Violent Crime Reduction Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Hazel Blears: I am a little surprised at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that he is putting forward a view that has been expressed to him, but in my experience football banning orders have been extremely effective. They certainly were during Euro 2004, when I went out to Portugal to see how the law would be implemented. Everybody who was involved thought that it was a good, imaginative power, used successfully. There was also an effective ports policing operation. Again, I saw that for myself at Manchester airport. I watched the police tackle—“tackle” is probably not the right word—stop people.

The police do have powers to check passports on the departure side of ports. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I believe that the forces take the matter seriously. It is one of our most successful pieces of legislation. Clause 37 and schedule 1 bring in a range of refinements and improvements. We have learned from experience and want to make the law even more effective, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman says, with the 2006 football World cup in Germany coming up. We want to ensure that the proposals are really effective and achieve our aims.

We have a new proposal to extend the control period during which people are not allowed to travel to matches and to empower the police to intercept an individual and to commence banning orders proceedings within 24 hours where there is evidence that that person has previously caused violence. The measures can be used in a targeted and intelligence-led way, so that they really are applied to people who are likely to cause problems.

 
Column Number: 311
 

Schedule 2 introduces bail conditions for situations in which, at the moment, there are lengthy adjournments because there is no power to impose bail conditions. That power is needed in order to make the law effective. There is a right of appeal for cases in which a court fails or declines to make a banning order. Again, that tests why the court has not made an order. It also provides for chief officers to make applications wherever they are. Trouble makers often cause problems in the area where the team is playing rather than in their own area, so that power is important. Making them notify us about changes in circumstances and extending the minimum period from three to five years are also important, as is ensuring that they are banned from the next two-year cycle of European championship and World cup matches.

The provisions in clause 37 and schedule 1 are about strengthening and refining the operation of football banning orders. I believe that the legislation will be successful; it empowers the police to tackle the problem of serious and persistent risk behaviour at football matches. The reputation of British football has been enhanced. A few years ago, we had dreadful international reputation for football hooliganism. I do not say that that has been completely eradicated, but it is much improved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Football banning orders and football-related consequential amendments

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in schedule 1, page 42, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a)   for subsection (1) substitute—

            “(1)   An application for a banning order in respect of any person may be made by—

                  (a)   the relevant chief officer, or

                  (b)   the Director of Public Prosecutions,

if it appears to him that the condition in subsection (2) is met.”’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 108 and 109.

Government new clause 9—Sale and disposal of tickets by unauthorised persons.

Hazel Blears: Amendments Nos. 107 and 109 will make provision for the Director of Public Prosecutions to authorise Crown prosecutors to make an application for a banning order on complaint. Our primary aim is to ensure that Crown prosecutors with specialist knowledge of football disorder legislation and of the judicial process in a host country can present applications in circumstances when the evidence of misbehaviour has been gathered overseas.

 
Column Number: 312
 

At present, the court will not always have at its disposal clarification on overseas judicial and administrative processes that are relevant to an application. Having a specialist prosecutor will help the court make the right order.

Government amendment No. 108 updates the offences covered in schedule 1 of the 1989 Act, explicitly to include section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. The schedule lists specific and generic criminal offences that can be designated as football-related if a conviction occurs in circumstances connected to football. At present, section 4A offences are covered only if they involve the use or threat of violence. We want to ensure that we can include threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour as well as violence.

Government new clause 9 amends section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, relating to ticket touting. It ensures that internet sales are covered. We want to redress current inconsistencies and gaps in the ticket touting laws. Our motivation is to deal with public order problems rather than commercial considerations. It is currently an offence to tout in a

“public place or a place to which the public has access”.

That means that ticket touting on the internet is not covered.

Stewart Hosie: I am slightly concerned about the enforceability of the first three subsections of new clause 9. Outside every large all-ticket international match or domestic fixture we see people holding up tickets for sale. Only two weeks ago, before the Dundee United v. Rangers match at Tannadice, there was a queue of people looking to buy or sell tickets that reached my constituency office. The current law on selling tickets in a public place is not being enforced. Is the Minister convinced that the new provision can be enforced?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue is not only about tackling the commercial aspect of touting but about public order. If people are allowed to buy unauthorised tickets, that can damage our crowd segregation policies, which could result in dreadful clashes. The new clause is designed to plug the gap.

I was also asked about the sale of tickets on the internet. International co-operation on internet offences is becoming increasingly important. We explored similar problems with selling guns on the internet, and of people having access to paedophilia and pornography on the internet. We can prosecute in this country only if the internet host company is British. If the host organisation is an international company, we need international agreements to ensure that we get prosecutions in that way. It is not the easiest thing to do, but because we are encountering these problems more regularly, our relationships with other countries are much better in terms of our enforcement policy. That is why it is important to share intelligence internationally. We are working well at that, particularly with the European Union. There is a range of European bodies such as Europol and
 
Column Number: 313
 
Eurojust. We are sharing the European extradition warrant and working on the European evidence warrant. Clearly there is a range of measures that we can seek to use in that way.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the internet provisions, but the problem is the practicality of enforcing the law when tickets are sold on the street within view of a police officer in front of the stadium at every major all-ticket match. People buy and sell tickets simply to gain access to football grounds. The law is not being enforced. I have witnessed it on hundreds of occasions. How does the Minister intend to enforce the restrictions on the selling and buying of tickets on the street?

Hazel Blears: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought he was asking about internet sales. Clearly, if there is an existing offence, it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the legislation. They will inevitably make a judgment about the implications for public order. If they see people unlawfully selling tickets, that is an existing offence and they should prosecute them and bring them to justice. It is an operational matter in terms of the police activity on the day, but if they feel that it will have a significant impact on public order, they should enforce the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 108, in schedule 1, page 44, line 8, at end insert—

‘New relevant offence

“8A   (1)   In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (offences), in subparagraphs (c), (k), and (q) after “under section” insert “4A or”.

(2)   An offence is not a relevant offence by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) if it was committed before the commencement of this paragraph.’.

No. 109, in schedule 1, page 45, line 14, at end insert—

‘14   In the section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) (functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions), in subsection (2) after paragraph (fa) insert—

“(faa)   where it appears to him appropriate to do so, to have the conduct of applications made by him for orders under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning orders made on complaint);”’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Offering or agreeing to re-programme a mobile telephone

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 42, page 39, line 16, leave out from ‘“(c)’ to end of line 17.

This is in line with other amendments today. As far as I can ascertain, there have been only four successful prosecutions under the Mobile Telephones
 
Column Number: 314
 
(Re-programming) Act 2002. This crime is widespread. I want to be reassured that it is not simply that the first Act is a failure. What difference will this new measure make? If there were four prosecutions in the last three years, how many prosecutions are there likely to be in the next three years?

Hazel Blears: I am surprised about the amendment, because the Bill would create a new offence of offering or agreeing to reprogramme a mobile phone. The hon. Lady is right; there have not been as many prosecutions under the existing legislation as we would have wanted. That is because offences are quite difficult to prove. The Bill will make it easier to bring prosecutions to deal with a problem that is significant. If mobile phones can be reprogrammed, that is an incentive for people to steal them. We want to make sure that that cannot happen.

Reprogramming creates a market for stolen mobile phones. It is an offence, but usually reprogramming occurs behind closed doors and out of sight. The only way, currently, to establish whether an offence has been committed is by test purchasing—asking for a mobile phone to be reprogrammed. Often the person concerned will offer to reprogramme it, or agree to have it reprogrammed, and will ask the undercover police officer to come back later and collect it. The police can thus obtain proof that the phone has been reprogrammed, but cannot prove who did it. If offering to reprogramme a phone is made an offence, it will be possible to prosecute many more people. That is how the offences are carried out. If the police are to tackle reprogramming effectively that approach will be crucial.

8.15 pm

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): As my right hon. Friend knows, that was the subject of my private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament, which ran out of time. Does she agree that the industry as well as the police will welcome the measure, because it wants to make it harder for mobile phones to be used as currency in drug deals?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. His welcome Bill could not proceed because the session ended, but it was an excellent one, and I know that he has campaigned on the issues.

About 50 per cent. of robberies involve a mobile phone and in almost a third only a mobile phone is taken. Much of the trouble consists of young people stealing each other’s mobile phones. If it is possible to get them reprogrammed, that is the market for them. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the industry is right behind us. In fact, we are working in partnership with the mobile phone industry. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment, because the clause will make prosecution more effective.

Lynne Featherstone: I am glad that the Minister has elucidated the matter. My knowledge of criminal matters was not sufficient to enable me to understand
 
Column Number: 315
 
that the clause is a clever move that will increase the chances of prosecution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Repeals

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 294, in schedule 3, page 48, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert—

‘In section 3(1)(a), the word “or” at the end.’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 295, 306 and 307.

Hazel Blears: The amendments are all minor and technical, dealing with repeals consequential to earlier amendments in part 2 of the Bill on firearms and offensive weapons.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 295, in schedule 3, page 48, line 4, column 2, at end insert—

‘In section 40(2), the words from “to firearms” to “therein”.’.

No. 306, in schedule 3, page 48, line 4, column 2, at end insert—

‘In section 51A(1)(a)(i), the word “or” at the end.’.

No. 307, in schedule 3, page 48, line 11, at end insert—

‘Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) Section 141(3).’.— [Hazel Blears.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45

Short title, commencement and extent

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 45, page 39, line 31, after ‘section;’, insert—

‘(   )   section (Cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences);’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 8—Cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences.

Hazel Blears: In June, the Scottish Executive passed the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, which introduce in Scotland several new offences and civil orders similar to those that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish legislation, applies only to Scotland and cannot amend the 2003 Act as it applies to the rest of the United Kingdom.

 
Column Number: 316
 

Without the amendments, there is a risk that those previously convicted for a sexual offence, or those whom the courts consider to pose a risk of serious sexual harm, will escape the monitoring of or prohibitions on their behaviour, which we believe they merit, simply by moving over the border.

Various offences have been introduced, including grooming children and causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography, which broadly mirror offences in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that offenders who are subject to the requirement to notify the police that they are in Scotland—commonly known as the sex offenders register—also become subject to the notification requirements whenever they are in any other part of the United Kingdom. As I said, failure to do so could mean that people could simply avoid the notification requirements by moving over the border, and we could leave some very vulnerable people at risk.

The clause ensures that the sexual offences prevention orders and the risk of sexual harm orders can be enforced properly and effectively in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. The amendments set out four offences of breaching the various orders, which will ensure that people are protected from those who pose a threat of sexual harm, wherever they live in the UK. Offenders will not be able to escape the consequences of the law in Scotland, the monitoring of their behaviour or prohibition simply by moving over the border.

Amendment agreed to.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 304, in clause 45, page 40, line 7, at end insert—

‘(   )   Section (Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland) and Schedule (Weapons, etc.: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government new clause 23—Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.

Government new schedule 1—‘Weapons, etc: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland.

Hazel Blears: The amendment, new clause and new schedule extend to Northern Ireland most of the weapons provisions in clauses 24, 25, 29 to 34 and 36 in part 2. They introduce the offences of using someone to mind a weapon, restrictions on the sale and purchase of ammunition loading presses, selling realistic imitation firearms, purchasing imitation firearms, and they increase the sentence.

There are good reasons why some clauses do not extend to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, air weapons are deemed to be firearms, so they are already covered by firearms legislation, and primers are already defined as explosives, so they do not need the same provisions as those that cover the rest of the UK.

Clause 35 does not extend to Northern Ireland, because there is believed to be no problem of knife-carrying in schools in Northern Ireland at the moment, so there is no perceived need for head teachers to search pupils for knives. The other provisions are
 
Column Number: 317
 
being applied to Northern Ireland to try to ensure that people living there have the same protection as people living in the rest of the UK.

Amendment agreed to.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 305, in clause 45, page 40, line 8, after ‘38’ insert

‘, section (Continuity of sexual offences law)’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government new clause 24—Continuity of sexual offences law.

Hazel Blears: The amendment and new clause relate to crossbows. Extensive restrictions are already in place to control the sale and use of crossbows. It is an offence to sell or to hire a crossbow to a person under the age of 17. The new clause increases the age limit to 18, in line with the various provisions that we have introduced on guns and knives. In addition, if someone is carrying a crossbow with the intent to cause injury, he could be prosecuted under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public. We do not propose banning the sale of crossbows completely, as they have several legitimate functions. Their main use is the international competitive sport of crossbow archery, of which there are two types—match and field target shooting. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Benton. I am speaking to the wrong amendment.

Mr. Malins: My apologies; I did not notice.

The Chairman: No one else did either.

Hon. Members: Carry on!

Hazel Blears: I apologise. I should be talking about sexual offences, but I am talking about violence, which is terribly confusing. I have a Parliamentary Private Secretary to help me with such things, and he has done his duty tonight, so I am very grateful to him.

We are talking about Government amendment No. 305 and Government new clause 24, which relate to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and are the result of a case that has come to our attention. In the Act, we changed the offences under sexual offences law, but at a trial involving a young person, it was impossible, for various technical reasons, to achieve a conviction, because that young person was unable to determine exactly the date on which the offence took place. The person was charged with the offence under the new legislation, but it could not be determined that that law applied, because the young person had difficulty pinpointing the actual day on which the sexual offence had taken place.

In the amendment and the new clause, we seek to make sure that that does not happen again. In a case in which it has been established that the criminal act took place, it is very unjust for the court to be bound to acquit the defendant simply because it cannot establish whether that act took place before or after 1 May 2004. It will be a severe injustice if somebody who has committed an offence is acquitted because the court
 
Column Number: 318
 
simply cannot place the date. The amendment and the new clause will remedy that situation and make sure that it does not happen in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 106, in clause 45, page 40, line 8, after ‘39’, insert

‘and the repeal by Schedule 3 of section 141(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 7

Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons

‘(1)   A member of staff of an attendance centre who has reasonable grounds for believing that a relevant person may have with him or in his possessions—

(a)   an article to which section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) applies (knives and blades etc.), or

(b)   an offensive weapon (within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (c. 14)),

may search the relevant person or his possessions for such articles and weapons.

(2)   A search under this section may be carried out only where the member of staff and the relevant person are on the premises of the attendance centre.

(3)   A person may carry out a search under this section only if—

(a)   he is the officer in charge of the attendance centre; or

(b)   he has been authorised by the officer in charge to carry out the search.

(4)   A person who carries out a search of a relevant person under this section—

(a)   may not require the relevant person to remove any clothing other than outer clothing;

(b)   must be of the same sex as the relevant person; and

(c)   may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the relevant person.

(5)   A relevant person’s possessions may not be searched under this section except in his presence and in the presence of a person (in addition to the person carrying out the search) who is aged 18 or over.

(6)   If a person who, in the course of a search under this section, finds—

(a)   anything which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting falls within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or

(b)   any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence,

he may seize and retain it.

(7)   A person who exercises a power under this section may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for exercising that power.

(8)   A person who seizes anything under subsection (6) must deliver it to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable.

(9)   The Police (Property) Act 1897 (c. 30) (disposal of property in the possession of the police) shall apply to property which has come into the possession of a police constable under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.

(10)   An authorisation for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) may be given either in relation to a particular search or generally in relation to searches under this section or to a particular description of such searches.

(11)   In this section—

‘attendance centre’ has the same meaning as in Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (see section 221 of that Act);

 
Column Number: 319
 

‘officer in charge’, in relation to an attendance centre, means the member of staff for the time being in charge of that centre;

‘outer clothing’ includes an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat;

‘possessions’, in relation to a person, includes any goods over which he has or appears to have control;

‘relevant person’, in relation to an attendance centre, means a person who is required to attend at that centre by virtue of—

            (a)   a relevant order (within the meaning of section 196       of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)); or

            (b)   an attendance centre order under section 60 of the       Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000       (c. 6).

(12)   The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any powers exercisable by the member of staff of an attendance centre in question apart from this section and are not to be construed as restricting such powers.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

---

Prepared 27 October 2005