| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.16 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): There is only one point that I wish to make, and it is about the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that, in Committee, he will introduce a provision
whereby people who are as yet unconvicted of hooliganism, but whom the court has reasonable grounds to suspect may be a danger to the public, will have to surrender their passports.
I want to talk about that because of my experience not only as a practising barrister and Member of Parliament but as one of those who sat through the passage of what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Two precedents have been adduced in favour of the concept of ordering people as yet unconvicted to surrender their passports. The first relates to bail--a point that has already been adequately dealt with. If one is ordered to surrender one's passport while on bail, one must already have been charged with a criminal offence. I should add that, under the Bail Acts, there is an injunction on courts to grant bail except in the most serious cases.
The point about bail has therefore already been dealt with, but I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, after a brief absence, has returned to the Chamber, because I am about to talk about my experience during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act, which set the precedent.
During the passage of the Bill, Conservative Members, perhaps surprisingly, raised many concerns about the civil liberties implications of the anti-social behaviour orders, which the orders that we are talking about today will probably resemble. Labour Members had a bit of fun by asking why I was following the line of Liberty, because they would not have expected somebody with my past to support that organisation. However, if Liberty has a good case, of course I will support it--and I am concerned about civil liberties.
Why are we worried? The problems that the Crime and Disorder Act and the Bill before us are intended to deal with are similar. On some council estates, there are families from hell who make people's lives a problem, and it is difficult to prosecute them, difficult to make a charge stick beyond reasonable doubt, and difficult to get witnesses. The same will be true of football hooliganism, which I must quickly add is a curse on society. None of us wants to stop football hooligans being dealt with expeditiously and properly. That is why I am sure that my hon. Friend was right to introduce the Bill.
We have a problem. How should we deal with football hooligans? The Government came up with a response in the Crime and Disorder Act and are now supporting this Bill, which offers the same response: because those matters cannot be proved in a court of law, another procedure must be introduced. The Bill says that an international banning order can be made if the court
When we raised those concerns during our debates on the Crime and Disorder Bill, the response from the then Minister of State at the Home Office, now the Welsh
Secretary, was, "I don't know what you're worried about. We had to deal with the tremendous problem of people on council estates and there was no other way in which to do so. We are not talking about a criminal conviction, so why are you so worried? An order will be placed on people; it will result in their having a curfew placed on them, but it is not a criminal conviction. Why, therefore, should matters be proved beyond reasonable doubt? In any case, we are performing a public good."
Various questions need to be asked relating to the civil liberties of the individual concerned. They relate to the burden of proof but also to the fact that, if one disobeys, say, a curfew under the Crime and Disorder Act, or a banning order under this Bill, one will be liable to a criminal conviction. Under the Crime and Disorder Act, that could involve several months in prison. Thus, we could have the extraordinary result that someone ends up in prison having never been convicted of a criminal offence--their only offence would be failing to comply with an order.
Hon. Members will understand, therefore, why I am concerned, on civil liberties grounds, about the surrender of passports for unconvicted people. That may sound a detailed point coming from a lawyer, and people may ask whether we should be worried about it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford is not trying to replicate what has been done in other countries or what happens in repressive societies, but the fact remains that the mark of a repressive or totalitarian society, or a society not ruled by law, is that the authorities take passports away from people at whim and claim that the individual concerned is a danger to the public. As my hon. Friend reminds us, passports are the property of Her Majesty's Government.
However, passports are never taken away by the Government of this country unless someone is either convicted of a criminal offence or in danger of being so convicted. Under the Bill, someone's passport could be taken away because there are reasonable grounds in the minds of the authorities that that person may cause trouble abroad.
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove):
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, as I have been here all morning--unlike the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who I thought should have made some apology to the House for coming into the Chamber late and speaking ahead of other hon. Members.
However, I shall begin by congratulating the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his selection of the Bill, and on his presentation of its proposals. A few weeks ago, I drove past Chelmsford on my way to Southend to watch my beloved Brighton and
Hove Albion. Afterwards, I wished that I had not watched the match, as my team lost 3:0--one of Southend's rare victories this season--but two things worried me about the game.
I assume that Southend is the closest football league club to the constituency of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. More than 3,000 Brighton supporters travelled to the match and a small minority, through their actions during the game, brought disrepute on the club and on football. The problems that day were compounded by the fact that, although Southend's stand for visiting fans is all-seater, it retains the old-style fence. The result was that, although the Southend football club authorities wanted fans in that stand to sit down, those people had to stand up because their seats were below the level of the fence. While we should in no way condone the actions of the mindless morons who that day insulted the football club that I support, we must realise that a balance should be struck between the needs of clubs and those of supporters.
I support the Bill, which will help to maintain the great enjoyment that football supporters derive from the game. As has been said, more than 22 million people go to matches each year, and there are relatively few arrests. As I researched my speech, I recalled that, nearly a year ago--on 21 April 1998--I asked a question about the matter. The answer that I received--from the then Minister of State, who is now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales--stated that 22.8 million people attended matches in 1996-97, excluding cup competition games. The total of only 3,500 arrests was down from the 4,500 of five years earlier, when attendance was only 20 million. Much progress has been made, and I want to pay tribute to all those hon. Members who have contributed to that progress over the years.
When the Bill becomes law, it will give this country one of the best legal frameworks for tackling football-related offences anywhere in the world--an important United Kingdom contribution that will benefit football everywhere. The Bill tightens up some existing laws, and at least begins to recognise that changes are taking place in football, one of the biggest of which is the greater involvement of supporters' groups.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentionedthe views of the Football Supporters Association and of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. The Centre for Football Research carried out a very good survey at the end of the 1996-97 season. It showed that only 5 per cent. of regular supporters--the people who go to watch clubs outside the premiership, such as Brighton and Hove Albion or Cheltenham Town--thought that trouble was increasing in and around grounds. The survey concluded its final chapter on spectator behaviour by stating:
This week, a fellow Brighton and Hove Albion supporter, Paul Hayward--he is not able to reveal it when he is writing as lead writer for The Daily Telegraph--said, and I must point out that this is a quote so that the hon. Member for Lichfield does not leap up and have a go at me:
For many years, I have been particularly concerned about racist chanting, which the Taylor report mentioned. The report recommended that future legislation should contain provisions to enable an individual to be charged for such an offence. Therefore, I am pleased that the Bill will finally, eight or nine years later, bring into being that recommendation. It would give the police stronger powers to act against racist and indecent chanting of the type that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford described.
Football clubs can do much work and there have been some good examples--Charlton Athletic and Leyton Orient in London spring to mind. However, to give my own club a plug--we do not get that many--in December, when the Home Secretary and my hon. Friends first raised the issue, the programme for one of Brighton and Hove Albion's matches contained a statement signed by all the supporters' representatives, the board of directors, management and players, which I sent to my hon. Friend the Minister. It stated:
"is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making the order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with designated football matches."
What worries me about that is the level of proof. Our system of justice is clear: if one is to be convicted of an offence, the state brings the case and must prove that one is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Under the Bill, the authorities must have reasonable grounds for believing that somebody may cause trouble abroad and will have to prove that on the civil balance of proof, not the criminal balance of proof. They will not have to prove those matters beyond reasonable doubt.
"These, in short, are not the statistics of a sport still plagued, at the highest level, by hooliganism."
It is important to keep in mind, as we debate this subject, that we are dealing with a small minority of people. We must deal with them effectively, as the Bill does, but we must keep the problem in context. There has been a considerable improvement in the stadiums of England and Wales, in particular as a result of action taken since the Taylor report on that horrific day 10 years ago. I think that we all remember exactly where we were when we saw the pictures at 3.5 pm on that day.
"our stadiums are mostly cathedrals of good policing and common sense. In Italy they still throw coins and bottles on the pitch. If that happened in the Premiership the ground would be closed for three months."
That is an indication of how far football and football supporters have come in England, Wales and Scotland.
"Quite simply, violence, threatening behaviour and racism will not be tolerated by Brighton and Hove Albion . . . Don't allow anyone to drag our well-deserved reputation through the mud."
That is an important contribution that football clubs, supporters, boards of directors and players can make towards ensuring that stadiums and places where we watch football are safe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |