Standing Committee D
Wednesday 5 May 1999
[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]
10.30 am
Resolved
That during proceedings on the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill the Committee do meet on Wednesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock. [
Mr. Simon Burns.]
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. If hon. Gentlemen and Ladies wish to remove their jackets, they may do so. I also remind hon. Members, as a general rule, that adequate notice of amendments must be given. I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may have been reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.
Clause 1
International football banning orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): It is a pleasure to have you as Chairman, Mr. O'Brien. I categorically assure you, on behalf of the Committee, that we anticipate giving you no trouble whatever. We trust that the Committee will be enlightening rather than contentious.
For the sake of brevity, and to avoid wasting anyone's time, I do not want to reiterate the debate on Second Reading. It was a full and vigorous debate, which provided ample opportunity to explain the overall thrust of the proposed legislation. It might help the Committee, however, if I were briefly to outline the purposes of clause 1.
Clause 1 does two things. First, it renames the current restriction orders as international banning orders. Secondly the main thrust of its powers it puts on the statute book the powers for courts to impose international football banning orders on those people who have been convicted in a court in this country. The order will require them to hand in their passports up to five days prior to an international football match, which will prevent them travelling abroad and causing the mindless acts of vandalism and violence that have besmirched our national reputation in the international arena.
On Second Reading, a vigorous discussion took place about whether the clause should be amended in Committee to give courts the power to impose a banning order on individuals who are unconvicted of an offence. It would have to be proved to the courts that reasonable grounds existed to believe that such individuals may commit an act of violence or vandalism if they were to travel abroad. I listened carefully, on Second Reading and subsequently, to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it would be fair to say that there was some disquiet and misgiving about the proposal.
Throughout the course of the Bill, I have been prepared to listen to arguments that may not coincide with my own and to have discussions with the Government. I am persuaded, in the light of the Second Reading debate and my misgivings, that it would be wrong for me to table amendments to make such a significant change in a private Member's Bill. I still believe it is right for the courts to have that power because it would hep to combat even more the problems that we saw in France and elsewhere last year and earlier. It would be unwise for me so to amend the Bill, but it is open to the Government later to introduce such legislation in a law and order or criminal justice Bill. I hope that the Government will consider that when they draft their legislation on public order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. Your fairness and humour will allow us to have an interesting, amicable and enlightening debate.
The Government strongly support the Bill, which is timely. It is necessary to make changes to the Football Spectators Act 1989, on which I made my maiden speech. I hate to think that I was involved in making legislation that, only 10 years later, needs amending. It is clear from the way in which the Act and other public order legislation has worked that it is necessary to keep up with the way in which people who are involved in football hooliganism have managed to circumvent the law.
I particularly support clause 1. Changing the restriction orders to international banning orders may seem a cosmetic exercise, but it makes the exact purpose of the order clear and removes any confusion with orders for other purposes. The clause clearly covers international football banning orders.
The clause also puts the courts under a duty to make an international football banning order when someone has been convicted of a football-related offence and they have reasonable grounds for believing that such an order would help to prevent violence or disorder.
The Committee will be aware that the measures in the Bill are aimed at strengthening the 1989 Act. The courts have been criticised for not using powers available to them. I said on Second Reading that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had written in December to remind the police, the prosecutors and the courts of the powers available to them, and that resulted in an increase in restriction orders.
The clause further provides that the courts must state in open court the reasons why they decide not to issue such orders. That is important. If a court decides that a football-related offence has been committed but that it will not serve an international banning order, it must give its reasons so that those who may have suffered from that violence, whether they were directly involved or were innocent bystanders, who are often caught up in such violence, know why the person concerned will be allowed to go to the next football match.
The power to make banning orders in respect of people without conviction is necessary. I understand the reluctance of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to introduce a controversial amendment, which might make it more difficult for the Bill to make progress. However, the Government will want to return to the matter, because from football intelligence we know that some people commit offences or are involved in organising violence but cleverly manage not to be where they may be arrested. We need to find a way of dealing with those people.
We accept that the issue is complex and that the Bill is not the right place to deal with it. We will want to have further discussions, particularly with organisations that represent decent football supporters. The Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs know that there is a small minority that must be dealt with. If we can find a way to bring football with us so that it supports us, we may be able to deal with this issue later in a Government Bill.
I support clause 1 and hope that we will be able to debate some of the slightly more controversial issues.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : I reiterate the welcome that you have been given as Chairman of our deliberations on this important Bill, Mr. O'Brien.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that a detailed debate took place on the Bill on Second Reading, and I was happy and privileged to take part in it. I agree with him that it would not be sensible for us to go over the same material again.
I have discussed the question of an amendment with my hon. Friend and the Minister, and my hon. Friend has reached the right judgment. It is important to place the measures in the Bill on the statute book at the earliest opportunity. We should certainly do so well before English fans cross the channel this winter, when a record number of club teams will take part in European competition. More importantly, we should do so in good time for the European nations championship in Belguim and Holland next year.
There could be agreement on both sides of the Committee on the proposed amendment, which would strengthen the Bill. My comments on Second Reading demonstrated my support for such a proposal. I say that in particular because, although the police had yards of video footage from incidents that occurred in Marseilles in the World cup last year, for example, those responsible were not prosecuted they were put on a plane and sent back to this country. Perhaps we could consider how we might improve the prospect of such people being prosecuted in this country for what they do abroad, that is another option. Without question, however, we must, in our enthusiasm to get the Bill on the statute book, be mindful of the fact that there will always be some trouble. When it occurs, the public and, no doubt, the tabloid press will ask, "What did Parliament do to prevent it?" We now have an opportunity to answer that question. That is why I support the Bill.
We are all familiar with the difficulties of private Member's legislation. The wise choice is, therefore, to have a debate on the clauses there are contentious points, as the Minister said and to make the progress that we all want. We should return to the question of how we deal with unconvicted hooligans on another occasion.
I hope that I have made it clear that we would support a measure that the Government introduced in Government time. Indeed, last summer, during proceedings on Report on the Crime and Disorder Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and I pushed for more to be done on the issue. We proposed football behaviour orders to mirror the anti-social behaviour orders contained in that Bill. The wording in this Bill, which differentiates between international and domestic football banning orders is clearly a much better solution.
I agree with the Minister's remarks about the need for clear titles to ensure that there can be no doubt about the orders' purpose. The phrase "restriction order" is so widely worded that it could mean almost anything. However, the meaning of an international football banning order is clear, and even the thickest yob could understand it.
It should not just be left to the magistrates to decide whether it is appropriate to impose such an order; the burden should be reversed. The courts will have a duty to reverse their procedure when considering particular convictions, which we shall debate later during our consideration of the Bill. When a court does not consider that the imposition of a banning order is appropriate, it must state its reasons in open court. The clause is important because of that, and we have no hesitation in supporting it.
10.45 am
| 
