| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has made the point that I intended to raise. Pitch invasions are common occurrences at rugby grounds after international matches. People may not welcome it, but the pitch invasion is not regarded as a violent criminal activity or a serious
problem. The youngsters who exuberantly invade the pitch when their side wins are not potential criminals, and should not be regarded as such.
Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reinforcing my point. We must be careful when regulating sporting events--or anything at all, for that matter--that we do not over-regulate to the point where we deny the genuine supporter the right to express genuine support.
I have sat in the north stand at Highbury and some of the people whose company I have shared on those occasions have been robust. Some of the language used would not necessarily be the kind that is spoken at ladies' tea parties in my constituency. However, I hesitate to say that I found it wildly offensive in that context--I refer to the north stand and not to the ladies' tea parties.
Mr. Fabricant:
I shall give another Australian example to reinforce my hon. Friend's point that it is a question of degree and how one perceives hooliganism. Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that the New South Wales Legislative Assembly is discussing legislation to stop hooliganism at Australian Rules football matches in the form of the Mexican wave? That is what that assembly regards as hooligan behaviour.
Mr. Gale:
My hon. Friend makes my point. I understand that the Mexican wave has become part of the game of football. Other hon. Members may find it offensive, but I certainly do not.
We must address some serious issues. I said yesterday--I am surprised to find myself saying it again today--that we are in danger of invoking the law of unintended consequence. I am worried that, unless it is addressed carefully in Committee, the Bill--which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has had the good fortune to introduce this morning--will have unintended consequences that may penalise not those whom we wish to penalise but the genuine supporters who go about their lawful and genuine business of supporting their team.
I do not want to see innocent fans either caught up in a riot that is not of their making and branded as football hooligans by accident, or denied the right to travel wherever in the world they wish to support their teams. Of course, I also recognise the right of the majority to enjoy their civil liberties and the peace and quiet of their towns, be it Marseilles or elsewhere. We witnessed totally unacceptable violent scenes in France during the world cup. However, I am not certain that my hon. Friend's Bill seriously addresses any of those issues.
First and foremost, young people--which is what many football supporters are--look to football players as their heroes. There was a time when every inch of wall and ceiling space in my son's bedroom was covered with pictures of one or other members of the team that he supports. I find nothing wrong with that: it is understandable and right. Because those players--it has been said this morning that they are very well paid--are such heroes and are so important, it is vital that they set the finest possible examples. Nothing in this Bill deals with that issue.
It is absolutely vital that players understand the laws of their game and respect the officials who are required to preside, now more than ever, in the glare of not only
floodlights but television cameras that are able, within 30 seconds, to replay every incident and thus reveal every mistake that human officials indubitably make. That is one of the core problems, and the Bill does not address it.
Although the sentiment behind it may be extremely worthy, I am deeply concerned by the suggestion that banning orders should be imposed against people who have not been convicted of an offence. I dare say that significant numbers of policemen policing the streets of London would dearly love to be able to arrest and lock up people who have not been convicted but whom they know to be villains. However, the law does not allow the police to do that--for a very good reason. As was reiterated yesterday, our criminal justice system is designed fundamentally to protect the interests of the defendant. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) reminded the House yesterday in another context that, in court, the interests of the defendant--who may lose his or her liberty in extreme circumstances--are paramount.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford did not answer my question when I intervened earlier, so I shall ask it again. The National Criminal Intelligence Service performs a vital service in the fight against crime and is very good at gathering information. Should we impose banning orders on the known burglar who is unconvicted, the unconvicted known sex offender or the unconvicted known City fraudster because they might intend to travel to Italy to perpetrate a burglary, to the south of France to commit a sexual offence, or to Geneva to practise financial fraud? Is that what we are saying? That is the logical extension of the proposals. I do not understand how, in a civilised, free democracy, which is dependent on the rule of law, one can say to someone before they have committed an offence, "We think that you will commit an offence, so we shall take away your passport." That is what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Greenway:
I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, but what would he say if the National Criminal Intelligence Service had video footage of events in Marseilles in which individuals could clearly be seen committing violent acts and causing damage but, because they were returned swiftly to this country, they were never convicted? Would he regard the use of such video footage as a reasonableness test under which a restriction order might be valid?
Mr. Gale:
I have to say to my hon. Friend that that may be a case for changing the law to allow those people to be prosecuted and convicted in the United Kingdom, and therefore banned, but it is not, in itself, a case for instituting a banning order.
Before my hon. Friend takes that argument any further, he should pay attention to the point, made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), that many people were caught up in riots in Marseilles through no fault of their own and wanted to get away. If any of those people had been seen throwing a punch, it might well have been because someone with evil intent had just belted them and they were defending themselves. That person could find themselves on the wrong side of a
banning order, just as easily as could the person whom my hon. Friend and I would wish to prevent from causing further trouble.
Mr. Fabricant:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That happened not only in Marseilles but in Toulon, where a friend of mine picked up a table to defend himself. I could well imagine a camera picking him out while he was doing so, and, under these provisions, he could have had his passport withdrawn when he was only trying to defend himself against football rioters.
Mr. Gale:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I shall move on because I am conscious of the time.
Mr. Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston):
Returning to the hon. Gentleman's analogy of a burglar, let me say that I agree with him that we would not want to stop people travelling abroad on holiday because they had been convicted of burglary in the past. However, I am sure that he would agree that, if we had information that such a person was part of a gang that intended to commit burglary on the continent--that is how football hooligans work--that person should be prevented from travelling abroad.
Mr. Gale:
There is no provision in law for that to happen, although the hon. Gentleman may want to change the law to that effect. We are proposing to single out supporters of a particular game--we are not discussing cricket or rugby supporters--and apply to them a specially created legal provision.
The police in my constituency tell me that, if they could lock up a certain dozen or so people overnight, that would lead to a reduction, overnight, of the burglaries in the area because most of those are committed, or instigated, by that small number of people. However, the law does not permit that because we have a justice system that is still based on the presumption that somebody is innocent until proven guilty. If we are to change that basis, we must carefully think through the consequences of doing so.
Mr. Burns:
I certainly agree with that sentiment, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill's proposals are not unique in British law? Such powers already exist in cases of non-convicted people on bail and non-convicted people who are suspected of being likely to take their child out of the country.
Mr. Gale:
I heard my hon. Friend use those two examples in his opening remarks, and I heard, with equal clarity, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), a former Home Office Minister, demonstrate clearly why there is a fundamental difference between those provisions and what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are proposing.
There are two positive aspects that the Bill does not address, but that should be dealt with in any legislation on this subject. The fundamental ingredients of good practice are good facilities and good stadiums. To make the point brutally, if one treats people like pigs, some of them are likely to behave like pigs. Most, if not all, first-class stadiums are all-seater and most offer good sanitation and adequate lavatory facilities that do not become clogged and revolting at half-time. Most offer
good food at reasonable prices and good drink outlets capable of serving modest quantities to large numbers of people at peak times.
Those factors enhance people's enjoyment of the game and diminish the possibility of them feeling anger and frustration. Facilities are a key issue that must be addressed, not only for football but for all sports in this and other countries. We have to seek enhancement at every level, not only at Premier league grounds, of the facilities available to those who, at the end of the day, pay the wages of the footballers, cricketers or rugby players. It grieves me that so much money has been wasted--on the wretched dome, for example--that could have been spent usefully to enhance facilities for young sports men and women and the fans that seek to enjoy the games. In considering the Bill, the House should take a long, hard look at the provision of facilities.
The second, crucial aspect, which has been mentioned several times this morning, is ticketing. I am fortunate to have a constituency that places me within easy reach of France. I have significant numbers of friends in France; I choose to spend my holidays there and I visit the country regularly. In the run-up to the previous world cup series, the ticketing arrangements--never mind in the United Kingdom, but in France itself--were a joke. The manner in which the allocation of tickets for key matches was handled was outrageous. I suspect that one of the problems that led to violence was the anger and frustration expressed by genuine supporters who felt that they were being ripped off.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |