Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Lucas: That was not the point I was addressing. I was asking the Minister to explain how the legislation would work. Presumably the police are sitting at the airport while the flights to Turkey are taking off. They form a line in front of the check-in desks and ensure that people pass whatever tests they set. They will not be on the database; that is only 1,000 strong. We are looking at people who simply turn up at the airport who the police know nothing about yet about whom they will make decisions. Based on what? How will it work? What practical procedures will the police go through to enable them to use this clause and achieve the results the Minister is positing?

I contend that there are no such tests. The provision cannot be used in this way. There is no practical way in which the police can operate through "sus"--"I do not like the look of you. You are 25 and white so go home". The system cannot and will not work that way. The legislation is totally ineffective from that point of

24 Jul 2000 : Column 176

view. If we are going to do that, it must be on the back of what the Germans did; that is, a database of people who are likely to be picked up at the frontier. All this provision will do is to cause immense aggravation to fans who have every right to go to a match. The only way the police will be able to deal with it under the scenario painted by the Minister is by the wholesale moving of people back from abroad. There will be no other basis for doing it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: To save a little time, perhaps I can ask the Minister respectfully and in the most friendly of fashions, what is the position? All sides of the Committee, even his own Benches, formed the sort of composite opinion which has been expressed. Will the Minister, between now and tomorrow, assimilate this opinion and respond to it? Or will he, according to the way in which I understood his speech, maintain the rectitude of his attitude on his brief? That is what Ministers usually do; but this is not a usual occasion. We must get this Bill through its stages by tomorrow. Is it worth our while to stay here, move amendments and make suggestions? Why not go home, unless there is a faint scintilla of a prospect that the Government will consider some of my noble friends' amendments, even if they do not consider mine?

Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the support which this amendment received from all sides of the Chamber. I thank particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for pointing out the wholly exceptional nature of the power being sought. Basically, it gives the power to arrest people not because they are thought to be guilty of an offence, but in order to bring them before a magistrates' court which will impose what may be described as a civil penalty; something in the nature of an injunction. That is wholly unprecedented.

The only speaker from the Back Benches who gave real support to the Government was the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who relied rather heavily on the German precedent. But, as is made clear by the very document on which he based his speech, the German situation is very different from what the Government now propose. Indeed, the article in the Daily Mail that referred to the Germans seizing people's passports was a complete contradiction of what happened. In fact, no one's passport has been formally withdrawn in Germany.

The Germans do impose reporting conditions, and quite rightly so. That power has been effective under the Football Spectators Act and there is no reason why it should not be equally effective under the extensions to that legislation which it is proposed to make under this Bill. But they will only be made after a banning order has previously been made. The stamp in the passport is an interesting idea but not one to which the Government have given any thought on this occasion.

24 Jul 2000 : Column 177

I slightly regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, from the Conservative Front Bench did not give more than very qualified support to this amendment. I disagree with him saying that this is, even in the Government's eyes, the most important part of the Bill. One cannot tell what the Government consider to be a matter of particular importance. From the Government's point of view, it seems to me that the most important element of the Bill is the proposed new Section 14B; that is, what might be called the "civil banning order". That is something on which the Government ought to concentrate.

To a large part--for example, when he was talking about the way in which these orders were properly well targeted--what the Minister said was a defence not of the summary procedure but of the basic banning procedure. I do not agree with him that these orders are targeted at all; but there it is. That is nothing to do with the summary procedure. If the summary procedure is relied upon at all, it seems clear to me that it will lead to a great deal of injustice to many innocent people who will be picked up in error. If the Government were to make proper use of these banning orders and get them in place in time, rather than waiting until the last minute and picking up people when they go to the airport or to the ferry port, that would be quite unnecessary.

Therefore, I am wholly unable to accept--

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Does the noble Lord accept that, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Woolmer, circumstances change with regard to the nature of upcoming football matches? In those circumstances, surely it would be quite appropriate and not unreasonable to expect to use the powers contained in this measure.

Lord Goodhart: No. Again, the power is a banning order. Where you have a banning order, you may not seek to impose a restriction every time that someone wants to go abroad. Frankly, that is rather unlikely. However, if someone is a Leeds fan, perhaps you would not wish to impose a restriction on him if he is going abroad for a Manchester United game. One needs to get the banning order into position first. Then one decides whether to make use of it to impose a restriction on the occasion of a particular match. I am wholly unpersuaded by what the Minister has said. It is obviously quite impossible to call a Division at 10 past 11 at night.

Noble Lords: Why not?

Lord Goodhart: I should prefer not to do so. I believe that I am much less likely to be successful now. I know that the Government will have maintained their defensive Whipping. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, but we shall undoubtedly return with it tomorrow. It is very likely that we shall then seek to divide on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

24 Jul 2000 : Column 178

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Disclosure of information by NCIS]:

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 3

    Page 2, line 3, at end insert--

("(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3A) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has the effect that regulations prescribing persons to whom the National Criminal Intelligence Service can disclose information for the purposes of the Football Spectators Act will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendment gives effect to the first recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Government are very grateful to its members for their very speedy and thorough report on the Bill.

I speak also to Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others. It is designed for the same purpose, but I am advised that it is preferable to have the procedure for the regulations set out in the appropriate place in the Police Act 1997 rather than in Clause 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor: The Government's amendment is a small piece of good news in this Bill. We accept that it is preferable to our Amendment No. 7. It certainly follows the recommendation of the committee's report. We welcome the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: I, too, am happy to welcome this amendment. It follows the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. As is the usual practice of the Government, they have accepted the recommendation of that committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 4:

    After Clause 2, insert the following new clause--


(" .--(1) Any act or omission which--
(a) takes place outside England and Wales, and
(b) would if taking place in England or Wales constitute a relevant offence within the meaning of the Football Spectators Act 1989,
shall, for the purposes of the law of England and Wales, constitute that offence (an "extra-territorial offence").
(2) Proceedings for an extra-territorial offence may be taken, and the offence may for the purposes of those proceedings be treated as having been committed, in England or Wales.").

The noble Lord said: At Second Reading I ventured to suggest that one way in which the difficulties faced by the Government might be addressed would be to insert into the Bill an extra-territorial power enabling football-related offences committed abroad to be prosecuted here. This amendment is devised to that end. For those who are interested, it is based on the

24 Jul 2000 : Column 179

extra-territorial wording of the legislation dealing with extra-territoriality between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

It is extremely fortunate for your Lordships' House that we have had such a long and clear debate on the second group of amendments in which the striking out of new Sections 21A to 21C of the Football Spectators Act has been thoroughly considered. I say that it is fortunate, because that dealt with a great deal of the background to this proposed amendment. The feeling on these Benches was made very clear during the course of the debate; namely, that we dislike that provision intensely. It would seem that those on the Conservative and Cross-Benches and several Members of the Committee on the Labour Benches are of comparable mind.

We recognise the difficulties that the Government face, but we believe that the worst of all worlds here would be to legislate in a way which was both dangerous in terms of precedent and civil liberty and ineffectual to boot.

I have to be frank and say that the more we consider this Bill, and in particular new Sections 14B and 21, and the more one hears contributions from all sides of the Chamber, I say with no attempt to score points that I believe that the Government's hopes are likely to be severely confounded. I remind the Minister that we have not yet had an answer to the points which I, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others made as to exactly how it is proposed that the powers will work in practice. The Minister has talked about targeting--he used the expression several times--but has given no indication whatever as to how that targeting would be achieved or on what basis.

Therefore the amendment might, and I hope, will be--I recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave a qualified welcome to this proposal at Second Reading--an effective way of introducing something that works without falling prey to some of the more hopeless aspirations which we believe attach to new Sections 21 and 14B. It would do so in a way that is both safe in terms of our traditional methods and in not attempting to recategorise a criminal offence as a civil one in order to lower the test that must be met in order to obtain convictions. It would be practical--I shall come back to that in a moment--and would not add to the panoply of powers that we already have to deal with football offences and disorder offences generally.

The main objection voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when he summed up the Second Reading debate was that it would not achieve the preventive purpose that new Section 21 in particular is designed to achieve. He also said:

    "It would be preferable if those British citizens who commit offences abroad were prosecuted rather than deported. As I said earlier, that is a point we shall continue to press and upon which we need to work very closely, and in co-operation, with our European partners".--[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1261.]

24 Jul 2000 : Column 180

That point was made by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. While it would have been preferable if the Belgians, for example, had taken a much more forceful line on the less serious offences of disorder of which there were plenty, the fact is that they did not. I suspect that the general attitude of foreign police forces to posses of disorderly British football fans is to say, "Let's get them the Hell out of here as soon as we can and let the Brits deal with them". I suspect that they confine themselves only to prosecuting for serious cases of assault. That is why I believe that our proposal would be much more effective than anything that the Government propose in new Sections 21 or 14B as it would enable us to get a grip on these people and to ensure that when they come back to this country exemplary prosecutions take place, and plenty of them. I believe that in terms of preventive action that would be infinitely more effective than any tinkering around with this new and dangerous category of powers that the Government seek to take in parts of the Bill.

People may ask about arrests and evidence. We already expend a huge amount of time, money and manpower in seeking to control football violence. We already send large numbers of British police to co-ordinate with their foreign colleagues. They go over before a match, during and after it. I see no problem in extending that co-operation to local police to use their arrest powers to deport people back to the UK. The British police with whom they are co-operating would make jolly sure that those people are arrested the moment they hit British soil and are then dealt with under the vast array of powers which we already have. If any noble Lords doubt that, they should look at Schedule 1 to the Bill which sets out a list of about 25 existing pieces of legislation which are considered to be football related. I believe that this is one of those rare cases where the notion of extra-territoriality would work quite simply.

As to foreign police forces being willing to co-operate, they would be immensely keen to co-operate with a system that relieves them of the obligation of prosecuting anything but the most serious offences, leaving it to us to do our own dirty work. I have no doubt whatever that they would be hugely co-operative. I have no doubt that if it was necessary for police officers to come and give evidence, they would readily do so. It would be a great deal cheaper for them--as well as for us--to give their full assistance to our own efforts to prosecute vigorously and in an exemplary fashion.

For all those reasons I seriously hope that the Government--even though we are galloping the Bill through the House--will consider whether or not this would be a central, effective plank of the measures they are now seeking to bring in; at the same time, although it is not a component of this amendment, allowing the release of proposed new Section 21 in particular, and

24 Jul 2000 : Column 181

the amendment of proposed new Section 14B to proceed, to ensure that the Bill passes through the House. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page