House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1991

Dr. Godman : I offer my compliments and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I think that by way of the Bill he will be seen over the years to have performed a valuable public service on behalf of children throughout the United Kingdom. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but I spoke on Second Reading, when I wished my hon. Friend well. I speak as someone who first acquired the habit of cigarette smoking at the age of 12 years while on board a trawler fishing off Spitzbergen. I thought that it was manly to smoke. All the other fishermen on the vessel were smokers. By 16, I was on 20 to 30 cigarettes a day. I know how powerful the addiction is. It is not one that I have now, for I gave it up many years ago. I believe that my hon. Friend has performed a valuable service.

The need for the Bill was brought home to me when I recently spent a few days in Glasgow royal infirmary. I had to undergo abdominal surgery. On the ward there were men who were seriously ill--in three instances, terminally ill--with lung cancer and severe emphysema. When I spoke to the men they all admitted that they had been

Column 723

near-lifelong addicts. They bitterly regretted that they had ever taken up cigarette smoking, especially given the heavy addiction from which they suffered.

I am disappointed that clause 6 was removed from the Bill, but pleased with the insertion of new clause 2, to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred. It is a useful addition to the Bill, and especially so for my constituency, where far too many people smoke cigarettes. During recent days, head teachers have spoken to me about the Bill, and I am sure that they and others concerned with the health of youngsters welcome it. They will be especially pleased about the addition of new clause 2. I shall subject the regional and islands councils to tough -minded scrutiny in the application of the new measure. It is essential that we dissuade our young people from taking up such a noxious habit. 1.10 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley : No newsagent-tobacconist in my constituency has complained about the Bill. That is a tribute to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who has not tried to tackle the whole problem of smoking in one go, but has dealt with the new generations of people who need to be saved from a bad habit. The general environment matters and that is why concentrating on obtaining the help of tobacconists has been so important.

I hope that on public occasions people do not speak as though smoking tobacco is fine. I attended the inaugural lunch in the House of Commons when Action on Smoking and Health was launched. When the loyal toast was given, the royal patron said that it was one occasion when people would not be told that they could smoke. We should move away from the habit at public functions of people being told when they can smoke. They should be told when they cannot. That would apply some social pressure. In the same way, public functions should ensure that alcohol-free drink is available ; people should not have to ask for it.

On the libertarian aspect, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) on reaching his second wedding anniversary. Having heard of the way in which he celebrated his first, I am surprised that anyone wanted to spend a second with him. Perhaps the only reason why he remembered it in the nick of time was that his wife did not want to remind him. Perhaps she feared that she would again be taken to a local government conference.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 724

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

1.12 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am delighted that this important Bill has made such speedy progress. Before enumerating the amendments involved, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on the progress of his Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill. Had I not been so preoccupied with my own Bill, I might have been prepared to lend him a hand with his. I very much support the Parents Against Tobacco campaign and I am sure that many parents today will be celebrating the passage of the hon. Gentleman's Bill to another place. I hope that it will reach the statute book very soon. As I said, I am also delighted that my own important Bill has made such speedy progress. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading so that it can go to another place, where I hope that it will have as swift and easy a passage as it has enjoyed in this place. I wish to place on record my gratitude to all those who have given the Bill their wholehearted support, in particular the sponsors, those hon. Members who were kind enough to attend the Committee stage and also my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), whom I omitted to include as a supporter, but who nevertheless served on the Committee. I know that he shares my anxieties about these matters. I am grateful for the overwhelming support that I have been given by the Law Society, which has sponsored the Bill, and has helped me in what I think that the House will agree is an extremely complex subject. In seeking to ensure that all the relevant issues were brought before the House, I have this morning been reading some of the briefs prepared by the Cardiff Law School, the British Epilepsy Association and various other organisations about matters appertaining to the Bill. The complexity of some of the legal issues surrounding case histories is almost mind-boggling at times. I do not profess to have the knowledge of the law necessary to understand all of the arguments relating to some of those cases. However, in our consideration of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee--I hope that the same will apply today--we have managed to discuss the issues of importance relating to the Bill, so that those outside the House, who will no doubt seek to interpret our intentions and who will have to work with the Bill for the benefit of those whom it seeks to help, will be clear about our intentions and the areas of concern with which we sought to deal.

The Bill amends the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, to provide safeguards for vulnerable people who have been found either unfit to plead in relation to the charge against them or not guilty by reason of insanity. Under the 1964 Act such people have to be detained indefinitely in hospital without trial and regardless of the severity of the alleged offence.

The provisions will affect a number of people. I have already mentioned the British Epilepsy Association. It might be for the convenience of the House and of the record if we could reflect on how the British Epilepsy Association views current law and how it affects epileptics,

Column 725

and to explain why they have been so keen to support this measure, as have a number of organisations, and to support reform of the existing law.

As a result of the Sullivan case of 1983 an epileptic episode is classified legally as a "period of insane automatism". The British Epilepsy Association, in common with all medical organisations, has argued consistently that epilepsy is not any kind of insane manifestation, but a proven neurological condition.

Today's law is based on the McNaghten rules of as long ago as 1843. We are seeking to change those laws by creating a proper definition in the Bill. At the time when the McNaghten rules were written, medical understanding of epilepsy was poor--that is not difficult to understand--and the condition was far more widely believed to have a psychiatric basis. Clearly, the law has not moved with the times. When a person is charged with an offence committed during an epileptic attack it is not medically possible for that person to be guilty of a wilful criminal act. In a moment, hon. Members will glean from one of the amendments made to the Bill in Committee how important it is that we get our thinking right on the mental element of any offence that has been committed where the person charged may be insane or unfit to plead.

It is right that an individual should be able to plead not guilty and cite the details of his epilepsy as a defence. Under the law as it stands, the defendant cannot plead not guilty without the caveat "by virtue of insanity", which results in a mandatory committal to a psychiatric hospital. At present the court cannot place supervision orders in such a case, nor can it discharge the defendant. The court simply has no choice.

There are instances of courts endeavouring to use their discretion. On occasion, that can be helpful to the defendant, but it does not alter the law or remove the need to change it. In any event, it has no bearing on other cases by way of precedent. Defendants have to choose the lesser of two evils. The law does not offer such people protection. The individual decides, or is advised, to plead guilty. Otherwise, the person has to plead not guilty by virtue of insanity and, as a consequence, is sent to a psychiatric institution. The British Epilepsy Association would like two amendments to the law, one of which cannot be dealt with in the Bill. I refer to it because another hon. Member may wish to return to the matter in future. The association wants epilepsy to be reclassified within the law, and the implication that it is a psychiatric illness to be removed. The Bill cannot do that. Instead, it provides the courts with the flexibility that they so urgently require to deal appropriately with such cases.

At the time of Second Reading, the concept of a trial of the facts to determine whether a person who was unfit to plead had committed a criminal offence was new. Following the Committee stage, correspondence, and a great deal of interest on the part of right hon. and hon. Members, we have now come to terms with what that concept should mean.

I wish to refer especially to the changes that we made in Committee. The amendments to clause 2 substitute provisions for section 4 of the Criminal Procedure

Column 726

(Insanity) Act 1964. The first two amendments sought to restore safeguards available under the 1964 Act which it was not our intention to remove.

The amendments allow the court to postpone consideration of whether a defendant is unfit to plead until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence. That safeguard was originally introduced into the 1964 Act to answer the criticism that, even when the prosecution had insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, a finding of unfitness prevented the prosecution case from being tested and still resulted in the accused being detained indefinitely in hospital. If the prosecution has an extremely weak case--although the accused person may be unfit to plead or, if he pleaded at all, would have to plead not guilty by reason of insanity--it is surely right that the evidence, such as it is, should be brought before the court, as an instant acquittal might well be the outcome. The question of unfitness to plead would then never need to be addressed. To give flexibility to the courts to postpone consideration of unfitness to plead will allow the case for the prosecution to be tested. If there is insufficient evidence for the jury to convict, the case can be dismissed and the accused acquitted without the need to consider whether he is unfit to plead.

A further advantage of retaining this provision, as provided for in the amendments that were agreed in Committee, is that it allows the courts to consider the accused's intention--that is, the mental element in cases where that may be relevant. That goes to the heart of the problem faced by epileptics and to the heart of the concern expressed by the British Epilepsy Association.

The trial of the facts that would follow a finding of unfitness to plead would look only at the facts of the case. It would not consider the accused's motivation. Clearly, it could not do so. It would already have been established that the accused was unfit to plead. Concern was expressed, however, on Second Reading that to exclude the mental element, which is so important in establishing a conviction in other criminal cases and very much the strength of our English criminal law, might be to the detriment of certain mentally vulnerable defendants. This provision, which merely restates the existing law, does not preclude the mental element being taken into account in those cases where it may be relevant. If intent is not established by the prosecution, the court will have the opportunity to acquit the accused in appropriate cases.

The remaining amendments to clause 2, agreed in Committee, clarify the circumstances in which the same or a separate jury should decide the question of fitness to plead and hear other parts of the trial. We wanted to remove any doubt. The amendments were drafted in such a way as to achieve that aim. They also allow for the postponement of the consideration of fitness to plead, as agreed in the first two amendments. If the question of fitness to plead is considered by the court on the arraignment of the accused--when the accused first appears before the court--and the jury decides that the accused is fit to plead, the case will be referred to a proper trial in which the accused will be tried by a different jury from that which decided the question of fitness to plead. The House will agree that that is the right way for us to proceed with this amendment of the law. Similarly, if the accused is found to be unfit to plead on his first appearance in court, the case will be referred to a trial of the facts, which will be heard by a separate jury

Column 727

from that which decided the question of fitness to plead. Again, I am sure that hon. Members will feel that that is right.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's observations on cluase 2. The role of two registered medical practitioners in submitting evidence concerning the accused is critical. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the practical circumstances of a trial, a registered medical practitioner means a consultant psychiatrist?

Mr. Greenway : Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is difficult to know how much of the ground to cover on Third Reading. This is such a complex matter that, for the benefit of those hon. Members who are listening intently to my argument, one almost needs to go back to the beginning and start all over again. That is a very important brick in the Bill to which I have not referred in any detail, save to say that clause 2 gives statutory backing to the McNaghten rules. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me that I am right and that I have given the hon. Gentleman the correct answer.

I move on to deal with cases in which the question of fitness is raised with the court at a later stage in the trial after some or all of the prosecution's case has been put. Clause 2 allows the court flexibility to direct whether the question of fitness should be decided by the same jury who already heard part of the case or by a separate jury, according to the particular circumstances of the case.

That is an important provision because clearly there will be some cases where so much evidence has already been adduced that it would benefit both the court and the accused for the same jury who heard all the evidence then to hear the evidence under the provisions outlined in clause 2, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as to whether the person is fit to plead. However, there could be other cases in which that might not be in the interests of the accused. I do not believe that the House can do anything other than give the court the discretion that it needs in those circumstances. In cases where the accused is found unfit to plead and the case is referred to a trial of the facts, the jury who heard the earlier part of the case can also hear the trial of the facts. Of course, if the accused who is unfit later recovers to become fit to plead, as can happen, his or her case would be remitted for a proper trial and that trial would be heard by a new and separate jury.

The amendments that the Committee gladly agreed provide additional safeguards for people who are unfit to be tried and ensure that those who later recover sufficiently to stand trial will receive a fair and proper hearing.

Finally, for the benefit of hon. Members present whose interest in the Bill I gladly welcome, I confirm that part II of the Bill provides a range of disposals to the court according to the particular circumstances of the case and the defendant's individual needs. At one extreme, the court retains the power under the 1964 Act of committing the accused indefinitely to a psychiatric hospital. At the other extreme, there may be opportunity to provide an absolute discharge. In the middle, where the real benefits of the Bill are to be found, it will allow the courts to provide for supervision orders which may include treatment so that the accused can get the help that he needs within the community.

Column 728

Although the Bill deals with an extremely complex area of the law, the changes it will introduce are straight- forward, effective and long overdue. I am most grateful to officials in the Home Office who were most helpful with the drafting of the Bill and the amendments agreed in Committee and who I suspect may be listening to our deliberations today. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office who ensured the Bill's speedy and unimpeded progress thus far. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his help and his willingness to co-operate in dealing with the Bill this afternoon. I hope that the Bill will progress to another place and that long-overdue reforms can quickly be put on to the statute book for the benefit of many vulnerable people in our society.

1.30 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I can confirm the Government's continued and fulsupport for the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on guiding it through the Committee with great finesse. The Bill contains important reforms, some of which, as we understand from my hon. Friend's lucid explanation, are complex, but which are designed to safeguard the position of severely mentally disordered individuals who are found either unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend expertly and clearly described the Bill's aims and he has done so again today. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in turn, outlined the Government's stance and support. In the circumstances, there is little for me to add, but perhaps I can confirm the point queried by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). The registered medical practitioner to whom the hon. Gentleman referred must be approved by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis of treatment of mental disorder.

Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Minister for answering my question. As the Bill refers specifically to the Mental Health Act 1983 and to guardianship, will elements of the code of practice require revision because of the Bill?

Mr. Lloyd : As I did not steer the Bill through Committee I am not fully aware of the details. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale can reply, he will interrupt me.

Mr. John Greenway : I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. However, I am sorry that my mind wandered as I was dealing with notes that I received from the Official Reporters. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question again? If you will allow a further intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall do what I can to help.

Dr. Godman : The Minister again shows his characteristic courtesy. I asked whether, in the light of references to the Mental Health act 1983 and especially to the term "guardianship", it is likely that the code of practice--or the sections of it that refer to

guardianship--will need to be revised if the Bill is put on to the statute book.

Mr. Lloyd : May I, at this point, give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale? However, if he would prefer to collect his thoughts, I shall continue.

Column 729

The Bill has two main thrusts. First, there will, for the first time, be a requirement for the Crown court to test the case against an accused person who is found unfit to plead in order to satisfy itself that he committed the offence in question. As I said, that is a complex measure which has given rise to a number of issues. They have been carefully considered and we can see no reason why, in practice, the measure should not prove effective. The Government are satisfied that the introduction of a "trial of the facts" would greatly reduce the possibility of an innocent person being compulsorily detained in hospital for an offence that he did not commit.

The Bill's second main thrust is to provide the Crown court with a wider range of disposal options. Currently, if a person is found unfit to plead, or not guilty by reason of insanity, the court has no option but to send him to hospital for an indefinite period as a restricted patient. There has been increasing concern, not only that compulsory hospital treatment has not always been appropriate on medical grounds, but that it might be disproportionate in view of the nature of the offence.

The Bill proposes that following a finding of unfitness for trial, where the court is satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged, or a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, the court should have a choice of disposals--ordering an accused person to be detained in hospital with or without restrictions, a guardianship order, supervision in the community, or absolute discharge. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, the Government believe that this will enable the court to ensure that its order is appropriate for the circumstances of each case, and will remove the inflexibility of the current provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. This will be particularly welcomed by the British Epilepsy Association, to which my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute, which has mounted a vigorous campaign to have the law amended in this regard.

It has already been made clear that the proposals are not novel. They are based largely on recommendations made by the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders, which reported in 1975. At the time, an extensive consultation exercise was conducted. Further consultation has been undertaken and the Bill's proposals have been widely and warmly welcomed by the legal and medical professions and by a wide range of organisations. Indeed, I am not aware of any significant objections to the Bill. I am aware that the specific and detailed question put by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has not been answered. I shall ensure that he receives an answer by letter. I regret that I am unable to answer it now.

Accordingly, it remains only for me to commend the Bill to the House and to wish it a smooth and quick passage through the other place. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale on introducing it.

1.41 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : As I am a Scots Member and this is an English Bill, I hesitate to speak, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is to be congratulated on introducing the Bill. The House deals with two legal systems--the English and the Scottish- -and I sincerely hope that the Scottish legal

Column 730

system is not out of kilter in implementing these necessary protective measures for people who, for reasons of insanity or mental ill-health, cannot protect their own interests. I am pleased that the British Epilepsy Association is glad that the Bill is making good progress. I am sure that, if the Scottish system is out of kilter, officials and members of the association who read the debate will contact me.

Mr. John Greenway : The time available allows me to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is supported by other organisations apart from the British Epilepsy Association. It is supported by many organisations that do social work or work with vulnerable groups and their professional bodies. They include the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the Association of Professions for the Mentally Handicapped, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Institute of Mental Handicap, the Campaign for Mentally Handicapped People, Disability Alliance, Justice, Mencap, the Mental Health Foundation, the National Association for Mental Health MIND the Legal Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, the Prison Reform Trust, the British Deaf Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I have listed all those organisations deliberately. They read like a "Who's Who" of the organisations concerned with vulnerable people and those who try to care for vulnerable people.

The presence of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), which I warmly welcome, gives him an opportunity to take up the cudgels and look at the position in Scotland. If he finds that the reforms contained in the Bill need to be made in Scotland, I assure him that I will help him as much as I can.

Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially for his recitation of those honourable associations and societies, all of which are as well known north of the border as south.

The hon. Gentleman's mention of vulnerable groups prompted me to say that the Scottish system might be out of kilter with the English one. Occasionally, the two systems for protecting vulnerable individuals become unbalanced. For example, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 contains a remarkable section that allows the use of video-recorded interviews for evidence in court in child or sexual abuse cases. It is regrettable that, in Scotland, there is no such provision and I hope that our legislation is not out of kilter with this fine Bill.

I offer my compliments to the hon. Member for Ryedale. I shall table a question to the Scottish Office asking it to confirm that our legislation is almost as good as the hon. Gentleman's proposals. 1.48 pm

Mr. John Greenway : With the leave of the House, I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with this important matter.

I shall try to answer the earlier question asked by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). For a brief moment I feared that our wicket was in jeopardy, but the answer to the question that he so rightly raised has now been assembled. Clause 5 provides for the use of guardianship orders under section 7 of the

Column 731

Mental Health Act 1983. A guardian may decide where the person lives and require that he attends medical treatment, occupational therapy or education. He or she may insist that a doctor or other person is allowed to see the person under guardianship. A guardianship order would be made initially for six months, but would be renewable.

It was not my intention, in drafting the Bill, to seek to change the overall provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. However, the House and the Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is less a matter for the Home Office than for the Department of Health. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was timely in drawing attention to the fact that the Bill depends on the smooth working of the provisions of the 1983 Act.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raises important points, not all of which relate directly to the Home Office. However, I shall undertake to see that my colleagues in the relevant Departments--the Scottish Office and the Department of Health-- read what he said and are aware of his concern.

Mr. John Greenway : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that undertaking and I know that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will be, too.

I shall not refer directly to the measure, but rely on my memory of it. In the Bill we have created a framework whereby, at a trial of fact, the person who is unfit to plead will be represented and there will be a guardian ad litem arrangement which seeks to ensure that the accused's interests are properly protected.

1.51 pm

Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles) : I rise for only a few moments to congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). His Bill, like the previous one on the subject, has all-party support and, as he said, support from a variety of organisations that want justice to be done and do not want people to be subject to distress due to a situation over which they have no control.

Some of the legislation being amended is 150 years old. It sometimes takes the House a long time to catch up with developments that have taken place. We are also amending legislation that was enacted about 15 years ago, but some of it goes back further, as we are all aware. The assurances given by the Minister that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be looked into mean that the Bill will be made to apply and work.

I add the Opposition's congratulations to the hon. Member for Ryedale on not shying away from a difficult subject that is fraught with enormous complexities which many people would want to avoid. Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 732

Football (Offences) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Sir J. Wheeler.]

1.52 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir. J. Wheeler) on his enterprise in bringing forward the Bill and the good judgment that he displayed in securing its speedy passage through Committee to Third Reading today. It is a considerable achievement and all who are concerned to see football in this country rid of the offensive and violent behaviour that has too often disfigured it in recent years will welcome the measures contained in the Bill.

In Committee, hon. Members asked me to look again at a number of issues. I hope that the House will bear with me if I seek to reassure those hon. Members that it is right for the Bill to be left in the form in which it left Committee and in which it is now.

I have given further consideration to the point raised about the condition in clause 1 restricting the offences to a period of two hours before kick- off, or the advertised time, whichever is earlier. Some hon. Members questioned whether two hours was long enough. The Government believe that the provision of pre-match entertainment to encourage supporters to turn up early, which I think lay behind the worry, is a good initiative, which we support. However, even at the largest fixtures, it is unlikely that a significant number of supporters will arrive more than two hours before kick off. A two-hour period is used in part IV of the Public Order Act 1986 and I am not aware that it has proved inadequate. I believe that the amendment that we made in Committee will prove wise and sufficient. I have thought with the greatest care about the points made in Committee about the formulation of clause 3. However, I remain of the view that the wording that we now have is right. I will briefly explain the policy considerations and practicalities that have influenced me in reaching that conclusion.

Clause 3, as amended in Committee, creates a new offence of taking part in chanting of an "indecent or racialist nature." Any spectator at a football match who repeatedly utters any words or sounds of an indecent or racialist nature, in concert with one or more others, is guilty of an offence.

Lord Justice Taylor considered that the provisions of the Public Order Act would not always cover such objectionable behaviour. Under section 4, chanting or a single shout would be an offence if another person feared that immediate unlawful violence would be used against him or that the chanting would provoke violence. Under section 5, the chanting must be likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to a victim--I stress, to an identifiable victim. Lord Justice Taylor considered that racialist chanting at a football match should be an offence without the need for an identifiable victim, and I agree. We needed to think clearly about the context in which the proposed offence would be committed. At a designated football match, attended probably by thousands of people, the crowd may sing, shout, groan, gasp or sound like the House of Commons on a particularly good evening, in an atmosphere of considerable tension and excitment--again, like the House on occasions that we can all remember. The

Column 733

volume of collective sounds will be considerable. In that noisy and volatile atmosphere, racialist or indecent chanting is not only socially objectionable but becomes, potentially at least, a risk to public order.

Against that background, it would be a mistake to criminalise a single racialist or indecent remark that might not be widely audible in the ground ; to do so would set the threshold for criminal behaviour too low. We wish to prevent group chanting, which is repeated and loud and may spark trouble, and if it occurs, to prosecute and punish the offenders.

There are other practical considerations. Some hon. Members questioned the ability of the police to identify and remove those committing the proposed offence. The police do not foresee too much difficulty. Police inside a ground will generally be able to identify those who are chanting repeatedly. Some officers may be directed to the offenders, and in particular to their ringleaders, by their colleagues operating closed- circuit television. An officer may then be in a position to hear the words or sounds uttered by offenders, but securely identifying a person uttering a single shout would be much more difficult. The police will decide whether offenders should be arrested, either during the game or at a later stage.

Evidence from closed-circuit television will play an important part in identifying offenders and securing their conviction for offences in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept that there are persuasive reasons of policy and enforceability for preferring the formulation adopted in Committee.

Clause 3 is designed to deal with group chanting of indecent and racialist matter, which presents the public order and social problem. The Bill sets that offence at a lower threshold than current law. Such conduct should be an offence only when it is made especially objectionable by being carried out in concert with others. Some members of the Committee asked about the removal of perimeter fencing. Lord Justice Taylor recommended that, for the safety of spectators, fences should be lowered and spikes and overhanging projections removed. He considered that if fences were lowered, it would be prudent to have a criminal sanction against running on to the pitch. I agree, although it is beyond the scope of our discussions on the Bill to consider whether the perimeter fences should be lowered or even removed. That is a matter for the local authorities issuing the safety certificates. The Football Licensing Authority will be working closely with the clubs, the police and the local authorities to ensure that adequate provision is available for spectators to escape on to the pitch in an emergency.

The Bill embodies the three recommendations made by Lord Justice Taylor in his report following the tragic events at Hillsborough by making it an offence to throw anything at or towards the players or spectators, to take part in racialist or indecent chanting or to go on to the playing area "without good reason". That latter qualification will ensure that, if there is an emergency and the pitch is a necessary way of escape, no offence will be committed. This is a welcome and necessary Bill. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House and express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North for his initiative in bringing it before us.

Column 734

2 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : I am glad to welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister and to confirm that the Bill has been considered in great detail by the Standing Committee and has received the wholehearted support of all that Committee's members, who also agreed with the Government's improvements and amendments. Those of us who serve on the Select Committee on Home Affairs are especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy, his interest in the progress of the Bill and his support for it. His comments were welcome indeed, and I add my support to what he said. In Committee, we had a useful debate on clause 1. The Bill sets a time limit of two hours before the start of a match. In that regard, my hon. Friend's reference to the Public Order Act 1986 is entirely appropriate. It is a perfectly fair and reasonable prescription with which I know that those who take an interest in the game of football agree.

The Bill goes on to deal with the objectionable practice of racialist chanting, and chanting of a threatening nature. My hon. Friend the Minister explained carefully why the Committee felt able to agree amendments requiring the offence to be proved where one or more persons are engaged in the action. I am satisfied that the police will have adequate powers to deal with incidents that cause great offence and that the Bill will be extremely useful to the game of football.

The Committee agreed to one other amendment, omitting the reference to Scotland. When it first considered the subject, the Home Affairs Committee felt it proper that Scotland should have the opportunity to enjoy the protection of the creation of offences under the Bill. However, the Committee and others concerned with the game of football fully agree that the law in Scotland is adequate and that the Scottish police have no particular difficulty. I am glad to assure the House, therefore, that the removal of the reference to Scotland is entirely satisfactory from every point of view.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : My hon. Friend will know that when the Select Committee investigated the policing of football hooliganism, its members went to a number of fixtures. Our junior Clerk and I went to the Skol cup final at Hampden Park in Glasgow and witnessed the entire police operation with the chief constable. The chief constable told me that he was anxious that we should not, in the course of our deliberations--from which this Bill follows--do anything to impede or impair the flexibility that the police in Scotland enjoy when policing football. Scottish common law is very different from ours. There are clearly occasions when the law in England, Wales and Scotland should run in parallel, but in this case Scottish law is superior to the law of England and Wales. The police in Scotland appear to have done a tremendous job of ridding Scottish football of much of the hooliganism that was, until five or six years ago, associated with the game there.

Sir John Wheeler : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and his agreement to omitting reference to Scotland from the Bill. My hon. Friend was burdened by the Committee with the duty of attending a game of football in Glasgow to witness the effectiveness of the policing operation- -

Column 735

Mr. John Greenway : On a Sunday.

Sir John Wheeler : Such is the measure of my hon. Friend's devotion to the inquiry on which the Committee had embarked. He is right to say that the Strathclyde police have worked out a formula for the policing of football. That formula, in association with the common law of Scotland and other legislation, has provided them with a highly effective method of policing. I have no wish to see those arrangements disturbed by the Bill and we are delighted to agree to the omission of Scotland from it.

Football has gone through a difficult period in recent years. The Committee's report on policing football hooliganism, which was well received by all with an interest in the game, will help to deal with improving the game for players and spectators, and will also help the clubs and be in the interests of the public. The adoption of the three offences originally recommended by Lord Justice Taylor will set fair the game of football in the coming season, assuming that the Bill receives support, as I believe it will, in the other place. The future of football also depends on the establishment of the new Football Licensing Authority, which will do an important job for the game. I am glad that the authority, together with officials from the Home Office, is doing such excellent work in support of the game. I conclude by referring to the work of the national football intelligence unit. During the Committee's inquiry, we formed the view that it is an organisation of great merit, containing especially dedicated police officers. The offences created under the Bill will be especially useful to the police, and the unit will be able to ensure that the police are possessed of all the information that they need to manage the game of football. The Bill leaves the House for the other place with the ringing endorsement of all those who have an interest in the game, and in the belief that it will contribute to the future of that important sport. I am glad that the

Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), has been able to lend his support and prestige to it.

2.10 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : I am glad that the Bill has reached this advanced stage so soon after publication of the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs into the policing of football hooliganism. Today's debate brings to an end a period of three or four years during which Parliament has tried to wrestle with the problem of football hooliganism.

I was not in favour of the proposal in the Football Spectators Bill for an identity scheme. We have had many debates about the best way to deal with football hooliganism and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, that Bill contained an extremely important proposal for the establishment of the Football Licensing Authority. My

Column 736

Bill and that authority will form a pincer movement for the better policing of football and for the greater safety of spectators. The horrific tragedy at Hillsborough two years ago showed that better policing and the safety of spectators cannot be considered separately. From the time that I watched on television the events at Sheffield that Saturday afternoon, I have been convinced that the erection of fences to stop people running on to the pitch was the ultimate cause of the tragedy. There was no means of lawful escape from the ground. The erection of fences, a measure designed to deal with the problem of hooliganism, gave rise to a far worse problem and caused the deaths of 95 people. Folk will say that there were other causes and contributory factors, and that is true, but if the fences had not been there people would have had a chance to escape.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : Does my hon. Friend agree that we should commend the greater resources that have been made available to the game following publication of the Taylor report? Those resources will enable clubs to bring their grounds and amenities up to date and provide for the greater safety of spectators.

Mr. Greenway : I entirely agree. Perhaps I should remind the House of my interest as president of York City football club. The measures in last year's Finance Act, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, were warmly welcomed throughout football. They are another feature of the change in atmosphere to be perceived in the world of football and its relationship to the House. The Bill is part of that change. The help provided by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in guiding the Bill through Committee and on to the statute book must not be underestimated. I know that he agrees that the House should remind people, particularly those associated with football --spectators, those running the clubs, the Football Association and the Football League--that the measure has not been introduced to enable the police to arrest more young people on a Saturday afternoon and lock them up. We are introducing it because we want to prevent the sort of tragedy that occurred at Hillsborough. It is a preventive measure. People should know when they attend a football match that if they misbehave--three specific forms of misbehaviour are specified--by chanting abuse, throwing missiles or running on to the pitch, the wrath of football and of the law will come down heavily upon them. We are talking of behaviour that can lead to a considerable tragedy if it is not curtailed. It is not merely anti- social behaviour. It must be the hope of us all that the Bill will discourage such behaviour. In the long term, that will be why the measure will be recognised as a great boost for the game of football. It can help us to rid football of the hooliganism that has besmirched our national game for far too long. I greatly welcome the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Next Section

Home Page