Football (Disorder) Bill — 13 Jul 2000

John Prescott MP, Kingston upon Hull East did not vote.

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In my statement on 4 July, I told the House that additional measures were required to prevent a recurrence of the appalling scenes witnessed in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000. I outlined what those measures should be and why it was important that they were introduced as soon as possible. However, I pointed out that Members of this House and the other place quite properly take their responsibilities for examining legislation very seriously and recognise the need to combine speed with careful scrutiny.

caused or contributed to any violence and disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

taken all measures that other countries have taken.--[ Official Report , 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 38.]

any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooligans following the trouble witnessed at Euro 2000.

I am today making this important offer to the Prime Minister. The Conservative Party will give full support and co-operation in Parliament to Government legislation.--

Hague offers Blair help on football hooligans

Conservative Leader, William Hague has pledged that his Party will support any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooligans following the trouble witnessed at Euro 2000?

conduct which constitutes a crime.

at any time . . . caused or contributed to any violence or disorder

opposes in principle measures such as the imposition of criminal sanctions on those unconvicted of any criminal offence in any country, let alone any football related offence.

Well, first, we are not talking about criminal convictions in those cases, and surely Liberty should agree that prevention is better than waiting until a conviction is secured, and following that with punishment.

we are concerned that the standard of proof adopted by the magistrates' courts would be the civil law "balance of probabilities" standard rather than the higher criminal law standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". This is despite the fact that any breach of a banning order would be a criminal, not a civil, offence.

The Secretary of State may by order make . . . any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision . . . any transitory, transitional or saving provision,

which he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to any provision of this Act.

may take into account . . . any decision of a court or tribunal outside the United Kingdom . . . any decision of a public authority, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere--

Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as maybe necessary.

If it appears to a constable in uniform that the behaviour of a person present before him is such that immediate enquiries should be made to determine whether or not the condition in section 14B(2) above is met, the constable may exercise the power in subsection (3)

to detain the person in his custody

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence.

that the behaviour of a person present before him is such that immediate enquiries should be made

Man United, Man United, Man United are no good.

I unreservedly offer the support of the . . . party for any Bill which is genuinely and effectively concerned with football safety and the enhancement of a great national game. These are not and should not be matters of party political dispute. But this Bill--

does not meet those requirements. As drafted it can never do so. That is why we are opposing it tonight.--[ Official Report , 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 862.]

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:--

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 6.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con2 5 (+2 tell)05.6%
Lab204 (+2 tell) 1049.8%
LDem0 000.0%
Total:206 6034.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Simon BurnsWest ChelmsfordCon (front bench)aye
Mr Norman FowlerSutton ColdfieldConaye
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive