HL Deb 29 June 2004 vol 663 cc136-9

3.20 p.m.

Lord Ackner

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the comments made by the Home Secretary about Mr Garry Mann on Mr Mann's return from Portugal and after his appearance before the Uxbridge magistrates were in accordance with government policy, and in particular the reported comment that the Home Secretary intended to "nail this individual".

The Minister of State, Home Office: (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)

My Lords, the individual concerned was convicted in Portugal of participating in, and leading, a riot and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Home Secretary's concern was, and remains, seeing that any individual who is convicted by a court does not escape his sentence because of a technicality. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary remains committed to co-operating with the Portuguese authorities.

Lord Ackner:

My Lords, has the noble Baroness read the article by Simon Jenkins published in the centre page of the Times last Wednesday, which stated that knee-jerk David Blunkett is: The judicial equivalent of a football hooligan".

Does she take the view that a senior judge—perhaps our reluctant Lord Chancellor—might be prepared to explain to the Home Secretary the fallacy of the proposition that any publicity is better than none? He might also be prepared to continue by pointing out to the Home Secretary that his intemperate outburst seriously undermines the integrity of that great department of state, the Home Office.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I regret to tell the noble and learned Lord that I did not have the advantage of reading Mr Simon Jenkins's article last week. Needless to say, I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord's assessment. As to any tutelage that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may see fit to give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I believe that may not be something that the Lord Chancellor would be likely to take up.

The suggestion that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has behaved improperly in this regard is not one with which I feel able to agree.

Lord McNally:

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the interference of the Home Secretary, which is not an isolated case, detracts from the great success of the campaign against soccer hooliganism; and that if he generalised his comments and committed himself to nailing soccer hooligans between now and the World Cup in two years' time he would get general support?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I do not accept that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has interfered in any improper way. I accept that some would rather he had expressed himself more felicitously. For instance, if he had said, "We wish to uphold the rule of law and act in comity with our Portuguese colleagues and enforce their judgments", I should imagine that the whole House would say, "Hear, hear!". He chose more colloquial language.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester:

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has my noble friend seen the very welcome statement issued this morning by UEFA, the European football governing body, praising England fans for their behaviour during Euro 2004. It states: The English authorities have worked hard in the last 10 years. Their work is starting to bear fruit and they should be commended. There has been a change in the make-up of England fans and we need to keep out the hard element". Is that not a great tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton and his working group on football hooliganism, and a tribute to the good sense of this House and the other place in passing the Football Spectators Act 2000? It has made a real difference and for the first time one can be proud to be an England fan watching the team abroad.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I agree without reservation with my noble friend.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts:

My Lords, will the Minister comment on the view of Fair Trials Abroad that the recent comments of the Home Secretary in relation to Mr Mann will prejudice any chance of a fair retrial?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I do not think that that is right. The matter will be dealt with by the Portuguese authorities, not here. I have already made it plain that although some may wish that my honourable friend had expressed himself differently, the import of his comments was clear.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass:

My Lords, surely government must adhere to a policy that justice should be seen to be done; or do they?

Is there not a similarity, in essence, to cases in Northern Ireland where public officials, given inadequate protection against terrorism and having had to employ pragmatic measures, can find themselves charged with offences that would not in themselves merit a criminal conviction? Otherwise, these "fall-guys" would not be held over for periods well in excess of a year, so that more dubious evidence can be accumulated out of time and certainly out of context. Is that justice?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, perhaps we could remain within the context of this Question. The Portuguese authorities applied the rules. Your Lordships will know that in this case the defendant had an opportunity, if he so chose, to postpone the hearing for 30 days. He chose to have an expedited hearing. It was a valid process within the meaning of the Portuguese law.

Lord Tomlinson:

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in this case government policy was communicated to the population with great clarity? Could she urge her ministerial colleagues throughout government to communicate government policy with equal clarity on all other matters, so that it can be just as easily understood?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I know that many would prefer Anglo-Saxon terms to others.

Lord Roberts of Conwy:

My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that it is quite clear to all of us that the Home Secretary, by using the words he did, has scored an own goal?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I do not agree.

Viscount Bledisloe:

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the fact that a very senior government Minister can make remarks of this kind which are—to put it at its lowest—ambiguous, is a very clear demonstration of why it is important to have and to retain in the Cabinet a senior judicial and judicious figure who can seek to preserve his colleagues from these unfortunate errors? Does she also agree that noble Lords not cognisant of this point would do well to bear it in mind when we come to debate the Constitutional Reform Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Viscount that I am surprised that he should suggest that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was "ambiguous" in any way. I think that the reverse is true.