COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE

OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)

Justice Bill: Sports Law

18 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Lord Browne
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Sir Reg Empey
Mr Paul Givan
Mr Alban Maginness
Mr Conall McDevitt
Mr David McNarry
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Mr John O’Dowd

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Haire	)
Mr Gareth Johnston	)	Department of Justice
Mr David Mercer	)

Mr Ciarán Mee	)	Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Mr Nick Harkness	)	Sport Northern Ireland
Mr Paul Scott	)	Sport Northern Ireland

Mr Iain Campbell	)	Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club

Ms Lyndsey Irwin	)	Ulster Rugby

Mr Robin Cole	)	Irish Rugby Football Union Ulster Branch
Mr Joe Eagleson	)	Irish Rugby Football Union Ulster Branch

Mr Ryan Feeney	)	Ulster GAA
Mr Stephen McGeehan	)
Mr Danny Murphy	)

Mr Stephen Grange	)	Irish Football Association
Mr Patrick Nelson	)
Mr Terry Pateman	)
Mr Hugh Wade	)

Mr Chris Andrews	)	Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters’ Clubs
Mr Gary McAllister	)	Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters’ Clubs

The Chairperson (Lord Morrow):

I welcome Gareth Johnston, deputy director of the justice strategy division in the Department of Justice (DOJ); Tom Haire, Justice Bill manager in the Department; David Mercer from the Department’s criminal law branch; and Ciarán Mee from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL).

The briefing will consist of two parts. The officials will outline in 10 minutes the clauses on regulated matches, conduct at regulated matches and alcohol on vehicles travelling to regulated matches, and that will be followed by five minutes in which members can seek clarification on any points raised. I remind members that questions on and discussions about the issues will come later. The purpose of this briefing is to set out what the legislation says and its intent. As members will see, I am surrounded by clocks. The Committee Clerk will tell me when there are two minutes to go, and people may then be given a 10-second warning. That is the way it will be conducted. I ask everyone to keep that in mind and we might find that it works all right. It will not work all right if we do not do that.

Mr Gareth Johnston (Department of Justice):

Thank you, Chairperson. In light of your injunction, I will try to introduce things in one minute and allow my colleagues to speak on the substance of the Justice Bill. This is the first of our briefing sessions on the substance and detail of the Bill; we have previously briefed the Committee on the policy contained in it. We welcome the opportunity to speak to the Committee. I assure the Committee that our Minister, David Ford, is very keen to hear its views on all the issues and to take account of those views in moving forward.

In dealing with sports law in the Bill, we have had considerable support from colleagues in DCAL. Mr Ciarán Mee from the Department is here and will speak in a moment. I know that our Minister would want to record his thanks to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and his officials for their valuable consultation and co-operation.

We will deal with clauses 36 to 44 first, and then, as the Chairperson said, we will take some questions and comments. Following that, we will deal with clauses 45 to 55.

There may have been some apprehension outside the Committee that these clauses will provide a package of measures that will be introduced in its entirety for every sport in every little respect after April 2011. I can assure the Committee that that is not the intention. Rather, the legislation will provide a framework that needs to be applied in appropriate ways at appropriate times.

The package has the potential to introduce things incrementally and to disapply certain aspects, particularly those that relate to alcohol. We have given, and will give again today, assurances that, for example, the commencement of the alcohol provisions and any application or disapplication of them will be subject to further discussion with the sports bodies and the Committee. I assure the Committee at the outset that there is flexibility there, especially in relation to alcohol, and we recognise that the needs may be different for different sports.

Throughout the package, we are looking to provide the backing of criminal law to the important work that match organisers are already undertaking, particularly on the back of DCAL’s safety of sports grounds legislation and policy, on which the sports provisions in the Justice Bill are very much built. I will now ask Mr Mee to say a few words.

Mr Ciarán Mee (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure):

Thank you, Gareth. I thank the Committee for allowing DCAL to be present at this hearing today. Gareth has indicated that the proposals on sport in the Justice Bill are intended to ally, as far as possible, with DCAL’s safety of sports grounds policy. To help the Committee, I will briefly explain what that policy is and how the related safety legislation operates.

The main purpose of DCAL’s safe sports grounds initiative is to help the owners of larger sports venues, mainly those at which football, rugby and Gaelic games are played, to put their events on a more sustainable footing by making them safer and more attractive for the public as a whole. The Department recognised that, for various reasons, public safety standards at larger sports grounds in Northern Ireland had not kept pace with developments nationally and internationally. As a result, fans and supporters who attended games were exposed to ever greater safety risks. For many ground owners, the situation had reached crisis point, with regular attendances falling drastically in many cases. That was largely due to public concerns about the state of grounds and the apparent absence of adequate safety control measures and guarantees.

The safe sports grounds initiative represents the Department’s response to those issues. It recognises that venue owners need assistance from government to help them to address the problem and that the public need an assurance that they will be safe and secure when attending games. Under the initiative, assistance to venue owners takes many forms. It involved and still involves substantial long-term financial support provided via Sport Northern Ireland, which is responsible for the distribution of public funding to sport. Since the initiative was launched, Sport NI has rolled out a number of safety funding programmes for ground owners.

To date, almost £15 million has been invested by Sport Northern Ireland under a range of programmes to help clubs to comply with the safety legislation: the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. That came into full operation at the beginning of this year, and it is intended to provide the necessary public assurances on safety. It introduces a safety certification scheme for larger sports grounds and stands that is administered and enforced by district councils. In essence, it allows councils, in conjunction with ground owners, to determine the number of spectators that venues can safely admit into grounds and the safety terms and conditions of admission.

In the next 10 minutes, the officials will deal with the clauses on ticket touting, banning orders and enforcement, after which there will be 5 minutes for clarification. I invite the officials to brief the Committee on chapters 4 to 6.

Mr Mercer:

I shall start with chapter 4, which consists of one clause, clause 45. It is fairly straightforward. It makes it an offence to sell or pass on a ticket for certain football matches — those defined as a regulated match — unless authorised to do so by the match organiser. That targets only the potential risks to safety and order when fans need to be segregated, and that point has been made already. We will wish to engage with football organisations to offer guidance on how sales can be administered with minimum fuss within the terms of the offence.

Mr Haire:

I will say a few words about banning orders. Chapter 5 talks solely about banning orders. You will not find a reference to football banning orders in it. In effect, that is caused by clause 36, which applies this to football matches only, but banning orders are mentioned without a specific reference to football. Under clause 46, banning orders can only be imposed in conjunction with a criminal conviction where the offence involved the person engaging in violence or disorder; if the offence occurred at a regulated match, either entering or leaving it; if the offence occurred while travelling to a regulated match, even if an individual did not attend it or intend to attend it, or if the journey was broken, including by an overnight stay; and where the court believed that the offence was motivated by the regulated match. Therefore, it is very closely tied in around the regulated match and behaviour at a regulated match.

Violence and disorder are defined in clause 49. It relates to violence and disorder against persons or property; stirring up hatred; abusive or insulting words; and displaying anything in writing that is threatening, abusive or insulting.

Clause 47 deals with what a banning order consists of. It prohibits a person from entering any premises for the purpose of attending a regulated match. The person must report to a police station within five days of the order being made. If any of their core personal details change, they must notify the police of those changes within seven days.

Clause 50 determines that a banning order is normally between three and five years, but, in instances in which it is in conjunction with a prison sentence, it is between six and 10 years.

Clause 54 determines that failure to comply is an offence that can attract a six-month sentence or a fine of up to £5,000.

Clauses 46, 47, 48 and 53 place a number of requirements on the court in imposing a banning order. They must give reasons if they do not impose one, and they must explain in ordinary language the effect that the order will have on the person. Furthermore, they must give a copy of the order to the person and send a copy to the Chief Constable and any prescribed person. Our view is that that prescribed person will primarily be the football authorities, for example. They will also send it to the police station to which the person has been advised to report.

In respect of the variation or termination of a banning order, a court can impose additional requirements. The person or the prosecution can apply for variation. Once two thirds of the period of the order have passed, the person can apply to have it terminated. If that fails, no further application can be made within six months.

Chapter 6 is not specifically on banning orders, but there are some provisions on powers of enforcement. They provide the police with the power to enter a ground during a regulated match, as in clause 36, to enforce any provision of the sports law package. It also provides police with the power of search. The intention is to provide the police with their own powers to police the sports, should they require or need to exercise them. Members will know that police do not routinely police games that are, in fact, privately organised matches, and we do not envisage that changing. It will be for match organisers to steward and manage events, and they will have the ability to call on the police, as appropriate. There may be occasions when police need to act quickly and on their own initiative, but the powers of enforcement are such that criminal law backs up what Gareth described at the outset.

Mr Johnston:

I am conscious that we have skipped over some of the detail on alcohol, chanting and pitch incursion. However, if I draw to a close here, we will have five minutes extra for questions. Members might want to bring up those issues at that stage.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for that.

Lord Browne:

Am I right in saying that offensive chanting is already an offence if it incites hatred or causes offence? If it is, it is already covered, and it would not be necessary to have it covered here.

Mr Johnston:

I welcome the representatives from Sport NI: Nick Harkness, director of participation and facilities and Paul Scott, manager of the facilities unit. I invite them to outline the issues that they wish to raise regarding the sports laws in the Bill. You will have no more than 10 minutes, and after that there will be a question-and-answer session, which will last for 20 minutes.

Mr Nick Harkness (Sport Northern Ireland):

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the invitation to give evidence on the Justice Bill. We believe that the Bill is an important element of upgrading safety arrangements at larger sporting grounds in Northern Ireland and of promoting a spectator-friendly environment at those venues. The evidence session is particularly timely, given the provisions contained in Part 4, which complement the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, as has been summarised for the Committee by the DCAL representative. The provisions will be of particular assistance to the ground operators of designated venues, enabling them to upgrade safety arrangements and provide spectator-friendly environments.

We have provided a written submission on the Bill, which I do not intend to go over line by line. I would prefer to introduce Paul Scott, who will present our main comments on the Bill. Paul is a full-time employee of Sport Northern Ireland. To some extent, he is our resident expert in this field. At the moment, he is employed to provide advice to DCAL and ground operators on the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. In 1997, before he took up employment at Sport Northern Ireland, Paul was the author of a report reviewing legislative controls at sports grounds in Northern Ireland, which was commissioned by the then Health and Safety Agency. One finding of that report was the call for the introduction of public order legislation for sports grounds in Northern Ireland. I will pass over to Paul.

Mr Paul Scott (Sport Northern Ireland):

Sport Northern Ireland is a non-departmental public body of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and it is charged with the development of sport in Northern Ireland. As technical manager of Sport Northern Ireland, I have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the Safety at Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. As we have heard, that places a duty on the operators of larger venues — venues with a capacity in excess of 5,000 — and the operators of smaller venues with a stand with a capacity of 500 or more to obtain a safety certificate from the respective district council. The safety certificate will state the safe capacity of the venue and parts of the venue, but it will also include terms and conditions as to how the venue should be operated and around the structural arrangements at that venue.

Sport Northern Ireland has been tasked with overseeing and monitoring the implementation of that legislation, and we provide technical and administrative advice to DCAL, district councils, venue operators, the police and other emergency services, governing bodies of the respective sports and so on. In Northern Ireland, 30 sports grounds have been designated: 15 soccer grounds, 14 GAA grounds and one rugby venue.

Sport Northern Ireland is broadly supportive of the majority of clauses in Part 4. Rather than repeat the information in our written response, I will highlight a few observations.

It should be noted that some matches played at the venues referred to in paragraphs 6 and 8 of schedule 3 often host junior, youth or low-level matches with low or minimal attendances. Therefore, it may not always be appropriate to apply the legislative provisions as detailed in Part 4 to such fixtures. However, consultation with the governing bodies is ongoing, and I am sure that a resolution can be obtained.

We are generally supportive of clause 42, which deals with the possession of drinks containers. We are aware that bottles, including those that contain soft drinks, are, unfortunately, used as missiles and weapons at some fixtures. However, some guidance is required, because the term used is “article capable of causing injury”. Does that refer to a plastic bottle, with or without the cap removed, which may be brought in to a game by a child or a minor? We need to think that through.

We believe that the possession of alcohol provision should be applied on the basis of associated risk to spectators who attend fixtures and to the reputation of the sport. We see the legislation, particularly the provisions relating to the throwing of missiles, invading the field during play and the possession of fireworks, as essential in assisting venue owners to comply with the terms and conditions of the safety certificate. Although we should not blindly follow what happens in GB, when legislation of that nature came in there, coupled with the effect of the safety of sports grounds legislation, attendance rose by 87%, particularly that of ladies, families, young persons and persons with a disability. There are numerous success stories.

The Chairperson:

You did not take the full 20 minutes allocated, but that leaves more time for questioning.

Mr McNarry:

I recognise the good work done by Paul and Nick and the people whom they represent in addressing safety at stadiums and the spillover of people outside them. I am, therefore, perturbed that we are having to deal with legislation. Does the fact that some people — I might be in this category — believe that there is a pressing need for new legislation point to a failure so far by everybody involved in sport?

These are not major issues, and this is not major legislation. However, I fear that the legislation is picking on sport, which is what we are talking about, and one sport in particular. From your experience, because I know that you have great experience in this, are we using the law to deal with a minority who are, as usual, causing harm to a majority? Could an alternative to the legislation be people such as you providing more education and information? I know that you do that very well. Why do some people deem those laws to be necessary, given that they are only going to affect the real sports fan? I do not care about which game that fan turns up to; the fact is that the legislation is only going to affect them. It seems that the legislation is a bit picky and that it has been drafted only because we have not addressed those issues. I believe that most of those issues are being addressed. There are obvious, clear issues that people can address.

Mr Harkness:

The issue of addressing and improving safety at our sports grounds is twofold. First, it is about making the infrastructure safer by looking at the design, taking away barriers and creating opportunities for people to move more freely. Secondly, it is about improving safety standards by changing behaviours. The intention of the legislation is not to catch people doing wrong but to incentivise people to change their behaviours. It mirrors the work to open up facilities to allow movement through them.

Mr Scott:

Again, numerous initiatives have been tried by governing bodies and by others. Unfortunately, those initiatives had limited success here and in other parts of the world. We again draw on the good practice of Great Britain, where a similar package acted as a deterrent to those who might have misbehaved at games. As I said, that had a positive impact, and I can see one sport in particular benefitting greatly from those measures.

Compare the number of people in Northern Ireland with the number of people in Great Britain: based on the numbers attending matches in Great Britain, there should be between 23,000 and 24,000 people at Irish League matches on a Saturday, but there is not. I fully accept that there are the glamour matches in Great Britain involving Manchester United and so on. However, if we take the Premiership games out of the picture, there should still be between 13,500 and 14,000 people at our games. Most people at football games behave themselves and are there for the best of reasons. However, a small minority unfortunately tarnish the game and other games.

We really need to be speaking to the people who we could reasonably expect to be on the terraces but are not. We see that as being allied with the other initiatives. Ciarán Mee mentioned funding and the safety at sports grounds issues, which are important factors in turning the ship around, attracting people to the terraces and trying to get ladies and families back. Unfortunately, UEFA has tried, FIFA has tried and the IFA has done a lot of good work, as have the other governing bodies —

Mr McNarry:

“Spectators at matches in Ravenhill Rugby Football Grounds have been drinking socially on viewing decks at fixtures for many years”.

It goes on to say that:

“Alcohol is generally not available at larger” —

You have outlined many instances of misbehaviour, whether it is among GAA players, soccer fans or rugby fans. If I clock or thump somebody, regardless of whether I am inside or outside a sports ground, I am committing an offence. We do not need legislation. Throwing fireworks at a goalie is an offence. Riotous behaviour is an offence. If there is a brawl between two players and one tells the police that that boy hit him on the pitch, it is an offence.

Mr Scott:

Mr Scott:

Again, it will be risk-based. Those who go to hospitality suites are not generally the people who are associated with disorder. The minority who do engage in disorder are, unfortunately, almost exclusively on the viewing decks. Those in corporate boxes are limited as to what they can do.

The Chairperson:

We have to stop there; we have run marginally over the time allocated for this session. I thank Mr Harkness and Mr Scott for their briefing and for taking members’ questions. I understand that they will be staying with us in the Public Gallery.

We now move on to take evidence from representatives of Ulster Rugby, the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) Ulster Branch and the Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club. I welcome to the meeting Ms Lyndsey Irwin, the senior manager of external relations at Ulster Rugby; Mr Iain Campbell, the chairman of the Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club; Mr Robin Cole, the senior manager of external relations in the IRFU Ulster Branch; and Mr Joe Eagleson, the past honorary secretary of the IRFU Ulster Branch. I ask the witnesses to brief the Committee on the sports clauses in the Justice Bill for no more than 10 minutes. Committee members will then have 20 minutes in which to ask questions.

Ms Lyndsey Irwin (Ulster Rugby):

I thank the Chairperson and Committee members for the opportunity to present our thoughts on the Justice Bill.

The Committee will note that our written submission centres on one clause, clause 43, which relates to the possession of alcohol during the time period of a regulated match. We oppose the inclusion of Ulster Rugby in that clause. At Ulster Rugby, we are justifiably proud of the warm welcome that our supporters and the supporters of opposition teams can expect at Ravenhill. We pride ourselves on the safe, family-friendly atmosphere at our matches, with supporters of both teams enjoying the action side by side. Supporters are from a wide age range, and the ability to enjoy a sociable drink while watching a match is very much part and parcel of the rugby experience. Therefore, we urge the Committee to reconsider the inclusion of Ulster Rugby in clause 43.

Clause 43 is inconsistent with legislation elsewhere in the UK and Europe, where the offence of being in possession of alcohol while in view of the pitch does not relate to rugby. Ulster participates in two tournaments that are played across England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France and Italy. If this legislation were to come into effect, Ravenhill would be the only rugby ground across those countries at which supporters could not enjoy a drink while watching the game; we would be very much out on a limb.

There is no evidence to support the inclusion of Ulster Rugby in clause 43. We have had no previous disorder problems or alcohol-related disorder problems at games. We take our responsibilities as both a governing body of sport and an event organiser extremely seriously. We have approximately 100 professionally trained stewards on duty at each game. Our games, which have average attendances of between 8,000 and 12,000 people depending on our opposition and the tournament, require support from only four to six police officers, who are concerned largely with traffic matters.

Clause 43 would have very grave implications for the future financial viability of Ulster Rugby. If it were to come into effect, it would likely impact on our ticket sales. As most of our matches are broadcast live on television, we may find that some supporters would choose to stay at home where they can enjoy a beer in front of the TV. Our sponsorship from our drinks partner and our income from our food and beverage franchisees would certainly take a direct hit. You will probably be aware that, in the longer term, we intend to redevelop Ravenhill, if we are successful with funding and planning applications. If clause 43 were to come into effect, it would be very difficult for us to increase spend per capita in our ground. As we have fairly limited facilities, supporters at Ravenhill spend, on average, less than £1 after they buy their ticket. In the English Premiership, that figure is closer to £10. If our stadium redevelopment goes ahead, that is an area in which we will really look to increase revenue. It is largely based on the provision of food and beverage in the ground and to people in their seats.

We may also find that we will have difficulty in attracting other rugby events. In February 2011, we will host Ireland A against Scotland A. If our stadium is redeveloped, we would like to host the Magners League Grand Final. We can only do that if Ulster is not in it, as that final has to be played at a neutral venue. However, the fact that we are unable to offer a full match-day experience to supporters of visiting teams is likely to be a detractor.

I have, more or less, summarised our written submission. Given that I have been so brief and that this is a joint delegation, I will pass over to Iain Campbell, the chairman of our official supporters’ club.

Mr Iain Campbell (Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club):

Thank you, Lyndsey, and thank you to the Chairperson and Committee members for this opportunity. I have submitted written evidence in the form of a short letter, and I will stress a number of points that are made in that. One of the supporters’ club’s aims is to advance public education, appreciation and understanding of the game of rugby. Indeed, I believe that we are availing ourselves of that opportunity here today.

I appear before you as a fan on the terrace. The written submission describes the experience of match nights at Ravenhill, where it is normal practice for fans of both sides to meet to enjoy the ambience of the evening and offer hospitality. The bonhomie always continues throughout the game and afterwards, regardless of the result. Indeed, it is common to see opposing fans standing side by side on the terrace, enjoying a drink and exchanging banter at each other’s expense as the match unfolds. Safety and comfort is not a concern for our fans, but the proposals in clause 43 definitely are.

Your sponsors are Magners and Heineken. What impact, if any, would clause 43 have on that sponsorship?

Ms L Irwin:

Heineken is our drinks sponsor. Heineken pays us for the right to pour Heineken and no other lager in the ground. We participate in two tournaments that are named after alcohol brands: the Magners League and the Heineken Cup. Those reinforce rugby’s link with being able to enjoy a sociable drink. We have certain obligations to stock those brands in our bars at Ravenhill. For example, 25% of the tap and fridge space has to be Magners on a Magners League night.

Clause 43 would not prevent us from participating in those competitions, but it would endanger the substantial sponsorship fee that we receive from Heineken each year. Similarly, if the Magners League were hosting its grand final between, say, Leinster and the Ospreys, and was looking for a neutral venue, a redeveloped Ravenhill could fit the bill, and it would be a considerable earner for Ulster Rugby. However, Magners, the title sponsor of the competition, will have a limited time frame in which to sell its product, and the fact that we cannot offer the full match day experience may rule us out of being selected as the venue.

Mr Givan:

The purpose of the clause is to try to ensure good behaviour, and I am hearing that there is good behaviour. What are your processes for dealing with an individual who behaves badly? Do you remove that individual? Do you ban that individual from matches? What do you do voluntarily to deal with the rare occasion on which behaviour is a problem?

Mr Eagleson:

The stewarding arrangements would deal with that. If it were felt necessary to take the individual out of the ground, either for the safety of that individual or any other spectator, that individual would be removed from the ground. We have never had to ban an individual for a period, but the governing body has the power to ban individuals from grounds.

Mr Givan:

Such a strong connection between sport and alcohol irks me slightly. Sport is about healthy living but, then, a connection is made with alcohol. However, this legislation is not about that; it is about good behaviour. Your point that there is good behaviour is key.

We are stopping there. I thank the rugby delegation for their briefing. You are welcome to stay on in the Public Gallery if you wish. You are your own bosses in that sense.

We will move on to the next presentation, which is from the representatives of Ulster GAA. Papers are included in members’ packs. I welcome Danny Murphy, provincial director; Ryan Feeney, head of public affairs; and Stephen McGeehan, head of operations. Gentlemen, you are very welcome. You will have 10 minutes for your presentation, after which, there will be 20 minutes for questions and answers.

Mr Danny Murphy (Ulster GAA):

Mr Chairman, I thank you and the Committee for affording us the opportunity to be here. We submitted our response and attached our ground regulations. From reading that, you will see that we are already applying many of the Bill’s provisions under our regulations. However, we have concerns about some aspects of the Bill. We believe that the requirements about how a game becomes regulated need to be examined. We also believe that paragraph 6(b) of schedule 3 takes the scope of the legislation too far.

The safety of sports grounds legislation identifies two types of designation. First, grounds are designated, which normally applies to the main county grounds that we use, the grounds used by the two top leagues in Irish Football Association competitions, the ground used by Derry City and that used by the Ulster Branch of the IRFU. Secondly, stands can be designated, which includes those in grounds that are used almost entirely by clubs. The scope of that aspect of the Bill would bring designated stands within the legislation, even though the games being played there would not be part of any planning by us or by the safety advisory groups that would be set up under the safety of sports grounds legislation. We believe that paragraph 6(b) of schedule 3 being included in the definition of regulated games poses a serious problem.

We also believe that regulated games should be within the ambit of the safety advisory group, because all the relevant bodies sit on that group. They alone should determine when a game is regulated and, therefore, whether this legislation applies to a game. Stephen McGeehan and I went over to look at the operation of Vicarage Road, where two different games were played on the same weekend. Watford FC play there on Saturdays and are regulated and Harlequins, the rugby club, play there on a Sunday but are not regulated. Therefore, the rules about consuming alcohol while viewing the pitch are entirely different at the same venue on consecutive days. In taking this matter forward, we should look at best practice rather than taking a forceful view.

We have five specific points to make. Clarification must be provided to identify which measures apply to GAA events and which do not. As drafted, the Bill is confusing and could lead to errors in interpretation. We assume that paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 3apply to the GAA and that any clause that refers to those paragraphs applies to us. However, that may be an entirely wrong understanding.

The commencement orders for introduction should not be relied on solely to create exemptions. We believe that, in taking some of those matters forward, different sports might need entirely different requirements placed on them. That is why we believe that regulation is better dealt with by safety advisory groups rather than specific legislation.

The Bill needs to confirm that venue operators are in overall control of their events and that the safety of sports grounds legislation does not currently demand the presence of the PSNI at all fixtures. Therefore, it is conceivable that some cases may arise where circumstances outlined in the Bill are enacted by a sporting body or members of the public and not by the PSNI. The Bill needs to take account of similar measures that have applied to British sport, particularly to association football fixtures and to rugby fixtures in England where, in the same venue, different arrangements apply depending on the sport being played.

We are concerned that, in setting out the definitions of regulated matches, the association that we represent and that controls Gaelic games is not defined. We would not want to be looking at a potential loophole some time in the future. The fact that we, as a governing body, are not defined, means, as we interpret it, that we are not covered by it.

Mr Stephen McGeehan (Ulster GAA):

There are definitions of UEFA, FIFA and other sporting organisations such as the Irish Football Association and the Ulster Branch of Irish Rugby, but there is no equivalent reference to the Ulster Council of the Gaelic Athletic Association.

Mr D Murphy:

I will make a couple of final comments. We are concerned that the word “chanting” has been added to cover a paragraph when, in all the consultative documents, the exact term that was used was “offensive chanting”. Chanting may not necessarily be offensive.

We have precluded spectators from going onto the playing area for quite some time. Again, we believe that the relevant provisions need to be re-examined. If someone goes onto the playing area against the ground regulations, he or she is breaking the ground regulations and can be removed from the ground. If someone goes onto the playing area to celebrate after a game, it may not necessarily be something that we would want to prosecute them for. We would not want someone to have a criminal record for simply having spontaneous enjoyment. We need to look at those aspects.

We have absolutely no difficulty with the part of the legislation that deals with the possession of fireworks and flares. Stephen will talk about people using alcohol at a game and in transit to and from games.

Mr McGeehan:

As responsible event promoters and as a governing body of sport, the Ulster GAA has significant experience from managing crowds of 67,000 right down to the 3,000 or 4,000 people who attended club fixtures last weekend. There is no doubt that the irresponsible consumption of alcohol is an issue for the governing bodies of all sports, particularly at games. As Danny mentioned, our ground regulations refer to and deal with that specifically. We welcome any controls that assist us as a governing body to address those matters. However, as was mentioned, we feel that that is best done under the general application of the safety certificate provided by the local authority and within the responsibility of the event controller in the organising of our games.

The Chairperson:

You have two minutes, Mr McGeehan.

Mr McGeehan:

In relation to the possession of alcohol in our grounds, we suggest to the Committee that application of the legislation that applies in England and Wales is worth considering when it comes to being more specific about the level of application for different sports. The GAA is probably best placed, having used Croke Park to manage other fixtures including soccer and rugby, to know that the governing bodies in control of the fixtures should have a level of autonomy and be able to look at the profile of their spectators and the categorisation of fixtures from a risk assessment point of view. We ask for that control to be afforded to governing bodies.

We try to ensure that it does not occur.

Mr McNarry:

That is great, but I need to know more about how you achieve that. We heard from the departmental officials that the PSNI will administer the law against people who offend. One does not know who will offend and who will not, so there has to be a police presence. Would the presence of the police at your games to see that the law is being observed properly concern your stewards?

Mr D Murphy:

I will make two points in response to that question. First, all of our games are subject to pre-event planning between us and the PSNI, and the PSNI has a direct involvement in overseeing the games, so that does not present an issue. Secondly, this legislation and the safety of sports grounds legislation, which is the core legislation, do not require police to be present at games. A regulated game is a regulated game. There is nothing requiring a police person to be present.

As a party, we have not made up our minds as to where we will go with certain clauses in the Bill, particularly those around sport. However, I share the concern that we are making law for law’s sake.

When it comes to your regulation and governance of matches, does the 2006 safety of sports grounds legislation provide adequate infrastructural safety for grounds and adequate spectator and participant safety at grounds?

Mr D Murphy:

The short answer is yes. The safety of sports grounds legislation was much-needed legislation. It was passed in February 2006 at Westminster in London, but it became operable only on 1 January 2010. Therefore, the legislation is very much a work in progress. A number of matters have been resolved: grounds are now designated, capacities have been established and, in most cases, safety certificates have been issued. Consequently, the legislation is at a starting point from which it can be properly applied.

Outstanding matters still need to be addressed. There is a requirement for some further development to comply with the new legal requirements. I do not want to start getting technical, but the S factor — safety management — needs to be brought on board. The safety management side and the physical capacity side are of equal importance. To meet the S factor, more supervisors need to be trained and more people who do my job need to be trained. Otherwise, we will find that we will get to the stage where, given the legal responsibilities being placed on people running matches, nobody will want to run them. Therefore, the S factor needs to be addressed. Some work has been done, but there is a lot more to be done.

Thank you very much.

The Chairperson:

The next briefing is from the Irish Football Association. I welcome Patrick Nelson, who is the chairman, Terry Pateman, who is the vice-president, Hugh Wade, who is the director, and Stephen Grange, who is the national security officer. You are all very welcome. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation, and we have set aside 20 minutes for questions afterwards.

Mr Patrick Nelson (Irish Football Association):

You introduced me as the chairman; I am the chief executive.

The Chairperson:

I beg your pardon.

Mr Nelson:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. The road to our being here started 130 years ago today. There was a meeting in the Queen’s Hotel in Belfast of representatives of a number of clubs that were playing what was called Scottish rules football. They resolved to create an Irish football association. That was on 18 November 1880. So, 130 years on, we are here in front of this fairly august Committee. I am sure that they never thought that would happen.

The Chairperson:

It has been a long struggle for you over the years.

Mr McNarry:

Were you playing then, or were you just a reserve? [Laughter.]

Mr Nelson:

Thanks again for the opportunity to give evidence. We will make a very short presentation. We sent a written submission to the Northern Ireland Office in November 2009, when the original consultation on the legislation took place. We provided a short supplementary letter to the Committee yesterday.

We believe that the Justice Bill, as it pertains to sport and football in particular, is part of a package of measures that will make football safer for spectators in Northern Ireland. That package includes the safety of sports grounds legislation, facility development and the training of stewards, and work on those issues has been ongoing for a while now.

Our original submission and the recent ones were broadly supportive of the proposed legislation. We note a number of changes to the original documentation from last year, in particular, the removal of reciprocal banning orders with Great Britain. We are not sure whether that makes sense, particularly given the prevalence of what we might call football tourism between Northern Ireland and GB, in that many of our supporters sometimes choose to spend a proportion of their money following clubs in England or Scotland. Consequently, if they receive a banning order over there, it would make sense for them to be banned here, and vice versa. We think that it is an omission to not have use of a civil banning order route, where police can make a summary application to magistrates to exclude troublemakers from games without a criminal conviction. That is an opportunity that may be missed.

We note the restrictions on consumption of alcohol, and we broadly support those, with the proviso that corporate hospitality and membership activities cannot be adversely affected. In particular, we ask the Committee to consider closely whether the timings for the regulated period in clause 43 — two hours before and one hour after a regulated game — might be a little excessive in the circumstances.

As I said, this is a fairly short presentation, because we put most of our information in the original submission that we provided some time back. We again thank the Committee for the invitation to be here today, and we look forward to working with colleagues across all Departments to continue creating a safer environment for sports and football supporters throughout Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson:

The legislation seems to portray a type of visitor to soccer matches — not a fan, I would add. That seems to be the root cause of part of the legislation being directed at your sport. It seems that the blame for conduct such as missile throwing, chanting, pitch incursion, firework possession, drunkenness and possession of containers is being levelled at your sport. The legislation seems to set out that the offenders in any of those categories will be at your sport — or our sport, if you like. I know that you have been doing things to address that, which is commendable. Where will that end up? Could the efforts that you will tell us about result in people like me asking for certain aspects of the legislation to be reconsidered?

Mr Grange:

There are a number of issues there. This legislation does not stand alone. It comes on the back of other legislation on safety at sports grounds. There is a major thrust to change the attitude at sports grounds, particularly football grounds, from security to safety. We want to move away from having fences and so on. Under safety of sports grounds regulations, we are obliged to open up grounds so that people have access and can evacuate freely. Responsibilities and difficulties come with that.

All the things that have been talked about, such as fireworks and drinking, are based on experience and reality. The sad thing is that we have had to cope with those matters in football over the past five years. Without the legislation, that has proved difficult not only for us in stewarding and managing games but for the police in determining what offences are taking place. We think that the legislation sets down very clear guidelines for the police and our stewards to act on and markers for behaviour. It is based on experience as, sadly, we have had difficulty with spectators.

Mr McNarry:

Are you saying that a greater police presence and enforcement against those misdemeanours is what is needed to propel this to where we all want to be?

Mr Grange:

No. The vast majority of people who come to football matches behave properly. The legislation is designed to deal with those who do not behave. There are issues around that that will have to be addressed. Opening up our grounds and shifting the focus from security to safety brings responsibilities. The legislation sets down a clear marker to those people who do not want to behave that there are enforcement policies and actions that can be brought to bear. We hope that we do not have to use those. We hope that people will realise that certain behaviour is not acceptable and that they will not be able to behave like that. This legislation comes on the back of two other pieces of legislation relating to grounds and stewarding. In fact, enforcement is probably coming before the grounds are ready to deal with it. That shortfall is being taken up through stewarding at the moment.

Mr McNarry:

What will happen overnight that will mean that those typecast people are not there anymore?

Mr Grange:

The experience with the legislation in England, Wales and Scotland has been that change does not happen overnight but that the legislation does change behaviour. It has brought about significant improvement in behaviour, especially in Scotland. We looked at how Scotland dealt with the situation, and that has been a major factor in our support for the legislation.

Mr Nelson:

My experience as the chief executive of a small football league club in England bears that out. We only ever need to ban a very small number of people from the ground for that to act as a deterrent to other potential troublemakers. As a number of people have said, sometimes your worst supporters are your best supporters.

They are the ones who follow their club through defeat and victory, and to games that are 300 miles away on a Tuesday at 7.45 pm. For them, the pain of being excluded from games is huge. So, this sort of legislation does act as a good deterrent.

Mr McNarry:

If it is your view that the legislation will be good for your sport, I have to listen to you as you are the experts. I am sure that we all agree that there is a distinct difference emerging from today’s discussions between the work that has clearly been done with international games and the subsequent attraction for the whole country as opposed to what happens at games such as those cited by the Chairman. We have to bank that one.

Do you believe that, as a result of the legislation, a burden of extra costs will have to be met by local clubs?

Mr Nelson:

Mr Maginness:

No, please.

Mr McNarry:

Do not fight, now, lads. Red card. [Laughter.]

Mr O’Dowd:

We do not need to be regulated here.

Thank you for your presentation. As Mr McNarry said, the suspicion is that the legislation is directed at soccer. We have heard from the other two codes, GAA and rugby, which have different concerns. I may be exaggerating, but I think that you have overwhelmingly welcomed the legislation. From my perspective of where the legislation is going, I have concerns, but I have not come to a conclusion in my head.

Throughout your presentation, you continually said that the Bill would affect only a minority of people. Hugh has given us an example from Coleraine, where they take no nonsense, in which three people who went onto the pitch were banned until the end of the season. Why then do you need this legislation?

Mr Grange:

That is perhaps a very good example. The difficulty that Hugh has is that those fans are banned only from Coleraine Football Club. Coleraine FC could be playing in Ballymena next week and those fans could turn up there and be a nuisance. They may then be banned from Ballymena United FC, but they could turn up in the next place.

Mr O’Dowd:

Sometimes, in law, self-regulation is encouraged. If Coleraine were to write to Ballymena to explain that those three characters were causing problems, that would give Ballymena the right not to allow them in. That could be done through your club mechanisms.

Our organisation was established in 1998 when a group of supporters’ clubs decided to form an umbrella organisation to work together in the interests of supporters. Our work, particularly our work as part of the Football For All project, has been recognised widely, specifically through the award of the European Football Supporters’ Award, which was established by Brussels city council after the Heysel disaster. Brussels city council presented us with the award at Windsor Park in 2006. We are very proud that we pipped the German supporters, whose country hosted the World Cup finals that year, to the award. The Germans were runners-up.

Our organisation engaged fully in the consultation on the legislation. We submitted a document to the Northern Ireland Office. We met the Justice Minister, Mr Ford, and his officials on 1 July. We followed that up with a meeting with officials from the Department on 8 July. After the publication of the draft legislation, we submitted our views in writing. We have written to the Committee and to all 108 MLAs.

I will speak generally about our overarching view of the legislation and then hand over to my colleague Chris Andrews, who is a committee member of our organisation, and he will speak in more detail about our concerns.

Generally, we welcome the proposals from the Department of Justice to introduce specific legislation on spectator controls in Northern Ireland. It is important that the legislation that covers spectating at sports events in Northern Ireland is in line with legislation in the rest of the UK. The proposed legislation could also act as an effective deterrent and encourage people to behave in a responsible fashion, which can only promote a safe and welcoming atmosphere for those attending all sports, particularly football matches.

We appreciate that the consultation document, originally produced by the Northern Ireland Office and taken on by the Department of Justice, acknowledged that incidents of crowd trouble at sporting events in Northern Ireland are rare. We emphasise that disorder involving Northern Ireland football fans at football matches is an exceptional occurrence. That was acknowledged by the Minister in writing during the week.

Notwithstanding that, we have identified three elements of the Justice Bill on which we want to make the thoughts of football fans known to the Committee. Those three areas relate to the consumption of alcohol in viewing facilities in football grounds; the offences related to the possession of alcohol on private-service vehicles and private-hire transport; and ticket touting.

We work with supporters’ organisations from England, Scotland, Wales and further afield. We are part of Football Supporters Europe, which is a network of fans from more than 50 countries. From our experience of dealing with other supporters’ organisations, we know that there is a shared view that partnership works, that fans have a contribution to make to any process and that valuing fans is a way of moving forward. The legislation does not achieve that, because it potentially criminalises all fans not just those who are badly behaved.

Bringing in the legislation would demonise football fans and the sport of football, which would be contrary to the view expressed in one of the earlier submissions that it would encourage greater numbers to attend. If there is a view that football is not a good or friendly sport, it is not likely to encourage more people to attend games. I now hand over to my colleague Chris Andrews, who will speak in more detail on some of the issues.

Mr Chris Andrews (Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters’ Clubs):

I will pick up on some of the points that Gary made. As football fans, we believe that any proposed Justice Bill should reflect the needs and realities of Northern Ireland. We believe that the Bill, as it stands, is more or less the application to Northern Ireland of legislation that was enacted to combat the endemic hooliganism and widespread violence that were prevalent in top-flight football in England and Wales during the 80s and 90s. The Bill’s provisions reflect the contents of the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, which were passed at Westminster.

I will reinforce what Gary said. We feel that aspects of the Bill are draconian and stereotype football fans. We are concerned about clause 43, “Possession of alcohol”, which makes it an offence to be in possession of alcohol at any time during the period of a regulated match. The IFA representatives covered that issue in their presentation, so we will not labour the point. However, we share the IFA’s serious concerns that the Bill, as drafted, could prohibit the sale of alcohol in viewing lounges at football clubs in Northern Ireland, not only during matches, but two hours before and one hour after.

We reiterate that such facilities are vital income generators for many football teams across Northern Ireland, and, in many cases, the sale of alcohol before, during and after matches is a major element of match day revenue. We believe that the creation of such an offence is unnecessary and that the legislation could have a detrimental effect on the future of viewing lounges and social clubs. We would welcome clarification from the Department of Justice on what is covered and what is meant by that clause.

The amalgamation contends that social clubs and viewing lounges at football clubs offer fans the opportunity to socialise in a controlled environment and that they do not have any history of serious disorder or violence that would necessitate the creation of offences such as those that have been outlined. We would like to know the rationale behind the creation of the proposed offence and would like a detailed outline, citing evidence, of why such measures are necessary.

I want to pick up on the points that were made by the officials from the Department of Justice. If, as we understand it, the intention of the Bill is to exempt private viewing facilities, the amalgamation wish to ask why viewing lounges should have to be restricted to members only, given that such facilities have no history of serious disorder or violence. We also contend that clause 41, “Being drunk at a regulated match”, is more than sufficient to deal with any drunkenness at matches. Why is there a need for further offences relating to drunkenness or consumption of alcohol when we already have provisions relating to drunkenness? We believe that the Bill has the potential to criminalise a person for having a single drink — a person who is not drunk — which is excessive, given that there will be powers to deal with persons should they become drunk.

The Chairperson:

You have two minutes to wind up.

Mr Andrews:

We would like to talk about chapter 3, “Alcohol on vehicles travelling to regulated match”. It will become an offence for anyone going to a regulated match to have alcohol in their possession. It will also be an offence for people to be drunk in a vehicle going to a regulated match. The Justice Bill will also give the PSNI the authority to stop and search any motor vehicle to which chapter 3 applies, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been or is being committed. We believe that provisions already exist that deal adequately with unlawful consumption of alcohol in private-hire transport. Under regulations made in 1990, it is already an offence for anyone to consume alcohol in a vehicle, and the conviction for such an offence already carries a maximum fine of £1,000. We contend that it seems excessive and unnecessary to introduce a specific offence relating to special transport to and from football matches.

I will move on to ticket touting. We disagree with the departmental officials’ interpretation of clause 45. Under clause 45(1), it is an offence for an unauthorised person to sell or dispose of a ticket. That person is unauthorised unless he or she has written authority from the match organiser to dispose of that ticket. Therefore, the act of selling or moving that ticket on to another person will be an offence. If this aspect of the Bill is about segregation, let us call it segregation, not ticket touting. How does criminalising one supporter for buying and selling tickets for his friends tackle the issue of segregation? Indeed, many grounds in Northern Ireland where football is played do not have provision to segregate fans, and fans freely mix. Segregation occurs only at matches between the bigger teams. It would make more sense to target the matches that are perceived as high-risk and put in place provisions to deal with those rather than to cover all games.

In recent correspondence with the amalgamation, the Justice Minister said:
“They may be rare, but I do believe there will be occasions where efforts to segregate fans are essential to address the potential for disorder. I believe that we need to provide for such occasions and that the powers will be an important preventative tool to assist us in doing so.”
The legislation, as it stands, does not provide for powers that will be used on rare occasions only. It creates an offence that applies to all football matches for which tickets are sold. Under clause 36(1)(c) —

The Chairperson:

I will have to stop you there.

Mr Andrews:

I will be two seconds. Under clause 36(1)(c), the offences also apply to all IFA Championship matches, which involve clubs such as Dundela, which do not produce tickets. Dundela versus Banbridge Town will never be an all-ticket match, so it is ludicrous to apply that offence to that game.

The Chairperson:

Thank you very much. You did very well.

Mr McNarry:

I concur with the tribute that Alban gave to the IFA, and I am sure that he will agree that that should be shared with the supporters and the supporters’ organisation for its efforts. I am a sports fan, and I enjoy nearly all sports. It seems that the decent soccer fan is in danger of being typecast as someone who goes to a match not to cheer on his or her team or to enjoy the game but to be a missile-throwing, chanting pitch invader who will throw fireworks and is likely to be drunk.

Sir Reg Empey:

Speak for yourself. [Laughter.]

Mr McNarry:

Such a person is presented as a great multitasker, but that is not the correct image. That is what is wrong with this Bill — it paints that image. I would like that image to be removed. It has to be removed. I understand the ideas around drink and that the Bill seeks to deal with overindulgence in drink. That is where rugby escapes in that rugby supporters enjoy a drink but you rarely see someone legless at a rugby match. Is there a risk that the provisions in the legislation could be rendered meaningless if fans can drink in pubs beside or near the ground two hours before kick-off and one hour after the end of the match? That begs the question: if that can and does happen and is regulated by law anyhow, what is the point?

My final question, which is about transport, has not been raised so far, so we might get somewhere on it. You are the best people to answer it. Is the clause on specific provision for football fans travelling to and from matches included because there is a history of serious or major problems in Northern Ireland that have been caused by fans travelling to and from matches?

Mr G McAllister:

The proposed legislation is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is legislation for the sake of it. Your point is quite right. Preventing people from drinking on a bus does not mean that they will not come to Belfast, Coleraine, Portadown or Ballymena three hours before a match and get drunk. Is it not better to allow people to enjoy a drink responsibly in a responsible environment in a stadium or a ground, or should we be driving people underground, where they will drink more excessively? We need to educate people on the acceptable amount of alcohol to drink. As someone who has travelled all over Europe and other parts of the world to support Northern Ireland, I sometimes see fans who have drunk more than they should sensibly have drunk. That is not good for them, because it puts their safety and health at risk.

I support better education and encouraging younger fans in particular to be aware of their responsibilities. We should not criminalise a young lad who has maybe decided to have more to drink than he should have and has become overly drunk. We need to educate people, not criminalise and demonise them.

Mr Andrews:

If there are problems linked to football fans travelling to and from matches, and it is believed that the consumption of alcohol during that travel is a problem, we should use the existing provisions, namely, the laws that make it illegal to drink on a bus. We should enforce that. Why is there a need to create the specific offence of possession of alcohol when travelling to and from a regulated match? What does that add to the existing law?

Mr McNarry:

Do hire laws have anything to do with that? Is it different for private hire?

Mr Andrews:

That law, as it stands, is for private hire. Other by-laws affect public transport such as trains and Citybus and Ulsterbus vehicles.

Mr McNarry:

You mentioned trains. We omitted to talk about trains. Across the water, that is the natural means of travel for a lot of spectators. Has anything happened in the recent past to suggest that there is a lot of trouble on buses or trains?

Mr Andrews:

In my experience, the buses turn up and the guys disembark. They go the ground, watch the game then get on the bus and go home. It is as simple as that. I am not aware of any great issue of people causing trouble on buses.

It will now become an offence to be drunk on a bus. Therefore, if someone has a couple of beers in a viewing lounge or a social club, they could risk being accused of being drunk on the return journey.

Mr McNarry:

The police would have to get on the bus to identify somebody who is drunk.

Mr Andrews:

As it stands, the Bill gives the police the powers to stop a coach if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that somebody is in possession of alcohol or that somebody is drunk.

The provision on the possession of alcohol is problematic. For example, if a bus stops off on a long journey and somebody decides to go to the off-licence to grab a few bottles of wine to drink when they get home, possession of that wine on that bus, whether or not the person is drinking the wine, is an offence because they are travelling from a regulated match. Or, for example, if someone goes to a match in Scotland and purchases two bottles of malt whisky for a Christmas present, that person is still travelling from a regulated match and is committing an offence.

The Chairperson:

More so if the person is wearing the scarf.

Mr A Maginness:

Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously, you are very concerned about the effect of the legislation on your enjoyment of matches. However, it is clear from the IFA’s comments that it feels that the legislation could be helpful to remedy certain problems and bring about better behaviour at matches. The sport’s governing body said that. However, you are saying something different.

Mr Andrews:

I do not think that we are poles apart. Let us get things into perspective: incidences of football disorder and football violence in Northern Ireland are, thankfully, still low. Although we heard in previous presentations about various misdemeanours from years ago, some of which were quite major, those are not an everyday occurrence.

It is all too easy to suggest that, because England and Wales has had similar legislation for years, football violence and football disorder has been eliminated across the water. That is simply not the case. There have been a number of high-profile incidents this season and last season. For example, in September 2010, 11 people were arrested at a QPR versus Millwall game, and bottles were thrown onto the pitch at a Manchester City versus Blackburn match. There was trouble at the Manchester United versus Manchester City games last year, with a total of 40 arrests across the two games and incidents of coin-throwing and bottle-throwing. At Burnley versus Blackburn, the police had to baton-charge fans, and 40 fans were questioned. On the same weekend that fans invaded the pitch at a Sheffield Wednesday game, Luton fans invaded the pitch and threw missiles at York City fans during a play-off semi final. Legislation already exists there and there are still incidents like that. The incident at the Larne versus Newry cup match, which has been referred to continually during this evidence session, did not involve any fans; it was solely players.

Mr A Maginness:

That is factually correct, Chairman. I recall the incident.

Mr G McAllister:

The answer is in better stewarding, supported by legislation. Legislation alone will not address any problems. I have attended Windsor Park for 20 years as a Northern Ireland supporter. In that time, I know of only two incidents in which people behaved in a way that I felt was deserving of being removed from the ground. One was during a high-profile Poland game last year, when someone stuck the linesman with a coin and, at another game, someone threw a bottle, which did not reach the pitch. We have self-policing fans, and other fans brought the person to the attention of the stewards and had them removed from the stadium.

Rather than demonising all fans, we have always tried to work with the police and the IFA. We also do work with the Home Office in London, particularly concerning our away games. We are happy to play a role and be fully supportive of encouraging good behaviour and cracking down on people who misbehave. To do that, fans have to be part of the process. It has to be a partnership, with stewarding being supported by police and legislation. The active participation of fans and supporting them is the way forward, not simply legislation.

Mr A Maginness:

Do you understand the point that I am making about the difference between you and the IFA? You say that there is not such a big difference, but there is a significant difference between what the witnesses from the IFA said and what you are saying.

Mr Andrews:

An amendment made in 1990 to the public service vehicle regulations states:

Mr Givan:

If someone in a stand heard someone else engaging in offensive chanting but a steward did not do anything about that, would the steward have to respond if the person who heard the chanting then said, “That individual just said something that should not have been said.”

Mr Mee:

The steward would have to make a judgement call in that circumstance. However, stewards should certainly be looking out for issues that have the potential to trigger wider crowd problems. If the issue is offensive chanting, the stewards and clubs should certainly be aware of it.

Mr Givan:

I am concerned about how we are going to police this if it is brought in.

The Chairperson:

Mr Johnston, will you comment on the clause that deals with the possession of drink containers? How will that work in practice?

Mr Johnston:

Mr O’Dowd:

It does not say that in the legislation. [Laughter.] Clause 42(2)(a) refers to:

“a bottle, can or other portable container (including such an article when crushed or broken) which -
(i) is for holding any drink, and
(ii) is of a kind which, when empty, is normally discarded or returned to, or left to be recovered by, the supplier”.

Mr Johnston:

Clause 42(2) states that:

“This subsection applies to any article capable of causing injury”.

That is the key point. Our contention is that a plastic bottle that has no top on it is not capable of causing significant injury.

Mr O’Dowd:

That is a wee bit like the definition of when someone is drunk, which is not defined by law.

Mr Johnston:

It is the usual problem. If, in primary legislation, you start to say that you can have this, but you cannot have that, the result is that you will leave something out that causes problems further down the line.

The Chairperson:

Right. Let us move on.

Ulster Rugby requested that it is not included under clause 43. Let us hear your comments on that.

Mr Johnston:

I welcome the fact that that was our only disagreement with Ulster Rugby. That was acknowledged. We recognise that it is an ongoing issue for the IRFU and for supporters. We will approach them, if we have not done so already, about a further meeting specifically on that point. We are happy to discuss it further.

The background to the inclusion of rugby was the safety at sports grounds policy and legislation. That was why rugby was brought under those provisions in Northern Ireland. I am conscious that the legislation will be with us, quite possibly, for 20 years or 30 years. We are providing not only for the safety of current supporters, but for the safety of supporters in the future.

COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE

OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)

Justice Bill: Sports Law

18 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Witnesses:

The Chairperson (Lord Morrow):

Mr Gareth Johnston (Department of Justice):

Mr Ciarán Mee (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure):

The Chairperson:

Mr Mee:

Mr Johnston:

Mr Tom Haire (Department of Justice):

The Chairperson:

Mr Haire:

The Chairperson:

Mr O’Dowd:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Mr Johnston:

Mr Givan:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Johnston:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Johnston:

Mr McNarry:

Mr David Mercer (Department of Justice):

Mr McNarry:

Mr Mercer:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Mercer:

Mr McDevitt:

The Chairperson:

Mr McDevitt:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Mr Mercer:

Mr Haire:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Lord Browne:

Mr Johnston:

Lord Browne:

Mr Johnston:

Mr Buchanan:

Mr Johnston:

Mr O’Dowd:

Mr Johnston:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Johnston:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Johnston:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Mr Johnston:

Mr Mee:

The Chairperson:

Mr Johnston:

Ms Ní Chuilín:

Mr Johnston:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nick Harkness (Sport Northern Ireland):

Mr Paul Scott (Sport Northern Ireland):

The Chairperson:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Harkness:

Mr Scott:

Mr McNarry:

Mr Scott:

Mr McNarry:

The Chairperson:

Mr McNarry:

Lord Browne:

Mr Scott:

OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)