordships' House would like. I know that some of them take the view that the measure, because it is in some respects an infringement of civil liberties, should remain on the statute book for only the shortest possible time. We take the view that it needs to be there somewhat longer so that we can evaluate its effectiveness.
  I say that based on the history of the football-related measures which have been passed in this country. As I have said on several occasions, we have seen the steady creation of legislation which has attempted to deal with different aspects of the problem of football hooligans. Collectively, that legislation has become effective. The legislation we seek to place on the statute book during this Session adds another element to that. We need to have a careful, thought-through, constructive evaluation of the impact of the legislation.
  I recognise that another amendment on the Marshalled List would dramatically reduce the sunset clause by halving it from four to two years in its accumulated effect. I believe that that would be a mistake. I do not believe that it will enable us to make the type of judgment that we need to make on the value of the legislation; nor do I believe that it will give us the time to discover what impact it has had.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way on that point. I am not sure whether my question is addressed to him, to the Table or to the Chair. We are debating Amendment No. 9A. If it is carried, does that mean that Amendment No. 10 cannot be moved? We are often told that—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the answer is that, if Amendment No. 9A is accepted, Amendment No. 10 can also be moved.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, that means that we would have two contradictory measures. I sometimes believe that we walk into the bacon slicer in this place.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was looking forward to yet more learned debate and discussion about matters of procedure.
  332
  The other important point with regard to our amendment is that it will provide a first year review. I believe that it would be wise for annual reviews to be built into the whole of the sunset period so that we may have a rolling programme to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation. In a sense, we already do that with other pieces of legislation, examining the impact of particular measures. I am not afraid for us to go down that route.
  I believe that this legislation requires a period of stability. It is important and the measures are proportionate. I recognise the civil libertarian concerns, and we have brought forward amendments which actively pursue some of the points raised in another place and in your Lordships' House to match that concern. We have also given assurances. I believe that this longer sunset clause period is needed in order to carry out the important job of understanding whether the legislation is effective. That type of approach has not been adopted previously. It is a new approach and I believe that it says a great deal that it has been developed from your Lordships' House. I believe that the measure is right and proportionate and I urge your Lordships most strongly to adopt it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has explained that Amendment No. 10, standing in my name and those of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, addresses the same point. It seeks to reduce the second half of the sunset period to one year, making a total of two years.
  Last night I advanced a more restrictive formula but did not press it. The Minister suggested that we should try to obtain a greater measure of agreement. There is agreement between the Liberal Democrat and our own Benches but, unfortunately, that does not include the Minister. However, he has—and I acknowledge and am grateful for this—moved from four years to three.
  My point is that, first, in any of its formulations the sunset clause affects only the powers in new Sections 14B, 21A and 21B. Those who were with us through the night now know those sections in detail. We know that they are novel—the Minister has just said so. We know that they are dangerous from the libertarian's point of view, and we know that they are full of practical problems to an acute degree. In some respects, they are also suspect in relation to European legislation, the European Convention on Human Rights and so on.
  In particular, to start with new Sections 21A and 21B appeared to be essential to the Bill. However, a few minutes ago in a previous debate the Minister described them as "longstop" measures. Therefore, their importance in the Bill has retreated somewhat, but they are still important for their novelty, their libertarian problems and their practical problems. However, the question is: how long should they be allowed to run for this experiment? As I made clear during debate on an earlier amendment, our acceptance of the experiment is based on the notion that it is an experiment and that, given the nature of the

  333
  problem, it is worth trying. The Government proposed and examined the measure. Therefore, it is worth trying, but not, I suggest, for very long.
  Last night we understood that the provisions will apply to approximately 20 international games a year, involving England playing overseas in various competitions and friendly matches and also significant British clubs playing overseas. All those games may give rise to problems. Therefore, over the two years as a whole some 40 games will take place, together with some 40 experiments relating to the provisions. During that time we shall be able to discover whether the libertarian dangers are as great as are supposed and whether the practical and legal problems can be overcome.
  From what we read in the newspapers, apparently two years will easily clear the next election and take us into the next Parliament, whatever that may bring. I believe that a two-year period provides the best solution; that is, one year until the affirmative order, which is agreed on both sides, and one further year until the expiration of the primary legislation which will require further legislation to renew it. That further legislation should not prove too difficult if the experiment works well.
  Finally, I want to clarify my understanding of the position concerning these two amendments. Amendment No. 9A—the manuscript amendment recently moved by the Government—provides for three years. Whatever the result of the House's decision on that amendment, we can still move Amendment No. 10 to reduce the period to one year. As I understand it, that is the advice of the Clerks, which the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip gave us. Of course, we believe that three years are better than four and, so far as I am concerned, we shall accept Amendment No. 9A, although I must let the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speak for himself. However, I believe that we shall also wish to press Amendment No. 10 to reduce the whole of the sunset clause period to two years.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask a further technical question. Is this how the process works? In goes three years. There is then a new amendment which states two years. Out goes three years and in pops two? Is that how it works? If so, that would be the shortest period that I have ever heard stated in an Act of Parliament.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has stated the position correctly. Amendment No. 9A will be put. If my opinion prevails, it will be accepted and the figure will be lowered to three. Subsequently, I shall move formally Amendment No. 10, reducing the period to two years in total—that is, one year plus one year. The House will then no doubt decide whether or not we should take that further step which I recommend.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, although I do not want us to get into barrack-room "lawyery" on this matter, I believe that it is now clear that, if we want the period
  334
  to be one year plus one year, we must carry Amendment No. 10. If we carry Amendment No. 10, that will go into the Bill and not the provision for one plus three years.
  From the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I believe that it will have been noticed that there is now among those of us who were here in the wee small hours a certain camaraderie, rather like Henry V's troops at Agincourt—we band of brothers. Indeed, there was a point last night when I started to feel brotherly love towards the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—something that I was not expecting.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps he would say whether that was during my presence or my absence.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, after the earlier decision yesterday on Section 28, I had better keep that to myself.
  I do not know whether it is by accident or by design that the usual channels have allowed us to make our decision in this way. As it seems a rather ingenious solution, I assume that it must have been an accident. We have an opportunity to balance the two arguments. One, which was made last night by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who has spoken with increasing authority during the passage of the Bill, is about giving the Bill time to bed in. The other, made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others, stresses the concerns that the civil rights implications of the Bill are so fundamental and the way in which it is being taken through the House at a gallop is so worrying that it should stay on the statute book for the shortest possible time before it is examined again with the full rigours of parliamentary scrutiny.
  The Liberal Democrats come down in favour of the latter argument. We shall acquiesce in the passage of Amendment No. 9A, but only to give it the shortest parliamentary life, because we intend to seek the House's approval for Amendment No. 10. Given the way in which the Bill has been put through and the civil liberties issues that it has raised, it should be brought back to Parliament at the earliest possible moment.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I welcome a new Tory Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit of Philadelphia—the city of brotherly love. I even extend a fraction of brotherly love to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on this issue, although it is up to him whether he accepts it. He has at least moved a small way, which is an improvement. As the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Cope, have said, there is too much that is wrong with the Bill and too much that is bad in it. If it had been up to me, it would have gone the way of the Test Acts, but it will probably go through. At least if we do not get two years, we have got three. For that and for very small mercies, let us be grateful.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that the Opposition would support

  335
  the Bill as an experiment. If it is an experiment and there is agreement that there should be a sunset clause, surely it is essential that there should be sufficient time to see whether the experiment is good, bad or something in between.
  I am no fan of the Bill, but it seems that it will be passed, so we should allow the reasonable time that the Minister has suggested for the sunset clause. I doubt that the purpose of the Bill will be achieved, although I also have a somewhat conflicting fear that it may be, but at the price of unreasonable and dangerous damage to the civil liberties of a number of innocent people.
  The period allowed by Amendment No. 10 would be inadequate. The issue is not just the number of international matches that would be covered—let us say 24. We will not necessarily be able to tell whether the Bill is useful, effective and valuable—or otherwise—immediately after a match.
  A number of points have been made on that issue by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally. There will be challenges in the courts and questions about the European Convention on Human Rights, which may not be resolved as soon as the match is over. After we have spent however many hours it was that your Lordships spent in Committee last night and further hours today, it would be unwise to leave an inadequate period for an experiment—to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Cope—to see whether the Bill has good effects.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, may have used the word "experiment", but I do not believe that Mr Straw would associate himself with the idea that the Bill is an experiment. That is why I asked about independent evaluation. The problem is that civil servants will be under immense pressure to say that it has been a triumphant success. That is why we need an independent agency to evaluate it and publish a report to the Home Office. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that it is best to persuade the Minister that that is desirable.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I can see great value in that suggestion. If the Home Office did not engage independent researchers to inquire into the issue, no doubt the noble Lord and many others would ask questions about it so that the Home Office was well aware of the issue.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the procedure by which we are going to vote is peculiar, but we have agreed it and we should not reopen the issue. However, if we come to a similar situation in future, it would be wise to take the most restrictive amendment first, because if that was passed, there would be no need to go further. However, that is a side issue.
  The assessment of the Bill will be conducted not so much by officials in the Home Office or outside as by the press, the television and the public, who will look to see whether the provisions have worked.
  336
  I shall not say that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, delivered an Exocet to his case, but he certainly had a bit of a shot at his foot when he said that if we had only a very short period, only one match might be affected, which would not be enough to tell whether the provisions were effective. We have had this extraordinary procedure of being up all night because he claimed that that one match was of such massive importance that it was vital that we got the Bill through in great haste, which could result in rather muddled legislation. He should reflect on which case he is making. He cannot make both.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I fear that I was not present at 5 o'clock this morning. I was in another place. The Opposition can have their cake and eat it. The three-year period that is being proposed can be abbreviated. There is nothing wrong with that. I have strong reservations about the Bill, but Ministers could make a judgment within three years or within two years. They would not be short of representations from organisations such as Liberty.
  It is as though Ministers are psychic. They are not. I was a Minister myself in the period of Wilson, Callaghan and Blair, so I know that Ministers are not psychic. They have their own views. It is not as though this evening the view has been expressed that Ministers take whatever is presented to them. They do not. That being the case, I believe that three years is a reasonable period of time. That does not mean that a period of three years will necessarily be applied.
  If Ministers believe that the Bill is worthless, they will come to that view. First, a period of three years will give Ministers an opportunity to hear about the merits of the Bill from outside. Secondly, it will give the public the opportunity to express their point of view, which is not an unimportant part of what the Government have to consider. Thirdly, it will give the Opposition the opportunity to consider the situation as it is.
  Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives should view this from the point of view of the efficacy of the proposal, and not from the point of view of party advantage. I do not see that there is any party advantage in this matter. We can best make it work by ensuring that the Government have a period within which they can come to a proper and a considered point of view. I believe that that is the only point of view that is important.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Borrie, although I do not much like the Bill, I believe that a longer period is preferable for the following reasons. If people's civil liberties are affected, lawyers being what they are, it will take a long time for us to find out that that is the case. The headline numbers of hooligans caught or not caught will not be an effective test of the Bill in relation to civil liberties. Only when such people have been prevented from travelling and they proceed through the civil courts will we see the result. Lawyers would be poor if they did not take a long time to decide such matters.

  337
  A longer period would also give us a larger sample of the rights and wrongs of the matter and not much will be lost by waiting. I hope that when we consider this matter again it will not be in the last week of July.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I too do not like many aspects of this legislation. I want to address my remarks to the particular proposal for the one-plus-one-year period. The effect of that would be that the current legislation would end two years from now, as I expect these provisions to be triggered within days. That means that legislation will have to be provided in the Government's legislative programme commencing in the autumn of next year. Presumably, any review of the legislation would take at least two or three months.
  The kind of careful consideration that we would want to see for such legislation, as opposed to this unseemly rush, would take a number of months and not a number of weeks. Therefore, I would have expected that a review of the process would be completed by the end of next year and that the consideration of draft legislation, if any, would take place in the spring and summer of 2002. Effectively, that means that for the review to be completed by the end of December next year, it would have to commence by September next year. The one-plus-one period would mean that the decisions taken in two years' time would be based on not more than 12 months of football.
  Continually I have expressed the view—I am delighted that the Minister has accepted this—that the so-called short route will be only a modest contribution to the effect of this legislation. In my view, the legislation will have an effect of substance only if the longer route—that is the long process of identifying hooligans and bringing them before magistrates' courts in a proper manner—bears fruit. That will bear fruit only by consistently following hooligans, identifying them match after match, month after month, over two or three years.
  To noble Lords opposite and to those minded to go down the one-plus-one-year route I say that they will not give themselves or anyone else a fair opportunity to assess how this legislation works. I do not like the speed of this legislation, as those who have followed the debates on this Bill will know, but the next time it is reviewed, it must be reviewed properly, carefully and at length with a fair ability to assess whether or not it has worked. In my view it will be assessed on whether or not the long route has worked. I believe that the short route will not be used frequently because, if it is, it will rapidly fall into disrepute.
  I hope that, despite the agreement made in the early hours of this morning, noble Lords can reflect on whether the one-plus-one-year route really makes sense if we have the common objective of ensuring that next time the legislation is properly considered.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has made many valuable contributions during the passage of the Bill. The reality is that the word
  338
  "review" that he has used carries weight only if a review is an independent review. The Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have not yet committed themselves. He has indicated some interesting ideas, but he has gone no further. When I put the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, he said that we would be in a strong position to complain and to criticise the Government if a review was not independent. That again is totally useless.
  We want a clear undertaking from the Minister that any review of this Bill will be conducted by an independent agency and not by civil servants who will be placed in a ludicrous position because they would be invited to say that all this effort that we have applied to this Bill had been proved totally worthless because we did not have the opportunity of insisting that the review should be carried out by an independent agency.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, during the course of the debates on the Bill the noble Lord put to me the use of what he describes now as an "independent agency". We had not given earlier consideration to that point, but I am prepared to consider it. Perhaps the noble Lord would share with us his thoughts on what that independent agency may be.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not believe that it is for me to name any particular organisation that would carry out the review.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I gave way to the Minister and now I am replying to the point that he made.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, this is Report stage.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was about to chide the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about exactly that.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord need trouble himself with that. I am well aware that we have reached Report stage. I have intervened only twice to ask a question. I am now addressing myself to the issue. This afternoon I made the point to the Minister and he has an opportunity to consult his advisers, who are not a thousand miles away from the Chamber, and to indicate to us whether the Government are prepared to accept this point. Without such an assurance the review is worthless. That point must be appreciated by everyone in the House. So far I have not heard any words of comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I took that to be an intervention as I was sitting down. I say only that, if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is satisfied on that point, then an independent review would be of no value unless it was over a long enough period for it to have a chance of properly reflecting whether or not the

  339
  measures had had any effect. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask him in turn, if he had that reassurance, whether he would be willing to move from the position of one-plus-one to one-plus-three.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the tail end of that debate was more interesting than what preceeded it. I sensed we were almost getting into the process of negotiations. They would be welcome and perhaps they should continue. I am certainly more than prepared to take away the notion of an independent review. My noble friend Lord Woolmer made an important point. If the House were to accept the one-plus-one proposition, given that the legislation will in effect be in place for just two years and given that a review would have to take place during that time, it is likely that the period of time reviewed would be extremely short, much less than the two years which the sunset clause one-plus-one suggests.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. Is it within my noble friend's experience, as it was within mine and I am sure within the experience of others who have had the opportunity to be in office, that solid representations are made to Ministers—they can accept or reject them as they choose—by Liberty and similar organisations. It is therefore wrong in principle that Ministers should shut off their minds to the idea of listening carefully to a whole variety of propositions made to them and simply make up their own minds on the basis of A, B and C which seem to be substantive arguments for or against a renewal.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend helpfully reminds us about representations. Of course, we want to take careful account within any review period of representations that are made, particularly those made by the organisation to which my noble friend referred.
  Going back to the point of the independent review, of course we shall give it careful consideration. But it needs a decent period of time over which to be conducted. We may want to contract to an academic institution with experience in this area. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the question because I thought he had an agency in mind that might reputably be able to assist us. Clearly, he does not. But that is something to which both he and I can give further thought.
  We need a longer period of time to see whether or not this legislation is effective. I come back to a point I made during my earlier contribution. If the one-plus-one proposition succeeds in your Lordships' House this evening, this legislation will effectively run out at this stage of the year 2002. In 2002 we begin the European competition for Euro 2004. Given the unfortunate, unpleasant, disgraceful, shaming scenes that we saw on the streets of Charleroi, Brussels, Copenhagen and elsewhere during the concluding part of the last football season, what sort of message do we
  340
  honestly think we will be delivering in 2002 if at that point we cease this piece of legislation? What message will that send to the European football authorities?
  Before noble Lords make a decision on this question, they should think long and hard about that point. It is also worth taking into account the important words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. After all, it was he who proposed to the Home Secretary during that historic meeting, the valuable consultation, that we should have a sunset clause. He was most impressed by the Home Secretary's response; he described it as "graceful". He said also that he thought that it was extremely important that there should be an annual report received by the House—something which we in the Home Office are happy to provide—on the operation of the Act.
  The noble Lord went further during the course of our Second Reading debate. He said:
  "I also feel that a sunset provision is very important. I personally would prefer to see a sunset provision of three years".—(Official Report, 20/7/00: col. 1216.)
  There we have it: the respected noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the chairman of a powerful and important committee, offered his advice to your Lordships, not once, but twice. He proposed the sunset clause; we accepted it in good faith. He also suggested and made the powerful and important point that we needed to have an annual report and review. We accepted that point too. And during Second Reading he suggested a sunset provision of three years. That perfectly makes the case.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, that was three years in total: one plus two. Whereas what we are offered this afternoon is either four—one plus three—or two.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. But the point I return to and make most powerfully is this. We need a longer review period so that we can see just how effective these measures are. I insist that one plus one is not long enough.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 43, leave out ("four years") and insert ("one year")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Methuen): My Lords, the Question is on Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 43, leave out the words "three years", as just inserted, and insert "one year".
  6.56 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 174; Not-Contents, 136.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Addington, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Holderness, L.

  Arran, E.

  Howe, E.

  Astor, V.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Barker, B.

  Jacobs, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Boardman, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Lucas, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Byford, B.

  McConnell, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  McNally, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Mar, C.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Cox, B.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Monson, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Denham, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Elton, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Ezra, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Flather, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Peel, E.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Reay, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Renton, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Roper, L.

  342

  Rotherwick, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Russell, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Tope, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Tordoff, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Alli, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Bach, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Blease, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Bragg, L.

  Brett, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Brookman, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Judd, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Kirkhill, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Layard, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Longford, E.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  David, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  [Teller]

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Desai, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Donoughne, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Elder, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Orme, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Gale, B.

  Prashar, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Rea, L.

  343

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Richard, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Simon, V.

  Whitaker, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Winston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.6 p.m.
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 11 I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 12 to 21 due to pre-emption.
  Schedule 1 [Amendments of the Football Spectators Act 1989]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 5, leave out lines 27 to 43.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, a sunset clause may be very welcome, but the question about some parts of this Bill is whether the sun should ever rise upon them. If it does, I believe it should be greeted with the proverbial words:
  "Busy old fool, unruly sun".
  I seek by way of this amendment to apply those words to new Section 14B, which contains the "anti-social behaviour order", as the Home Secretary has described it.
  On these Benches, we have always had misgivings about the anti-social behaviour order. It is a curious mixture of the criminal and the civil. In fact, one might describe it as the "genetically modified" order. It has never been popular on these Benches, but, similarly, it has never been popular in many other places. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said last night— rather later than I care to remember—that he believed that 500 such orders had been granted nationwide. I trust that the Minister is in a position now to confirm or deny that figure. In any case, it is agreed not to be very much; indeed, the Home Secretary admitted as much on 10th July when he addressed a meeting in Committee Room 5.
  The Home Secretary explained then why he had made the provision of the anti-social behaviour order in new Section 14B mandatory. He has done so because the courts do not like it and because they do not think that it is satisfactory. Therefore, with all the authority vested in him—and with all the authority vested in us, if he can get it—the Home Secretary is insisting that the courts must do it. The word "must" in legislation is always put in where we do not want it, but never put in where we do want it.
  I am allergic to mandatory sentences. If they should happen to be just for the particular crime to which they are applied, they can only be so by coincidence. A good sentence should take into consideration the following: the type of crime; the aggravating or mitigating features of the particular offence—and there may be many of them; the likelihood of re-offending, or previous convictions; and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances affecting the criminal.
  I shall give your Lordships one example of the sort of case where such mitigation may be necessary. A parenting order was imposed a couple of weeks ago on a mother whose son was persistently truanting from school. She said that it was particularly difficult for her to supervise his departure for school because her job began at 4.30 in the morning. I should have thought that might be a considerable mitigating circumstance. However, where you face a mandatory sentence, there can be no such thing as a mitigating circumstance.
  Isolating one of those things which should make up a sentence is always unjust. Also I foresee particular difficulties with a mandatory sentence as it may affect those, whom we have mentioned many times from these Benches, who live or work outside the United Kingdom. With freedom of movement and freedom to work anywhere in the European Union, that may become steadily more common. I asked the Minister last night—and I ask him again today—to consider what happens if these provisions are applied to an employee of the European Court of Justice. I am not sure that they would like that.
  The grounds in new Section 14B on which the order can be imposed are, I think, not particularly clearly worked out. The first one in subsection (2) looks all right at a glance; namely, those who have been involved in violence or disorder. At least that appears to be recognisable, which is a start. However, it is extremely rigid and it allows no room for mercy. Even there, the clarity disappears with the words,
  "caused or contributed to any violence or disorder".
  The Minister will remember that I pressed him hard last night on the meaning of the words "contributed to". I believe that he did his level best to be helpful, but I do not think that the advice available to him enabled him to be nearly as specific as we need to ask him to be. I wonder whether he is in a position to do any better today.
  The Minister appeared to be saying—I think that I have him right and I am sure that he will put me right if I have not—that "contributing to" meant being part of the crowd which had caused the disorder. Of course, it is awfully hard to be certain in a crowd exactly who is doing what. Can the Minister be just that little bit more specific? To be held to be contributing to violence or disorder, must one perform a criminal action, or incite others to perform a criminal action, or be an accessory before or after the fact? With those provisions, the measure should be specific enough to use. Without them, it could be extremely vague and could be applied to people whom others might consider not to have done anything wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is an important point though it is a fine distinction. I want to know the answer rather badly.
  We get into greater difficulties with regard to subsection (3) where the court has to find,
  "that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches".
  An awful lot of people—I think of some of my former pupils now in distinguished and responsible positions—have been at some time in their lives in a position where they might be held to have contributed to violence or disorder. In not all of those cases would it be just, reasonable or helpful to impose a banning order on them under the Bill, especially if they wished to travel during one of the many periods of football matches for some completely different purpose. What will single out those who are likely to contribute to violence or disorder from all the rest in the opinion of the court? I have asked the Minister that question a great many times. I think that I asked him last in an intervention in his speech today in reply to Amendment No. 3. The Minister said that he would come to that in due course. Due course did not come in the course of that amendment. I think that it is time for due course to come now. This is a question that the Minister must be able to answer if he is to convince us of the case for the Bill.
  The Minister has perfectly properly pinned his case on the argument that prevention is better than cure. So it is, if it is possible. What the Minister needs to convince us of is that there is some way in which we can differentiate those people who are likely to cause disorder from all the many thousands in a similar statistical category who are not. Many individual cases were discussed last night. I refer to that of Mr John Gummer, for example, who wondered whether when he had been an undergraduate he had taken part in activity which might make the provision apply to him. We did not get a clear answer. In many of these cases the spent conviction amendment introduced last night—which we welcome warmly—will remove the pressure. But, of course, it takes time for a conviction to become spent, and during the years before it becomes spent the principle is the same.
  We discussed, for example, the case of Mr Peter Hain sprinkling tin tacks on the pitch at Twickenham. That, I imagine, is disorder within the meaning of the Bill. If the Minister tells me that it is not, I shall be interested to hear that. Clearly in Mr Hain's case the conviction is spent, and rightly so. However, if this legislation had been introduced in 1975, when his conviction was not spent, whether it would have assisted Mr Hain's rehabilitation into a respectable citizen to be caught and be subject to a banning order and reminded of past misdeeds which had faded in everyone else's memory is a question that I leave to your Lordships' consideration.
  The key question is that which was asked by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury; namely, is it possible to recognise those who are likely to contribute to such disorder, or are they, in his words, "beyond prediction"? If they are beyond prediction, the measure cannot succeed. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, we cannot support the noble Earl in his amendment to remove new Section 14B. However, he has asked a number of extremely important questions which deserve an answer as they will certainly affect our thinking on further amendments to new Section 14B in the next group of amendments.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, I enthusiastically support the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The new section can be interpreted and read in the following manner: we suspect but cannot prove that someone might do something we do not like and so we are going to lock him up—"internment" is the word for it.
  The whole of Irish history has been full of internment. Every single time that internment was used there were cries of, "They have the wrong chap". A feeling of injustice welled up and it was regarded as a great failure. Every time that a new Northern Ireland Minister came to office it was reputed that he used to ask his security advisers, "We know all the IRA men, why cannot we just lock them up?". The answer was always given that that could not be done without proof. All Northern Ireland Ministers failed to change the correct existing law. We are now proposing exactly the same procedure. This procedure is so abhorrent that it is difficult for me to dislike it more.
  We can get away with this because there is not a great green swathe of football hooligan supporters living in Boston, Massachusetts, or in Dublin. If there were, the political damage would be seen to be great. This is why at Second Reading I said that it is easy to protect the civil liberties of the rich and the powerful; that it is easy to protect the civil liberties of those who have great friends and influence overseas. It is not easy to protect the civil liberties of the majority of these people who, as the noble Earl said, come from the disaffected, white, not very well paid, not very well educated working classes.
  Their civil liberties need defending more than most because they are unpopular. It is ironic that this should be done by Liberals and old-fashioned high Tories—but that is the difference between new Labour and old Labour.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I have not participated in the debate on the Bill up until now because, I confess, I did not particularly like it. However, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Onslow, has convinced me that I should vote for the Government on the amendment.
  The noble Lord spoke of internment. I looked at the Bill to see where is the Maze; when do the doors open; for how long will someone be locked up—but I find that it seeks to stop someone going to a football match.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, a person can be locked up under proposed new Section 21B and he can be banned under this proposed new section. The noble Lord is a lawyer.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the proposed new Sect ion 14B is a banning order. In my ignorance, I looked to

  347
  see what a banning order means. Inflamed by the oratory of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I looked to see what terrible fate would befall those people who were subject to a banning order. What did I find? I found that a banning order means,
  "an order made by the court … which … in relation to regulated football matches…prohibits the person who is subject to the order from entering any premises for the purpose of attending such matches".
  To talk of that type of penalty in the same breath as internment in Northern Ireland is frankly ludicrous.
  I make merely one other point to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I listened to his speech, as I always do, with great care and attention, and I had the Bill in front of me as he made it. He made a great point about the obligation of the courts to make a banning order; that he and his party do not like the fact that the word "must" is there and not the word "may". I should like to test that by inserting "may" where "must" appears in line 43.
  The Bill states:
  "The application is to be made by complaint to a magistrates' court … if"—
  the first condition—
  "it is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) above is met"—
  and the noble Earl made his points about causing or contributing to any violence or disorder. That is an entirely different point. I heard what he said about that and one could argue about it for a long time.
  The second condition that has to be satisfied is,
  "and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds"—
  there must be "reasonable grounds" and the court has to be satisfied, so there is an immense discretion there in the way in which the court approaches a particular defendant in particular circumstances—
  "to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder … the court must make a banning order in respect of the respondent".
  Perhaps the noble Earl can help me: can he envisage any set of normal circumstances in which, if the court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder, they should not make that banning order? If the two conditions are satisfied—particularly having regard to the fact that there is a discretion in proposed new Section 14B(4)(b) on the reasonable grounds argument—once a court had got to the stage of saying "Yes, there are reasonable grounds" and "Yes, we are satisfied that subsection (2) is met", I find it very hard to envisage circumstances in which it would not be right for the court to make the order. In which case, it seems to me, a large part of the noble Earl's argument goes.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for making his point so clearly. Perhaps I may say to him, first—and this is a preliminary to an answer—that I cannot imagine
  348
  grounds on which the court can be so satisfied. If the noble Lord could give me such grounds I could answer him more clearly.
  Secondly, supposing hypothetically that the court was so satisfied, imagine that the person was going to a European town in which his mother was dying; imagine that he was going to a European town which was the place of his regular employment. I do not say that in either case the person should go without penalty, but I do say that the court may wish to consider the possibility of an alternative penalty.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, if one looks at the definition of a banning order, it deals precisely with the point made by the noble Earl. A banning order prohibits the person not from going to a town where his father is dying but from entering any premises for the purpose of attending a football match. It seems a little fanciful to argue that someone is going to Charleroi or wherever for the purpose of seeing his father who is on his deathbed, if the person has a ticket for the west stand for the England v. Belgium game taking place in that city on that day. One has heard it often in the case of grandparents' funerals and the office boy, but the short answer to the noble Earl's point is that the person does not get banned from going to Charleroi; he gets banned from the ground.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I am going to be a spoilsport, I am afraid. This exchange is amusing the House, of course; but this is Report stage. The noble Earl will have the chance to reply to my noble friend in due course—no doubt he will do so extremely adequately—but I do not think we should allow the exchange to develop any further.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the amendment, I rise, very briefly, to support the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I do not see why the court should be regarded as a cipher any more than should civil servants. The whole burden of the argument adduced by certain members of the Opposition is that the court would have no option but to act in a certain way. I do not think that. The court will have a duty to listen carefully to what the officer has to say. The officer is defined as,
  "the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside".
  That being the case, why should the court have any obligation to listen only to that officer?
  That is not what proposed new Section 14B states. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help. That gives the court sufficient power to look at the whole situation described by the officer. I do not think that my noble friend would dissent from that. That is the burden of the argument properly adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a lively and entertaining debate. It has been a better debate this evening than the one yesterday. Certainly for our part it has been much easier to follow.

  349
  The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would delete proposed new Section 14B from the Bill altogether; it would take a fundamental part out of the Bill. I wish to demonstrate that that would be a very grave mistake. The section which has become proposed new Section 14B has a long and, some may say, controversial history. It has gestated rather well over its lifetime. It was first introduced by Sir Norman Fowler in the debates on the Crime and Disorder Bill in 1998; it certainly attracted a lively debate the following year when the Football (Offences and Disorder Bill) was going through its paces in the House with government support. The Government made clear that they were sympathetic to the principle that banning orders should be capable of being imposed otherwise than as a punishment for football-related offences. But in the light of opposition to the measure among some members of the other place, principally but not entirely on the Opposition side, it was decided not to proceed with the measure at that time, but to wait and see how effective the other measures contained in the 1999 Act would turn out to be.
  We now know the result of that wait-and-see strategy. Euro 2000 has demonstrated that we cannot rely on the measures contained in the 1999 Act to prevent further disgraceful outbreaks of the kind that many of us have described during the long course of our debates and deliberations. The frequently quoted statistics—just a handful of people subject to domestic banning orders, and no one subject to an international banning order, among those who came to notice in Belgium—show that we cannot rely on a strategy which confines its attention to those people on whom bans can currently be imposed. The police need to look at the much wider group of people who have been involved in violence or disorder. They need to make a judgment on whether a football banning order in respect of any such person would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with regulated football matches. The police will be able to make that judgment through their use of intelligence, their observation of the people concerned, video evidence, both from the UK and overseas, and no doubt many other sources of information.
  Noble Lords opposite have claimed that the procedure we envisage is in all its essentials criminal and that we are designating it as civil only in order to benefit from a lower standard of proof. That is incorrect. To be the recipient of a banning order on complaint does not create a criminal record. The procedure will be civil, and the burden of proof which applies will be the balance of probabilities. Because the procedure is civil, the use of evidence obtained before the Act came into force will not, we believe, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The procedure, as we have emphasised, resembles that in force for anti-social behaviour orders. We make no apology for using the resources of the civil as well as the criminal law in appropriate cases to prevent people from behaving in loutish and disorderly ways.
  350
  The fact that we introduced a sunset clause must be of considerable reassurance to noble Lords who have concerns about aspects of new Section 14B. That power, like the powers in new Sections 21A and 21B, will not continue beyond year one if the House does not pass an affirmative resolution to that effect. In any event, the case will lapse when the sunset clauses come to a conclusion.
  Unless one takes the extreme view that the UK Government and criminal justice system should take no interest whatever in disorder committed by their citizens abroad, then I would suggest that one has some responsibility to look for proactive, protective ways of preventing such outbursts of hooliganism. New Section 14B offers a procedure which is both fair and likely to be effective, both in its own right and as the essential follow-up to the exercise of the summary powers in new Section 21B. To remove it from the Bill would emasculate the whole measure.
  I heard the interpretation of the measure from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. We had a bitingly effective analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Richard. There is now a widespread understanding in your Lordships' House of the measure and why it is needed. All the arguments during the debate point to the need for a measure which will be both effective and publicly welcomed.
  7.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before I reply to him, perhaps he will answer my question. I asked whether he would give me an explanation of how the court will recognise the people whose presence would be likely to lead to violence and disorder?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl did indeed ask me the question. I shall do my best to answer. Contributing to violence or disorder requires something more than simply being in a place where violence or disorder is occurring. The noble Earl will probably agree with that. The individual must have done something concrete that contributes to the violence or disorder. Certainly, in our view, aiding or abetting would be caught and inciting would be caught. But I cannot give a full opinion of all the circumstances in which a court would find a person to have contributed to violence or disorder. At the final point it would obviously be a question of judgment. That judgment would depend on the facts of the case presented to the court at the time.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. He has not told me what I hoped to hear; that it would be confined to conduct which was itself criminal. The Minister is—if he reads the speech of Mr Peter Lilley in another place—impaled on what I now regard as "Lilley's fork". Mr Lilley says that either the conduct concerned is itself criminal, in which case it should have been charged, or it is not criminal, in which case it should not be the ground of a banning order. In response to my first question about "contributed to" in new Section 14B(2), the Minister

  351
  still did not answer my much more important question, which is about subsection (3). How will the court recognise among the throng of people who might possibly be suspected which ones are likely to cause violence and disorder if they go to a football match? If the Minister has an answer to that I am very willing to give way to him now.
  His silence on the matter is becoming deafening. His persistence in carrying on with the Bill without being able to answer it is beginning to worry me very much. I enjoyed the exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think that he was perhaps a little harsh on the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Of course, a banning order itself does not amount to internment, but there are very severe penalties for breaches of a banning order. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has perhaps underestimated the passion—I can use no other word—with which some people follow their football. Some people will take very great risks indeed in order to attend a football match on which they have set their hearts.
  I know it is classic new Labour thinking that if there is a penalty, one will not need to impose it because people will comply anyway. We heard that in the course of the Child Support, Pensions and Welfare Reform Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, shakes his head.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I shake my head because the noble Earl has never heard that argument from me. He has never heard me suggest that you do not need to worry about penalties or the draconian nature of the penalties because they will never be imposed. I never used an argument like that. I would regard it frankly as totally illogical. I should have thought it was rather beneath the noble Earl to raise it.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not intend to imply otherwise. When I said "we", I referred to the House as a whole. I am sure many noble Lords remember the debates on Clause 63 of the Child Support, Pensions and Welfare Reform Bill. I did not intend to reflect on the noble Lord personally. If I gave any appearance of doing so, I withdraw unreservedly and with apologies.
  As to the matter of the ticket for the west stand at Charleroi, I do not see any impossibility in the idea that someone may have both a sick father in Charleroi and a ticket for the west stand. Such combinations have happened before, and I am sure will happen again.
  In deciding whether people who come before a court are liable to create violence or disorder, it still seems to me that a court is being asked to take a bet. I said last night that I know of a lot of rich bookies; I do not know of many rich punters. My noble friend Lord Goodhart, with his usual carefulness, says that there are a number of rich punters. The trouble is that most of them were a lot richer when they started. I accept my noble friend's correction, but I think that the point stands in spite of it.
  352
  The Minister recited the pedigree of the anti-social behaviour order. With respect, I am not convinced that an order is justifiable simply because it has a respectable pedigree. This is not the form book in that sense. I also accept his argument that relying on records of known convictions will not catch all those we would wish to catch if we can find a reasonable way to do so. I ask the Minister to accept that this is a matter of priorities. Either we risk not catching some people who should be caught or we catch people who should not be caught. I have a personal preference—call it prejudice, if you will—in favour of acquitting the innocent even if I sometimes have to let some guilty go as well. If the Minister's preference is the opposite, he should say so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Business
  Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I suggest that we do not proceed with the Committee stage today as more time needs to be spent on the Football (Disorder) Bill after dinner.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the House adjourns, perhaps I may express deep disappointment from the Liberal Democrat Benches. This important Bill has twice been scheduled behind the Football (Disorder) Bill. Probably more people walk in the countryside and take an interest in wildlife issues than play football. I am aware also of the deep disappointment on the government Benches. No matter what else happens in September, October and November, I hope the Government will ensure that this extremely important Bill is given due time.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the disappointment of the noble Baroness is exceeded only by the disappointment of the Chief Whip. As the House knows, we have to complete proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill by the end of the week. But the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will become law.

  Turkey: EU Membership
  7.41 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of Turkey's application for membership of the European Union,

  353
  what they and the European Union are doing to assist Turkey in its efforts to improve its internal human rights record.
  The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am aware that some noble Lords have been up all night—in a good cause perhaps—and so I shall not keep noble Lords here any longer than I have to. I am sorry that the Bishops' Benches are not as well populated today as they were yesterday. That only reinforces the impression that the Bishops are unduly interested in sex. But the matter before the House today is of as great importance as the matter yesterday.
  I have always been an advocate of Turkey's membership of the European Union. It has seemed to me that this would clarify the multi-faith and multicultural character of the Union and reduce the possibility of Europe being seen as a fortress of "Christendom". On the other hand, it would discourage obscurantist forces in Turkey and strengthen those working for a progressive society in that country. Last year, however, I received an unpleasant shock. I had been invited to Istanbul by a number of Churches to assist in the inauguration of their millennium celebrations. Quite innocent, you might think, but the press conference to launch the celebrations was brutally and without ceremony broken up by anti-terrorist police. I was threatened personally and the journalists were ordered not to publish any account of the incident. All but one complied. We had to retreat to the protection of some of the historic churches and were, thereafter, followed everywhere by plain-clothes police—even to the churches' camps for earthquake victims! All of this happened in spite of the fact that a presidential adviser had permitted these celebrations.
  Naturally, I reported the matter immediately to the British Embassy which said that, in Turkey, the right hand did not often know what the left was doing! Upon my return, l wrote to the Turkish Ambassador who, after checking my credentials with the Archbishop of Canterbury—I passed— was very gracious and promised to investigate the matter. He and his staff agreed that a great deal needed to be done both by way of legislation and administratively, through control of the police, to improve Turkey's human rights record. I am delighted that the embassy is represented here tonight.
  Under the Ottoman Empire, Christians, Jews and other minority communities experienced mixed fortunes. There were times when they were harassed, persecuted or neglected, and at other times, they enjoyed a degree of autonomy and even of prosperity. Although the presence of religious minorities in Turkey is severely attenuated, during the Ottoman period there were large numbers of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others living within the empire. It is generally allowed that the laws governing their lives were less severe in Turkey than in other parts of the Muslim world. There was sometimes persecution, often instigated by fanatics, and sometimes a culture of contempt was fostered.
  The neglect and poverty of the religious minorities in the 18th and 19th centuries has been recorded by various European travellers, diplomats and missionaries. Under pressure from European powers, particularly Great Britain, the Sultan Abdal-Majid promulgated, in 1839, the Hatt-l-Sharif of Gulhane, in which he announced his intention of enacting various regulations—or tanzimat—which would improve the condition of his subjects, irrespective of religion. That was followed, in 1856, again with the encouragement of Great Britain, by the Hatt-i-Humayun, which guaranteed equal rights for all, again, irrespective of religion. It had taken over 1,200 years for the Muslim world to move from the language of "tolerance" to one of "rights" for non-Muslims.
  The early promise of these two edicts and the constitution, or Mejelle, which followed was not fulfilled until the turn of this century when the so-called Young Turks attempted to set the empire in a progressive direction. This intention was, however, severely violated by the massacres of the Armenians and Assyrians during and after the First World War. In fact, a succession of removals, forced marches, exile and massacres have created the contemporary situation where the religious minorities form a tiny proportion of the present population.
  The establishment of modern Turkey on a secular basis in the 1920s provided fresh hope for the remaining minorities. In recent years, however, for political and security reasons, there has been a considerable tightening of religious freedom for both the majority and the minority communities. Deteriorating relations with Greece have meant greater restrictions for the Phanar, the centre of Greek Orthodoxy, indeed of all Eastern Orthodoxy. The requirement that the Ecumenical Patriarch must be of Turkish origin and have Turkish citizenship greatly restricts the choice available in the appointment to such an important office. While the seminary in Istanbul has been reopened recently, no training of clergy is allowed on Turkish soil. Anti-insurgency measures, coupled with encouragement to Islamic militants to deter Kurdish nationalism, has put increasing pressure on the Syrian—Syriac, as they prefer to call themselves in Turkey—Orthodox community in the south east of the country.
  William Dalrymple in his book From the Holy Mountain, records his harrowing visit to these Christians who still speak the language which Jesus himself spoke—Aramaic. He leaves as the soldiers surround the monastery of Mar Gabriel and the monk, Abuna Shamaoun, tells him to go quickly and to make sure that he tells the outside world what is happening to the Syriac Christians of Tur Abdin. Well, he has told his story, but what are we going to do about it?
  If the "ethnic" Greek, Syrian, Assyrian and Armenian Churches are under such pressure, the situation is much worse for the independent Protestant Churches. In recent months there have been several raids on such churches in Istanbul and Izmir. Worship has been disrupted, people arrested and interrogated and foreign Christians deported without due process of law. There are allegations of police brutality and the

  355
  confiscation of books, films and other material. An interesting aspect of these arrests has been that in nearly every case, the Christians have been acquitted by the judiciary. Is this really a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, or is there an understanding that the police will take the rap and the higher reaches of Turkish society will remain untouched by these incidents?
  While I have concentrated on the situation of minorities in Turkey, I am also concerned, of course, that those in the majority community should have their basic freedoms respected. Pressure on moderate Muslim opinion and petty regulations about the "secularisation of polity" in Turkey will be entirely counterproductive if they have the effect of encouraging extremist religious sentiment to emerge. I am quite perplexed, for example, by the prohibition on traditional Muslim dress in Parliament. Surely we would not want to encourage such pettiness in Westminster?
  The European Commission and Turkey are to sign an "accession partnership" in November 2000. Among other things, it will set out some of the conditions which Turkey will have to meet if it is to join the European Union. It is vitally important that this document should include the need for legislation which allows for the right to free assembly and of free speech. The relationship of the police to the justice and political systems also needs to be addressed. Churches ought to be allowed to train their clergy and lay people. Those removed from areas such as Tur Abdin should be allowed to return and confiscated property should be returned to the rightful owners.
  I am grateful, indeed, for the work of the Anglican chaplaincy in Turkey. It is my hope that improving relations with Greece will also ease the situation of the Ecumenical Patriarch. We cannot, however, ignore the plight of the other communities as we set about preparing for Turkish membership of the European Union.
  7.52 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for tabling this Question and for his well-informed and thoughtful words.
  The Question suggests that Turkey is making efforts to improve its human rights record and implies that the Turkey with which we deal diplomatically has the power to do this. However, the reality is that there are forces within Turkey in very powerful positions who regard improvements in freedom of expression, for example, as threatening to the security and unity of the state. Those brave people in Turkey who are defending human rights are up against the self-selected National Security Council with its military power and control of the security apparatus. So, too, are the political parties and even government Ministers, whatever their claims and declared intentions to improve human rights.
  This "power behind the scenes" derives, I would suggest, from the persistent influence of Kemalism, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, the
  356
  nationalistic movement founded by Kemal Ataturk after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It believes that the minority nationalities within Turkey should be assimilated into a unitary Turkish state. Parallels have been drawn between Kemalism and the German national socialism of the 1930s.
  When I was one of an observer group in Ankara in 1998, at the trial of the Hadep leaders by a state security court, I was able to visit Akin Birdal, the courageous Turkish president of the Human Rights Association of Turkey. He was recovering at home after a failed assassination attempt. His parting words to me were, "Those who did this to me are those who are opposed to Turkey joining the European Union".
  What, I suggest, that the United Kingdom and the European Union need to do is, first, to expose and condemn human rights violations in Turkey as they occur. They should take note and publicise, for instance, the work of the Kurdish Human Rights Project, which is bringing numerous cases against Turkey to the European Court. For example, Turkey has recently been ordered to pay £250,000 to the families of two torture victims. There are many other cases of gross human rights abuse that, if there was sufficient time, I could cite. However, I believe that noble Lords may be relieved that there is no time, because some of those cases are extremely gruesome.
  The National Security Council, as Akin Birdal intimated, is not in a hurry to join Europe. It needs to be influenced in different ways from presenting evidence of Turkish human rights abuses to it. Those ways, I suggest, should threaten to reduce its influence and power. I think that my noble friend may guess what kind of measures I am going to suggest; they should bring to bear selected economic and military sanctions. That is the language which those with real power will understand. For example, to refuse ECGD support for the Ilisu dam project would be a small step in the right direction.
  The problem, however, does not have only a European dimension. The United States gives considerable military and economic support to Turkey, dating from the days of the Cold War when Turkey was NATO's southern flank. Even today, the US (and the UK) still use Turkey as a base for operations against Iraq.
  Democracy and human rights will make progress only when the balance of power within Turkey shifts away from the National Security Council to the elected national assembly.
  7.56 p.m.
  Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the right reverend Prelate on this timely opportunity to discuss Turkey's application for membership of the European Union, and for his erudite introduction.
  Any measures which would help Turkey fully to meet the criteria for membership of the EU are to be welcomed. However, there is widespread concern that concessions may be made which fail to address

  357
  adequately Turkey's continuing repressive policies towards her ethnic and religious minorities. Time permits few examples.
  The continuing suffering of the Kurds in southeastern Turkey is well documented. Of course, terrorist violence by the PKK is as unacceptable as violence perpetrated against the Kurdish people by the Turkish authorities, but when I had the privilege of visiting the Kurds, driving through south-eastern Turkey, I obtained some idea of the conditions under which they are forced to live. Their plight remains a matter of grave concern.
  Also, while driving from Iraq to Diyarbakir, our Turkish driver remarked rather sadly, "Seven more Christian villages were burnt yesterday". His comment illustrated the fate of the Christian communities in south-eastern Turkey. Although the Turkish constitution guarantees the protection of religious minorities, the Syrian Orthodox Church is suffering systematic harassment, the destruction of villages and other forms of repression. For example, in 1998 the governor of Mardin province issued a circular forbidding any education, building work, including repair work and even visitors to Syrian Orthodox monasteries. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, William Dalrymple, in his book, From the Holy Mountain, poignantly documents the harsh reality in detail.
  The Syrian Orthodox Church, one of the most historic Churches in the world, is in danger of elimination from its own historic land, suffering a fate similar to that of the Armenian Church in eastern Turkey. Eastern Turkey was western Armenia until the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 and its annexation of western Armenia. Vast numbers of Armenian villages and churches were destroyed or are now being left to crumble into ruins. Turkey has been responsible for, and is still encouraging, the destruction of some of the most ancient Christian communities, cultures and buildings.
  Turkey still fails to recognise the Armenian genocide, despite all the historical evidence and the growing number of governments and bodies, including the EU Parliament, which do so. Furthermore, Turkey is still maintaining its blockade of Armenia—an entirely illegitimate act, as Turkey never should have been a participant in the hostilities between Azerbaijan and the historically Armenian enclave of Ngorno Karabakh.
  These are some of the issues which must be addressed in any application for EU membership. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that they are taken seriously and will not condone them in any way.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Roper: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this question. Like him, I speak as one who would welcome a fully democratic Turkey as a member of the European Union but who believes that there are structural problems inherent in Turkey's Kemalist political system which will require
  358
  profound transformation before it can fulfil the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the European Union.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am particularly concerned about the role of the military, with their view that they are the guardians of the integrity of the state. That presents real challenges to the development of Turkey in the way that we would wish.
  I welcome the discussion on page 90 of the Annual Report on Human Rights of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and in particular the reference to the £500,000 that the Government are making available to aid and assist reform, and the work that they are doing with non-governmental organisations. I hope that in replying the Minister will give more details of what is being done, because it seems to respond directly to the right reverend Prelate's question.
  Reading that paragraph, I find that the treatment that the British Government give to Turkey in the report is rather gentle compared with the treatment that is to be found in the Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Turkey published by the United States State Department on 25th February, which is rather more robust in its treatment of the problems.
  I was also surprised to find no reference in the section of the Foreign Office report dealing with Turkey to the way in which it has been the workings of the European Court of Human Rights that have led to the withdrawal of military judges from the state security court tribunals. We should pay more attention to the work of the European Court of Human Rights in taking matters forward. Reference was made to compensation of a quarter of a million pounds, but last year Turkey lost 18 cases, and something approaching £2 million had to be paid in compensation. The European Court of Human Rights is working on the matter.
  There are other hopeful signs. Perhaps one of the most important is that the recently elected President of Turkey, Ahmet Sezer, when he was the president of the Turkish constitutional court last year, made a speech in which he said that the Turkish constitution imposed unacceptable restrictions on the basic freedoms of Turkish citizens—including limits on language rights—and called for harmonisation of Turkish domestic law with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that in replying the Minister will confirm that, now that the United Kingdom has harmonised its domestic legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, we shall be in a strong position to encourage the President to fulfil what he promised in that early remark.
  This is indeed a situation in which the various European institutions can work together. We should commend the work of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights in helping to prepare Turkey for its candidacy of the European Union.
  8.2 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, several years ago, I led a fact-finding mission to south-east Turkey on behalf of the Christian human rights group, the Jubilee Campaign. We subsequently published a report warning that the ancient Churches of that region faced systematic destruction, and we detailed examples of individual atrocities and what we described as cultural genocide.
  In the intervening period, I regret to tell your Lordships, little has changed. Turkey's tiny Christian minority—probably fewer than 100,000 people—has never been a fashionable cause. But as Turkey edges towards membership of the European Union, her attitude towards human rights will surely become more of a touchstone in our dealings with her.
  Almost all of the country's Christians belong to the ancient Churches: Armenians, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Greek and Syrian Catholic, Bulgarian Orthodox, and Assyrians. They are double minorities, as they are from ethnic minority groups as well as holding a different faith from the Muslim majority—double minorities, doubly vulnerable and doubly endangered.
  I travelled through the militarised Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey to visit the Tur Abdin region, the spiritual centre of the Syrian Orthodox Church; I stayed at the Mor Gabriel monastery referred to by the right reverend Prelate, which was established some 1,600 years ago. Around 80 years ago there were some 200,000 Syriannis living in Tur Abdin. Today, the figure is nearer 2,000.
  Many Syrian Orthodox and Chaldean Catholic villages—such as Hassana, Arbo, Habab, and Sedei—have been destroyed and emptied of people. Many Christians have been beaten, injured or even killed at the hands of both sides. The village of Kerburan had a population of some 1,500 Christians at one time, but even their graves have been desecrated. Between 1987 and 1997 there were nearly 40 unsolved murders involving Christians in south-east Turkey. One Syrianni said to me, "We are all in shock and wondering if we will be the next one".
  The rise of Turkish nationalism and Islamic extremism, which both seek to exclude ethnic and religious minorities has inflamed what was already a fragile situation. In some important respects Turkey has demonstrated more religious tolerance than other Islamic countries, but among friends it must surely be possible to offer constructive criticism and to urge a more proactive role in creating a climate of tolerance and respect. Among the practical measures that the Turkish Government might adopt is giving greater protection to the remaining Christians in the southeast. The authorities should stop casting suspicion on the Christians, whom they accuse of collaborating with the PKK; they should provide aid to those Christians who have been internally displaced by military operations.
  In addition, they should allow the re-opening of the seminaries; make it easier for Christian denominations to be recognised officially for the purpose of property
  360
  ownership; bring to justice those who have been responsible for intimidation and attacks; and, particularly, put an end to inappropriate and discriminatory acts, such as the forced circumcision of Christians who have been conscripted into the armed forces.
  Although this is of necessity a brief debate, it is an important one. I hope that the record of these proceedings will be studied with care by the Turkish authorities and by the Foreign Office. The whole House, and a much wider community of interest, will remain grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for initiating these proceedings.
  8.6 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate for affording us the opportunity for this debate in an otherwise hyperactive week.
  The fundamental question in relation to Turkey is: who is in charge and do they want to move towards full democracy and respect for all minorities? Are the civilian government in charge, or does power rest with the military-dominated National Security Council? On 16th June the council rejected the EU's Copenhagen criteria, even though the Foreign Ministry wanted to accept them and spoke of tolerating ethnic and religious differences. Why does martial law continue although the internal war is over and the PKK has asked to discuss political solutions? Why are the elected mayors from the constitutional HADEP party working under great difficulties?
  Has the mayor of Ozalp, for example, been removed from office? Was there any judicial process in this matter? Why has Professor Lok, chairman of the Izmir branch of the Human Rights Association, had to complain that torture of suspects and prisoners still continues? Why have the government's new, regrouped villages in eastern Turkey been described as "like open-air prisons"? When will the village guard system be disbanded and when will displaced villagers be allowed to return freely to their homes and land? It seems to me that without satisfactory answers to such questions, no amount of outside assistance will produce much change. There has to be a completely new commitment from whoever is really in control.
  I am sorry to have had to say some rather critical things. They are based on the experience of two unofficial observations of elections in Turkey and other travel to Istanbul, Ankara and south-east Turkey.
  However, the Turkish population is young. In time, I trust, it will come to want to change a dubious political system and to dispense with military predominance.
  8.9 p.m.
  Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate. I speak not only as a Member of this House but as a London Member of the European Parliament with a large number of constituents originating in Turkey and as co-ordinator of the informal cross-party Kurdish

  361
  network in the European Parliament. In that capacity I visited the Kurdish region of Turkey eight weeks ago, including the site of the Ilisu dam which has been condemned by the International Development Committee of another place. Some EU governments—I fear that the UK Government are one—have failed to treat Turkey principally as a European political partner. Primarily, they have treated her as a military partner in NATO and excused human rights abuses by Turkey's geo-strategic position and the market that it offers for arms exports. This must change. It is not anti-Turkish to point out the huge gap between Turkey's human rights record and the EU's Copenhagen criteria.
  I am among those who want Turkey to join the EU, but as a critical friend I urge radical change. The key to improving Turkey's human rights is to end the distorting dominance of the military which it justifies by the fact that Turkey is at war with its own Kurdish citizens. That war might not have happened if Turkey could accept the concept of pluralism and compatibility between Turkish citizenship and Kurdish identity, like British citizenship and Welsh identity.
  The mayor of Hakkari, which is located close to the Iraqi border, said to me:
  "My people live between death and oppression".
  Atrocities have been committed by the PKK but are far outweighed by the killings, torture and forced evictions by the Turkish army. With the PKK ceasefire and imprisonment of Abdullah Ocalan, there is now a crucial window of opportunity to launch negotiations for a peaceful settlement. That must involve Ocalan, whose position with his people recalls that of Nelson Mandela. Peace with the Kurds would end the justification for the repressive constitution, the state of emergency and martial law and human rights abuses. It would be the key to normalisation and economic and social development which is hindered not least by the huge military spending that should go on education and health. All friends of Turkey should, therefore, make such peace with the Kurds a top priority to begin Turkey's path towards the European Union.
  8.11 p.m.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the history of the persecution of minorities in Turkey is as shameful as it is in Germany. The Armenian massacres are another unbewältigte Vergangenheit—a past which is yet to be overcome. In the case of Turkey there is little sign of a national will to overcome it. But it would be a mistake to turn this debate into a simple crusade. The balance of power is slowly changing and there is a process of democratisation somewhere between the justice and defence ministries. The Atatürk spirit still prevails and there is a strong desire to join the European Union and reap its economic benefits. So, why should we hold up the banner of human rights? Because not only are they a condition of membership but a universal benchmark of the actions and attitudes of sovereign states that
  362
  apply them throughout the world. We have a duty to point them out and support those within Turkey who seek to apply them directly.
  We must, for example, take seriously the situation of writers who are in prison or facing charges, such as journalist Nadire Mater who has been unjustly charged with insulting the army under Article 159 of the penal code. Last year there were signs of improvement in human rights laws, including a new amnesty signed by the President in September. At that time several writers were released "on parole". However, at a hearing in July prosecutors called for a 12-year gaol sentence for Mater, blaming a "western tradition" of slandering Turkey. Another case which has already been mentioned is that of Akin Birdal, a former president of Turkey's Human Rights Association who was imprisoned for two years after surviving an assassination attempt. His crime was to call for a peaceful approach to the Kurdish issue.
  Another case concerns the lawyer and short story writer Esber Yagmurdereli whose case has been taken up by Pen International. Blind since the age of 10, he has been in and out of gaol for 21 years for speeches and articles that challenge the Government on the Kurdish question. I can think of no better way to help Turkey into the European fold than to quote these cases of human rights violations. There is a large body of intellectuals and professional people in Turkey who would like to see reform, and there is also a judicial system on which to build. The Turkish Government need to be reminded constantly of these violations if they are to respect Europe's institutions.
  Finally, I should like to put a question to the Minister about the European Charter. Does she believe that such a charter will foster dialogue with countries like Turkey, or is it drafted in such a way that it will serve only to reinforce the present Union and make enlargement almost impossible?
  8.14 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been a brief but very useful debate, and I also thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing it. I underline one extremely important comment of the right reverend Prelate. The sheer challenge of including within the European Union a very substantial Muslim state with many of the drawbacks of deep underdevelopment and poverty over many years—incidentally, it is a state which feels a great sense of grievance about the way that Christians treated Muslims in the past, just as the Christian communities feel aggrieved about the way they are treated today—is one that may fundamentally change the whole nature of our world.
  If common ground can be found between a major Muslim power and the Christian powers of Europe based on human rights and common institutions we may begin to build a world in which the dreadful future indicated in Samuel Huntington's article about a clash of civilisations may be averted.
  Without detracting in any way from the moving accounts of the way in which the Turkish Government and, more often, Turkish public servants take little

  363
  notice of the Turkish constitution, I believe that the single most encouraging factor is that, having been specifically told since its original application for membership of the EU that it would have to meet in full the Copenhagen criteria—even before accession negotiations—Turkey has nevertheless decided to maintain her candidature. That is very important for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, clearly identified; namely, in Turkey, as in Indonesia, we are witnessing a battle between, on the one hand, forces that seek to shape the country's future—the army, the police and public authorities—and the voices of academe, journalism, some part of the political structure and professional people on the other.
  One of the great problems about our relations with Turkey is that there is so little interchange between civic society, the Churches, leaders of Islam, NGOs, of which Turkey has far too few—many of them persecuted—women's organisations and organisations concerned with children and social problems. One of the most encouraging signs is that in its perception of the way to approach Turkey's candidature of the EU—Philippe Morillon, rapporteur of the European Parliament, said that it would take a very long time—there is now a new emphasis on civic society and the so-called discussion fora to start very shortly. I believe that in this way we can begin the process of a acculturation without which the candidature of Turkey can never be realised.
  8.18 p.m.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in warmly thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for the opportunity to hold this short debate. There is time for little more than a soundbite from the Dispatch Box in this short debate. All I express is the hope that the message which goes out from the debate, which may perhaps be picked up in Turkey and elsewhere, is that this is not an occasion for undiluted criticism and saying that everything in Turkey is wrong; rather, the message should be one of respect, understanding and encouraging of the positive forces which I believe exist in Turkey. We must avoid the slight streak of impatience, to put it no higher, that some have detected in pronouncements from the European institutions, for example in relation to Austria. Respect and understanding for a great nation is the right starting point, even though as friends we go on to be critical.
  It sounds like a tourist brochure to say that Turkey is a nation of extreme contrasts but that is really the position in every dimension. Turkey is in Asia but not in Asia; it is in Europe but not in Europe. There remain enormous causes of concern about human rights but there are positive steps which noble Lords have mentioned this evening. We know about human rights violations but reforms of current practice are under way in relation to detention, arrest and other activities of the police authorities.
  364
  The right reverend Prelate described the harassment of journalists. It has gone very far in some areas. But there are measures to ease the processes of prosecutions against the press and open up a free press at last, which is, of course, essential to a free society.
  There is inadequacy in dealing with the Kurdish question. Now that the PKK appears to be defeated, there should be an opportunity for huge new developments of a positive kind relating to integration of the Kurdish minority. In the mean time, the terrorist threat seems to have been curbed, often by ferocious means; and societies that are threatened with terrorism deserve understanding as well as caution about how violently they react, as we know in the case of Chechnya.
  There is unease in the European Union, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, described, about absorbing this huge, amazing country with all its light and shade and good and bad sides into the European Union. The Helsinki invitation said: let it be a candidate. I have to remind myself and your Lordships that there is considerable unease in Turkey as well about the EU membership issue. Enlargement will have to be treated with immense sensitivity and more flexibility on the acquis than has been seen so far if the whole project is to make any progress.
  My view is that Turkey will adjust, possibly faster than anyone thinks. It is surrounded by huge challenges—undemocratic neighbours; continuous elements of terrorism; and fundamentalist elements challenging its whole society and balance. Nevertheless, it is a modern and potentially great nation and I believe that we must continue to respect and befriend it even while we point out some constructive criticism of the way it operates.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that autonomy might be more acceptable to the Kurdish people compared with integration?
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I hesitate before answering that definitively. Autonomy has many aspects. It can mean a lot or a little. It can be abused or made a positive force. Autonomy just written in and allowed to proceed on its way can lead to more dreadful rather than more friendly results.
  8.20 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for raising this timely question and for his highly informative description of the problems faced by religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey. This debate has demonstrated that the promotion and development of human rights in Turkey is an important issue for the UK, the European Union, and above all Turkey itself.
  The right reverend Prelate began by asking what the Government and the European Union are doing to assist Turkey in its efforts to improve its internal human rights record. I shall move on to the role of the

  365
  Government shortly. But, first, I shall say something about the role of the European Union in the process of reform.
  Noble Lords will be aware that each year the European Commission issues a regular report on the progress of candidates towards fulfilling the membership criteria. In its 1999 report, the Commission highlighted serious shortcomings in Turkey's performance on human rights, minorities and the role of the military in civilian life. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said, I assure him that Her Majesty's Government are robust when they consider those issues and give them due importance. Turkey's task now is to address the European Union's concerns in these areas. The European Union, as well as individual member states like the UK, will continue to offer assistance and advice to Turkey in these areas. But ultimately it is for Turkey to implement its own reforms. There is a lively debate on these issues in Turkey, and the government have publicly committed themselves to meeting the EU accession criteria. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It certainly appears that the government are in control and addressing themselves to these issues.
  The Copenhagen criteria have been rightly highlighted, most powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. As your Lordships know, all of the candidate countries will have to meet strict membership criteria. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that no exception will be made for Turkey. At its meeting in Copenhagen in June 1993, the European Council agreed that,
  "Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".
  At its meeting in Luxembourg in December 1997, the Council also made clear that,
  "Compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations".
  The confirmation of Turkey's candidate status agreed at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 has given Turkey a clear incentive to bring its laws and practices into line with those of the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was right to highlight the importance of those criteria and the importance of Turkey's acceptance of that challenge.
  Your Lordships have identified many of the issues which Turkey will need to address in order to comply with those criteria and become eligible for EU accession. Examples have been given by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all speaking from personal experience and knowledge. They spoke with passion. And they were right, if I may say so, to raise proper concerns.
  I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and other noble Lords that we regularly raise our concerns with the Turkish authorities about torture, prison conditions, treatment of religious minorities and Kurds, restrictions on freedom of expression and the death penalty—an issue which perhaps was not
  366
  highlighted today. These are key areas where we wish to see an improvement in Turkey's record. Our approach is one of constructive engagement at both bilateral and EU level. We believe that this is the most effective way of working to improve the human rights of the Turkish population as a whole.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roper, raised the annual human rights report and the US State Department report. Many of the problems identified in the State Department report on Turkey are identified also in Her Majesty's Government's annual report on human rights, and the incidence of torture and restrictions on freedom of expression. I have already highlighted that these are matters of genuine concern.
  To help Turkey address these issues, the European Union and its member states engage in regular dialogue with Turkey and provide financial assistance targeted among other areas at human rights reforms and the development of civil society. As a result of the decisions made at Helsinki, the EU has been able to resume a constructive dialogue across a wide range of issues. Thus in March of this year the European Union resumed political dialogue with Turkey, concentrating on human rights; and in April this year the EC-Turkey Association Council met for the first time in almost three years. At that meeting, both Turkey and the EU highlighted the importance of adopting reforms sufficient to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. This autumn the EU will draw up an accession partnership setting out reforms to be implemented by Turkey in the run-up to membership. And it agreed to establish a single framework for co-ordinating all sources of European Union pre-accession financial assistance. These developments are important in the context of Turkey's efforts to reform its human rights record. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that the EU and the UK are vigorous in making sure that the reforms are a reality and not a piece of fiction.
  Action on human rights issues will be an import ant part of the accession partnership's requirements. The funding which the European Union provides is also an important part of the effort to improve standards of human rights in Turkey. The European Union's latest funding proposal, for example, is currently awaiting approval by the European Parliament. It will provide 45 million euro per year for three years. Any projects that it funds will have to promote economic and social development in Turkey and help to promote the defence of human rights and respect for, and protection of, minorities. I welcome this positive and constructive engagement with reform in Turkey.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roper, rightly raised the action being taken by the UK. I can assure noble Lords that we are actively engaged on a bilateral level with Turkey's reform process. Last July the then Minister of State for Europe, the right honourable Joyce Quin, announced a human rights package for Turkey worth £500,000. That is funded from the Human Rights Project Fund of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Seven projects have been implemented and are completed or nearing completion. Our focus reflects the concerns raised today. The projects include advice

  367
  on prison management; training workshops; policing methods in line with international human rights law; an inter-agency approach to torture in order to increase awareness of legal rights; and a conference on the rule of law and training for non-governmental organisations and criminal justice lawyers in Turkey.
  We have a number of issues of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised another. I say to him that there is already an active debate in Turkey on reform of the National Security Council, including greater civilian representation. We have been encouraged by the recent removal of the military judge from the state security court. So change is occurring.
  In response to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and his comment in relation to the charter of rights, it is hoped that highlighting and showcasing the existing rights in the European Union will highlight the common values of EU members. We hope that such a charter can make it more rather than less clear to Turkey the standards we wish her to uphold. As the noble Earl is aware, the charter is still at a very early drafting stage. It is important that these issues are clearly set out, debated and that our processes are transparent so that when Turkey seeks to join the EU she fully understands the challenges she has and must meet if she is to satisfy the Copenhagen criteria.
  I warmly welcome the unity of vision expressed this evening from all Benches and the fact that all Benches have welcomed Turkey's application. Sensitivity has been shown by all noble Lords in relation to the challenges she faces. That was echoed poignantly by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
  We know the challenges that Turkey faces. She will need a great deal of help to meet them. But she is a partner. She has already demonstrated that she can be an important partner in many different fora. She is an important partner for the reasons precisely set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, making an important contribution as a large state addressed to the Islamic community.
  Turkey is also a NATO ally which provided vital support in the Gulf and in the Kosovo crisis. She is a force for regional stability. She is a major market for EU exports. I do not accept the slant that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, applied in relation to that issue. Turkey has some importance in that regard.
  Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I was not saying that it was not important that Turkey was a NATO ally. I was saying that it was a mistake to see Turkey purely through the prism of membership of NATO. We need to see that country primarily as a political partner in Europe. I was not diminishing the NATO aspect at all.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very glad for that clarification. I endorse what the noble Baroness said. It is extremely important that Turkey should be a full and proper EU partner. That is why it is of fundamental importance that she meets the criteria that every EU partner must meet in order to join the EU family. We expect the prospect of EU
  368
  accession to encourage the development of stable and democratic institutions; greater freedom of expression; an improvement in the human rights record; and the protection of minorities and peaceful resolution to the conflict in the south east.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes to nine.
  Moved according, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The sitting was suspended from 8.35 p.m. to 8.40 p.m.]

Football (Disorder) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("caused or contributed to any violence or disorder") and insert ("been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevant offence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments and perhaps at this time of night on the second day of Joycean continuous experience it is a mercy. However it is difficult to unravel this set of amendments with clarity and brevity, both of which are deeply desired at this time of night, but I shall do my best. Before the break, the Minister referred to the solace that we should take from the sunset clause and I understand what he means. However, a sunset clause in a bad Bill is still bad news and enough has been said for the purpose of the amendments to be well understood.
There are new and potentially dangerous powers in the banning order structure under the Bill. New Sections 14B and 21A are totally interlinked. After all, new Section 21A, relating to a "sus" offence, harks back to the conditions of new Section 14B(2) and we heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, say last night that suspicion is not on grounds of actual or imminent breach of the peace or suspected illegality but in respect of future conduct. What is more, and worse, it is based on long past conduct; up to 10 years. That is in dramatic contrast with the Crime and Disorder Bill and the anti-social behaviour orders on which the Minister has relied throughout.
Furthermore, a banning order under new Section 14B need not necessarily be related to football, unlike the provisions of new Section 14A and the existing legislation. Nor need it be in relation to a conviction, a point emphasised from many quarters. According to what tests are the Government or the police able to apply for a banning order? Is it a criminal test? No, we know that it is a civil test although it has criminal penalties and it is certainly in a criminal context. Does it involve mens rea or intent? No, it does not. Will there be any defence of self defence, provocation or other reasonable conduct, as is present in the Public Order Act? No, there will not.
The Government tell us not to worry too much because new Section 14B(4)(b) saves the day. Under that provision the justice of the peace must believe that there are "reasonable grounds" before a banning order is made. We are not happy with that.
What about the conditions for the banning order? Must there be violence? Yes, but of a very particular and limited kind. It can even be violence against property. It could be graffiti or smashing a couple of glasses in a pub intentionally when drunk.
What about disorder? It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not here because his somewhat cavalier approach to all this would have been a good deal less so had he pondered on the definitions of "violence" and "disorder". Let us not forget that "disorder" is stirring up hatred against a group of persons. We have no problem with that but the use of abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, embraces a multitude of sins and minor sins. Thinking back to my student days I remember that the boat club of Trinity Hall was perpetually abusive and insulting during its more elaborate celebrations, as were sporting organisations of all kinds.
Although the Minister has consistently said that that is not the kind of behaviour on which people will base applications for banning orders, I beg to differ. There is not much difference between the high spirits of a sporting institution of a university and the high spirits of students when demonstrating whether at a university or outside or whether in respect of genetic engineering problems, animal problems or visits of undesirable potentates as with the President of China. Such matters give rise to occasions when precisely abusive and insulting behaviour is a concern. We do not like a Bill which ultimately relies for its scope and implementation on the perpetual good sense of police and magistrates. That is not good legislation.
What about the violence? Must it be direct, actual or serious? No, it must be merely enough to contribute to "it" or to disorder. What is meant by "contribution to"? The Minister gave—if I may say without being offensive—a banal explanation to my noble friend Lord Russell. It will of course include cheering on when someone is, for example, destroying crops in a field. If you are standing on the side lines cheering on, that will be a contribution to disorder and to violence in property terms.
It need not be violence or disorder such that banning will prevent its repetition. It has not yet been pointed out that the magistrates need be satisfied only that the banning order will "help" prevent violence or disorder. "Help" is a little word and it can mean a little or a lot. It does not say "help significantly", it merely says "help". That is the weakest link in a very weak chain of protection for those against whom banning orders are sought. I regret not having woken up to the importance of that small word hitherto because no one has tabled a related amendment.
This group of amendments provides two broad approaches. We like both and believe that both would improve the Bill but we must have one or the other.
370
The first provides that a banning order cannot be based on conduct which is not the subject of a criminal conviction. Although the Minister may say that that shoots a torpedo under the waterline of the Bill we would not agree. New Section 14A allows for a banning order on the back of a criminal conviction which is football related. We believe that it is perfectly satisfactory for new Section 14B to allow a banning order based on a conviction which is not for football; it provides the kind of safeguards for which everyone has been asking.
The other approach would be to work with a scalpel, so to speak, on the provisions of the Bill and seek to tighten up the requirements. That is where Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself, where Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 in the names of my noble friend Lord McNally and myself, and where Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, all come in.
I shall sit down in a moment but I believe that it would help the House if I were to read out what is perhaps the key section in the Bill—new Section 14B(2)—with the amendments included in this group written into it. It would then read as follows:
"That condition"—
that is, the condition on the basis of which a banning application can be granted—
"is that the respondent has at any time caused or significantly contributed with intent to any serious violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
I believe that the amendments—one a deletion and three single word insertions—do not disable the Bill at all. Rather, we would say that they give the Bill a force, a balance and—to use the Minister's favourite word—a proportionality that help the credibility and justice of the measure. When we become excited about the minutiae of the wording, it is often forgotten that, without a just Bill, one has a bad Bill. That may not become apparent very quickly, but in our history there are too many examples of Bills which are full of good intentions but ultimately are bad and counterproductive. Like the Minister, we want a Bill that will work.
I hope that my remarks have not been either too diffuse or too long. I shall now sit down and leave others to add to the group. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar): My Lords, I should tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 because of pre-emption.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to my amendments in this group. This is a part of the Bill which, on the face of it, is quite reasonable. It states that where someone has a known predisposition to violence or disorderly conduct and is going to a football match or in some other way seems likely to be associated with a football match that we are concerned to protect, a banning order can be issued. I do riot believe that I have a problem with that as a basic

371
proposition from which to work. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said eloquently how that had been applied successfully by the Germans in keeping their troublemakers out of France.
The difficulties that we encounter here is that the details of the approach taken are quite disproportionate either to the likely consequences of allowing someone to go abroad or to the nature of what they must have done in order to qualify for a banning order. As the provision stands at present, you can be subject to a banning order if you have ever been convicted of careless driving, because you might have been said to have endangered life; if you have ever insulted a policeman or a traffic warden; or, if you have ever been involved in a demonstration which has turned violent at the fringes. All types of ordinary actions which do not indicate a predisposition towards causing violence at football matches are allowed as criteria under new Section 14B(2).
I turn to new Section 14C and the definition of disorder:
"using threatening, abusive or insulting words".
There is no qualification in that. Anything considered to be insulting will qualify a person under that definition. Given those loose words and the fact that 30 per cent of the population have convictions and clearly fall within such a rubric, we must look at a filter in new Section 14B(2) which will encompass most of the population. I imagine that 60 or 70 per cent of the population would fall within new Section 14B(2) if the police were to look hard enough for the evidence that they required to prove it. Therefore, very little filtering occurs in new Section 14B(2).
The filtering takes place in new Section 14B(4), where the magistrates must decide whether a person, who, it has been "proved", has a violent disposition because he once told a traffic warden to get lost, constitutes a danger to a football match because he has a ticket to it. The magistrates must decide whether, because we are worried about violence, they must therefore prevent that particular person from attending. The proof appears to be that they must be satisfied on reasonable grounds.
It is a difficult and unusual formulation of wording. I know that it has been used in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act, but it is not standard. If it means "the balance of probabilities", perhaps that should be said. However, the Government have said that it means something stronger than that. I should certainly be happy if it meant something stronger and we could tighten the definition. Then the court would decide not only whether there was a possibility that the fellow might do something nasty when he arrived in France but would say, "No, we are pretty sure that if we let him go to France there will be a real danger that he will do something undesirable".
Those points form the substance of the intention of my amendments. They look at different aspects of the problem. I am not suggesting that the Government need take them all on board, but I believe that if they
372
take none of them on board they will leave this section of the Bill as an open goal for anyone who cares to kick the Human Rights Act football at it.
In this section as it stands, we are imposing what amounts to a criminal penalty. It provides for a two to three-year banning order, imposing severe restrictions on a person's movement and ability to move around the Community, and imposing a stigma on people equivalent to a criminal conviction. In addition, we are imposing it on a civil standard of proof. I believe that clearly that will be attacked under the human rights legislation.
I believe that if the Government were to give way to some of those suggestions and allow the wording in this section to be tightened a little, they would not allow anyone significant through the net. A person whom they are worried about will have carried out a significant act of violence or disorder. It will be fairly obvious to a magistrate that such a person is likely to do something undesirable abroad and it will not be a so-so decision. Therefore, I believe that if the Government would allow the wording of this provision to be tightened, they would make it more effective and harder to attack under the Human Rights Act. At the same time, they would make it a more just provision so far as concerns the majority of our citizens.
So far as concerns the individual amendments, Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are addressed at new Section 14B(2). Given that that does not contain the important test, I am not too concerned about how we tighten up that wording. I believe it is desirable that we make it clear that we are not looking to pick up anyone who has ever been involved in an act of a relatively minor nature. I believe that we could do that equally in Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which tighten up the definition of disorder. That, again, would help to make it clear that we are talking about a person who has an established history of serious violence or disorder.
Through Amendment No. 14 we could add the concept of intent. I believe that it is important that someone should have intended to contribute to violence or disorder rather than having been simply caught up in it. That is a point which the noble Lord said last night that he would consider. I have not yet found anything in my in-tray and I do not know the results of the noble Lord's considerations. However, I believe that at the top of my personal list is Amendment No. 19, which replaces the word "reasonable" in new Section 14B(4) with the word "strong".
Section 14B(4) is the crucial provision, because it contains the real test that magistrates will apply. The amendment would make that subsection closer to what the Government say that they want. The current wording seems to imply only a civil balance of proof requirement—or even something less. The amendment would strengthen that, although it would not go as far as requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Given that the amendment would make what the Government say that they want clear to the average magistrate, I very much hope that they will accept it. I

373
shall happily table it again at Third Reading if the Government feel that they need a little longer to consider it.
This group was introduced by the Liberal Democrats, so it will be concluded by the Liberal Democrats. I shall pay close attention to what they say, as well as to what my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley on the Front Bench says about the relative desirability of the amendments.
If the Government resist the amendments, it may be right to take one or two of them to the vote now rather than waste time at Third Reading. I shall listen very carefully to the rest of the debate.
9 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 sets out the basic position of my party: we would prefer action on the basis of a conviction. However, as we have been told that, if it is agreed, subsequent amendments will fall, it may help the structure of the debate, to which the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Lucas, have contributed constructively, if I say that we shall not move Amendment No. 12. I hope that that will allow Ministers to ponder the wisdom of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Lucas. Whereas Amendment No. 12 would fundamentally change the Bill, their amendments would fundamentally improve it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said, because I broadly support Amendment No. 12, as I supported an equivalent amendment that he moved at about 3 o'clock this morning, if my befuddled brain remembers correctly. He says that he is not going to move it, but I understood that it had already been moved. Perhaps I am wrong, but what have we been speaking about for the past few minutes if the amendment has not been moved? If Amendment No. 12 were agreed to today or tomorrow, it would remove many of the objections to Section 14B, although not all of them.
I also accept the less ambitious following amendments, which have been rather curiously grouped with Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 19, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just referred, is slightly preferable to Amendment No. 18, which is the alternative Liberal Democrat amendment. They are both pretty good and it would be better to have one than none at all, but I think that the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is slightly better. No doubt we shall come to that in due course.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am marginally less concerned about the detailed wording here as a result of our earlier vote on the sunset provision. My reaction to the amendments will be conditioned to an extent by whether the Government intend to leave Amendment No. 10 in the Bill, or they will seek to reverse it. I would find any indication on that helpful, as might some other noble Lords.
374
Section 14B has two sets of conditions. The first set, in Subsection (2), refers to the past and the second set, in Subsection (4)(b), refers to the future. In each case, the aim of the amendments is to increase the hurdles by adding words such as "seriously". As we discussed at some length last night, the hurdles are quite low, particularly the first one, relating to past conduct.
It is excellent that such a polite and well behaved House as this should worry about a hurdle that refers to people contributing to insulting behaviour. Because of Standing Order No. 38, we would never do that in this House, although it has emerged in some of our discussions that one or two Members of your Lordships' House seem to have had interesting experiences in their youth that might expose them in that way. The Minister and I had blameless young lives—or at least neither of us has admitted to anything that might cause us to fall at that hurdle.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that the actions of many noble Lords in their youth would fall within the 10 years specified.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that there have been some memorable incidents, including one of my noble friends who took a spot shot at a hot air balloon and one of the Minister's noble friends who took a spanner to his wife. These things happen even in this House.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lords whom I was hinting at were concerned not about their personal cases, but about younger people who might behave in that way. No one assumes that any Member of your Lordships' House will fall foul of any of the provisions. However, that is as may be. We have to address the precise wording.
If one is to pick out one amendment, which is a hit invidious—a little like trying to judge a fancy dress competition, which no elected politician would let himself in for—Amendment No. 14, referring to intent, seems to me to have more significance and more importance.
Primarily I am concerned with the future. It seems to me that the future hurdle is the one that will govern most cases. The court must be satisfied that there are grounds to believe that the banning order will help to prevent violence. The court will have to look at the individual concerned and say, "If we ban him"—or her, but primarily him—"from going to a particular football match there is less likely to be violence at the match". Almost everybody has somewhere in their past, and probably in the past 10 years, fallen foul of the past conditions. Nevertheless, if I have to put my finger on any one amendment, I am more attracted to Amendment No. 14.
I believe that the second hurdle is vital, so, if the Government are considering accepting any of these amendments, perhaps we should look more carefully at the amendments relating to that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, tempted as I am by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to make a

375
pronouncement about the amendment that we lost earlier, perhaps I had better address the issues in front of us. I shall address all of them, although Amendment No. 12 has been moved. I shall do so as carefully as I can.
Amendment No. 12 would alter fundamentally the condition in Section 14B(2) which must be satisfied before a banning order on complaint may be made against any person. That condition, as the Bill now says, is that the respondent has at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
I began to get a little worried when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, earlier, as I have a long-spent driving conviction. I was worried that I may fall within the remit of this legislation. However, it was more than 10 years ago and I am probably now a citizen pretty much above suspicion, although not entirely. I was momentarily and fleetingly concerned.
The arguments on both sides have been aired on a number of occasions, and I do not believe that we shall see eye-to-eye on this occasion any more than we have done during previous discussions. None the less, let me briefly restate the Government's case. That is simply that, if we want to solve this problem, it is not enough to restrict the condition, as the noble Lords opposite would, to people who have been convicted of offences involving violence or any other relevant offence. That would potentially leave out larger numbers of people who can be identified from video evidence as having participated in violence or disorder, precisely the group of people whom we would want most to see subjected to banning orders.
On an earlier group of amendments I gave a fairly clear exposition of how the police would seek to use those orders. I believe that the more paranoid ramblings of our deliberations here can be clearly set on one side when one considers the way in which the police seek to exercise their powers.
I do not see that any injustice to those people at all would accrue from their being made subject to banning orders. I believe that the point has been well made. We are talking about football matches; we are not talking about the wholesale restriction of people's freedom to move. I would invite noble Lords to bear in mind that we have accepted that spent convictions will not be taken into account for the purposes of the test in Section 14B(2), nor will behaviour which did not lead to a conviction and which took place more than 10 years previously. Those two concessions were widely welcomed. I believe that, as a result, we have a test which combines fairness with effectiveness, which is what we are trying to achieve. I must, therefore, invite the House not to accept Amendment No. 12.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. These amendments introduce the concepts of "significant" violence, of "intent", and of "serious violence" to the test in Section 14B(2) which underlies the banning order by complaint. We have spent much time discussing the nature of that test, and I have explained
376
the Government's view that in order for the new powers to be fully effective, we cannot introduce new requirements. It is not that we are anxious to include, for instance, violence which is not serious, but we are anxious to avoid introducing new uncertainties into the law. Similarly, the element of intent introduces serious difficulties into the procedure envisaged in Section 14B(2).
I said that I would look at this matter again and, on doing so, I am not convinced that it would add anything or provide us with a simple and effective procedure. Therefore I cannot invite your Lordships to agree to those amendments.
Amendment No. 18 is not acceptable because it creates a requirement which could only be satisfied if the court had complete foreknowledge. The court cannot know if a banning order will have the desired effect; it can only have "reasonable grounds to believe" that it will. For that reason the amendment does not appear to us to be logical and we cannot advise that it be accepted.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are also interesting in that they try to qualify the power that we are after. Amendment No. 19 would require the courts to have "strong" grounds to believe that a banning order would help to prevent violence and disorder before it made such an order. "Strong" grounds is not a phrase with which I am familiar. As I have said on many occasions, I am not a lawyer, though I live with one. It is not, to my knowledge, a familiar legal concept, at least it is not as familiar as "reasonable".
9.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The fact that a word is not familiar or precedented is not an argument for it not being deployed. On that basis a great deal of this Bill would not have been brought forward.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are talking about a term which is common argot within the legal trade. The court would not recognise it as being a familiar tool for judgment, for exercising a discretion or coming to a view. That is the important point. The existing safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that this additional hurdle is not necessary.
Amendment No. 20 would give the court discretion as to whether or not to impose a banning order, even when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will help to prevent violence and disorder. It is important that banning orders shall be imposed whenever that condition is met. I cannot see any objection in principle to placing such a requirement on the court. All we are saying is that, if it is right to impose a banning order, then the court shall do so. I cannot suggest that the House accepts that amendment and I therefore invite your Lordships to reject it.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would insert important qualifications into the test of causing or contributing to violence in Section 14B(2). Amendment No. 22 requires that the words used shall

377
be "seriously" abusive or insulting, or the behaviour "seriously" disorderly and threatening, while Amendment No. 23 requires that any writing displayed shall be "seriously" threatening, abusive or insulting.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is on familiar territory; this is a familiar theme. He has regaled us with his litany of less-than-serious insults. My concern, as ever, is for the effectiveness of this measure. I have no wish for banning orders to be imposed for trivial behaviour. I have great confidence in the courts. Of course, they have to be satisfied that the banning order will help to prevent violence or disorder in the future. Trivial behaviour will not provide a valid basis for that judgment. I do not believe it should and I do not believe the courts will use it in that way.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says he thinks there should not be trivial grounds and that the court would not use trivial grounds. My worry is that the court may use trivial grounds, and therefore trivial grounds should be kept out. If there is a chance of things going wrong, as night follows day they will.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the threshold to which the noble Earl seeks to raise the judgment here is one which will fundamentally undermine the value of what we are seeking to achieve. By and large in my experience, and no doubt the noble Earl will have similar experience on which to form a judgment, the courts are not prepared to accept trivial behaviour to form the basis of a conviction in criminal cases. In the context of a banning order, the courts would take a serious view of matters in front of them and form a balanced judgment as to the likelihood of someone's behaviour on the evidence they receive. We must place our trust in the law. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may comment on something said in relation to Amendment No. 23.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it would be preferable for the noble Lord to ask a question of my noble friend the Minister at this stage, rather than make comments.
Lord Monson: Of course, my Lords. I wonder whether the Minister read a recent press report, or heard from other sources, about a man who applied to join the Metropolitan Police. Although he was otherwise well qualified, he was rejected because he had a Union flag tattooed on his forearm. Presumably that was considered to be, if not abusive, possibly threatening or insulting. Are we to take it that someone might be caught by this provision if he had such a flag tattooed somewhere on his body?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we shall drift into making bad law if we start quoting obscure but, nevertheless, noteworthy instances and examples as a
378
way to try to prove a point. Clearly it will depend on the behaviour of the person, his background, his general demeanour, and so on. Whether or not someone has a Union flag emblazoned across his shoulder or torso, or wherever, is not really a material consideration as far as concerns these amendments.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hear rumblings from behind me indicating that that was as disappointing a response as the Minister has given during the whole of this debate. It meets none of the anxieties felt on this side of the House and, in particular, leaves the provisions of new Section 14B wholly unamended. The Minister places much reliance on the status quo; for example, he said that the police can be relied upon and that he bases his trust in the law. That is all very well. The police can usually be relied upon, as can the law. However, the point of these amendments is to make the law such that less than competent police officers—and worse than that—will be inhibited from potentially using this law in an improper way. The discretion that is given to both the police and the courts here can only be described as "arbitrary".
I should remind the Minister and the House that the powers given under this Bill are unprecedented in our entire legal history. That is not an exaggeration; indeed, it is not, as I believe the Minister said, "paranoid rambling". It is the truth. That point was succinctly made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on new Section 21A. The fact is that new Section 14B allows the police, as the Minister explicitly said, to bring a banning order application against someone who has committed no criminal offence in respect of long-past conduct, which will have future effects.
I shall not rehearse the arguments. I am just profoundly disappointed. The Minister is relying upon the fact that, at this time of night and after such a day, there is no Division that we can call with any hope of winning, given the Government's whipped ranks. Before I sit down I shall just say that I believe that the Minister is making a mistake by offering no concessions on this issue. I do not think that it will help the Bill or, indeed, its implementation. I believe that he will rue the day that he has used the power that he knows he has. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert-
("(^) The application shall state the date, place and substance of any conviction or order to be relied upon in support of the application.
(^) A copy of the application shall be served on the respondent at least 14 days before the hearing of the application, subject to an order for substitute service.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has, unfortunately, had to go home because of the indisposition of one of his relatives. He has asked me to move these amendments on his behalf. I turn, first, to Amendment No. 16. When comparable amendments were moved last night, I explained to the noble Lord that the Minister gave the assurance that the details of the date, place and substance of any conviction or order would be part of the standard form that the Government are seeking to devise and make mandatory. On that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was very happy for Amendment No. 16 to be withdrawn.
As regards Amendment No. 17A—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but he is, presumably, speaking to Amendment No. 16 and the amendments grouped with it. Therefore he should not say that he will withdraw Amendment No. 16; otherwise, he will get us in a muddle.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the last thing in the world that I want to do is to get anyone in a muddle. That just shows that I am in a muddle, but these are not my amendments.
Amendment No. 17A seeks to amend new Section 14B(4)(a)—which concerns banning orders made on a complaint—to read,
"If it is proved on the application by the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt".
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wants to be quite sure that the burden of proof is on the applicant and not on the respondent. I cannot imagine that that is a contentious issue. I am confident that the Government intend that the proof required is proof on the part of the applicant. The amendment contains the words, "beyond all reasonable doubt". On the basis of what has been said recently, I anticipate that the requirement for the application to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt will not be accepted by the Government, but none the less I move the amendment as I was asked to do. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am attracted by Amendment No. 17A. We have here both the low standard of proof and the low standard of certainty as to what it is that has to be proved. We have met firm resistance to raising the definition of what has to be proved to greater clarity. If we cannot do that, we should raise the standard of certainty to which the proof has to be offered. As I said, this amendment attracts me.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 16, which the noble Lord has said he will withdraw in due course, nor to Amendment No. 17, because I believe that Amendment No. 17A takes its place.
The noble Lord is right to say that the Government are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 17A. However, the burden of proof will clearly be on the
380
applicant. I think that is written in. I hope that gives some comfort to the noble Lord. The amendment would provide for the criminal standard of proof—I am not saying anything that has not been said from this Dispatch Box in the course of the past 24 hours—and is not appropriate for what we argue is a civil order.
It is well established in case law that the standard of proof in civil proceedings is a flexible one. I quote again a judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the case that was mentioned yesterday, and last Thursday at Second Reading, which states:
"The flexibility of the civil standard of proof suffices to ensure that the court will require the high degree of probability which is appropriate to what is at stake" .—[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1260.]
We have every confidence—we believe that the noble Lord should have every confidence—in the courts' ability to judge these matters fairly. They will not make banning orders unless they are satisfied that the two conditions set out in new Section 14B are met; namely, that it is proved that the person before them has caused or contributed to violence and disorder, and—not or—that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would help prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches. The breach of an order will be a criminal offence. In a trial of that offence, the criminal standard of proof would, of course, apply.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged for that response. Might it therefore be appropriate to accept Amendment No. 17, as that confines itself to the insertion of the words, "application by the applicant"? As that is what the Minister said is intended, would it not make sense for that to be proposed and accepted?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary. It is quite clear from what I have said and from the whole sense of the Bill—unsatisfactory as it is to some noble Lords—that it will not be for the respondent to prove; it will be for the applicant to prove in this case. The words are not necessary.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17, 17A and 18 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("reasonable") and insert ("strong")
9.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Alderdice, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Barker, B.

Monson, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Montrose, D.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ezra, L.

Onslow, E.

Goodhart, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Greaves, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Russell, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McNally, L.

Waddington, L.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L. [Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord chancellor)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Borrie, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

[Teller]

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fitt, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Turnberg, L.

382

Uddin, B.

Wilkins, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.40 p.m.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Carlile of Berriew Lord Carlile of Berriew moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert-
("(^) When granting or refusing the application the court shall deliver a reasoned judgment in open court.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who, as we have already heard, is indisposed. I shall do so briefly.
For a banning order to be made by the court, the court has to go through a ratiocinatory process. It has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds. That means that the court has to know what the reasons are, develop them and decide what they are. It means, presumably, that the court is capable of stating what the reasons are. It has to be satisfied that those reasonable grounds are such as to make it believe that a banning order would help to prevent football violence. That means that the court has gone through the thinking process of not only deciding that it would help to prevent football violence, but also why.
As many noble Lords have said, the Bill represents a significant invasion not only of civil liberties in general but also of well understood tenets of criminal law. Indeed, the rejection of the previous amendment, on which we have just voted, contains a decision that the normal criminal standard of proof should not be used in relation to a provision which may have a significant effect on the liberty of the subject. It is the generally accepted wisdom in relation to the Human Rights Act that all courts will have to give reasons—albeit sometimes very brief reasons—for all decisions. The House will be aware that a considerable amount of training is being carried out in the magistrates' courts up and down the country to explain to justices, who no doubt will do it very well, how they should formulate their reasons and how they should be set out. It is to be presumed that magistrates' chief executives, as they are now called, will devise pro formas similar to those used currently in relation to the Bail Act, which will enable magistrates very simply to set out their reasons.
It is thought by many engaged in human rights law that a court's failure to give reasons to a citizen whose ordinary rights are invaded—for example, his right to hold a passport—will be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is obviously scope for a challenge to the Act on the grounds of incompatibility with the convention. It would seem

383
reasonable to require as part of the legislative provision that the court must—the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says "shall"—deliver a reasoned judgment in open court. I would expect the Government, in the spirit of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, this afternoon and this evening, to be open to that suggestion. I hope that he will be prepared to see it included in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, throughout our long debates on the Bill—although it has been only 48 hours, it now feels like an eternity—it appears that the Government that introduced into English law the concept of the European Court of Human Rights will look quite extraordinarily silly if, through this Bill and especially as regards this provision, they are found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As I said on Second Reading, I do not much like the European Convention on Human Rights. I wish that Parliament itself would protect the liberties of Englishmen so that we would have no need of the convention. However, what the noble Lord has pointed out, rather like Pershing arriving on the Somme in 1917—we may all be tired and shell-shocked but he is still fresh; I apologise, not the Somme, Le Chemin des Dames—is new and devastating evidence that this will breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
All I can say to the Government is that Members of this House will have failed in their duty if they do not persuade the Government of this danger. However, the Government are being so obstinate on this point that when—it is not a question of "if" but "when"—they are found to be in default, I believe that it will follow that ministerial resignations must arise out of it. They have been warned time and time again about the dangers of breaching the ECHR with the Bill. They have resisted all advice. Later, someone will have to say, "Oops, I made a mistake and therefore I must go".
At the very least, if the Government accepted the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and very ably moved by, I shall call him my noble and learned friend, Lord Pershing, at least that will provide one excuse not to resign.
Earl Russell: My Lords, back in the 1960s, in the University of London, a certain professor became known as the "Ancien Régime". He was once engaged in a tremendous battle with the board of studies about a proposed change in the syllabus. The argument was in danger of getting out of hand. The chairman proposed to postpone the discussion until the following week and asked both sides to submit their reasons in writing. The professor replied, "Reasons? I cannot see that we need to submit reasons. We are defending established practice". That was not a judicial approach to the discovery of the truth.
384
There are two vital reasons why a court must submit reasons. The first is that that is what separates a judgment based on known and understood rules from a judgment based on prejudice or the mood of the moment. The second is that, unless reasons are produced with which one can join issue, there is no ground on which to base an appeal.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have suffered a little trepidation about replying to this debate. I sighed with some relief when I heard that the eminent QC, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would not move the amendment, only to find that it would be the equally eminent noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who would move it. Now, I am even more frightened, because the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, started talking about ministerial resignations! This looked on the face of it not to be the most major of the amendments in the Bill, but we shall have to see how we go.
The amendment is one on which we had a valuable discussion only some 24 hours ago. Its effect would be to impose an explicit requirement on the court to deliver a reasoned judgment in open court whenever it grants or refuses an application for a banning order under the new civil complaints procedure.
The Government would not dream of opposing this amendment if we had any doubt whatever that the effects sought would be achieved anyway. The common law has evolved, as the noble Lord knows much better than I, in such a way that it is now accepted as good practice that courts should indeed deliver such reasoned judgments without any explicit obligation to do so being imposed upon them. That expectation can only be strengthened, as the noble Lord said in moving the amendment, by the implementation of the Human Rights Act, with which the noble Earl seems to have such a love-hate relationship. Implementation of the Act is now just a few weeks away. Indeed, we shall be back here before it is implemented, but only because the House is returning before the end of September.
There is argument that says that there would perhaps be some mischief in creating a statutory requirement here to give a reasoned judgment which applied only to this one procedure. It could have the effect of weakening by implication the need to produce reasoned judgments in other types of case where no such explicit requirement exists in legislation. It is on that basis, with considerable sympathy for the idea behind the amendment, that I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, one is bound to reflect that this Government and indeed their predecessor have been far from reluctant to impose explicit requirements on the courts when the courts neither want nor need them. I refer, for example, to the imposition of minimum sentences some of which have led to manifest injustices.
As to the noble Lord's point on the danger of including an explicit requirement in the Bill, I simply do not agree with him. There is a clear requirement that courts will give reasons in future. There is no

385
harm, and there can be no mischief, in the inclusion of a specific requirement for a new procedure. Indeed, it might be a good precedent that ought to be followed in the spirit of the European convention in future legislation.
However, the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will he carefully noted, copied, transmitted, circulated and disseminated around the land. The principle, the doctrine of Pepper v Hart, will be invoked wherever there is thought to be any ambiguity and courts around England and Wales will know, for his Lordship has said so, that they must give reasons when they make banning orders under this legislation. Reassured by that—I am reassured by it, and I mean that—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("or shorter than the minimum")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said of the introduction of minimum sentences that they have produced manifest injustices on a few occasions.
I apologise to the noble Lord for not attempting to deal with this matter earlier, but we have taken this Bill, not at a hand gallop but at a rushed gallop. It struck me only in the early hours of this morning that it seemed unnecessary to have minimum sentences—they are sentences, and there is no other word for it.
Noble Lords opposite have argued consistently that the courts should have discretion on the basis that they can be trusted. I suggest that the courts should have the discretion set out in my amendments, because there are bound to be cases in which it is manifestly unfair to make the minimum banning order when a shorter one will do. I believe that this is a perfectly reasonable amendment. Every amendment that I have regarded as reasonable others have considered to be unreasonable. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl is aware that I support these amendments. He will forgive me if I do not repeat the reasons. I should like to pick up the reference to the European Convention on Human Rights. The mere fact that the noble Earl needs to table these amendments shows why that convention is necessary. It would be much nicer if Parliament protected our liberties. Surely, the noble Earl agrees that if this Bill reaches the statute book Parliament has failed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl has no reason to apologise for tabling the amendments this evening. He raised the issue when it struck him yesterday and, quite properly, tabled these amendments for debate this evening. However, I cannot accept them, and I shall try to explain why. The amendments remove the minimum periods for which football banning orders may be imposed. The concept of minimum sentences is not in any way unknown to English law. I refer noble
386
Lords to minimum disqualification for drink driving or totting-up offences. We believe that the concept of minimum periods, which follow precedents set in previous legislation on banning orders—they go back some 11 years—is entirely right and proper. Banning orders are serious measures and should be imposed for periods which are sufficiently substantial to have a deterrent effect.
While it is perhaps often a good thing—the word written here is "efficacious"—to impose a short prison sentence of a month or less, frankly, to prevent somebody from attending football matches for such a short period would not make a great deal of difference. We believe that the provisions as they stand send the right message to the courts and, through them, to football hooligans. If a banning order is made in their case they will not be able to go to football matches for some time. We are reluctant to invite noble Lords to change these times. There is nothing in the provision of minimum sentences or measures that is in any way against the English common law or the protection of the individual. I am aware that in this Bill the noble Earl believes that there are matters which offend his sense of liberty, but this is not one of them.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for taking considerable trouble, at fairly short notice, to deal with this matter. Having listened to the noble Lord, I suppose that I must accept his reasons. At one stage the minimum sentence for murder was death. One of my forbears forgot to hand in a reprieve to Oxford gaol and the individual was hanged by mistake. I suppose that that is not a very good precedent for cherishing English liberties as much as I do. I thank the noble Lord for the care that he took in his response, although I regret it. I also thank my noble kinsman, or former co-pupil, Lord Russell, for saying exactly what I feel about ECHR. Unfortunately, that convention has become necessary because Parliament has failed to do its job. With that low whinge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("or (2C)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment—it is merely a paving amendment—I speak also to Amendment No. 32, the substantive amendment. Amendment No. 32 proposes to leave out new subsections (2C) and (2D) of Section 19. For completeness, the amendment should also leave out the last two lines of new subsection (2B) and the whole of new Section 14G. As has happened all too often owing to the extreme speed with which amendments had to be put down and then put down again, those parts were omitted.
These are amendments of considerable importance. Perhaps I may be allowed to make the virtual speech in favour of my virtual amendment as well as the actual

387
speech in favour of the actual amendment. New Section 14G authorises a court when making a banning order to impose additional requirements on the subject of the order. The end of new subsection (2B) and new subsections (2C) and (2D) authorise the enforcing authority to make additional requirements when serving a notice to comply with the banning order.
The problem is this. These are powers of the court on the one hand or of the enforcing authority on the other to impose additional requirements; and breach of those requirements will be a criminal offence which can attract a criminal penalty. But there are no guidelines as to what those additional requirements may be: there is no limit to them; and there is no parliamentary procedure.
In Committee the Minister suggested that, for instance, in the case of a home match there might be an additional requirement on the subject of the banning order to stay away not only from the football ground but also from a station which was used by visiting fans. I understand the justification for that and I should be entirely happy for that kind of additional requirement to be imposed. However, there are no criteria in the statute, no limits and no parliamentary procedures. It would be perfectly possible to impose the kind of additional requirements that one might find a great deal less attractive. For instance, the additional requirement could in effect impose house arrest by requiring the subject of the order to stay at home throughout the 24 hours of the day of the match except for reporting to the police station and going straight home again.
It is conceivable that there could be a requirement to wear an electronic tag. It seems to me that these matters go far beyond the sort of thing that ought to be done without the authority of Parliament. Not only does the Act lay down no criteria itself, it does not even provide for these matters to be dealt with by regulation. As I made clear yesterday, these matters were not dealt with by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Because of the very great speed in which we acted, we did not realise that these powers were tucked away in the schedule. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, because he said the same a few days ago, the Committee might well have decided that these were matters which needed at the very least additional requirements to be authorised by secondary legislation and probably by an affirmative order.
In effect, these provisions are the power to create new criminal legislation. Traditionally, that is something that cannot be done except by Parliament and parliamentary procedure. I believe that these provisions are seriously wrong and defective. They do not provide for any kind of parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister wished to satisfy us on this amendment, he could do so perfectly easily either by specifying the additional requirements which might be required, or by taking a power to make
388
regulation to set out in future any additional requirements that the Government might think of in future. It would not cost the Minister very much to do one or other of those things. In terms of legal certainty the value of doing so would be considerable. Why should he not, and will he?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 would have the effect of ensuring that if a person subject to a banning order failed to comply under Section 19(2C), which provides for additional requirements to the banning order, nevertheless, he would not be guilty of an offence. If there is to be a power to impose additional requirements in a banning order, it follows that there must be some sanction against anyone who chooses to breach it. I am sure that I need not detain your Lordships long on this amendment because I do not believe that anyone would dispute that particular proposition. I believe that the power—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am puzzled by this reaction. I made it clear that Amendment No. 30, which leaves out the words, ("or(2C)"), was purely a paving amendment and was consequential on Amendment No. 32, which removes (2C) itself so that there is no (2C) to which the new Section 40J refers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I recognise that it is a paving amendment and I shall address most of my comments to Amendment No. 32. I had almost finished with Amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 32 would deprive the enforcing authority of the power to require people subject to banning orders to comply with any additional requirements and to establish associated criteria.
I am not clear why objection is being taken to the concept of additional requirements. They can only be ancillary to the main purpose of the banning order. If they were oppressive or capricious, they could be immediately annulled by a court. I do not have a long list of examples of such additional conditions. They are likely to cover only minor administrative matters as well as restrictions on behaviour ancillary to a banning order. For instance, there may be a requirement not to frequent the immediate area of the stadium or, as I said yesterday, a bus or train station where football fans might gather and from which the person concerned is banned on match days.
I see nothing sinister about the powers and they seem to be entirely necessary to make the banning orders effective. I cannot recommend that these amendments, actual or paving, should be accepted.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. I find his answer unsatisfactory but at this stage of the proceedings I do not intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("his reasons for detaining him in writing") and insert ("full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon in support of his suspicion and of his belief").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I attended the meeting called by the Home Secretary in order to launch the Bill. I read through the clauses which seemed to me the most likely to be contentious. I made the somewhat diffident suggestion that the allegations made in what has become new Section 21A—that the officer had reasonable grounds for suspicion that the respondent had at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder and,
"had reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in his case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches"—
told the respondent nothing about the case which he had to meet. He would therefore appear before a court 24 hours later still unaware of exactly what were the alleged grounds for suspecting and what were the reasonable grounds for belief; suspicion and belief contrasted. I made the mild suggestion that since these were looked upon as civil proceedings one should follow the generally accepted situation in such proceedings; that if you make an unparticularised allegation you will be met with a request for further and better particulars of that allegation. That is stock and simple and straightforward.
I was gratified to hear it announced that the Minister had thought that was right and would make provision. According, at the Second Reading debate the noble Lord the Minister paid me a nice compliment at the outset. When I had made my criticism, to which I shall refer in a moment, he, at the end of the debate, was kind enough to say:
"The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a number of helpful detailed points about drafting, particularly on new Sections 21A and 21B. We are of course going to pay very close attention to his advice, and I should like to place on record our thanks to him for the advice and encouragement that he gave us during the open session with my right honourable friend Jack Straw" .—[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1258.]
Therefore I put down in some detail the amendments which I thought were appropriate. They do no more than exactly what one would have done in a simple civil case. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. If the particulars of a claim in a county court allege that the defendant had, by reason of his negligent driving, caused damage to the plaintiff's car, unparticularised, immediately there would follow a request for further and better particulars of the negligence alleged, identifying the facts and matters relied upon in support of that allegation. That is simple and straightforward and is exactly what I put in my amendment.
The Minister said, under new Section 21 A as drafted in the Bill, which deals with detention, that the officer,
"shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing".
But, quite simply, his reasons are: "I believe or suspect that at some time you have caused or contributed to violence or disorder, and I have a belief on reasonable grounds that it would help to prevent violence or
390
disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches that you are detained for me to make further inquiries". We gain nothing from that at all.
Basically, the Minister has done the same under new Section 21B, which deals with the notice which causes the person to appear before a magistrates' court within 24 hours. According to new Section 21B(2), the grounds must be stated. Why in one case it is "reasons" and in another "grounds" has never been explained.
What saddens me is that the Minister has provided absolutely no justification for the attitude which he adopted in the early hours of this morning when the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was kind enough to move on my behalf the amendments which I have just indicated. The Minister said—this comes within the missing part of Hansard, to which I drew attention earlier today—that,
"the amendment goes beyond the kind of requirement which we see in analogous provisions of PACE"—
I do not know what he is referring to—
"and the requirements of the common law".
What does he mean by,
"the requirements of the common law"?
The common law requires that in civil proceedings one must particularise one's allegations. If this were a criminal case, one would be even more obliged to specify the nature of the crime which it is alleged has been committed. That was his answer with regard to my first amendment.
With regard to my second amendment, he said:
"Lord Ackner … makes the same point in relation to the issue of a notice as was made in relation to the power to detain under [new] Section 21A".
Of course I make the same point because the wording is the same. I read on:
"The amendment is based on the premise, which we accept, that people issued with notices commencing a banning order by the complaint [process] need to know the case against them so that they can prepare for their hearing".
That is conceding the very basis of my amendment. In those circumstances, simply reciting the wording of the criteria in new Section 21A would not be appropriate. The Minister also said:
"We are not clear that the full particulars formulation is the right one either. If the requirement is too onerous, that may lead to an extension of the detention period while a substantial notice is prepared, thus adding to the bureaucracy of it all".
Those are not answers. That is a species of forensic waffle that does not meet my point. How is the respondent to know the full nature of the case against him—of the foundation of his detention or of the notice—unless it is properly particularised?
I do not wish to be over-critical, because those comments were made in the early hours of the morning. I do not suppose that the Minister has yet got his beauty sleep back, but I hope that he has had a little time to reflect on his answers so that he can tell us clearly why the ordinary particularity that any court would order in a civil case should not apply here to what he has emphasised over and over are civil proceedings.
Amendment No. 39 would fill a lacuna in Section 21B. Section 21A says that there are two hurdles, but that is missing from Section 21B. A specific reference back to Section 21 A is needed, because it provides the foundation for Section 21B. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have listened with great attention and respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who has a great deal of experience of the legal system. He has made some important points.
Rather than following his comments, I shall take a slightly different line. If detailed particulars are not served on the prospective subject of a banning order, he does not know the case that he has to face and will be unable to defend himself properly before the magistrates or to call the necessary evidence.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that it is a little unrealistic to expect the constable who detains the suspect to provide him with a lengthy written statement of particulars unless he already has it in his pocket at the moment of detention.
That is yet another illustration of the fact that Sections 21A, B and C cannot work or do justice to the parties involved, particularly the suspect. I very much welcome the amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said. If the Government cannot accept the amendments, will they make it clear that constables who deal with such matters will prepare statements at the first reasonable opportunity after their return to the police station and that pre-hearing disclosure will be given to the person against whom the order is sought, so that he and his lawyers may know what case he has to meet before they step into the courtroom? It is the sort of procedure that is followed fairly commonly in the magistrates' court in relation to summary offences and it would go some of the way to meet the real and understandable objections put forward by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I intervene to support these amendments, having supported them rather feebly in the small hours of this morning. It seems to me that Amendment No. 41, requiring proper particulars to be given to someone who defends himself in the magistrates' court is of the first importance. I do not wish to downgrade Amendment No. 36, but it seems to me that these provisions are required particularly in the court.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister cannot accept this amendment, he will strengthen my rapidly growing suspicion that he simply does not know what may be reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order will help to prevent violence or disorder and therefore has no idea what type of information any further particulars would contain.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to deal with the amendments briefly but nevertheless
392
accord them the seriousness they rightly deserve. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has, as ever, tried to be helpful. I shall look at Amendment No. 36 first. We believe that it would create real difficulties for the police in attempting to implement Section 21A. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put his finger on the point. This is a matter of practicalities in sometimes difficult situations.
The reality is that a person detained will be held for only a relatively short time and then either will be issued with a notice or released to continue his journey. Of course, the police will not pick on people to check out indiscriminately. It is right that they do so only when there are reasonable grounds, as the Bill now provides.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord goes beyond the kind of requirements which we believe are—I use the term again—analogous to provisions of PACE and the requirements of the common law. I have said that again for the record as he was puzzled. We believe that "full particulars" suggests a rather more substantial document, adding to the bureaucracy with which the police would probably have to comply without the document being of much value to the person detained.
However, by the same token, I recognise that as the noble and learned Lord warned us at Second Reading, there may be a temptation simply to issue a note to the individual explaining that the detention is in order to make further inquiries. I believe that the content of the notice and the detail that ought to be placed there is something that can best be dealt with in guidance to the police. That is our intended course of action here. Much as we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his suggestion, we believe that the matter can best be dealt with by offering guidance to the police so that the notice contains fuller information.
Amendment No. 39 applies to Section 21A(1)(b). Here the constable is already required to state his reasons in writing for detaining the person. So that requirement is already in place. As we have argued previously, for a variety of reasons we do not consider it advisable to give full particulars in support of a decision to refer a person to the magistrates' court.
The effect of the amendment would simply be to require the constable to repeat to the person the general reason for detaining him without providing further details. That seems to us a rather unnecessary administrative step which may lead to some delays and possibly to a degree of puzzlement on the detainee's part.
In Amendment No. 41 the noble and learned Lord makes the same point in relation to the issue of a notice that he made in relation to the issue of the power to detain under Section 21A. The amendment is based on the premise, which we accept, that people issued with notices commencing a banning order by complaint process need to know the case against them so that they can prepare for their hearing. In those circumstances, simply reciting the wording of the

393
criteria in Section 21A would not be appropriate. But we are not clear that the full particulars formulation is the right one either.
If the requirement is too onerous, that could lead to an extension of the detention period while a substantial notice is prepared. We would not want to forestall evidence which came to light subsequent to the issue of the notice and it being presented in court. If the police are unable to make their case at the first hearing, the person concerned should, in our view, be free to travel immediately. Where there are substantial issues of fact between the parties, we imagine that the court would probably adjourn the hearing to a later date.
In the light of my assurances that there is no intention that the police should regard it as sufficient merely to state the criteria in Section 21A, and that guidance on this point will be provided to the police, the noble and learned Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell me what he envisages will be put under the "reasons" referred to in Section 21A(2). Also, what does he envisage will feature in the "grounds" referred to in Section 21B(2)(c)? What goes in there? Something must go in there. What does the Minister have in mind?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may want to return to this point. I am not in a position to answer his question this evening. If he wants to raise the point again tomorrow, I shall endeavour at Third Reading to give him a more full explanation.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble Lord also indicate tomorrow the substance of the guidance he is going to give to the police officers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more reluctant to follow that second course of action. I am not fully aware of the stage our consultations have reached on formulating guidance. However, if I can give an assurance, clearly I shall. I shall give the noble and learned Lord some idea of what may be contained within the guidance. It may be that the guidance reflects other forms of guidance given in similar situations. We will endeavour to keep the noble and learned Lord advised as to how the guidance is progressing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister also indicate what his objection is to Amendment No. 39, which fills in the lacuna which I suggest exists in relation to Section 21B? I suggest that in Section 21 B(2), after the words, "The constable may", there should he inserted,
"on grounds set out in section 21A".
394
Without those words we do not have the essential foundation for the exercise of the powers that we purport to give.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are not sure that we accept the noble and learned Lord's reasoning. However, I undertake to look further at the point. Again, if the noble and learned Lord tables these amendments tomorrow, we will endeavour to respond to this point.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the understanding that I can bring forward these matters without objection on Third Reading tomorrow, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 43, leave out from ("so") to end of line 44 and insert—
("(a) where the notice is to be served at a port or airport, by an officer of at least the rank of inspector; or
(b) where the notice is to be served other than at a port or airport, by a magistrate's warrant.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 has been grouped with this amendment. It is a somewhat cruder version of this amendment and I do not, therefore, intend to press it. Amendment No. 37 is a suggestion for the Government. If someone is stopped at an airport, we appreciate that it may often be necessary for the police to act by themselves in view of the nature of the situation, the speed involved, the location, and so on. Therefore, the provision that a police inspector should approve the constable's action seems adequate.
However, the Government have told us that, in most cases, the notices will be served on the individuals concerned before they leave home and set out on their journey to the football match where it is likely that they will cause violence. In such circumstances, it seemed to us that a magistrate's warrant could readily be obtained and served on the person at home. This would mean that the necessity for it to be done urgently by a policeman on the say so of his inspector would not exist. That is why we have put forward these two alternative procedures, as set out in Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments would make modifications to the procedure for authorising the issue of a notice by a constable under new Section 21B of the 1989 Act. As the Bill stands, the issue of such a notice must be authorised by an inspector. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 37 is a rather more sophisticated version of Amendment No. 38, which requires that all such notices be authorised by a magistrate's warrant.
Amendment No. 37 would require the latter to happen only where the notice is not served at a port or airport. I am not convinced that the suggested distinction is necessarily a helpful one. In the

395
Government's view, the decision to issue such a notice is an appropriate one for the police to take. The effect of the notice is to require a speedy appearance before a magistrate. I am afraid that I do not see that it would add greatly to the integrity of the process to require a magistrate's warrant to authorise an appearance before the magistrate within 24 hours.
I have dealt with these amendments very simply. I cannot recommend either of them—that is, neither the sophisticated nor the less sophisticated version—to your Lordships' House. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, disappointed as I am at not having convinced the Minister of the validity of our suggestion, I do not propose at this hour, and after the history of our consideration of all these matters, to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 48, at end insert ("and if the notice is served at a port or airport the notice shall specify a magistrates' court sitting at that port or airport").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as will be obvious, this amendment provides that when a notice is served at a port or airport it,
"shall specify a magistrates' court sitting at that port or airport".
The intention is to speed up the process when it takes place at a port or airport. We have discussed on numerous occasions the problems of delaying a passenger who is on his way to a match—or, for that matter, not to a match—because it may seem that he might cause trouble at that match. That applies particularly these days when the cheaper air fares do not allow someone to transfer to another flight. If the process delays one even by half an hour or an hour, even if the police do not pursue the matter, one is likely to have missed one's flight and lost one's money.
In those circumstances it seems to us that if a magistrate can be persuaded to sit at a port or airport during busy times—we have in mind stipendiary magistrates—that would speed up the process. Towards the end of our deliberations last night the Minister made some slightly sympathetic remarks on the idea that a magistrates' court might, at least at busy times, sit at ports. My noble friend Lord Astor borrowed a copy of that part of Hansard which was not printed last night from the Library for me to verify precisely what the Minister had said. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the only copy and he had to return it rather smartly. Therefore, I have been unable to verify the precise terms used. However, the Minister appeared to be slightly sympathetic to the idea of
396
magistrates sitting at ports and airports. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are sympathetic but we cannot accept the amendment. Amendment No. 40 would require that the hearing which follows within 24 hours of the issue of a new Section 21 B notice shall take place at the port or airport where the notice was issued, if it was issued at a port or airport. We are not clear that this is either necessary or even particularly helpful.
We have taken steps to ensure that court hearings will be facilitated within the demanding time-scale set by the Bill. But to require on the face of the statute that they be held at an airport seems a recipe for administrative difficulty, if not chaos. There are perfectly good magistrates' court premises within easy striking distance of most major ports or airports. It would be no significant added burden on the person who has received the notice to ask him to attend there. He will not in most cases choose to spend the period of up to 24 hours between being stopped and the hearing within the confines of the airport or seaport.
Rejecting the amendment would certainly not preclude the possibility of holding hearings at seaports or airports if that seemed appropriate. Surely it is the test of appropriateness that matters here. However, we do not think that it would be wise or particularly helpful for us to provide that this should happen on every occasion. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hope that when people are stopped at an airport it will, generally speaking, be much less than 24 hours before they appear before a magistrate. Twenty-four hours is not the desirable length of time, it is the maximum. The whole point of having a stipendiary magistrate at an airport is to allow the process to take place within a few minutes, or certainly half an hour or an hour. Far from causing an added burden, that would relieve the burden on the individual concerned, particularly if the magistrate decided against making a banning order and the person was able to continue his journey having been subjected to a delay of only an hour or two. However, I appreciate that the amendment seeks an automatic provision which may be overdoing things a little. In view of the slightly sympathetic way in which the Minister referred to the possibility of magistrates sitting at ports and airports on some occasions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 41A not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
("(ô) The court must offer bail to any person remanded by virtue of subsection (3)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we encountered this particular amendment in the late hours of this morning, when I was kind enough not to divide the House in spite of a gathering outrage at the attitude of the Government towards the problem that underlies the amendment—my love for the Government Chief Whip is boundless and without reason on occasions—but we have now returned to the matter.
Here we have a procedure which is said by the Government to be civil. They have said over and over again that this is not a criminal matter, although it can impose a severe penalty on someone. They intend taking powers under proposed new Sections 21A and 21 B to stop someone at a port or airport and to confine that person, if necessary, for up to 24 hours before bringing him before a magistrates' court. The magistrates' court will then have the power to remand that person in custody, presumably, until sufficient evidence has been gathered to allow the magistrates' court to proceed on the basis of proposed new Section 14B. There can be no other basis on which they can be kept in custody; either there can be proceedings under proposed new Section 14B or, if there is not sufficient evidence, then the person can be remanded in custody. There is no time limit to the remand in custody. One imagines that a matter of several weeks is in contemplation. If a person is to be remanded in custody at all, it is likely to be for a period of a week or two.
What concerns me is that we are here taking away someone's liberty—someone who is not only not accused of anything but is never going to be accused of anything. The Government know that this is an innocent person; they know that this is someone who has not committed a crime; there is nothing to charge him with. They have a suspicion that he may be going to do something abroad—which is not a crime in the United Kingdom—and in order to prevent the possibility that the person may do something undesirable abroad they are going to deprive of him of his liberty on no evidence whatever.
If there was evidence, a banning order could be made under proposed new Section 14B. It is only when there is no evidence that the person has committed a crime that they can be held in prison pending further trial. This is not the right way to construe the basic principles of English justice. This person has been detained on the basis that the police have some kind of evidence and he has to meet some very gentle tests in order to come before the magistrates; there merely has to be proof under proposed new Section 14B(2) that he has in some way been involved in violence or disorder. If the police do not have that proof, they have no business detaining him under proposed new Section 21 anyway, and presumably that is that.
There has to be sufficient evidence to show that the magistrates have reasonable grounds for belief that it may be helpful to the maintenance of order at this foreign football match that the person is not permitted to go there—but not much evidence is required to do that. Either the police have that evidence, in which event the case should proceed and the banning order should be made, or they do not have that evidence and
398
the person should be allowed to go free. There is no excuse whatever for the concept of allowing a person to be held in custody because the police have not got sufficient evidence.
It may be all right in the case of a crime, but here, as the Government have said, there is absolutely no crime. We should not treat any citizen in that way. Whatever suspicions the Government may have about a person, unless they can produce the modicum of evidence required under proposed new Section 14B(4), they should not retain the person in custody. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on this occasion, as on many other occasions during the passage of the Bill, we owe a considerable debt to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for putting his finger on a point of importance. If the banning order is, as the Government continue to firmly insist that it is, a civil order, it is inconceivable that there should be the remotest possibility of ordering a remand in custody pending the determination of whether or not a banning order should be made. It is wholly and completely inconsistent with the idea that this is a civil order. I can see no possible justification for refusing to accept the amendment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there is an answer to the amendment. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has appreciated that what is being given here is a power of remand in custody. It is no more than that; a power of remand in custody. In the vast majority of cases of this kind the magistrates will bail the person who has been detained and asked to appear before the magistrates. All the amendment does is allow for the odd, peculiar situation which—as anyone who has any experience of courts at all knows—arises from time to time.
What happens if Mr A has been detained by the police and brought before the magistrates because at some time in the past he has caused or contributed to violence or disorder? He is brought before the magistrates. They may not be satisfied without more evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder. They may not be satisfied of that on his first appearance. But he says, "Once you let me go, I am going to the match. I have a ticket for that match. I have bought my ticket for that match and I am going". That would not necessarily mean that the magistrates would find that there were reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder. They might want more evidence. They would then adjourn his hearing so that they could get more evidence. They would not adjourn it for long.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he seriously saying to the House that the Labour Government approves a provision whereby, when the police bring a man before a court, if they cannot produce the evidence to justify the order they are seeking, it can ever he right to

399
remand him in custody? If that is what the Minister is suggesting, I am astounded to hear it coming from as experienced a lawyer as he and from any Labour Government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord had heard me out. Perhaps if he had he would not have been so astounded. What I am saying in the example I am giving is that Mr A has been brought before the court. He is in a position where the magistrates cannot make up their minds whether the provisions of new Section 14B(4)(b) apply. They give the police another day to get any evidence they can. Meanwhile, the policeman says, "Mr A has told us that if he is let out he will go to Germany straight away and see the match because he does not see any reason why he should not". Is it being said that the courts should not have the power to remand him in custody in those circumstances, with the danger that he would then go abroad and cause trouble? Let me give another example if that one does not satisfy your Lordships completely. I have the feeling that it does not.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, one of the facts may be that he was required to surrender his passport. Under new Section 21B(6), that passport is returned to him only in accordance with directions given by the court. If the court says, "We are not going to give directions to return your passport", then he cannot go.
Lord Bach: He cannot go? Is the noble Lord saying that it would be impossible to leave the country without a passport?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what is the point of ever requiring the surrender of the passport?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord was arguing last night, into the small hours, that the fact of a passport meant very little in terms of anyone going abroad these days.
Lord Goodhart: No, my Lords, I did not say that.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I give another example. The police think that the person the magistrates have before them is wanted on warrant but the police do not have the information at that time. Would the magistrates then have to let the man go on bail, or would they be entitled to keep him for a short period of time in order to see whether the warrant arrives?
All kinds of different circumstances and events occur. It is impossible to identify each and every one. All the power does is give the magistrates the ability to hold on to someone—of course it cannot be for a long period of time—for a short period of time until the matter is resolved. It is a power that magistrates have in every other instance. Why should they not have it
400
here? Of course the provisions of the Bail Act 1976 would apply. In 99 cases out of 100 such a detainee would be freed.
We had a useful discussion of this issue when a similar amendment was put forward last night. We are not saying that the court must, or will normally, or will often, remand people in custody pending a hearing relating to the issue of a banning order. But we believe that the court must have the power to deal with a case where a person has made it absolutely clear that, if released, he will proceed to attend the football match from which he was originally banned. This power will not be used frequently. But to forbid the magistrates to remand someone in custody in this way would be a completely unnecessary gesture. The magistrates will not misuse the power. But that they should have the right to remand someone in custody for a short period of time has never been doubted in any other context. Magistrates have before them not just people charged with criminal offences; they have people who are brought before them in order to hear other proceedings which are not criminal in nature at all.
The Government are saying that there is a great deal of fuss here about precisely nothing. Noble Lords have worked themselves up into a lather about this issue. It is not a great issue of liberty or civil rights. This is a commonsense way of dealing with this problem. There is nothing unusual about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware that his arguments that the power will not be used often and that it will not be abused have been used many hundreds of times before and nine times out of ten they have been wrong?
Lord Bach: My Lords, is that a question?
Earl Russell: Yes.
Lord Bach: My Lords, for centuries magistrates' courts in this country have had the power to remand someone who is before them.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: For offences!
Lord Bach: No, not just for offences. They have the power to remand someone in custody if they choose to do so. If they act illegally or wrongly, that person can claim that it was illegal and wrong and be released. But this is not giving the magistrates any greater power than they would otherwise have in similar circumstances.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am a simple soul and no lawyer. My view of the matter is that in 1628 we gained the freedom from arbitrary imprisonment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, 1628?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord will know better than I. My knowledge of dates is not very good, but it was a decent long time ago. But this week it appears that we are about to lose it. The noble Lord is

401
saying that I may be brought before Folkestone magistrates for wanting to go to a football match overseas. A policeman says, "We know some murky secret in your past". The police say, "So you did insult the policeman?", and I say "yes". The police say, "We think that you are going to cause mayhem at the football match", and I say "no". They bring me before the magistrates and they produce no evidence that can pass even the gentle test in new Section 14B(4)(b). Surely it is right that the magistrates should let me go. If the police cannot prove their case, if they have no evidence and if they no reason for detaining me because they could not meet the basis for the test in Section 14(4)(b), then I should be let go.
11 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, could the magistrates not adjourn the matter for a short period of time? If the evidence is not available on the spot, the proceedings could be adjourned for a day or so to see whether that evidence could be brought.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the evidence was not available, I should not have been stopped. There is no basis for stopping people under Section 21A without having sufficient evidence to take a case to the magistrates' court at the end of the day.
The purpose of Section 21A is to allow the police to collar people at the airport or in the port, trot them off to the magistrates' court and say, "Give this one a banning order". The police should not do that unless they have evidence. They cannot be allowed to say, "We haven't got any evidence against him yet, but give us 24 hours and we'll run around and see if there is anything". If, at the end of 24 hours, the police still have nothing, they will return to the court and say, "We did not manage to get anything. We need another 24 hours". That is ridiculous.
The noble Lord has himself said that there is no question here of the person having committed a criminal act or any question of the person being suspected of being about to commit a criminal act. It is quite inappropriate to imprison someone when no evidence is available to justify that imprisonment or, indeed, there is no suspicion of the person having committed a crime. Basic principles of law and justice must be applied here. It is no good to say that administrative convenience may be called in aid to allow the police to stop people from leaving the country when they have no evidence against them. Furthermore, the police should not be allowed an ever-extendable period of time in which to gather such evidence.
If the police have evidence, then, yes, Sections 21A and 21B will allow them to bring them in front of magistrates to secure a banning order. I may not like it, but that is a simple, straightforward and reasonably justifiable way in which the police can stop criminals from going abroad. However, if someone is collared at the airport and the police do not have the evidence necessary to satisfy Sections 14B(4)(b), why has that person been collared? If the conditions of 14B(2)— someone has a past conviction—are all that are met,
402
are the police to be allowed to stop someone on that basis only and then be given time to try to gather evidence to satisfy 14B(4)(b)? That is an entirely wrong way of proceeding. Some justice must be brought into this.
If the police have evidence, that is fine. In front of the court, they may succeed in a conviction or they may not. However, if they do not have any evidence, then the person should go free. That should be the end of it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
11.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Maddock, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Monson, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Montrose, D.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Lucas, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Blackstone, B.

Bragg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chandos, V.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Crawley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mar, C.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

403

Smith of Leigh, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L.

Thornton R

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Winston, L.

Turnberg, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 10, line 43, after ("him,") insert ("or where such a person has not been required to appear before the court to respond to such an application,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 46. All of these amendments address themselves to the last major government amendment tabled this morning which sets out to allow a magistrates' court to grant compensation to someone who is not made subject to a banning order but none the less has incurred costs.
There are four amendments in the group, the first of which addresses the question of what happens when the police produce no evidence in the magistrates' court. In that event the person has been prevented from travelling and so has lost his ticket and the right to attend the match. At the moment, if the police fail to produce evidence they are not liable to pay compensation. If, however, they produce inadequate evidence and the case is lost they may be required to pay compensation. I believe that that is inequitable. Amendment No. 44 provides that compensation should be paid out of the funds of the appropriate chief officer of police who, after all, is the person in charge of bringing the prosecution. If the chief officer is conscious of the fact that his budget will be hit if he brings lots of inappropriate prosecutions he will be less inclined to do so. It is right that responsibility should rest with the person who takes the decisions.
The first of the two subsequent amendments removes the subsection which places a limit on the amount of compensation. Amendment No. 44 is merely consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these four amendments which would modify the clause dealing with compensation were tabled early this morning.
Amendment No. 43 would extend the compensation provisions to cases where a person has been detained by a police officer under new Section 21A but not had a notice issued against him under new Section 21 B. We had not included such a provision because the maximum period for which a person may be detained by a police officer is now six hours. It is in any case quite usual for people to be detained for such a period without there being any specific provisions for compensation. We think that this is a reasonable analysis and we are not, therefore, persuaded or convinced that any additional provision is required to cover a period of detention of that length.
404
Amendment No. 44 would provide that compensation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explained, be paid out of police funds rather than central funds. Again, we are not persuaded that this is the right route. We think that it would be better for it to be a call on central funds, otherwise it might begin to interfere with the judgment perhaps of the police in seeking to detain someone.
Amendment No. 45 would abolish the £5,000 ceiling on compensation which subsection (3) currently provides for. The sum of £5,000 seems to me to be an entirely appropriate figure. It is the same figure which magistrates' courts are able to award currently as compensation for crime. I cannot think of many circumstances where someone who has been held, ultimately wrongly, and prevented from enjoying the benefit of watching England play another disastrous game away somewhere in middle Europe, would run up a bill which might come to more than £5,000. It might be argued in view of some recent performances by England that the compensation could be larger, I suppose—I am not so sure about that!
Amendment No. 46 is consequential upon Amendment No. 44. We believe that the amendment we have brought forward on compensation is generous and appropriate, going well beyond the common law position. Therefore we cannot recommend that Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 be accepted.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I understand the Minister aright, he says that once the notice has been issued under new Section 21B the right to compensation exists whatever the police do about it. They cannot in some way avoid the right to compensation by failing to appear or failing to press a charge at the magistrates' court. The trigger has been pulled by the issuing of the new Section 21 B notice. That will necessarily trigger an appearance before and a decision by the magistrates. If I have misunderstood, I hope that the Minister will tell me. Otherwise, there is a loophole.
I agree that on the Minister's interpretation, which I accept, there is not the problem I sought to resolve. There is only a holding for six hours rather than the possibility of someone being detained for 24 hours and at the end of the day not appearing before a magistrate in a way which would trigger the compensation provision.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's understanding is right. It that is not so, I shall endeavour to advise the noble Lord further.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, under those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—

Football (Disorder) Bill

  Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34.)
  —(1) The Legal Aid Act 1988 is to have effect in relation to proceedings under—

  (a) sections 14B and 14D of the Football Spectators Act 1989,

  (b) sections 14G and 14H of that Act (so far as relating to banning orders made under section 14B), and

  (c) sections 21B(2) and 21D of that Act, as if those proceedings had been included in the definition of "criminal proceedings" in article 1(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Commencement No. 3, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2000.

  (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is to have effect subject to any provision made by an order under section 3 of this Act or under section 108(1) of, or paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 14 to, the Access to Justice Act 1999.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, together with consequential modifications to legal advice and assistance regulations, which will be affected by secondary legislation, will ensure that legal advice and assistance are available for a person who appears in court following an application by the police for a banning order.
  The Government take the view that these proceedings are sufficiently serious that in appropriate cases publicly funded legal help should be available. A person will be able to apply through their solicitor for assistance and the application will be subject to approval by the Legal Services Commission. The form of help that will be available is termed assistance by way of representation (ABWA). Although requests for approval will be dealt with as quickly as possible, it will not be possible to make this form of help available in circumstances where the police have given notice to a person to appear before a court within 24 hours. In these circumstances and other cases where a person appears in court unrepresented, the court duty solicitor will be able to provide help. I hope that it is generally agreed in the House that it is important that there should be these provisions for those detained in that way. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, although it appears that the House will rise relatively early this evening as regards this Bill, those of us who were here later yesterday are fully seized of the enormous legal complexities of this Bill. We are also fully seized of the fact that it is highly likely that there will be some very important test cases arising from some of the matters which have been raised and not resolved in the course of our deliberations. In those circumstances legal aid is entirely correct. I am glad to welcome this amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I make take this opportunity to hope that before we finish our proceedings this evening the Chief Whip will enlighten us as to when we three shall meet again for further proceedings on this Bill to which I look forward with enormous pleasure.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, Third Reading will be tomorrow. I am relying on my memory here, but I
  406
  believe that we are dealing with two small sets of Commons amendments as regards the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill and the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. Then, I believe, we shall come to the Third Reading of this Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew Lord Carlile of Berriew moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 16, line 6, after ("means") insert (", subject to subsection (5) below,")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the permission of the House, I shall speak to Amendment No. 49. Amendment. No. 48 is a paving amendment to the following amendment.
  As the darkness deepens late on the second night of this Bill, I see that the Ministers on the Front Bench are looking tired. Therefore, I seek to soothe them into submission on these amendments. I do so in this way. I assure the Ministers that if they accept this amendment they will be able to dream in their beds tonight as they lay their pillows to rest, of the welcome which will await them in Wales, the land of heaven.
  Because of the lateness of the hour I will not challenge either Minister by asking them who was the champion of the League of Wales in the 1999–2000 season although they are welcome to tell me, if they know.
  A Noble Lord: Barry Town.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: No, it was not Barry Town, but TNS Llansanffraid in the old county of Montgomeryshire where I live. It is a small and reasonably attractive village with a population of a few hundred. Its village football team, with the support of a computer company, has achieved great things. Indeed, TNS Llansanffraid has played in Europe this season and in the previous one. The danger caused by the fans of TNS Llansanffraid was probably half of that caused by the emissions of the coach which took them there. I take my little grandson aged seven, Jimi Cullen, to Latham Park sometimes, the home of Newtown Football Club. It is a fine team, but recently not as successful as little Jimi and I would have wished.
  Newtown's football ground has good support. Many of us go there and enjoy the matches enthusiastically. It is beautifully situated. You can see many sheep on the hills around it; indeed, there are far more sheep than supporters and always the danger of the sheep making a little more noise. The Newtown supporters present no danger.
  I used to be a season ticket holder at Wrexham Football Club on the Racecourse Ground in Wrexham. In those days I practised at the Bar in that part of the world so when I went into the ground I would often be invited by police officers whom I knew to sit with them in the police area by the side of the pitch. It was a great pleasure to be with those fine officers not because of the protection from danger which was afforded but because one was able to put

  407
  one's feet up with them, vigilant though, of course, they always were, and enjoy the match from a position of particular vantage.
  There are bigger clubs in Wales. Unfortunately, Cardiff City has a long way to go before any hooligan from Cardiff will have the remotest chance of going to a club match in Europe. Swansea City, though it has done well, is unlikely to achieve that either. When its fans are tired and emotional they are more likely to raise the key of "Bread of Heaven" by a semitone than to act in a hooligan manner.
  As for our national team, it would be much improved if Ryan Giggs was to play more often, but even the spark of Mark Hughes has yet to ignite it. Indeed, according to the evidence Welsh football fans present no danger to anyone.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow but perhaps he can tell us to which of the two amendments all of this extraneous information is directed.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the second one, as the Minister will recognise. I said that the first one was a paving amendment.
  Welsh football fans present not a scintilla of danger, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that they do. The Members of the National Assembly for Wales, an organisation for which, I must admit—I have said so in the House previously—I have less than total enthusiasm, at least have an intimate knowledge of what is going on in Wales. They know the communities and can judge far better than any other organisation whether it is necessary for the provisions of the Bill to apply to Wales.
  I say to the Minister most seriously that it would be a mark of recognition for the meaning of devolution to Wales, and it would be a mark of respect for the people of Wales, if Amendment No. 49 were carried and the Government were prepared to recognise—it would do them no harm in Wales or anywhere else—that the consent of the National Assembly should be needed in the circumstances described in the amendment.
  The Bill has a limited duration; less than the Government had wanted. It is inconceivable that any harm would come to pass if Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 were allowed to become part of the law. I invite Ministers to face the perils and dangers of this night by generously recognising that this is a meritorious amendment and one respectful to the people of Wales.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend with somewhat unbecoming levity and mindful as ever of his previous constituency interests. In my view, the Bill is an insult to the people of Wales. I warn Her Majesty's Government that if the amendment is not passed there will be a great sweeping out of Labour Members of Parliament in the next election. As my noble friend said, it is absolutely true that Welsh football fans present no problems whatever, wherever they go. They are more inclined to sing than to drink—
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That may be true about teams which play in the Welsh league, but is he not aware that matches between Cardiff City and Swansea City have given rise to some of the worst scenes of violence that we have seen anywhere in the United Kingdom in the past 10 years?
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I concede that in the past there has been a certain amount of trouble between Cardiff and Swansea, but I am not responsible for what happens in that part of the world. However, my noble friend referred to Wrexham—my home town. As I recall, there has never been any trouble in Wrexham arising from visits from South Wales teams, probably because not enough spectators come up with them. Indeed, when Scotland played at Wrexham in an international against Wales, I remember that everything, even with regard to the Scottish spectators, was in extremely good humour and well received. I recall that after the match the duck pond in my home village of Gresford was full of Scotsmen in kilts availing themselves of a bath. They went from there to the local public houses and were warmly received.
  There are no problems in Wales. At an earlier stage of the Bill, the Minister said that he envisaged that there would be approximately 20 prescribed matches in the year, with a period of five days for each match. By Dan Quayle mathematics, I believe that he said that that would amount to 50 days in the year. When he estimated that there would be 20 matches, I wonder whether he included the Welsh international fixtures and matches that would take place, for example, between Cardiff and Swansea. Are they part of the prescribed matches envisaged in the Minister's plans? If they are not within those 20 matches, why does he not accept this amendment? I support my noble friend.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, point out that in Scotland the problem of football violence has been solved without the use of legislation such as we are now considering. I understand that he argues that that is the result of leaving the problem to the Scottish football authorities—in fact, an effective devolution of power.
  One might use that and what my noble friends have just said, together with a good deal said by the Minister, to argue that we are dealing with a specifically English problem—what the Scots call the problem of the "awkward neighbour". Therefore, if we are dealing with a specifically English problem, it might be appropriate to consider a specifically English solution so that the Minister can accept the amendment without detriment to his objectives, both those that we accept and those that we do not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had not realised that this amendment would excite such great interest from the Liberal Democrat Benches at this hour. However, clearly this is a matter of which they speak in the valleys of Wales as they speak of nothing else, and we are all most grateful for that, are we not?

  409
  My speaking note says "Resist" and I am afraid that that is what I shall have to do, but I shall resist with a little good conscience. I believe that one noble Lord began to undermine his case by saying that there was no problem with hooliganism in Wales. I suppose that logically he could extend that point and say that, for that reason, perhaps we do not need to consult the Welsh on these matters. However, that would be unfair.
  I fully recognise that the Welsh Assembly may have views on these matters, and I can assure your Lordships that any representations made to us by the Assembly will of course be listened to with the greatest respect. However, I do not believe that we need to have on the face of the Bill an amendment of this kind. Therefore, I am not minded to accept it. But we shall of course consult carefully with our colleagues in Wales so that potential problems can be dealt with.
  I do not believe that it is quite the case that hooliganism is not present within Wales. There are, of course, the celebrated annual punch-ups between Cardiff City and Millwall. Unfortunately they are a regular feature in the hooligan fixture list. Obviously, we need to be diligent wherever the legislation is in force.
  The amendment is not necessary and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept my thanks for the courtesy with which he has responded to our debates today and yesterday? We have not always agreed with him, but we have always appreciated his courtesy and that of his noble friend and the way in which they have attempted to answer our points.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister stands up, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in replying to the debate, first, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that his point about hooliganism after a match between Cardiff and Swansea is absurd in the context of the Bill, which has no more application to a Cardiff Swansea football match than to a Worcester-Hereford hymn singing competition. He ought to have produced something more worthy if he wanted to present a serious argument.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I was responding to the noble Lord's noble friend, who said that there was not a scintilla—I believe that that was
  410
  the word—of football hooliganism in Wales. Cardiff and Swansea are in Wales and they have a very well known problem.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Lord's point does not improve on repetition.
  Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, the Government are viewed in Wales as increasingly bossy, increasingly untrusting of the public and increasingly authoritarian. Above all, they are viewed as increasingly London-centred. The Bill will be seen as a symbol of that bossiness. It is a matter for the Government whether they care about the sensibilities of the people of Wales.
  Thirdly, the Minister asserted that the Government will listen very carefully and sympathetically to all points made by the National Assembly for Wales. The problem is that unless the issue is devolved by Act of Parliament to the National Assembly for Wales, it will not be a devolution issue. When a Back-Bencher in the National Assembly seeks to debate it on the Floor of the Assembly, they will be told that they are out of order, because this is not a devolution issue. That happens day after day in the National Assembly. I fear that the only representation that the Government will receive from the National Assembly for Wales will be anecdotal rather than from the Assembly's proceedings.
  I am very disappointed in the Government's reply. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment, because it seems undesirable to vote on it at this late hour. I close by warning Ministers that, rather than dreaming tonight of the land of Heaven and the welcome that will await them, they are more likely to suffer nightmares of dragons breathing fire in their ears as a result of their attitude to the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the reasons ordered to be printed.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, with an amendment disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof, and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before midnight.