Orders of the Day — Football (Disorder) Bill

House of Commons, 27 July 2000.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

The House should know that a number of manuscript amendments have been tabled to the Lords amendments to the Football (Disorder) Bill. Copies are available in the Vote Office. I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If the House agrees to either of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal. We come to Lords amendment No. 1.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Minister speaks to Lords amendment No. 1, could he explain what the Government propose to do about the matter that we discussed in the previous debate? The Government gave an undertaking that if Lord Ackner, the Cross-Bench peer, withdrew amendments that he had tabled, they would ensure that the issues would be addressed before the Bill completed its passage. The issues were not addressed in the Lords because of the timetable, and today they do not seem to be the subject of Government amendments to the Lords amendments. It therefore seems that Ministers have not yet honoured the undertaking given in the other place by Lord Bassam.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

That is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair. However, the Minister will undoubtedly have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will perhaps respond to them in the debate.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said, absolutely correctly, that the manuscript amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are available. All of those amendments are effectively amendments to amendments. However, have any of them been selected?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have been grouped with other amendments for debate. They are listed on the new selection list.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may assist the House and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) if I point out that there is a new selection list. The hon. Gentleman will find my amendments on that list.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY NCIS

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It may be for the convenience of the House if I point out that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for inclusion in this group of amendments, and amendments tabled by him for inclusion in the third and fourth groups. We shall be able to consider those amendments when we reach those groups. Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 3 and 18 to 21 were made by the Government in the other place to give effect to trie recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Government accepted all the Committee's recommendations, and I commend them to the House, as I said earlier that I would. Amendment No. 1 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 1989 will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendment gives effect to the first recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 give effect to the Select Committee's second recommendation, that amendments made under the Bill to orders subject to affirmative resolution should themselves be subject to that procedure. Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 give effect to the Select Committee's third recommendation, that the power to extend the control period under the Bill—the period during which passports may be required to be surrendered and the summary powers in sections 21A and B may be exercised—should be limited. The amendments ensure that a control period can begin a maximum of 10 days before the beginning of a match or tournament, if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary for the purposes of enforcement of the Act. Amendment No. 22 is a minor drafting amendment. The amendment in lieu relates to amendments Nos. 18 to 21, and it might help the House if I explain our attitude to it before the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey speaks. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee saw no difficulty in principle with the power to extend the control period, but it recommended that it should not be open-ended. The Government have accepted that fully. The power can be used to extend the period to a maximum of 10 days before a match or tournament, and only on the ground that it will assist in enforcing the law. Any order is subject to the negative resolution procedure. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable, and I urge the House to reject the amendment in lieu. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked me to comment on the exchanges in another place between my noble Friend Lord Bassam and Lord Ackner. I am studying the details of those exchanges, and I will comment later in the debate. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Let me make it clear, on behalf of the official Opposition, that although, as was said earlier on the guillotine motion, we have been very unhappy with the way in which matters have been handled procedurally—in what we would call indecent haste and with inappropriate guillotines—we are none the less grateful that the Government have made certain concessions, having recognised the quality of the arguments advanced by my noble Friend Lord Cope and others. I certainly accept what the Minister, and Ministers in another place, have said: that the Government have sought, where they felt it possible, to accommodate points made in both Houses by the official Opposition and by Liberal Democrats. That should not in any way be taken as reducing our continuing concern about the way in which this matter has been handled and about the fact that, even this afternoon, there has been quite a lot of confusion. The point just made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) shows once again how the House can get into a muddle and even experienced Members of Parliament such as he can be confused by the rush in which manuscript amendments have had to be tabled. I am pleased that the amendment in lieu was at least selected, but the problem is that, because of the guillotine, some important matters may never be reached, so the Minister may not be able to say anything about them. Given that we are dealing with a Bill that, quintessentially, may result in court proceedings, the rule in Pepper v. Hart that ministerial statements can be relied on in court is especially important. If important amendments are not debated, by definition the Minister will make no statement and no reference will be able to be made to the Government's view in interpreting what will be the result of this rushed legislation. There are no amendments tabled by the official Opposition in this group. Because of the rush, we have sought to consider, at short notice, the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I hear what the Minister says about delegated powers and the amendment in lieu, relating to line 18 of the second schedule. There is certainly a continuing concern about the broad reach of the provisions, but I recognise that the Government have wisely taken on board a number of points made in debate by Lord Cope and others in another place. The Government did well to accept those points, but they should recognise that the way in which they have proceeded is not a recipe for good legislation. We hope that they will learn lessons from the peculiar procedural complications that they have imposed on the House, and we very much hope that they will never again put us in such a position.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As the Minister said, the amendment in lieu relates to Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21. I shall deal briefly with Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which improve the Bill by providing more parliamentary control in respect of policy changes and any additional measures that the Government may seek to introduce under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, and we support the amendments. Let me pause for a second to say that all the Lords amendments improve the Bill. My hon. Friends here and in another place—and many other right hon. and hon. Members—share the view that the Bill is fundamentally bad. We continue to disagree with provisions in respect of banning orders and summary detention. Had we the opportunity, we would disagree with the Bill or remove those provisions. However, procedure prevents us from doing so. Those sentiments were reflected in speeches in another place, such as those by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and by Lord Ackner, who is non-party political and a senior and respected lawyer. My noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury compared the Bill with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which we dealt with yesterday, saying: It is a striking contrast with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, on which the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, laboured, as did my noble Friend Lord McNally and I, together with the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Lucas. That Bill came to this House in a tawdry and inadequate state and left it much improved. This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition, but from the Government Benches.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 475.]

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

So there have been some.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I was quoting Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is certainly our view that, of the major matters involved, the only significant concession has been in respect of the life of the Bill, which was originally five years. It was conceded in this House to four years and is now down to two years—the so-called sunset clause. My noble Friend Lord Phillips said that although it may be good that the sun sets on this Bill sooner rather than later, the sun should never have risen on this Bill. That encapsulates our view. So what have we left to do? We have tried to table appropriate amendments in the time available. Our amendment, which would replace Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to extend the control period. Of course it is better to have a control period of 10 days rather than an unlimited one. However, my hon. Friends and I would rather that the Secretary of State did not have the power to extend the control period as everyone is concerned that the Bill already gives too much power to the authorities.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the control period. What will happen if an emergency arises during the parliamentary recess? Can the Secretary of State simply do whatever he wishes—and we will have to scrutinise that long after the event—or is he denied the right to take action?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on another important reason why the Bill is nonsense. I understand that the control period can be extended only by the Secretary of State coming to Parliament and seeking an extension. Many powers in the Bill require affirmative resolutions of both Houses. I stand to be corrected, but if that is the case, it can happen only when the House is sitting. I find it unlikely that the House would be recalled for that sort of job.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Who knows?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Nowadays who knows, but it is unlikely. Some of the urgent issues for this year relate to matches in August, September and October—before the House of Commons returns. Therefore, a power to take urgent action could not be applied if the House was not sitting. That also applies to Christmas and Easter holidays. I hope that the House will agree that it would be better not to give Ministers the additional power. I realise that we will not be able to vote on my proposal until we have discussed the remaining groups of amendments, but hon. Members should bear in mind that we will seek to divide the House after the next three debates.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I want to deal with the point about Lord Ackner. I have studied the Hansard of the debate in another place, which started at 4.48 pm yesterday and can be found at columns 450–65. There was substantial controversy over the matter, and as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I was careful to read the entire debate. I believe that no undertaking was given to Lord Ackner that the amendments that he wanted to table could be tabled for today. Indeed, at column 462, the Government Chief Whip made it clear that amendments along the lines of those proposed by Lord Ackner could not be tabled today because they were not variations of or consequential on amendments made in another place. I wanted to make those points to set out my position as clearly as possible.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Like the Minister, I have read the Hansard of yesterday's debate in another place. Does he agree that the reason why there has been a problem is that there was no opportunity for peers such as Lord Ackner to table their amendments as they were working to a timetable that was then changed at short notice?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As is set out clearly in the Hansard of the debate, there was clearly a misunderstanding on Report as to whether or not Lord Ackner could table amendments the following day for Third Reading. The full account of that is set out in the Lords Hansard of the debate yesterday afternoon. Apparently, Lord Bassam said that Lord Ackner could table the amendments "tomorrow" instead of "for tomorrow". That miswording was specifically addressed in yesterday's debate. It is elaborated in the Hansard of that debate, which is available to all right hon. and hon. Members who would like to study it. I do not believe that a commitment of the type that the hon. Gentleman was referring to was given.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Will the Minister give way?

COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment. The amendment gave rise to the most discussion in another place. I will not hide from the House that the Government are disappointed by the amendment, which reflects the desire of another place to reduce significantly the proposed life span of what are widely known as measures 3 and 4. We were not against a sunset clause in principle and we were quite happy to discuss it, but we feel that the time periods that were agreed in another place are too short for good legislation. When we proposed one and four-year sunset periods, we believed that the right amount of time had been allocated properly to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the measures in sections 14B, 21A and 2IB of the Football Spectators Act 1989. We were especially conscious that a five-year period would incorporate Euro 2004 in Portugal—a high-risk tournament comparable with Euro 2000—and that that would provide an excellent test for the Bill. That is why we opposed the amendment in another place and that is why we regret it now. However, we recognise that the concerns that were expressed in another place that led to the amendment were perfectly genuine and were not facetious in any way. Although we do not share those views, we think that in the interests of the consensual approach that we have tried to follow, we should accept the amendment and for that reason I commend it to the House.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

While I am grateful to the Minister for not resisting the proposal that there should be a fairly stringent sunset clause, I am also slightly disappointed as we proposed an original renewal period of six months rather than the one year which has now come from another place. On the other hand, the final date by which the legislation falls, which is two years away, is exactly what we proposed. Although I hear what the Minister says about the matches that the Bill will not cover, it will cover the whole of the qualifying period for the World cup and should therefore provide a sensible opportunity to assess its effectiveness. 4 pm However, I feel strongly that, without the amendment, it would have been hard for Conservative Members to maintain our support for the Bill. We have always supported the taking of immediate measures to deal with football hooligans, and the use of an accelerated timetable. When the Bill was published, part IV especially included provisions that we had never sought. They had never been proposed previously, and so had not been discussed. As a result, all subsequent discussion has been completely new, and the timetable has been extremely rushed. We have made it clear throughout that we would not oppose the due process of the Bill's progress through the House, although it has not had much of that due process. However, the measure's flaws and dangers have become clearer with debate, and it has become increasingly necessary to provide that the Bill has a clause to ensure their short, sharp life. At various stages of the debate on the Bill, hon. Members have drawn parallels with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. The hon. Member for Newham—

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

My constituency is now called West Ham.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am sorry, I cannot keep up with these changes.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

At least I have not changed my constituency.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Neither have I. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he had a specific opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. He and I share many interests when it comes to animal welfare. I was not happy either with the outcome of deliberations on that legislation, although at the time I was obliged to pretend that I was. Therefore, I feel strongly that we must always ensure that legislation introduced at a fast pace can be reviewed. Such a review should take place at an early stage, not after a long period of possible injustices, failures and undesirable effects. In that way, hon. Members would be able to assess whether the legislation was better or worse than they believed it to be when it left the House, or exactly as they expected. I welcome the amendment. It is close to what we asked for in the first place, and I am grateful to the Minister for accepting it. I hope that it will meet with no serious opposition from other hon. Members.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that the Bill's review period will be shorter than originally planned—as long as my hon. Friend the Minister does not come back to the House for a renewal clause within a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will say whether there is a serious intention of extending the provisions beyond a year. More importantly, what assessments will be made of the Bill's effects and operation? How will those assessments be reported to the House, and what opportunity will hon. Members have to debate them? This Bill seriously and fundamentally reduces the civil liberties of British citizens. It has to be monitored, as the prevention of terrorism Acts and other legislation are. My hon. Friend the Minister did not see me when I tried to intervene before he sat down at the end of the short discussion of the previous group of amendments. I wanted to ask him what would happen if he sought to make an order during a parliamentary recess: would there be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in such an eventuality? The Bill has been rushed through both Houses of Parliament, and is inadequate in many ways. I think that it poses a danger to civil liberties in our society. At the very least, we need a process by which Parliament can examine its effects. We need to know what reports about its operation will be received up to and during the initial match to which it is intended to apply—the international between England and France in September.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

It was a bit rich of the Minister to complain about the amount of time for assessment of the Bill's effects being reduced to two years, as he was an enthusiastic supporter of denying either House of Parliament the chance to debate properly what the Bill was meant to achieve. No doubt his lack of enthusiasm for the amendment is tempered by his enthusiasm to get the Bill through the House today. There has been widespread concern about the Bill in the House. That was evident on Third Reading and at other stages of its progress. It left this House in pretty bad shape, and has returned slightly improved, but the acceptance by the Government of the amendments tabled in another place shows that there was real room for improvement. The reduction of the assessment period is one element of that, but it would have been better if this House had had at least one more day for deliberation on the amendments. We were denied that opportunity. It would also have been better if the House of Lords had had the opportunity to discuss the amendments more fully. Everyone who wants legislation to curb football hooliganism to succeed will be disappointed with the lack of time for debate. The problem for those who object to aspects of the Bill is that it will return to the House before two years are up. There is no doubt that the provisions will be challenged in the courts, and the Home Secretary will have to come to the House to amend the legislation accordingly. The Bill may solve this summer's problem, but it will not help in the long term. I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who said that we have to stamp out hooliganism and make football worth going to see, so that people can be proud of the national team. The Bill will not achieve that. I hope that the Minister will say what he would add to the Bill to improve it.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I also said that the Bill might not work. That is because the beast that we are dealing with changes shape according to the legislation that arrives on the statute book. I do not want to create a hostage to fortune, but I am fairly certain that we will have to revisit this territory again and again, until we get the matter right. We must exercise judgment and, although hon. Members from all parties have pointed out the potential problems, that is what we are doing in introducing the Bill. I am reasonably agnostic about the amendment. I preferred the original proposal in the Bill for a four-year review period, but I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify one point. I understand that the legislation will come into effect by the end of August. That means that we will be looking at it again this time next year. Probably the most crucial game to be played by the England team in the course of the next year will take place on 1 September 2001. It is a World cup qualifying match against Germany—in Munich, of all places. I can imagine the sort of loonies who might turn up for that match. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say to what extent we can be certain that the Bill will still be in place at that time? Will it be adequate to handle problems that might arise in the run-up to the match against Germany on 1 September 2001?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I shall be brief, in the hope that the House will be able to vote on the Liberal Democrat amendment at the end of this short debate. For me and a number of other hon. Members, it is the only way in which the Bill can be rendered remotely acceptable. Many hon. Members were worried about the use of civil standards of proof and civil process to exercise the criminal sanction of a banning order. After the sunset clause is triggered, it is inevitable that the Bill will return to the House to be recreated. I hope that the Minister will look then at the option of using criminal process rather than civil process, and in that way ensure that the legislation properly respects civil liberties.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

We must remember that the Bill is very rushed. It is inaccurate to say that there has been real opportunity for proper scrutiny. Consequently, I think that one year is quite long enough before the measure is reconsidered. It is thoroughly undesirable that we should legislate in this way. To restrict the Bill's time limit to one year—six months would have been better—is the only ameliorating factor. I am very glad that the other place has proposed this amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As colleagues have said, this is where the Government were defeated in the other place, by a majority of 38. The amendment is the attempt of the other place, given the rush, to do something. I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). We do not make the removal of civil liberties acceptable by saying that they are removed only for the next two years. My hon. Friends and I take the view that there should be a criminal pre-condition for a banning order, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be summary detention without judicial authority. However, those views apply whether the measure is for one year or two. No Government would put so much effort into a measure if they did not intend to use its powers. It is not as if the Government want these powers to remain in the locker—they want to apply them. We will be able to judge how effective those powers are. The sunset provision clearly improves the Bill. The Minister undertook that annual reports would be made, although there is a question about their independence. Before we agree to the amendment, will the Minister confirm that we will have an independent report on the working of the Bill before the renewal orders—which must be made before next summer's recess—and before the end of the life of the Bill, which must be before the end of summer 2002?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

A number of points have been raised in this short debate. Let me say first to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that we believe that the Bill is well constructed, but we do not yet have a view as to what to do at the end of the period. We genuinely want to look at the situation, see what has happened and decide whether the legislation should be improved or whether further legislation is necessary. To that end, my hon. Friend is right to say that it will be necessary for a report to be made on the legislation so that the situation can be fully discussed. That report will be made. I cannot give the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the commitment—I could not give it to him on Second or Third Readings, either—that the report will be "independent". However, I can give the commitment that we will make a report. As for a debate in the House, that is a matter for the normal process. Of course, all the normal processes of the House, including Select Committees, will be able to stimulate debate on those matters.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Is there any possibility of ensuring that an independent report is done on the operation of the legislation, perhaps through surveillance of the matches taking place in September and this autumn? Could someone appointed by the Home Office report independently on the Bill so that we do not have to rely only on statistics and police reports?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not ruling that out. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, we will consider how to report in a way that will maximise confidence in what we are doing among all those in the House. A variety of reports are produced—police reports and others have been mentioned—which we look at. We will decide exactly how to report in due course. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot give an absolute commitment that the report will be independent in the way that he wishes. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recess. The order referred to under proposed section 22A(2) is subject to the negative resolution procedure. It can therefore be laid and can come into force during the recess in the event that such circumstances arise. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mentioned the Germany/England game in 2001. The process being considered today is that proposed sections 14B, 21A and 21B will be subject to a one-year initial review period which will take us to the end of August 2001, subject to an order extending it for a further year—to August 2002—which will be subject to affirmative resolution. In the event that the Bill is agreed to today, the match in September 2001 will be covered, provided that the House agrees an affirmative order before August 2001, which would extend the Bill for another year. That takes us to the period in which the report must be made, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to be clear about this. In the event that the Government decide to extend the life of the measure beyond August 2001, can the Minister assure us that that would be done by an affirmative vote of the House rather than an instrument ordered by a Minister, as that would be ordered during a recess and would therefore have to be voted on retrospectively? That would obviously be too late, because the Bill would already have come into effect.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The extension of the legislation by a further year after the first year would be by affirmative, not negative order. So the Government would need to table—presumably before 31 July 2001—an order to extend the measure for a year to August 2002.1 cannot commit myself to the exact date, but that is the framework. That is the meaning of the process that we are discussing.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Does not the report, whether or not it is as independent as we would like, also have to be laid before we have the affirmative resolution votes, not just at the end of the two years of the Bill's life?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The report will be about the first two-year period, assuming that an affirmative order were passed, to consider whether further legislation will be necessary to extend the measure beyond the period that we have discussed. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should have the report before the affirmative order to extend the measure for a further year is made, I understand his point, and so will those who read our proceedings. We will consider what is the appropriate reporting mechanism to the House at that point. Obviously, in any debate on the affirmative order, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to make any points that they want about the basis of information that is being considered. A report on the content of the legislation has to be laid beforehand, as clause 5 clearly provides. However, I am more ambiguous in my response to the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the report, because that will be important to the House in considering the situation. With that, I commend the Lords amendment to the House.