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".

asked Her Majesty's Government:

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.

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?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his flattering remarks 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.

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?

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.

My Lords, has not the noble Baroness forgotten to list also the rise in pensions?

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.

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?

My Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches tells me it is on page four 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.

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.

My Lords, as I said in reply to the previous question, we would all enjoy shorter hours.

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?

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.

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?

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.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of a three-fold increase in assaults on 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?

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.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

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.

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?

My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that there has 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.

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?

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.

My Lords, who will run the Centre for Defence Medicine? Will it be the Ministry of Defence or the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

My Lords, does my noble friend's answer mean that the Government would be prepared to resume aid to Zimbabwe provided that we were satisfied with the circumstances in which that aid was deployed?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.)

moved as a manuscript amendment to the Motion:

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.

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 rather like writing rather a hasty letter and putting it under your pillow at night. In the morning, you may have changed your mind.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Oh!

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?

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.

My Lords, as a Welsh lawyer, I take that as a tribute.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will forgive my pointing out to your Lordships that he is nodding assent to my proposition.

My Lords, I was nodding assent to something which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had just said to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Why not?

My Lords, because the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is a matter of enormous 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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

No.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (c)

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.

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?

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 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.

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 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.

moved Amendment No. 3:

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

No.

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 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.

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.

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—

My Lords, I am sorry, I d id not mean to interrupt the noble Lord in mid-sentence.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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 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.

My Lords—

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.

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?

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.