§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
§ Mr. ForthThese amendments have two quite different aspects that are important in their own right. One of them refers, coincidentally, to a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who reminded the House that the more difficult it is to define an offence, the more difficult it is to obtain a conviction. We are well into that territory here.
In his enthusiasm to make this Bill as all-embracing as possible and to ensure that individuals can be caught in several different ways, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has excelled himself. This clause contains a definition of offences, which includes
"any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence"
and references to
"aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence."
I have scant knowledge of the law, but I believe that it is well known that it is difficult to obtain a conviction for the offence of conspiracy—and rightly so. That is because one is involved in all sorts of areas that are rarely subject to the normal availability of evidence and so on. Cases are based much more on hearsay evidence, subjective judgment and the like.
The Bill contains an even less easy definition, which is
"any attempt, conspiracy or incitement"
on the one hand, and
"aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence"
on the other. I am worried that, if that definition remains in the Bill, it may encourage the misuse of resources by the shady NCIS organisation, which has untrammelled surveillance and other powers about which I am becoming increasingly alarmed. I am sure that, if I were summoned to attend upon NCIS, I might never emerge from the building.
I am concerned that if those words remain in the Bill, that will encourage the authorities—I am not keen on that word, but at least it is more neutral and less pejorative—to spend an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing those offences that are so poorly defined. One can imagine setting out to prove in a court of law that someone had attempted to conspire or incited to commit one of the related offences or, worse, aided and abetted, counselled or procured the commission of an offence.
What does "counselling" the commission of an offence mean? I do not know whether it is a term of art in the law or whether it is a new provision dreamed up by someone. I think I understand "conspiracy" and "incitement"—if pushed, I might even understand "aiding and abetting", but I am not sure whether I will ever understand the legal 931 definition or implication of "counselling" the commission of an offence in the context of the individuals about whom we are talking.
All morning, we have heard references to the kinds of odious individuals who are involved in football offences, including disorder. They are mean-minded and violent individuals, and it is a complete mystery to me how counselling the commission of an offence will apply to them.
I might not usually be too worried about that, but we are legislating. If the House is to allow itself to be put in the position of endorsing such wording, the Bill's sponsor and the Minister must be prepared to set out—to satisfy me, if no one else—how they envisage a conviction could be obtained in a court of law for counselling the commission of an offence.
As I have said, I have doubts about "aiding and abetting" and "procuring", to say nothing of "conspiracy" or "incitement". My worry is not only that the provision might encourage the authorities to occupy much of their time and effort in pursuing prosecutions of those offences, but, on the other side of the coin, that the wording could, at worst, draw into the net many individuals who are barely, if at all, involved in the commission of those offences.
It is obvious that most of the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in these debates have a clear idea of the people with whom they want the Bill to deal: those who commit, or allegedly commit, offences or cause disorder at football matches. When one start to talk about conspiracy, incitement and counselling, we potentially draw in a much wider group of people who have a much more tenuous connection with the offences, and subject them to all the processes that we have been discussing.
I shall give an example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is very fond of car parks, and he has been telling us with pride how the shady people of NCIS, with all their intrusive surveillance mechanisms, hang around in car parks and listen to people's conversations. They then finger their collars, whisk them off to a luxurious cell, give them a cup of tea and tell them that they have been nicked.
That would be bad enough, but what worries me about the wording that my amendment seeks to remove is that somebody who may be having an innocent conversation with one of the aforesaid people might readily be drawn into that process. The NCIS man will be waving a copy of this legislation, if it ever becomes an Act, and will say, "Oi mate. I'm having you for counselling the commission of an offence. I saw you in the act of counselling. You were standing in the car park talking to an odious individual, and our high-powered, sensitive devices that intrude on individuals' privacy told me that the conversation that you thought you were conducting privately involved counselling the commission of an offence."
I am slightly overstating the matter to emphasise my point, but I hope that I shall be reassured that what I have described will not happen. That, however, is my reading of the Bill. I suspect that in their enthusiasm for the Bill, its promoter and the Minister have allowed it to be drawn so widely that it has the potential to draw into the process 932 a large number of people. That increases the risk of miscarriages of justice and of court proceedings going wrong. It further strengthens the arguments about rights of appeal that have, rightly, been put forward during the proceedings. I hope that we shall take the issue very seriously and examine it closely.
The Bill's promoter may want to argue that the provision is absolutely essential to the Bill's viability. The Minister may tell me that the provision about conspiracy, incitement, aiding and abetting and, in particular, counselling, is absolutely essential if the Bill is to have the intended effect. I remain sceptical. I should have thought that the panoply of existing law and the huge, shadowy organisation that moves mysteriously in society, trying to identify people of whom it disapproves and to drag them to court, would be quite sufficient, but it seems that we are going even further.
We ought to know much more about that provision. Let me make it clear that I want to delete it. The burden of proof is on those who want to leave those words in the Bill, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect them, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, to explain clearly how they believe those words add to the Bill. That is my first concern.
Amendment No. 4 deals with something equally worrying. Clause 2(2)(a) reads:
For the purposes of paragraphs…above—(a) a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a designated football match whether or not he attended or intended to attend the match".I think that I understand the purpose of that provision but it gives rise to misgivings on my part. It strikes me that certainties will exist if somebody is in attendance at a football match—presumably with CCTVs everywhere in our lives, he will be spotted. The Minister proudly said earlier that actions captured on video would be beyond doubt. It may be that if an individual attends a match and misbehaves in the way that is defined in the Bill, he can be dealt with legitimately. However, the Bill goes beyond that, obviously deliberately.
I am asking my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and the Minister whether they are absolutely satisfied that the provisions of this part of the Bill are as they should be and that there is no possibility of serious miscarriages of justice. The subsection is drawn extremely widely:
a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a designated football match whether or not he attended or intended to attend the match".That is throwing the net very wide.This part of the Bill worries me the more I think about it. We are no longer focusing on the people with tattoos who behave outrageously, carrying and using offensive weapons and so on; we are talking about another group. Earlier, we were talking about those who counsel others to do something. It is a bizarre thought that the sort of people who commit the offences with which we are concerned will be subject to counselling. As I have said, I want to hear more about that.
We have moved on to talk about a different and much larger group of people who have not been on the journey to the match and who may or may not have attended it. There is scope within the Bill, if lines 27 to 29 remain in it, to draw into the process people who are entirely innocent, or who are involved only peripherally, or who 933 are drawn in inadvertently. For example, they may have been travelling with the alleged offenders and, therefore, may be drawn in. There is the potential greatly to complicate the processes that would follow the identification of the alleged offenders.
I need many reassurances about this part of the Bill, which takes the matter much further than it need do or should do. The wording is dangerous and rather loose. I hope that having reflected on it, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and, perhaps, the Minister will say, "This is not necessary to the core purposes of the Bill. There are worries here and there are possibilities of things going badly wrong. Therefore, we are prepared to go along with the amendment and take out these parts of the Bill."
§ Mr. MacleanOnce again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), with his customary rhetoric and lucidity, has clearly set out our concerns, as reflected in the amendment. That being so, I can be relatively brief.
I could not hope to match my right hon. Friend's eloquence but I share his concerns, which are reflected in amendment No. 3. Clause 2(2) contains the words:
"Any reference to an offence in paragraphs (a) to (q) above includes…a reference to any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence".
It is a long time since I studied law, but as I have said to the House on numerous occasions, I got out before I was totally corrupted. I am not a qualified lawyer, although I took a law degree in Scotland about 30 years ago. I cannot remember whether a reference to an
attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offencemeans that the person has been convicted for an attempted offence, an attempted conspiracy or whatever.1 pm
The point that I am inadequately trying to make is, does the reference to "attempt" or "conspiracy" mean that it is enough for the police to be of the opinion that, whereas others have been charged with an offence of affray or violence or disorder, an individual has been involved in it, attempted to commit it, was conspiring to commit it or incited others to do it but has not been convicted of attempt or conspiracy or incitement? I presume that the references are to people convicted of attempt or conspiracy or incitement.
§ Mr. MacleanNevertheless, I am concerned that the wording brings a very indistinct category of individuals within the scope of the Bill. The category is not as clear cut as that of those who have been convicted of an offence, and I am not certain that it would be possible or feasible to prosecute an individual on such grounds. Specifically, such a prosecution might be over-dependent on police intelligence, which would be compromised as a result.
Therefore, although the provision may seem to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to be a good little catch-all—without it, one may get all those convicted of an offence, but miss someone who has been convicted of an attempt to commit the offence or of 934 conspiracy; and, naturally, my hon. Friend wants to catch those people—he may, by inserting that catch-all, produce an unenforceable piece of legislation.
I do not feel too strongly about amendment No. 3, but the subject is worth exploring. I shall listen if my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford or the Minister say that the safeguard is essential and that many nasty hooligans have been convicted of attempt or conspiracy. I share the law's view that conspiracy and attempted violence are as important as actual violence. In fact, those behind the scenes who are conspiring to commit violence, or aiding and abetting or fomenting it, are often the most evil, and my new clauses 1 and 2 were designed to get at them. I am happy for them to be caught, if that is sensible; I simply want clarification that the provision does not go a stage too far, inserting an unenforceable passage or weakening a sensible and tough provision.
Amendment No. 4 relates to those who are regarded as being on a journey to or from a football match even if they did not attend the match or did not intend to attend the match. It is the second part of that which worries me. Those who did not intend to attend a football match can be deemed to be on the journey to it even when they were not. That could catch innocent people.
The law is obviously trying to catch those who buy tickets to a football match, intending to go to it and to have a punch-up, and those who intend to go into the vicinity of a match—although not attend it—and to have a punch-up nearby. Those people are fair game. I am happy for those football hooligans who have no intention of attending a football match, but intend to be outside the ground or in the pub nearby committing their violence, to be caught. However, I am worried that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst eloquently said—the provision could sweep in people who are not football hooligans, but are travelling to the same place at the same time on the same day, or who are in the company of some of those nasty people, but have been swept up in the violence.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford may say that if people travel in a minibus alongside violent hooligans, to get a free ride to the town where the football match is taking place, it serves the blighters right if they get swept up. I do not take that view. Sometimes, trains are hired for special outings or events, and the wives or families of those attending the event take advantage of the availability of the hired coach, bus or train to shop or do other activities while others attend the football match. There may be examples of people who are seen to be travelling with football hooligans and nasty scum being innocently swept into the provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend or the Minister can reassure me that that will not be the case.
The amendments are probing, as there are doubts in my mind. I would be happy if my hon. Friend said that had I understood the Bill and the other legislation correctly, I would not have these doubts. However, I would seek an assurance before I am satisfied. I have no intention of weakening the Bill, but I do not wish it to be diminished or discredited by catching a few genuinely innocent people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned counselling. I believe that we are referring to the old-fashioned counselling in the criminal law sense, meaning advising someone to commit an 935 offence. It is not the new-fangled, touchy-feely, "I feel your pain" or "Give me a cuddle" counselling with which the country is now awash. If legislation were proposed to deal with the million new counsellors who give everyone a cuddle every time it rains, I would support it if it meant that they were banned for life and sent to prison. That is the sort of counselling we need to outlaw.
§ Mr. ForthI accept what my right hon. Friend says, but does he seriously imagine that the kind of people whom we are told repeatedly commit these offences will be the subject of what he has defined as counselling? I have a mental picture of someone with a shaven head, tattoos and other accoutrements who is about to commit ghastly crimes in the name of being a football supporter. Who will counsel—by whatever definition—that person to do something illegal?
§ Mr. MacleanMy right hon. Friend has not seen some of the new members of the probation service. That will get me a few letters. My right hon. Friend has misled himself—he has counselled himself unwisely. We are talking not about sitting down and giving these scumbags a cuddle, but about the technical, legal sense of counselling, where someone aids, abets or advises someone to commit an offence. If the other form of counselling were one of the penalties appropriate to these people, I would be worried that the Government had gone really soft on crime.
§ Kate HoeyThis part of the Bill does not create new offences—we must make that clear. Whether they have been confused with the new form of "counselling" or not, these criminal offences exist. The Bill merely proposes to enable the court to make a banning order if someone is convicted of one those offences.
The amendments would significantly reduce the ability for action to be taken against those who use football as an excuse for their behaviour. Adding to the list of football-related offences the offences of conspiracy and incitement would provide the courts with the ability to take banning order action against those convicted of such offences.
Everyone who knows anything about conspiracy will accept that it is difficult to obtain convictions for offences of that nature. The people most likely to be involved in committing those offences at football matches are those who plan and organise the activities of others. They tend to avoid being the subject of banning orders, for the simple reason that they themselves do not commit the acts of violence or disorder. That is why we can discuss "unconvicted football hooligans". These people will not be caught committing violence or disorder, but they are the motivators, instigators and planners who escape the powers at present available to the courts under existing legislation. The Bill is intended to bring those people within the ambit of the law.
Our original document went out to wide consultation and we were especially interested in the response on this matter. Many respondents who understood what went on behind football violence supported our proposals. The Football Supporters Association, which, along with the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, tried to show people that a minority were responsible for 936 the violence, felt that it was important to add conspiracy. We have listened and we think that the provision is necessary.
The Bill is designed to tackle the problem of those who use the environment around football matches to cause trouble and stir up violence. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not go to football matches, but if he did he would know that many people go without tickets, with no intention of going into the ground; they simply take the build-up of people and the organisation that goes into it as an opportunity to hide behind the vast majority of law-abiding supporters.
Having no intention to attend the match does not, sadly, mean having no intention to cause or be involved in acts of hooliganism around the ground, or on the way to or from the match. By showing that the person's journey was principally in connection with a football match, the provisions will extend the banning order process to those who commit offences outside the ground without any intention of entering it.
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman felt that he should explore the amendments, and in particular amendment No. 4, but I believe that they would weaken the Bill. The genuine, decent supporters prefer the Bill as it stands, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. ForthI am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. She said that the offences are not necessarily new, and that, allied with the very helpful explanation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), gives me some reassurance that we are on fairly familiar and secure territory in terms of the definition of offences. I can now see, as a non-attender of football matches, that there may be a category of people who are not readily identifiable, but bear a large part of the responsibility for the offences.
I am still not entirely satisfied that there is no danger that a wider group of innocent people might be drawn into the process by the very wide wording in the Bill, but on this occasion I am prepared to give my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the Minister the benefit of the doubt. They appear to be sure that the provisions are essential and would not give rise to the risks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I outlined.
I still have my doubts, but I am sufficiently reassured not to press the point. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.