Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Division No. 2


Addington, L.
Ampthill, L.
Attlee, E.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Biffen, L.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brightman, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.
Desai, L.
Dholakia, L.
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Goodhart, L. [Teller]
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Haslam, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holderness, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Jacobs, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Lucas, L.
Ludford, B.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Monson, L.
Naseby, L.
Newby, L.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Onslow, E.
Onslow of Woking, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Rennard, L.
Renton, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Russell, E.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Sandberg, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Vivian, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Warnock, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.


Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blease, L.
Bledisloe, V.
Borrie, L.
Bragg, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Castle of Blackburn, B.
Chandos, V.
Christopher, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Crawley, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gilbert, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grenfell, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Islwyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Judd, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Longford, E.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mishcon, L.
Mitchell, L.
Molloy, L.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Morgan, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Nicol, B.
Orme, L.
Palmer, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Shepherd, L.
Shore of Stepney, L.
Simon, V.
Slim, V.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Tenby, V.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Winston, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

25 Jul 2000 : Column 319

5.29 p.m.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 4:

Insert the following new Clause-

Extra-territorial offences

(".-(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.
(3) Subject to any contrary provision attaching to any such relevant offence an extra-territorial offence may only be commenced against a person who is either a British citizen or resident in England or Wales.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I crave the indulgence of the House to ask for a correction to be made to the amendment in my name. The words "prosecution of" need to be inserted in line 2, so that the amendment reads:

    "Subject to any contrary provision attaching to any such relevant offence prosecution of an extra-territorial offence",

and so on.

I am afraid that I have a terrible sense of deja vu in relation to this matter--indeed, it seems like a Joycean continuity--but I am afraid that I must run over the main sinews of the justification for the amendment because many noble Lords were not present when we debated it just a few hours ago.

The first, important point is that the amendment in no sense works against the Bill. It seeks to add to the powers already present the Bill in order to achieve its purposes. It in no way affects or detracts from the other powers. Secondly, I should make clear that the amendment is not entirely a creature of my own imagination. For the wording, I drew on the extra-territorial arrangements in the legislation between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

The arguments that were adduced against the amendment in last night's debate could be summarised as follows. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that there should be a definition as to whom the extra-territoriality would relate. That is the purpose of

25 Jul 2000 : Column 320

the addition of subsection (3), which was not in the amendment proposed in Committee. That clarifies a perfectly legitimate point.

The second objection was that the amendment, if carried, would represent a significant extension of the present, very limited powers of extra-territoriality. That is true; at present, they apply to offences such as piracy, terrorism and paedophilia. I think it fair to say that the justification behind extra-territoriality--or rather, against extra-territoriality--is that it is usually not in the public or national interest. If there is a theft or burglary in Portugal, why should the authorities here have any concern with the matter at all? But in the Bill there is a particular interest and objective, which is precisely to bring to heel our citizens who misbehave, usually in mainland continental Europe. One of the problems repeatedly referred to--and there is no issue between us on this--is that it is a heck of a job to get at the people whom we wish to bring to heel. The amendment would make that task a great deal easier.

The third objection is that there could be a problem in terms of what lawyers sometimes call the comity of nations. For example, would there be a problem between us and the Belgians with us both having the right to prosecute for the same act? The answer is no. It does not require any further legislation. All that is required in order to avoid that sort of muddle is for British authorities to converse and agree with Belgian authorities--as indeed they did, expensively over Euro 2000--and to decide between them, when offences have been committed that speak to both Belgian law and to our law, who is to take the initiative.

One of the problems that arose over Euro 2000 was, of course, that of the 965 British people arrested and deported, only two have been prosecuted for violence. I partly understand why that is so. I am sure that the Belgians say, "Why on earth should we go to all the trouble, hassle and expense of prosecuting these over-beered louts? Let's ship 'em out"--and that is what they did, rather indiscriminately. The amendment would mean that instead of a large number getting off scot-free, we should with evidence, as I shall set out, be able to prosecute in this country according to our own laws, in our own way, according to our own standards of proof, without any new-fangled laws, and achieve the deterrent effect without which, frankly, the Bill is a total waste of time.

I turn briefly to the question of obtaining evidence and the whole issue of arrest. Again, that is a pragmatic partnership matter between the authorities here and those in the country concerned. I emphasise that a great deal of co-operation goes on in main tournaments as it does in regard to important matches. I foresee the Belgians being happy with the prospect of our taking responsibility for our people by prosecuting them here. That would be a severe deterrent to bad behaviour; and that is what they devoutly hope for when British fans go over to Belgium. So I see no problem in terms of arrest.

Nor do I see any problems over evidence. The same evidence would be required in this country for an offence committed in Belgium as would be required for

25 Jul 2000 : Column 321

any offence committed here. The simple issue remains whether there is enough evidence. It could be video evidence or direct evidence. We send large numbers of our police and security people over to the Continent for football tournaments anyhow. I do not see that the Belgians would wish to be obstructive in terms of their personnel coming to Britain to give evidence. These are all practical matters which can readily be resolved by sensible talking between the authorities in the countries concerned.

If one ran into a situation where, for example, the French said, "We are not having anything to do with your law, your people and the rest of it. To hell with you", so be it. We lose nothing by the Bill. It would simply mean that with regard to a particular tournament or match the Bill would be ineffective as regards extra-territoriality.

The question of expense was raised: would it not be frightfully expensive having to ship over Belgian police or ship over to Belgium considerable numbers of our own police? But we do that anyhow. The expense referred to is piffling compared with the ill that we seek to address and the damage to our national reputation--and indirectly to our chances of holding the tournaments in this country, the commercial benefit of which is enormous.

The advantages of the amendment are implicit in what I have said. It would give a second string to the bow available to the police and other authorities to combat this insidious problem. It would use existing law, and would avoid altogether the civil libertarian and other issues on which so many noble Lords have been eloquent and about which we feel so strongly.

Happily, Clause 3 of the Bill as it stands already contains a power to allow the necessary supplementary provisions to be made under the Bill to fill in the gaps that exist with regard to what is a relatively short provision in the amendment. Most happily of all, Schedule 1 provides a complete, work-through set of offences to which the extra-territoriality would relate--something like 23 separate categories of football-related offences are all worked through practically. This amendment simply taps into that provision.

Finally, the amendment would provide us with the power to deal with some of these thugs ourselves. We should not be reliant on reluctant foreign authorities. Jack Straw made clear how disappointed he was at the Belgian failure to prosecute. We should have the remedy in our own hands, in our own courts, according to our traditional protections. Publicity would undoubtedly ensure when we had had 10, 20 or even 100 exemplary prosecutions. I sincerely hope that the Government will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, and that they will not oppose the addition of extra-territoriality to the Bill's provision. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page