| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: To put it bluntly--I am not trying to defend an attempt to cover all bases without an opportunity for consideration--amendments Nos. 7 to 9 were fall-back positions to test the water if we did not succeed with amendment No. 6. I repeat that the only amendment in the group to which we want to be signed up and will go through the Lobby to support is amendment No. 6.
Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. Amendment No. 6 is a very important amendment. It is rather a pity that we are discussing it at eight minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning, but that is the procedure that we have been given. That is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. I commend him for moving the amendment.
Miss Widdecombe: I have some sympathy with some of the amendments, but, oddly, I am not totally convinced of the wisdom of amendment No. 6. Effectively, amendment No. 6 would ensure that unless somebody has been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevant offence, that person will not be caught by the provision. We are specifically asked to
- leave out "caused or contributed to any violence or disorder".
However, I have very substantial sympathy with amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 9 is more or less a re-presentation of amendment No. 4 that we tabled in Committee, which was not reached. We tabled that amendment because there was then in the Bill a very clear statement that behaviour on which police would make a judgment as to whether it deserved detention and an
application for a ban need not be confined to behaviour that constituted an offence. That rang tremendous alarm bells on the Conservative Benches--we were talking about behaviour that might not be criminal.I am quite happy to say that the behaviour might not have resulted in a criminal conviction because, as the Home Secretary pointed out, such offences were committed abroad but no prosecution took place, or because, under the law of that jurisdiction, the behaviour was not as easily definable as an offence as it would have been in the UK. The Home Secretary made that clear and I understood that difficulty. However, that is why we made a provision that behaviour would be judged according to UK law, not the law that might prevail in whatever jurisdiction in which the behaviour took place.
Perhaps I became confused during the rash of Government amendments taken at the end of Committee, but I got the impression that a Government amendment was made that took care of the problem, simply by eliminating that chunk of the clause--restricting the definition to violence and disorder and eliminating the offending provision whereby the behaviour had to constitute a crime. There appears to be a flurry of activity on the Treasury Bench--perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that that amendment was made. If so, I am happy not to support amendment No. 9, because the matter with which it deals has already been addressed; if not, we shall support amendment No. 9 if it is pressed to a Division.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I was checking the number of the amendment; it was, in fact, amendment No. 29, made in the final flurry of amendments in Committee.
Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation--I thought that that was what happened. In that case, I see no point in the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pressing amendment No. 9.
That brings me to amendment No. 8. Before committing Conservative Members, I should be interested to hear what justification there might be for relying on a spent conviction. If it is to be relied on, it will have to be made public and be the subject of discussion, with all that that implies for the rehabilitation of offenders. It would be an extremely serious proposition to say that spent convictions could be used for the purposes of the legislation. I remain to be convinced, but, for now, I believe that amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 12--which, for some reason, appears separately and stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)--are wise amendments, which we might support depending on the Minister's reply.
Mr. Charles Clarke: We have had a helpful debate, the nub of which has been amendment No. 6 moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which I shall address later.
First, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is right to say that amendment No. 29 was passed in Committee. We believe that it
satisfactorily addresses the issue she raised, and I am sorry for the delay in providing the exact number of that amendment.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Like everyone else, I am trying to keep up. Amendment No. 29 was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and it only partially deals with the problem. It merely removes the second part of the definition of "violence" and "disorder" on page 6. I acknowledge that, at some point during the final group of amendments made in Committee, we might have passed a new definition, but that certainly was not achieved through amendment No. 29, which was certainly not a Government amendment.
Mr. Clarke: I know that amendment No. 29 was not a Government amendment. I believe that, in his opening remarks this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated his intention to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Government accepted that amendment, rather than table our own, because we felt that it was correctly phrased and dealt with the issue--although it might not have done so to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey--and we were keen to accommodate the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman both on Second Reading and in his amendment No. 29.
Mr. Hughes: I accept that, and I did not intend to misrepresent the Home Secretary. I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot, but can he tell us where we have amended the Bill to put back in another definition of previous convictions, the first definition of which was removed by amendment No. 29?
1 am
Mr. Clarke: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that in a moment, if I can, but first I shall respond to the various points that were raised.
On amendment No. 8, to which the right hon. Lady spoke, I accept the intention behind it, but the amendment is not necessary by virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, under which no evidence relating to spent convictions will be admissible in proceedings before a judicial authority.
When we debate amendment No. 12 in a moment, I intend to tell the House that we accept the spirit of that amendment, and also of amendment No. 8, but we will table amendments in the other place to put them in precisely the wording that we consider correct.
The motive behind amendment No. 7, as we understand it, is to provide further clarification of the conditions set out in new section 14B(2), but I am advised that the purpose and meaning of the conditions are already explicit, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
Amendment No. 6, as the hon. Gentleman said, is the nub of this group of amendments. It is fair to say also that
it was at the core of the debate on Second Reading. As I said when replying to that debate, the issue is key and clear. By proposing amendment No. 6, the hon. Gentleman is effectively seeking to ensure that the only evidence relevant to a banning order by complaint would be a previous conviction.We believe that although there are perfectly reasonable arguments for that, which I understand, that would undermine the basis of the banning order by complaint. It is necessary for the courts to be able to impose banning orders on people who, for example, have been filmed causing trouble overseas, yet were not prosecuted in that country. Unless we are able to make the change, we would effectively preclude the police and the courts from tackling much of the football hooliganism of the type that we witnessed in Brussels and Charleroi. The intelligence issues highlighted by the right hon. Lady are correct and raise the same sort of questions as do film.
Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that this is an enormous departure from the normal legal process, and that we are in effect encouraging prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence imported from another jurisdiction? Would it not be better to seek international agreement so that, instead of countries merely deporting everyone who causes trouble--as happened in the case of Belgium as we understand it--they should be encouraged to undertake prosecution within their own jurisdiction? After all, that is where the offence has been committed. Does my hon. Friend further agree that there is a risk involved in the use of video evidence, which can be confused, inaccurate and dangerous, and can result in innocent people being convicted of serious criminal offences?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |