| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) and Order [25 October 1999],
- That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Business of the House (Football (Disorder) Bill) and the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Business of the House (Football (Disorder) Bill)
7.24 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
- That, at this day's sitting, as soon as the proceedings on this Motion have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill shall be read.
There has been support right across the House for further urgent measures to combat football hooliganism. I am grateful for the advice, ideas and proposals that Members of both Houses have already made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that he wishes to proceed by consensus as far as possible. A draft Bill has been available since last Friday. A number of meetings have been held and the Bill has been improved already as a result.
I have suggested that the House will want to make progress quickly on this matter, while at the same time ensuring adequate scrutiny. The Second Reading debate will give us an important opportunity to make judgments on the degree of consensus and support for the measures that we propose. I look forward to that debate.
7.25 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): The Opposition share the hon. Gentleman's desire to move on to the substantive business as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will, of course, outline the Opposition's position on the Bill with clarity and vigour.
Although we are far from happy about many of the things that have happened over the past week in the background to the Bill, nevertheless we wish the Second Reading debate to begin soon. We wish it to be a thorough debate, and we want the Bill to be properly and carefully scrutinised on Monday.
- That, at this day's sitting, as soon as the proceedings on this Motion have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill shall be read.
Football (Disorder) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
7.26 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In my statement on 4 July, I told the House that additional measures were required to prevent a recurrence of the appalling scenes witnessed in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000. I outlined what those measures should be and why it was important that they were introduced as soon as possible. However, I pointed out that Members of this House and the other place quite properly take their responsibilities for examining legislation very seriously and recognise the need to combine speed with careful scrutiny.
The next international game for the England football team will be against France in Paris on 2 September. The National Criminal Intelligence Service is of the opinion that this is a high-risk game. I hope that in view of this, right hon. and hon. Members will understand why we need the proposed measure in place before the House rises at the end of this month, if that is at all possible.
To assist the House and the other place, I published this Bill as a preliminary draft on Friday last, and I have made myself available ever since to discuss the proposals with Members of both Houses. A very constructive all-party meeting for Members of both Houses was held on Monday, attended by about 60 peers and Members of this House. In the course of that meeting, among many other constructive comments that were made about the Bill, two specific proposals were made by a senior former Law Lord and by a member of the Opposition, the noble Lord Ackner and the noble Lord Alexander of Weedon. Both their suggestions, as I will explain later, have been incorporated into the Bill as presented. I have received other suggestions for improvement from a number of hon. Friends, and I am giving those active consideration.
The Bill is a considered response to the Euro 2000 experience. The extensive United Kingdom policing operation for the tournament, which I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions, was a success in the terms set for it, which were to prevent known football hooligans from attending that competition. Few of the 1,000 football hooligans known to NCIS were involved. It is a sobering thought that only 30 of the 965 arrests of people from England during Euro 2000 were of people known to NCIS--an agency which dedicates a significant proportion of its time and expertise to monitoring the activities of football hooligans.
Whenever there has been crowd trouble in the recent past, some of those involved were not previously known football hooligans. However, it had been thought that if known hooligans were prevented from attending, the likelihood of wider disturbances would be significantly reduced. During Euro 2000, we had to revise that opinion; the disorder at that tournament was of a different dimension. In the main, it was prompted not by a small core of known football hooligans, but by the xenophobic, racist and offensive behaviour of a significant number of drunken white males, typically aged between 20 and 35, although--as we now know--many of them had previous convictions for violence or disorder.
Recent analysis by NCIS reveals that of the 965 English individuals arrested during the tournament, 391 had previous convictions. That figure--40 per cent.--is not a startling statistic in itself, given that about 30 per cent. of all men have a previous conviction for some offence by the age of 30, as I have previously explained to the House. The difference in this case is that the profile of previous convictions of those arrested in Brussels, Charleroi and the Netherlands is skewed powerfully towards violence and disorder. Of the 391, 133 had convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for possession of an offensive weapon and 122 for criminal damage. I stress that those convictions were, in the main, not football- related.
The Euro 2000 experience may not be unique, but it is the best documented in respect of the profile of arrested English hooligans. As I pointed out, 97 per cent. of those arrested were not convicted or known football hooligans. That is of great importance in framing further legislative measures to tackle the phenomenon.
As Members will have seen from the structure of the Bill, extensive legislation against football disorder has been developed over a 15-year period. That is spelled out in the opening pages of the--as usual--excellent brief provided by the Library. The legislation has progressively widened the powers of the court and the police to deal with the problem. The Bill underlines the fact that the current legal framework has been carefully put in place over the years. However, although the measures currently at the disposal of the police and the courts may be extensive, they were not designed to catch thugs and yobs whose violence and disorderly ways are usually displayed in a non-football setting.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire): The Home Secretary or those advising him will have studied television and video clips and other evidence. I have not done so. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of the 965 and what proportion of the crowds seemed to be committing what would be criminal offences?
Mr. Straw: NCIS is currently studying the available videos. I have not studied them in the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I have seen the television pictures. I cannot give him an exact estimate at present. If he is anxious about the fact that a large number of people were arrested in Brussels and Charleroi, I can assure him that I have already made it clear in the record of the House that, given that one of the Belgian police chiefs said publicly that a proportion of those arrested were innocent of any crime at all--even under the Belgian criminal code--I am not willing to publish the names of any of those arrested. As we do not know which of them were innocent in the eyes of the Belgian police, it would be oppressive to those people if the information were used indiscriminately.
However, it is palpably the case that, whatever the exact proportions, there was serious violence and disorder during the tournament, although it was not caused exclusively by people purporting to be English fans. A number of German fans were arrested in Charleroi, although most of the disorder was by English fans.
As the House has increasingly realised during the past three years, a legislative loophole allows yobs and hooligans to go abroad to cause the mayhem we saw in
Brussels and Charleroi and to escape unpunished either in the territory in which they misbehaved or in our courts. If the England team and our club sides are to continue to be able to play abroad, we have to accept as we find them the criminal justice systems of the countries involved. We cannot impose as a condition of our engagement in tournaments abroad that the judicial systems of other countries are changed to suit us, or to suit people from our country who might get into trouble with the law.We have already tried to close the loophole. Before Euro 2000, I went to considerable lengths to persuade the Dutch and Belgian Ministers of the Interior and of Justice that English offenders should not only be arrested if they caused trouble, but brought to justice through the courts of those countries and, where there was proper evidence, convicted. Formal memorandums of understanding between the United Kingdom and both the Netherlands and Belgium were signed. In the UK, we legislated through Orders in Council to enable our courts to impose banning orders on those subject to convictions in Belgium, the Netherlands and France. However, although there were 965 arrests in total, there were only five convictions: four in the Netherlands--mainly for ticket-touting offences--and only one in Belgium.
I intend no respect to the Kingdom of Belgium--[Hon. Members: "No respect?"] I intend no disrespect to the Kingdom of Belgium. We have had good times discussing Belgian issues--[Laughter.]. We all remember the great legacy to the House and the country from the work of the now famous Mr. Victor d'Hondt, without whose mathematical algorithm we should not have been able to implement that wonderful and impressive counting system for the European elections that received such approbation from the voters.
In a similar vein, I intend no disrespect to Belgium when I point out that, if comparable disorder had occurred in England, we would expect a significant number of convictions and banning orders to result. That is the truth. However, it is also true that, if we participate in events in other countries, we must accept their legislative and criminal justice systems.
We need legislation to prevent individuals who have a demonstrable propensity for violence and disorder from inflicting further suffering on host populations and on their fellow supporters. We must deny them the cloak of football and the associated opportunities to abuse whoever they choose, either because of their distorted notions of patriotism or through simple thuggery.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |