| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: Am I right in assuming that what will be required under the law is not just that people be brought before the court within four or six hours, their names read out in court and the cases adjourned, but that the court actually deal with them; otherwise the power of detention expires? That means that there would have to be a substantive hearing.
Mr. Malins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think it is the case--I am trying to draw it from the Minister--that when the person appears before the court, that is the substantive hearing which is dealt with on the spot, rather than adjourned for a month; otherwise, one
would be in a state of complete chaos. Again, I want to know that the Minister has thought the matter through and that the nuts-and-bolts problems of mass exit from our ports over two or three days have been considered in terms of lack of staff, court space or detention space.8.30 pm
My final point is important, although it is very much a Committee point. What will happen in ports where port authority police work? What will their role be? In Harwich, for example, the port authority police have certain functions and powers. How will those officers overlap with ordinary police officers in cases of this sort?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall try to speak briefly. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for, in effect, accepting amendment No. 28. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who tabled it with me, made it clear before putting his name to it that he would be here for a limited time this evening because of a longstanding constituency engagement.
The Government are accepting that an officer may detain an individual for only four to six hours with a view to bringing that individual before a court. As my hon. Friends have asked, should an individual be brought before the court on the say-so of an inspector, or should there be a warrant from a magistrate? That is a sensible question, and the answer is not easy. There are practical advantages--swiftness for one--in having a police officer undertake that function, but if it is done in summons to a warrant, it may be easier to hold the person until the court can hear the case.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that there is a real danger of chaos in our courts and ports when the Act is put into operation. That is one reason why it is so sad that we are trying to rush the Bill through. Acceptable legislation can be crafted, although it is difficult to do so, but I doubt whether it can be done on the timetable before us and the other place. There is a real risk that we shall end up with an Act that is unworkable.
I shall discuss briefly whether this should be a criminal or civil process. Detention in order to bring someone before a court smacks much more of criminal than civil procedure. With respect, I ask the Home Office to reconsider that aspect. I am much comforted that the Home Office has indicated that it will accept, in a later amendment, that whatever the individual is accused of must constitute criminality. I am grateful for the effective acceptance of amendment No. 28, which will mean that someone can be brought before magistrates only on the basis of reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in proposed section 14B(2) of the Football Spectators Act 1989--that the person must have caused or contributed to violence or disorder--is met.
I wish to make two points of substance, on which I shall probably table amendments on Report. I shall probably go to the Public Bill Office to table those amendments during the next hour or two. First, it should not be possible for someone to be subject to an order of the court if the only basis for it is a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I do not believe that it can be fair to place a football banning order on someone on the basis of a conviction that is out of date.
Secondly, there should be some time limit on the conduct that caused or contributed to violence or disorder. As I look around the Chamber with the deep respect in which I always hold Parliament, I expect that 98 per cent. of us--I do not discriminate on grounds of sex--have at some stage in our lives contributed to violence or disorder. There are no mirrors in the Chamber, but, if I saw one, I might find myself in that category.
The definition in proposed section 14B(2) is astonishingly wide. Happily, it is qualified by the proposal that actual criminality must be required. However, anyone who has been caught up in a football crowd that is becoming slightly out of hand will fall within the definition. Any ancient piece of video tape that showed them there, perhaps the worse for wear or a little merry, could be brought forward as evidence, and I am sure that there are many such tapes. That would be going too far and would be oppressive. Some time limit--five, seven or 10 years--should be established to keep the use of such evidence under control.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last two points. May I draw his attention to amendment No. 41, which deals with the spent conviction point, although I do not pretend that it is perfectly drafted?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. One of the problems with the time scale facing us is the difficulty of finding time to read the amendments and spot exactly how they fit into the tapestry of the Bill.
I welcome Government amendment No. 46, but must return to practicalities in the magistrates courts. Can the Minister explain how the process will work? Let us suppose that someone is arrested because an officer believes, because of that person's demeanour at the port or airport, that he is the kind of person likely to cause trouble and may well have a previous conviction. If the officer finds that the person does have a previous conviction--a relevant one, which all of us agree should cause the person to be brought before a court and banned--how will the person be kept available to the court once the six hours in which he may be held in detention has passed? What practical arrangements will be made? If, having been let out after six hours, a person may walk away or even board a later P&O ferry, the Act will fall into disrepute. I hope that a sensible answer can be found to that question, and I should be happy to co-operate with the Government in seeking one. For now, however, the position is not clear.
Ms Ward: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman studied the detail of schedule 1? New section 21B(2)(b) refers to what the notice may require of the person who has been detained. It states that the person would be required
- not to leave England and Wales before that time--
- to surrender his passport to the constable.
Unless I misheard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not see how someone released after six hours, and before appearing at a magistrates court, could wander on to a ferry. Could he explain his point again?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Lady may have a good point, provided that there are enough police to spot what is happening. The individual certainly could not be detained in a cell after six hours on the basis of that provision. If there were enough police officers to keep such individuals under surveillance and to spot them making for a boat, and if they have been summonsed--
Ms Ward: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, under the provision to which I referred, they would be required to hand over their passports? After the six hours--whether or not they had been detained--they could not physically leave the country, because they would have no passport. It would also be an offence for them not to appear at the magistrates court. That would clearly be a further consideration for people who believed themselves innocent and wanted to prove that point.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: That may be correct. To take the passport may be the practical answer, but I should like to hear it from the Minister. I should like him to piece those points together to show that they produce a coherent whole. My objective is not to make clever points, but to try to ensure that we produce coherent legislation. The hon. Lady plays a useful role--at least in educating me--and I thank her for that.
Amendment No. 35, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would prevent repeated arrest and deserves careful consideration. The simple removal, under Government amendment No. 46, of a safeguard in the measure--the provision that someone could not be rearrested within 24 hours--could leave too little protection.
We are all struggling to achieve a balance so that the measure is workable and fair, but there are real difficulties. My main reason for speaking to the amendment was to highlight questions on spent convictions and time limits.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): I want to follow up the pragmatic approach taken by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and to seek some reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State on a constituency point.
Heathrow is in my constituency and a large number of people might be detained there at any one time under this measure. I have visited the facilities available there for the detention of suspects and others; they are extremely limited--at the most there are a dozen cells. It is thus possible that overspill detainees might be transferred to police stations in my constituency. That would require additional police resources to supervise the cells and to assist in processing the detainees to the magistrates court. Uxbridge magistrates court is also in my constituency.
I am anxious to obtain assurances that before we implement the legislation, there will be a full review of its resource implications in constituencies such as mine. It could be a significant drain on police resources that would have an impact on the ability of the police to tackle crime and disorder generally in my community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |