House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Apr 1999 (pt 3)

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, although there is not a huge attendance in the Chamber

16 Apr 1999 : Column 476

today, his last comment has left the House in stunned silence. Does he accept that there is a huge qualitative difference between the two precedents that he quotes for restricting the rights of people to travel abroad and the circumstances of a person who is not convicted of a crime being prevented from travelling abroad simply because people think that he is a criminal? Surely there must be European Court of Human Rights implications for that move.

Mr. Burns: I fully understand my right hon. Friend's concerns, although it will have come as no great surprise to the Chamber to hear me make those comments because it has been widely publicised over the past few months that I would hope to include that provision in the Bill at some stage. I do not share the full concern of my right hon. Friend because, if this provision were included in the Bill at a later stage--I say "if", because it will be up to hon. Members to decide whether the Bill is amended--the power would not be used willy-nilly on a whim.

Due to the actions of my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, we now have the National Criminal Intelligence Service, a highly sophisticated, effective intelligence-gathering unit, which has done much since its creation to help to combat and overcome problems of football hooliganism. The NCIS knows many individuals who are hard-core organisers or participants in football hooliganism, who have been fortunate not to have been charged or convicted and who carry on their illegal activities. It would be up to the courts to decide whether the individual concerned should have a banning order placed on him, based on evidence, intelligence and the test of reasonableness that is used in other aspects of British law.

If someone were to find himself in that position, he would have the right to appear or to be represented in court to argue that it would be wrong to issue a banning order and, if an order were issued, then to appeal. I am satisfied that there are enough checks and balances in the system for that power not to be abused. Obviously, however, that matter will have to be discussed in Committee and the wishes of the House will have to be taken fully into account before any change is made--if a change is made--in Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border also mentioned human rights. I assure him that that matter will be looked into before any amendments are tabled, because one does not want to seek to amend a good piece of legislation with something that might contravene our wider obligations.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will read what he has said in Hansard and reflect on it. He seems to have said, "Don't worry, there is now a sophisticated intelligence-gathering mechanism within our society, which can make accusations against individuals, who, with no due process of law, can then be subject to this sort of sanction." To my mind, that sounds uncannily akin to the old Soviet Union. It, too, had a sophisticated intelligence-gathering mechanism that could encroach on people's freedoms without the due process of law that we used to think distinguished us from that country.

Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend uses characteristically colourful language. Let me seek to

16 Apr 1999 : Column 477

reassure him. I am sure that he welcomes the fact that we set up the NCIS in the early 1990s. It has done tremendous work, in the field not only of football-related crime but of drugs, counterfeiting and so on, which is helping to improve the security of the ordinary citizen. Obviously, those who work for the NCIS are extremely experienced and good at knowing who may be involved in illegal activities surrounding football.

My right hon. Friend suggests that there would be no due process of law. There would be, because an order would not simply be issued willy-nilly. Any case would have to go before the courts, where the NCIS would have to prove that there were reasonable grounds to believe that, if a person travelled abroad to a football match, he or she might commit an act of violence and disorder. Given that that individual would be able to appear in court or be represented in court to put the case as to why that should not happen, and have a right of appeal if the court decided that there was sufficient reasonableness to believe that he would commit an act of violence or disorder, there are safeguards.

This proposal is just a suggestion. It would have to be discussed in Committee, and whether it becomes part of the Bill would depend on the wishes of this House.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): My hon. Friend ignores the first rule of holesmanship: when one is in a hole, one stops digging. He raised this matter on the Floor of the House this morning, and is now pleading that it will be all right because it will be discussed in Committee. Is he seriously saying that, if the NCIS has information that leads it to believe that a man is a burglar, although he has no convictions for burglary, and he is going to travel abroad to Spain where he might burgle somebody, his passport should be taken away?

Mr. Burns: No, I am saying that, if the NCIS has evidence that leads it to believe that somebody is likely to commit a football-related offence abroad and incite football-related violence or disorder, the NCIS may have, if the amendment is accepted in Committee, the right to go to court to try to get a banning order.

I have raised the matter this morning because I do not want to be accused of glossing over it, or of misleading the House. I am trying to explain exactly what my Bill does and how I should like to see it amended. Whether it is amended or not is not up to me; it is up to hon. Members. However, I do not want to be accused of bad faith in not spelling out at the start what I should like to see in the Bill so that people can take a global view of this legislation.

As we have just seen from interventions, there are civil liberties concerns. However, it is equally important that innocent football fans also have civil liberties to enjoy football matches peacefully. We should not lose sight of the fact that their civil liberties are constantly infringed by a mindless minority.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Will my hon. Friend go a little further and say that the House should also have regard to the civil liberties of the communities who suffer when those who are clearly intent on wanton violence and vandalism, or who are known to the police to be inciting such behaviour, travel abroad and commit such offences? Does he agree that, when the House addresses where the

16 Apr 1999 : Column 478

balance should be struck in that regard, we must remember the television pictures that we saw showing what happened to businesses in Marseilles and other communities in the south of France, which brought shame on this country?

Mr. Burns: I wholeheartedly share my hon. Friend's sentiments.

Clause 9 closes a loophole in existing legislation on racist and obscene chanting. At present, it is an offence for two or more people to indulge in that disgraceful and disgusting activity with regard to football. The Bill will extend the powers to individuals.

Clause 10 closes a loophole on ticket touting by extending the law to cover the sale of tickets for designated football matches played overseas. Tickets for overseas matches will be sold legally only by authorised sellers.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burns: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to progress, as several hon. Members wish to speak.

The Bill will impose an estimated additional cost to the public purse of about £100,000, and additional manpower is estimated at five staff. The Bill would come into force two months after receiving Royal Assent, and would therefore be in place in time for most of the next football season.

I am extremely grateful for the cross-party support that the Bill has attracted. This should not be a partisan, party political matter. We should unite in seeking to combat the horror and misery caused by football hooliganism. The Bill tries to do so by closing loopholes in existing law and giving the authorities and courts greater powers to bring thugs and hooligans to justice.

I am heartened by the support attracted by the Government's consultation and my Bill. Many members of the public have written to me offering support. In addition, the Football Association has said of the consultation document, and, by implication, the Bill:

"Abuses by a small number of hooligans of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority make the other measures justified. They will help preserve the civil liberties of the vast majority of the population."

The NCIS said: