| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: I think that that answers the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on an investigation by Grampian police fraud squad into allegations of abuse and fraud against a Moray councillor who also happens to be a candidate for the Scottish Parliament. Have you received a request from any member of the Scottish National party to come to the House to clarify these important accusations, so that we set the record straight once and for all?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not received such a request from any hon. Member.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): Further to your statement earlier, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but he did write to tell you that he would be unable to be here.
The only matter that perturbs me is that the Editor of Hansard now has the right to say that nothing is going to be left out from or added to what is said in the verbatim report. I wonder whether an affirmation such as "yes" is not something that should be in the report. I appreciate the fact that you issued the letter. It is a good thing that we have that letter, and I know that my hon. Friend agrees with me. However, it will perturb some hon. Members if the sole authority rests with the Editor of Hansard to say whether he has edited a speech in such a way that it is as strong as it was at the beginning.
Madam Speaker:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have gone as far as I can in giving my ruling, which was very clear. I also took into account precedents before I gave the information to the House, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
Report considered accordingly.
Resolved,
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11--Amendment of Football Spectators Act--
Government new clause 12--Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty.
Government amendment No. 166.
Sir Norman Fowler:
I shall not spend a great deal of time painting in the background and stating the reasons why we have tabled new clause 10. Last week, the vast majority of this country felt shame at the behaviour in Marseilles of so-called English supporters--who comprised only a small number of the English people in Marseilles, and in no way represented genuine English football supporters, any more than they represented the people of this country itself.
Nevertheless, we saw for ourselves the damage that was done and the violence that was committed. It is not something that was got up by the press. The evidence was there, and, throughout last week, it was seen on television newscasts by millions of people in the United Kingdom. Not surprisingly, there was a genuine sense of outrage and anger in this country at what those thugs had done, not least to this country's reputation.
It is easy enough to condemn the events in Marseilles, but the more difficult matter is to make proposals aimed at ensuring that such events do not happen again. The Opposition have sought to meet that task. I should say straight away that it is very unlikely that any system of defence that we erect will be able to exclude every football hooligan and thug going abroad to international matches. However, equally beyond doubt is the fact that the current position and regulations are not working effectively enough.
As far as I am concerned--I am not wedded to a particular form of drafting in our proposals--we will co-operate to the fullest with the Government to achieve a better and workable solution. I am committed to improving the current position.
The violence at Marseilles graphically illustrated some of the defects in our defences against hooligans and thugs. It was clear, for example, that, although some of those going to Marseilles may not have had convictions for football-related offences, they had been convicted of other offences of violence that might well have brought them under police suspicion. It was equally clear that people's convictions for football-related offences involving violence, drink or damage to property have not been accompanied by restriction orders to prevent convicted offenders from going to overseas matches.
Last week, in Hansard, in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Home Office revealed figures
showing that, in the past five years, there had been20,000 convictions for football-related offences, whereas only 71 people are currently subject to restriction orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989.
The obvious question to ask is, how will we deal with the problems? I shall start by explaining our proposals to make restriction orders more effective, as stated in our new clause 11. However, I should say first that I very much welcome the action taken by the Government in tabling new clause 12, which effectively accepts several of the main points that we have made. I reiterate that our objective is to achieve a permanent improvement in the situation. We are much more likely to accomplish that objective if the Government have an open mind on the type of proposals being made by the Opposition.
I think that we can now take it that some of the arguments used in 1989, in the debate on Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill--that football hooliganism was simply a product of the previous Government--have now been proved spectacularly inaccurate as a diagnosis, and that the issue of violence confronts any Government, of whatever political complexion.
In our first proposal, new clause 11, we seek to increase the deterrent value of restriction orders. It seemed to us that such deterrence would not be achieved if a maximum sentence of one month was available in dealing with someone who ignored a restriction order. We suggested that six months should be substituted, and I am glad that the Government have accepted that in new clause 12.
We went beyond that point, however. A few months ago, just after Christmas 1997, the Home Secretary announced that he had reminded the courts of the power to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences. Unhappily, perhaps, the Home Office chose to headline his press statement of that date "Britain takes the lead against football hooligans". On reflection, the Home Secretary might feel that perhaps that was not the happiest way of describing his plans. Nor was it a case of everyone being wise after the event.
On the same day as the Home Secretary announced his plans, Detective Inspector Peter Chapman, who heads the National Criminal Intelligence Service's hooliganism unit at Scotland Yard, pointed to one obvious defect. He said that, under the legislation, police could not arrest a convicted hooligan until he had failed to report to a police station at an appointed time, usually during a match. He said:
The question that remains is whether those two additions are enough to deal with the threat we face. It seems self-evident that the answer must be no. Currently there are only 71 restriction orders in existence. There are still the best part of 20,000 people convicted of football offences in the past five years who are not subject
to restriction orders. If we are to make the restriction order system more effective--I suggest that that is precisely what our aim should be--we have to tackle that issue, too.
The new clause proposes to make it obligatory on the courts to grant such a restriction order unless there are exceptional circumstances against doing so. I am quite prepared to listen to arguments that, for example, make it obligatory upon the court to consider making a restriction order or any other practical way forward. However, the evidence suggests strongly that the present system is not working effectively.
Of course it is true that many of those who took part in the riots in Marseilles had not been convicted of football-related offences. I do not deny that, and I shall return to the point in respect of our other new clause. However, it seems essential that, as well as any additional measures we take, we should ensure that the present system of restriction orders works better and more effectively than it does at present. Our proposal is designed to ensure that, when a court convicts a person of a football-related offence, it is under a greater obligation to consider the case for making a restriction order. That is the principle that we are seeking to enforce.
I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to move towards us on the issue. It seems a pity that, having accepted so much of new clause 11, he did not take that further step.
That the matter of the New Economic Agenda for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.--[Mr. Clelland.]
Question agreed to.
That the Report [2nd June] from the Business Committee be now considered.--[Mr. Clelland.]
Question agreed to.
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution.--[Mr. Clelland.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [18 June]:
That--
(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are to be taken shall be, New Clause 10, New Clause 11, New Clause 1, remaining New Clauses, Amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Schedules;
(2) the days allotted under the Order [16th June] to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.
Allotted day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day New Clause 10, New Clause 11 Three and a half hours after commencement
New Clause 1 (including any Amendments to it selected by the Speaker) Six and a half hours after commencement
Second day Remaining new Clauses, Amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Schedules, Third Reading Six and a half hours after commencement
Report to lie upon the Table.
Madam Speaker:
Before we come to the main business of the House, hon. Members might like to know that there is a guidance note as to when Divisions will fall and amendments will be called. It is in the No Lobby. Hon. Members who are interested will find it all in there.
'.--(1) The Football Spectators Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) of section 15, there shall be substituted the following subsections--
"(1) A court by or before which a person is convicted of a relevant offence or, if a person convicted of such an offence is committed to it to be dealt with, the Crown
(1A) Where a court does not make a restriction order under subsection (1) above it shall state in open court what the exceptional circumstances are."
(3) Subsection (2) of section 15 shall cease to have effect.
(4) In section 16, there shall be inserted the following subsection--
"(4A) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably believes to have failed or to be about to fail to comply with the duty to report imposed by a conviction order."
(5) In subsection (5) of section 16, substitute "six months" for "one month" and "level 5" for "level 3".'.
"The nonsense of it is that I can see that individual pass through Heathrow four, five or six hours earlier knowing full well that he is going to that particular football match and can't do anything about it. I don't have the power to stop him."
Therefore, in subsection (4) of the new clause, we have sought to make it possible for a constable to arrest a person
"whom he reasonably believes to have failed or to be about to fail to comply with the duty to report imposed by a conviction order."
The Government have also accepted that principle in new clause 12, and I welcome that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |