| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall elaborate on that point later. Given that thousands of people go through the port of Dover every day, every year, and that any one of them could be detained under the proposed legislation, how does the hon. Lady think that a constable on duty will differentiate between a person who may be going to a football match and a person who is not?
Ms Ward: The legislation has started to deal with that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also said something about judging people on their behaviour not their appearance. However, I shall return to that later in my speech.
We need action that will prevent thugs from travelling abroad to commit violence. However, we must be absolutely clear that no legislation that goes through this House or another place could prevent it from happening.
It is a fact of life that determined thugs who want to travel outside the country before five days are up, wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase and with a ticket in hand, are unlikely to be stopped at ports and airports if they behave themselves. The Bill will not prevent all instances of hooliganism, but it is important to introduce legislation as quickly as possible, to stop as many as possible of those thugs from travelling and causing problems.
Precedent exists for many of the measures in the Bill.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): The problem is not one of preventing thugs from travelling abroad, but entirely innocent people. What does the hon. Lady think about that?
Ms Ward: I am a lawyer, and it is important to me that innocent people are not prevented from travelling, but that will sometimes happen. However, police officers will have to give written reasons for issuing summary notices, and a court will consider those reasons within 24 hours. That is an important safeguard.
We should get the matter into perspective. People stopped at ports or airports will be issued with a notice that prevents them from travelling. They will be told to report to a local magistrates court within 24 hours, and at a set time. They will not necessarily be imprisoned or detained; they will merely be prevented from travelling abroad to watch a football match. That is not comparable with suggestions that I have heard in other discussions about restriction of liberty.
Mr. Burnett: What will happen to entirely innocent people who decide to proceed on their journey, even though they have been arrested?
Ms Ward: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Bill provides that people who breach the notice will be committing a criminal offence. If people want to
clear their names, they should put their case in the magistrates court. If they are innocent, they will have nothing to hide and they will not attempt to abscond.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not sure that the hon. Lady realises that the Bill would allow a constable to detain a person for 24 hours before the notice is issued. Does she support that provision?
Ms Ward: I realise that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make the relevant conditions and guidelines clear, and that he will set out the conduct that police should consider to be appropriate for the issuance of summary notices.
Precedents also exist for the removal of passports, which is sometimes set as a bail condition when there are concerns about child abduction, for instance. That is absolutely clear, too.
In such cases, there is no charge or conviction either. A person is still regarded as innocent when on bail, yet a condition of bail may be removal of his passport and a restriction on his liberty, to the extent that he cannot travel abroad. I have never heard of anybody in the legal system or in the House complain about that legislation. It is reasonable, and I ask hon. Members to put all these matters in context.
I am very pleased that we have heard tonight from the Conservative Opposition and from the Liberal Democrats that they support in principle the first two main parts of the Bill--the combining of the domestic football banning order and the international football banning order and the withdrawal of the passport related to those banning orders. They are very sensible measures. Perhaps they should have been introduced some time ago, but we are in our present situation because of the progress of legislation. I am glad that we shall now see some movement.
With regard to the third main measure in the Bill--the football banning order--it is important for hon. Members to take into account the facts and figures from Euro 2000. It is relevant that 42 per cent. of those sent back to this country had convictions for other offences. Without this legislation, we would not be able to prevent that happening in the future.
The provision that a person given a summary notice is to appear before a magistrates court is also very important protection for the individual. However, I stress that as many of those orders as possible should be dealt with within 24 hours. I would not wish the Bill to be seen as simply an attempt to stop as many people as possible leaving the country to watch football matches, purely by their detention for a longer period and delay for as long as possible through the magistrates court process. I hope that my right hon. Friend will work closely with the Lord Chancellor's Department to provide as many opportunities as possible for magistrates courts to sit extended and unusual hours, and possibly even to sit in unusual places, to allow individuals to be dealt with by the courts and have their cases heard.
It is also very important that the legislation spells out in detail the convictions, the offences and the description of disorder. I am a football fan, a season ticket holder, at Watford and a regular attender there. We do not have these problems; we are a very friendly club, and do not have the level of violence that has led to the need for the Bill.
But when attending away games and watching international matches on television, including Euro 2000 matches, in local pubs or in London pubs, I have frequently been disappointed and disturbed by the chanting and the racist, xenophobic language used by those who purport to be fans. It is completely unnecessary. I hope that the legislation and the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to the Football Association and football clubs--[Hon. Members: "The hon. Lady is receiving a note from the Whips."]--will also ensure that as many as possible of those conducting themselves in that unacceptable way are also brought before the courts.
I am slightly concerned about the clause that deals with the court taking into account any decision of a public authority whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. What decisions of other public authorities would normally be considered in a magistrates court, other than previous convictions?
The guidelines on the new police powers must be clear. It should be about behaviour, not appearance. I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone in the House, but I am certain that some Members of Parliament would, in the right football strip, look very menacing, and could fall foul of a keen constable. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that point carefully.
I welcome the Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. [Interruption.] The restrictions need to be put into context. It is important to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, given that England will be playing France in a friendly game in September.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries) rose--
Ms Ward: I am sorry, but I am not prepared to give way.
As it is so easy to get to Paris these days, I hope that more families will participate and get tickets for the game. It is important that we create the right environment for them to do so.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to protect Labour Members from threatening behaviour by their Whips? It is perfectly obvious to those of us here that something of the kind is going on. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you can guarantee to the hon. Lady that she will be allowed to complete her speech in her own time and without harassment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There is no restriction on the length of speeches in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Lady is quite capable of taking care of herself.
Ms Ward: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am more than capable of looking after myself and dealing with any form of harassment, from whichever side of the Chamber it may come.
Finally--in my own time, but finally--I welcome the Bill and urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support it. I thank the Home Secretary for taking on board many of the concerns that have been expressed so far. I hope that when the legislation is in place--before the end of
the summer, I hope--it will put an end to the thuggishness and violence that have shamed not only our football but our nation.10.38 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to contribute to the debate.
These debates are normally dominated by lawyers and football fans. Indeed, the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) pleaded guilty to both offences. I, however, speak simply as a humble parliamentarian and libertarian who believes that it is our duty to oppose bad law and to defend our liberties.
I have noticed over the years that when five factors combine, the invariable result is bad law. The first factor is a demand that something must be done, usually by those who have no specific idea in mind of what can be done to solve the problem. The second is undue, and usually unnecessary, haste about the legislation. The third is Front-Bench collusion, particularly if it is designed to suppress activity on the Back Benches. The fourth is an orgy of sanctimonious vilification of an unpopular minority group, and the fifth is a Government with no firm commitment to the principles that have upheld our liberties in the past. All those factors apply to the Bill; they account for its being so bad.
First, there was the demand that something be done. In the past, that demand tended to be limited to matters that fell under the jurisdiction of the Government who were being urged to deal with them. With the advent of television, however, Governments are required to do something about events that people observe on their screens--even though they occur abroad. Recently, we fought a war largely because the Government were urged to do something about matters in Kosovo that people saw on television.
The Home Secretary proposes that, to prevent unruly behaviour abroad, we should introduce measures that are more severe than those deemed necessary to constrain similar behaviour in our own country. The maintenance of law and order in Belgium, France or Germany is primarily a matter for the Belgian, French or German Governments. They should arrest, charge and--through their courts--convict anybody who breaches their laws and disrupts the peace of their country. If need be, they should take preventive action to avoid the offences occurring in the first place. If it is in their legal tradition, they should exclude from their country people whom they fear may disrupt the peace.
The British Government should co-operate with foreign Governments--in so far as that is compatible with the liberties of our citizens--to enable those Governments to uphold their laws. If we have evidence, such as television footage, that the law has been broken in Belgium and if the Belgian authorities do not have that particular film, we should make it available to them so that they can take due action against the lawbreakers. If it is proper and in accord with the liberties of our subjects, we should inform the Belgian or other Governments about the previous convictions of those who might want to enter their countries, so that those Governments can prevent the entry of those people if they want to do so.
The second factor that contributes to bad law is unnecessary haste--usually through the imposition of an artificial deadline. In this case, we have been told that there is to be a friendly match against France in the autumn before which it is essential that the legislation be passed into statute. However, during the past football season, there were matches abroad every few months--as there will be in the next.
We all know that the real reason for the Bill has nothing to do with that match in the autumn. It is because the Home Secretary had to introduce a measure--he had to appear to be doing something--before a decision was taken on the location of the 2006 world cup. He did not want to be blamed for inaction.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |