Clause 1 - Repeal of provisions ofFootball (Disorder) Act 2000

Part of Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 5:15 pm on 23 October 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Adrian Bailey Adrian Bailey Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West 5:15, 23 October 2001

Even on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, attending an international football match hardly constitutes a daily activity. Very few people travel abroad daily.

The Bill includes the means for the banning orders not to be applied, because they are applied only for specified football matches. I understand that the body that determines whether a match shall be so specified is called the Football Banning Orders Authority. There are already provisions for certain international football matches not to be specified as meriting the issuing of banning orders. Free access could be obtained to such matches.

It would be far more sensible if, instead of introducing sunset clauses, we were to leave it to the banning authority not to exercise its powers to specify matches under the legislation in the case of a match for which it was felt inappropriate to issue banning orders. If hon. Members find that unacceptable, they are making the case for the legislation being permanent, because it has to be there as reserve legislation.

I am not happy about including a five-year sunset clause. If, at the end of those five years, the level of violence at international football matches were such that it was felt to be inappropriate to exercise the powers under the legislation, it would be better not to specify matches. If the sunset clause were included, we would have to go through the legal process of reintroducing the appropriate orders to continue the measures. I cannot help but feel that that—in spite of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said—is sending the wrong messages.