| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): Because that is not working.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Lady anticipates the point that I was about to make.
We have some experience of the existing legislation, and now Parliament is being asked to improve it and get rid of the deficiencies. That is exactly what we are here for, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask us to do it. I hope that that argument answers those who ask why all this was not done in the first place. We are not imposing draconian measures just for the sake of it, but we are thinking about slightly more draconian laws now, in the light of our experience of the problems that I have outlined.
Against that background, we should commend my hon. Friend for the ideas that he has suggested to solve our present difficulties. However, as we reflect with care on those measures, we must keep in mind the fact that there are civil liberties implications, about which I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have strong views.
The surrender of passports should not be introduced lightly--
Mr. Greenway:
There are circumstances in which the surrender of passports may be appropriate.
Mr. Gale:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Greenway:
Before my hon. Friend intervenes, I want to say that I do not believe that what is proposed in the Bill will lead to the wholesale surrender and confiscation of passports. It is my understanding and
Mr. Gale:
My hon. Friend has half addressed the point that I wanted to make. We are talking not about the surrender of passports but about their confiscation, which is a serious issue.
Mr. Greenway:
I am not entirely sure that we are talking about the surrender of passports; it is more a matter of handing them in for a few days and getting them back when the match is over.
Mr. Fabricant:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Greenway:
No, because I have explained the point.
Mr. Fabricant:
No, you have not.
Mr. Greenway:
All right, I will give way.
Mr. Fabricant:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me, so that I can explain that there is one hell of a difference between surrender and confiscation. Surrender is when someone voluntarily says, "Here is my navy blue British passport," and hands it in. Confiscation is when the passport is snatched from someone, which is wholly unconstitutional.
Mr. Greenway:
I shall not even attempt to answer that intervention because what my hon. Friend says is complete nonsense. We are talking about people being required to surrender their passports for a few days, but such a measure should not be introduced lightly. I do not believe that the courts would do so in any event. The key question is not one of confiscation or surrender; it is of where we strike a balance. That is the issue that the House is asked to confront in my hon. Friend's Bill.
I commented earlier that, in debating this issue today, we are not in what one might term knee-jerk reaction mode, responding to some awful event a few days ago. That is a distinct advantage. We are in a position to make a hard-headed assessment of what more we should do. We must accept that experience tells us that the scenes of violence that we have seen before will be repeated. Sadly, no one will be surprised when they are. Moreover, we can anticipate with certainty that the public will then rightly ask why more was not done by the authorities, by the Government and by Parliament to prevent known hooligans from travelling abroad, or to obstruct the activities of those known by the police to be hellbent on causing trouble in a foreign land, inciting others to violence and to criminal damage.
As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, when it comes to civil liberties, we must also consider the liberties and rights of those who will otherwise be the victims of the thuggery and wanton vandalism that some are intent on causing, not just at home but, significantly, abroad as well. Those hooligans have shamed our nation and besmirched our international reputation. Faced with that fact, we must be a little more circumspect about immediately taking the
view that civil liberties should override our concerns about those matters. I do not believe that they should. The case for intervention is overwhelming.
We must bear those concerns in mind when we consider the Bill. They will be even more relevant when we consider the proposed amendment that my hon. Friend outlined, which would seek to extend banning orders or restriction orders to some individuals who do not have previous convictions. They may have no previous convictions at all or, more likely, they may have no previous convictions for football-related violent offences. That is an important distinction. Over time, other measures in the Bill, particularly in clause 2, might in part address that problem. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border that it is a good idea to consider extending the definition of a football-related offence, because more of those people might then be caught.
The question arises--I think that this is the issue that my hon. Friend seeks to address in his amendment--whether the courts should have appropriate powers to restrict individuals' freedom of movement where police intelligence clearly indicates that those targeted are intent on incitement to violence, and whether something more could be done, albeit at the expense of offending our civil liberties sensibilities.
About a year ago, during the Report stage of what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), in response to what happened in France, made proposals for football behaviour orders. The concept behind such orders is clear in the anti-social behaviour orders provided for in the Act. There may be a case, if individuals are known to be likely to cause trouble to others, for establishing a football behaviour order which, like the anti-social behaviour order, would not require a previous conviction.
In the past few days, the Home Secretary has responded to that proposal in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), in which he set out the extent to which the Government have reviewed the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford will be aware of the outcome of those deliberations. That has led him to conclude--at short notice and without being able to consult some of the Bill's sponsors--that it may be possible to include such a proposal in this Bill, which represents the only legislative opportunity for doing something to tackle the problem.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for recognising in his letter that the Opposition will need time to reflect on the possibility, and for suggesting that the Under-Secretary and I--and our colleagues--discuss how to proceed. We shall certainly do so.
My instincts are that we ought to be able to find a framework that strikes the right balance, although that is by no means a certainty. After Bergkamp's missed
penalty, it is clear that nothing is certain in football, so why should we expect certainty in the legislation that we propose to deal with hooliganism?
Mr. Banks:
It was a good save.
Mr. Greenway:
It certainly was. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made an important point when he said that other solutions are possible, and I think that he is right.
I say to those of my hon. Friends who have doubts about the Bill that the House has a duty to find a way to deal with the problem. They need to keep it in mind that we are not talking about trying to prevent something that is unlikely to happen. Experience tells us that the problems of violent behaviour with which we are all too familiar will happen again. The police and the football authorities know that, and they know who the perpetrators will be. The 2000 European championship tournament is coming up, and Britain is keen to host the 2006 world cup.
I hope that that world cup competition is held here, but for many years the House used to tell the football authorities to put their house in order. They have done so, and now their encouragement of action by this House is part of their responsible response to the problem. We should support the football authorities in return.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey):
I am grateful for the opportunity to give the Government's response to this private Member's Bill, which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) presented to the House for Second Reading. I congratulate him not merely on winning the ballot, but on his choice of Bill. Also, like the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), I pay tribute to the reasoned and articulate way in which he presented what, to some people, is a complicated Bill.
Ten years ago this year, on 27 June 1989, during the passage of the Football Spectators Bill, I made my maiden speech--I share with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) the way I voted on that Bill. I started off then by expressing my passion, and that of millions of others, for football. I am happy to say that a decade later my enthusiasm has not diminished and I still share it with many millions of people. I also share the hon. Gentleman's distress at Wednesday night's result--the two Front-Bench speakers are both Arsenal supporters.
I am pleased that, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford indicated, the proposals in the Bill are targeted at the small minority of so-called supporters who cause trouble. I welcome the fact that the overriding aim of the Bill is to look after and protect the interests of the decent, law-abiding supporter. In this era of multi-million pound transfers, massive salaries, huge television deals and worldwide audiences for the sport, we must not forget--and, most importantly, those running football
must not forget--that football supporters remain the greatest asset that the professional game has. It is their interests, safety and security that must remain paramount to all those involved in every aspect of the sport.
With those sentiments in mind, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched a public consultation exercise last November to consider measures to deal with football hooliganism. The exercise sought comments on the 29 recommendations contained in the "Review of Football-Related Legislation", which was issued by officials. The report provided a useful platform for discussion and was issued to those involved in football at all levels, the policing authorities and the wider community. It gave an opportunity to influence the direction of Government policy through constructive criticism and support.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |