| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.36 am
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): If the authorities wish to deny people their passport, they should go to a magistrates court to do so. If they are allowed to wait for 24 hours, it would give the police the opportunity to arrest or stop people on the flimsiest of evidence, knowing that they will have 24 hours to collect evidence. If there were an immediate hearing, the police would know that when they stopped the person, at the port or wherever, they would immediately have to justify their actions to a court.
An immediate court hearing would not absolve the Bill of all guilt, but it would improve matters no end. However, that provision is not yet in the Bill, so I cannot support it.
12.37 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): This has been a fairly lengthy debate, in which a number of important subjects have been covered. I shall briefly discuss the many thoughtful contributions that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that
when the Minister replies for the Government, he will also do hon. Members the courtesy of dealing with these serious issues seriously. I see that the Minister is nodding.The Home Secretary began by talking about those who show a demonstrable propensity to commit acts of violence. The important words in that phrase are "demonstrable propensity". So many hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked of the need for clear evidence that can be put before a court--such a provision is lacking in the Bill.
The first intervention on the Home Secretary was from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)--a very senior Labour Back Bencher--expressing her concerns. From the first intervention by a Labour Member to the last speech--a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter)--concerns were being expressed. A number of hon. Members were saying that they were not happy with the Bill in its present form, yet the Home Secretary was suggesting, in his rah-rah fanfare--trying to whip up feeling on the Labour Benches--that there was something inappropriate in the official Opposition wanting to subject the Government's proposals to detailed scrutiny.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear not only today but an earlier stage that it was essential for the Opposition and all parts of the House to give the Bill detailed scrutiny. The Home Secretary, whom I am delighted to see returning to the Chamber, paid tribute to the work of the Library in its research paper and suggested that all hon. Members should read it. What does that research paper do? It draws attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who, on 4 July at columns 172-73, emphasising the need for the Bill to receive due scrutiny as it would contain some sensitive and significant measures with serious implications for civil liberties. That was before we saw the draft Bill, the revised draft Bill or the final Bill, so there is nothing inconsistent in our saying--we have done so throughout--that we felt that it should receive proper scrutiny.
We greatly welcome the Home Secretary's repetition of his statement that he remains open to suggestions for further amendments, including from Her Majesty's Opposition. In answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), he said that he believed that the Bill as it stands is not in breach of the European convention on human rights, but, as many Members, including in particular my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), have pointed out, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right and the Home Secretary is wrong. Article 5.1(b) of the European convention is clearly breached by the Bill as it stands in relation to the power to detain on the suspicion of a constable, so that inquiries can be made.
In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the Home Secretary then had a distinct change of tone. That may have been brought about by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talking about people being taken before the courts in Belgium before they were flown home, but the hon. Gentleman, who takes a big interest in sporting matters and for whom I have great respect,
was unfortunately mistaken. When he said that, he forgot that no one was actually taken before a court in Belgium before they were flown home.
Mr. Miller: May I be absolutely clear? The point that I made was in respect of those people whom we saw on television. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the people whom we saw slinging chairs around in Charleroi should be in that country with our support?
Mr. Hawkins: I do not. Nor does anyone who has spoken in the debate, but I noticed, as I have said, a distinct change of tone when the Home Secretary said in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention that the Government were thinking hard about the matter--new section 14C(3)(b)--because there is a need for those people to be brought before a court before they are subject to the kind of powers that the Government are putting forward.
We feel that one of the Bill's grave defects as it stands is that it talks about people being detained on mere suspicion. Not a single leader writer in any national paper that has commented on the Home Secretary's proposals as they stand has supported them. They have all drawn attention to that problem.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), in his apologia for the failure of this country's bid to host the 2006 World cup, said that all the blame was to do with the hooliganism in Charleroi and in Brussels. He said that he was not going to turn into Sir Tufton Bufton, but he rightly drew attention to the activities of people such as the Chelsea Headhunters and talked about how unpleasant and threatening those people are. He has had personal experience of such violence at football matches. So have I and so have many Members, but he knows that it has been recorded that many of those extreme violent fans--one could not say that they were fans; they use a football match as an excuse for violence--are capable of dressing up in a suit to fool the police, and of going to Scotland, Belfast or Dublin to fly out. There are gaps in the legislation as it stands, so I think that the hon. Gentleman was supporting the concerns of Members on the Conservatives Benches and in many parts of the House that there is a need for the Bill to be improved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has the great experience of being a former Cabinet Minister and a former shadow Home Secretary, talked about the civil liberties of shop keepers and other law-abiding citizens. He pointed out that the law was not working. He said that he was not abandoning the Home Secretary's ship, but that we needed to have a sign that the ship was being steered in the right direction. We undoubtedly do need that. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said--I quote him precisely--"We need to see the evidence of hooligans committing offences," in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also quoted Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which is an unusual work to be quoted in a debate on football hooligans. As he quite rightly said, however, it is difficult to frame laws to get
people to desist from acting in a particular way. Precisely so; it is difficult, which is why the Bill needs scrutiny and to be improved.The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a thoughtful speech, as he so often does. He raised the issue of whether it really is appropriate to legislate only for football. He suggested that the Government might seek to legislate for ice hockey in one year, but for rugby league in another. Like me and all other hon. Members who take a big interest in sporting matters, the hon. Gentleman is aware that, not long ago, in the previous rugby league season--most unusually, because rugby league has not been much associated with violence--there was quite serious violence at a rugby league match. We should therefore bear in mind his comments.
I do not have much time to speak. However, I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my right. hon. and hon. Friends were quite right to say that, although parts of the Bill are absolutely unexceptionable and we could all happily agree on them, other parts of the Bill cause major problems.
The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) suggested that football is a different case from all other sports. Although she welcomed the Bill, she expressed very serious concerns.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) set out his five tests for the bad law that is passed when there were demands that "something must be done". The Home Secretary's response seems to be that this is such a case, and that, therefore, the Government must do something. That is simply not good enough.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) talked about going to Charleroi with his family. He also talked about the oldest person who is subject to a banning order, a 61-year-old who is almost 62. He also talked about football supporters' record of 2.5 million successful and peaceful visits to football matches being spoiled by a tiny minority of disorderly and violent fans.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, quite rightly deplored the rush with which the Bill has been introduced and the lack of concern being shown for serious human rights issues.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) suggested that he somehow had the right, despite being elected to the House only at the previous general election, to lecture my right. hon. Friends who have been in the House for very many years on what parliamentary Second Reading scrutiny is supposed to be about. I suggest that, when he re-reads that part of his speech, he may wish to reconsider it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), from his great expertise in introducing legislation, pointed out that more mature consideration could have been given to including in previous legislation the type of measures that we are debating.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) talked about the need to get the law right, because otherwise it is brought into disrepute.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the
hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) all drew attention to many human rights and civil liberties problems.My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and for Eltham (Mr. Efford) all drew attention to other problems with the Bill.
We hope that the Bill will be brought into a proper form. It is called the Football (Disorder) Bill, but it is the Bill itself that is disorderly. Parts of it are very good. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has said that he will listen to ideas to improve it. We hope very much that he will stick to that.
In the House's consideration of an earlier piece of legislation, a member of the then shadow Cabinet talked about the way in which an Opposition can respond to a football Bill. He said:
- I unreservedly offer the support of the . . . party for any Bill which is genuinely and effectively concerned with football safety and the enhancement of a great national game. These are not and should not be matters of party political dispute. But this Bill--
- does not meet those requirements. As drafted it can never do so. That is why we are opposing it tonight.--[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 862.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |