| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will find that that is entirely comprehensible to tax lawyers, to which group neither he nor I have the privilege of belonging.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that even those of us who are sympathetic to the objectives of the Government with regard to the climate change levy regard it as being in many cases bureaucratic, unworkable and unfair? Further, will he not accept that it would be better to impose taxation on carbon emissions rather than this rather unworkable levy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The Government commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, to carry out a review of the options. They also considered the possibility of taxation of carbon emissions, the scope for trading emissions and many other solutions. The noble Lord came to the conclusion, with which the Government agreed—I thought that the Liberal Democratic Party at the time agreed—that this was the right way to deal with emissions in manufacturing industry. After all, we are talking about 5 million carbon tonnes per annum.
Supporters Direct: Rugby League
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will extend the Supporters Direct Scheme to sports other than Association Football, particularly Rugby League.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am delighted to give my noble friend a positive reply. The Government agree in principle that Supporters Direct's activities could usefully be extended to Rugby League. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport is discussing how best to achieve this with Supporters Direct.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the chairman of Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club. The Answer of my noble friend the Minister will bring joy to all Rugby League supporters. They are extremely responsible and it is only right that they should receive help to form trusts. I look forward to many of them entering the board of Rugby League clubs.
Knowing the Minister's expertise in both codes, when any future schemes are discussed, will he remember that there are other professional sports as well as Association Football?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall have difficulty forgetting that there are other sports while my noble friend is vocal in this House.
Supporters Direct was first established by football money and has properly directed its activities towards football trusts. My noble friend and others have made the case for such activities to be developed for Rugby League.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us an undertaking that the money currently used by Association Football will not be stretched further and made thinner and less effective by trying to spread it across Rugby League and other sports, but that new money will be found?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the money received at present is football money. It is limited and there is a significant task to be performed for football. The agreement in principle to extend the scheme to Rugby League will involve substantial consultations on the nature of any additional resources that may be necessary. I take on board the noble Lord's point that there is still an extensive job to be done for football clubs.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest as chairman of the Stockport County Football Trust, which is supported by Supporters Direct.
Will my noble friend confirm that what led to the establishment of Supporters Direct was the fact that many Association Football club boards were taking decisions with complete disregard for supporters, many of which received headline publicity? Is there any evidence that similar circumstances exist with other sports, especially rugby?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I should prefer to put a positive cast on that development. It is less a question of a weakness in the way that boards have previously acted—although we could probably find one or two examples of that if we cudgelled our brains—than that it has been recognised that fans have a proper stake in the sport that they support, the matches that they attend and the clubs to which they give such great loyalty. Their right to have some stake in the club and representation on the board is readily recognised.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to acknowledge that, with more than 40 trusts set up last year, Supporters Direct is one of the most positive and constructive outcomes of the deliberations of the Football Task Force, on which I had the honour to serve as vice-chairman? Does he agree with Supporters Direct that the industrial and provident society model that it has
adopted provides the best hope for a democratic, not-for-profit model being adopted in club boardrooms—which could, as my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, usefully be applied to other sports?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as ever, my noble friend's question helps to elucidate the matter for the House. I would obviously emphasise that although, as he says, we can take pride in the fact that Supporters Direct has begun its activities in 42 clubs, that is still a minority of football clubs. There is a long way still to travel, but I take on board the positive sentiments that my noble friend expresses about the work of Supporters Direct.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an accolade for Supporters Direct that other sports want to take on board its excellent ideals, the ways it promotes anti-racism, and so on? I also declare an interest. I am not in my No. 7 strip today, but I am a patron of Supporters Direct.
The Minister intimated that the money for the scheme came from football, but the Government provided some start-up money. Will he assure the House that such start-up funding will be continued, because such excellent work deserves to continue?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that was the burden of the positive Answer that I gave to the original Question asked by my noble friend Lord Hoyle: namely, that the work that has been done has been sufficiently impressive for discussions to take place with a view to extending it to Rugby League. Whether other sports come within that framework, we shall have to see.
As my noble friend Lady Billingham said, public money is involved, because the money comes from the football pools companies, but is top-sliced from the reduction in pool betting duty income passed to the Football Foundation. So there is a public interest in the matter, which is why my honourable friend the Minister for Sport is taking a keen interest in extending the work of Supporters Direct.
Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Pre-Budget Report. The Statement is likely to be taken after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in the Second Reading debate.
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. We propose
a more convenient order in which to take the Bill through Committee, subject to the Bill receiving a Second Reading from your Lordships' House.Moved, That, in the event of the Bill being read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 20, Clauses 37 to 43, Clauses 21 to 36, Clauses 110 to 120, Clauses 44 to 59, Schedule 5, Clauses 60 to 71, Schedule 6, Clauses 72 to 101, Schedule 7, Clauses 102 to 109, Clauses 121 and 122, Schedule 8, Clauses 123 to 126.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have so quickly become disenchanted with the order of clauses that they themselves laid down only a week ago? I shall give only two examples; there are more. Clauses 37 and six others are proposed to be taken after Clause 20; Clause 110 and 10 others are proposed to be taken after Clause 36.
Also—there may be a simple answer to this—the Motion refers to Clause 126. No such clause occurs in my copy of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not unusual for a Bill to be taken in a different order in Committee. The Bill available in the Public Bill Office—I was going to say the Vote Office—this morning, which is the Bill we will debate in this House, contains 126 clauses, as listed in the contents. It is true that Clause 126 appears on its own on the page listing the schedules; it is the Short Title. The Bill grew slightly in the other place because of the addition of the sunset clause.
I know that this may get up the nose of a few of your Lordships—although it is not intended to do so—but it is not unusual to consider a Bill in a different order from that in which it is printed, and the order has been agreed by both Front Benches and the usual channels. I am happy to read out an English translation of the Motion that I moved, giving the subject areas of the Bill in the order in which we will take them, if that is required.
The main reason for the order is to allow for the convenience of all parties, including the Opposition. It is the Government's Bill, and we will defend it. Nevertheless, there are key issues that various quarters of the House wish to debate, and it is important that they have as much time as possible and as is needed to do so. Sometimes, to do that, it is better to take the Bill in a slightly different order from that in which it is printed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page