---

Subscription Television (Prevention of Monopoly Sports Broadcasts)

Mr. Crispin Blunt accordingly presented a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 144].

20 Jun 2000 : Column 157

20 Jun 2000 : Column 159

Opposition Day

[14th Allotted Day]

Football Hooliganism

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.42 pm

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): I beg to move,

That this House condemns unreservedly the actions of hooligans purporting to support the England football team at the Euro 2000 championships; hopes that there will be no repetition of these actions and that UEFA's threat to expel the England team from the tournament will not be acted upon; notes that UEFA and others have criticised the Government's lack of action to tackle football hooliganism; further notes that proposals to stop unconvicted hooligans from travelling to international matches were brought forward by Opposition honourable Members during proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 but were not taken up by the Government, despite the Minister for Sport's statement that such powers were necessary; calls on the Home Secretary to explain the inaction and delay that has characterised the Government's approach, despite the undertakings given by Ministers to bring forward their own proposals; and calls on the Government urgently to take the action it has promised for two years to tackle the problem of the thugs who are a disgrace to this country's proud footballing tradition.

Members on both sides of the House will deplore the violence that has been seen on the streets of Brussels and of Charleroi over the past few days. The hooligan element--who may describe themselves as football fans, but are nothing of the sort--are a disgrace to this country. They have brought shame to it and to our national game. They have, very sadly indeed, detracted from the magnificent win that our team managed against Germany, which we hope to see repeated on many occasions.

I pay tribute to our team, who have played their boldest and their best, and to our law enforcement agencies, including the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and those in Belgium and the Netherlands who have worked so hard to ensure that the scenes that we witnessed did not deteriorate into something worse. I also pay tribute to the work of the Football Association and the England coach, Kevin Keegan. They have rightly called on the hooligans to back the efforts made by the team on the field of play and to cease their actions off it. We must all hope that the scenes witnessed last week are not repeated, either tonight or in coming days, and that UEFA's threat to expel the so very well performing England team from the tournament is not acted on.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Has the right hon. Lady noticed that for England's games, the Belgian police prepared for a riot and allowed the sale of double strength beer whereas the Dutch police prepared for a party with pop music and half-strength beer, and by encouraging the use of a drug that has a calming effect? The expectations of both police forces were fulfilled. Should not the Belgian police take a leaf out of the Dutch book?

Miss Widdecombe: I am not sure whether we have heard the genuine voice of the Labour party; I suspect that

20 Jun 2000 : Column 160

Labour Front Benchers would probably say not. I shall refer to beer later on, but shall not comment on those other matters.

During a debate in June 1998, after the violence in the world cup, the Home Secretary said:

Last Monday, I spoke to Mr. Chevenement to apologise on behalf of the British Government and people for the events in Marseilles. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that such disgraceful scenes are not repeated in future soccer tournaments.--[Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 720.]

Yesterday, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister spoke of their deep apologies to the people of Belgium, and promised action to reinforce our determination to stamp out hooliganism overseas. Those words were worryingly familiar.

Two years separated those statements and those events. During that time, nothing has been done to effect the Home Secretary's promises. Yesterday, in his statement to the House, the Home Secretary showed the muddle that he had got into. It is not surprising that he is in a muddle. He cannot even agree with his junior Minister on the best policy.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House--this may interest the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)--that he hoped that the Belgian authorities

will follow the lead of the Dutch authorities. Alcohol was not banned in the Netherlands, but regulations were laid down requiring the sale only of very low-strength alcohol. That seems to have worked satisfactorily.--[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 43.]

Will the Home Secretary clarify the Government's policy? Last month, Lord Bassam, who is responsible for the matter, called for a complete ban on the sale of alcohol in Euro 2000 host cities. He said that he did not want beer-fuelled fighting on the streets. Is Government policy in favour of a complete ban, or is it that alcohol should not be banned? The policy is unclear.

What has been happening the past two years is even less clear. There is an enormous difference between the Government's rhetoric and their actions. In view of specific statements by the Home Secretary in the past few days, it is worth putting on record the course that the debate has taken in the past two years.

First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He had the foresight to raise the matter of sanctions against unconvicted football hooligans as long ago as June 1998. He tabled amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill more than two years ago. Those amendments would have allowed the courts to place restrictions on anyone who

acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order . . . is necessary to prevent him from disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom . . .

I must give the Home Secretary some credit because he was not wholly unreceptive. He said that my right hon. Friend's proposal for a football behaviour order was an important idea and that the Government would sit down and work on it. He has certainly been sitting down ever since.

In a subsequent letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the Home Secretary said:

I feel that this proposal is very important.

20 Jun 2000 : Column 161

Last night, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), told "Channel 4 News" that there was "a very strong case" for the proposal. However, it seems that the case has not been strong enough until now, and the proposal was not sufficiently important for the Home Secretary to include it in any of the 10 Home Office Bills this Session.

Following the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, Conservative Members did not give up. The proposal was again made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), to whom I also pay tribute for his work, during Second Reading of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the Home Secretary said:

a number of Members taking part expressed their concern

during the debate. Subsequently, the Home Secretary, his Ministers and his spin doctors have tried to perpetuate the unsustainable contention that it was exclusively Opposition Back Benchers who expressed that anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed that this "important provision" was

dropped because the bill was disrupted by a minority of Conservative backbenchers.

In a letter to me, the Home Secretary condemned what he had the audacity to call "Conservative wrecking tactics". He should tell his spin doctors not to claim what the record so easily disproves--or, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said yesterday with admirable straightforwardness, he should not "rewrite history". However, the right hon. Gentleman did not instruct his spin doctors that way. Instead, he grasped hold of that ludicrous spin like a drowning man clutching at straws--[Interruption.] No pun intended.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Was it not totally wrong, on a issue such as this, to state on Second Reading that there would be a major amendment to a private Member's Bill? On an issue of such importance and on which there was a consensus across the House, would not Government legislation have been more appropriate, to ensure that it would gain Royal Assent and become law?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is right and speaks a good deal of sense. He will see that that matches what we expected to happen. For although it may be true that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised concerns, so also did several Labour Members, including the hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary and his spin doctors have never even hinted at that, yet the hon. Members who expressed concern included the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who warned that the orders could be made to apply to what he described as "innocent" fans, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who said:

I would be extremely concerned if . . . we went further down the road of giving greater powers to the police in cases where convictions have not been confirmed. . . We should allow nothing . . . to compromise our commitment to civil liberty.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) urged consideration of what he described as "the human rights implications" and warned of the creation of "a serious

20 Jun 2000 : Column 162

precedent", and the hon. Member for Burnley said that the course of action proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford was "dangerous", and added:

I have always been quite strong on civil liberty and human rights issues.--[Official Report, 16 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 491-99.]

---