---

12.38 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I, too, congratulate my hon. and good Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on winning sixth place in the ballot and on proposing this law and order measure. However, I have some doubts about the passport confiscation measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) may be unaware of the difference in meaning between confiscation and surrender, but others of my hon. Friends are not so confused. I have concerns about that matter, but not about others.

To put the whole issue in context, I point out that, terrible though football hooliganism is, it goes back as far as the 14th century. With the indulgence of the House, I shall quote from a proclamation made in 1314 by Edward II. The proclamation declared:

"Forasmuch there is great noise in the city caused by hustling over large balls, from which many evils may arise, which God forbid, we command and forbid on behalf of the King, on pain of imprisonment, such game to be used in the city in the future."

As has been said, more recent events have brought home the need for this legislation. This is the 10th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, but before that there was the Ibrox tragedy in 1971 and the Heysel stadium disaster in 1985.

I welcome the Bill as it deals with racist chanting and attempts to exclude troublemakers from football matches. I also welcome the efforts to impose law and order and prevent disorder. However, there remains the question of civil rights, which has been raised by the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and many others of my Back-Bench hon. Friends, who all spoke about the confiscation of passports from the unconvicted.

16 Apr 1999 : Column 514

Before I became a Member of Parliament, I had radio station companies as clients, and one of those was Radio Moscow. In the 1980s, I travelled frequently to the Soviet Union--in fact I am convinced that the many Soviet Union stamps in my passport mean that, if there is not a large file on me in the Whips Office, there is certainly one at MI5. A look from the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), tells me that the file in the Whips Office is somewhat larger than the one at MI5. I am conscious that one of the ways of controlling people in the former Soviet Union was through either the non-issue or the confiscation of passports. I am sorry to pick on my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who prefers the term "surrender", but I have to point out that that word implies that the action is voluntary.

Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Can the hon. Gentleman explain how, when soldiers in battle put up their hands and, at gunpoint, walk towards the enemy, that can be considered a voluntary action?

Mr. Fabricant: That is a completely irrelevant intervention, but I shall answer it. They can either volunteer to surrender, or lower their arms and get shot, but the point is that the decision whether to surrender is up to them. If a passport is confiscated, it is not a decision left up to the person from whom it is confiscated--confiscation is compulsion. One is not compelled to surrender, whether it is one's passport or one's person. The hon. Gentleman might be an opera singer, but it is clear that he has never served in the armed forces and does not know what the devil he is talking about.

Mr. Caplin: Can the hon. Gentleman point me to the part of the Bill where the question of confiscation arises? His speech so far has related more to comments made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about what changes he might want to introduce in Committee than to the Bill whose Second Reading we are considering today. If I am wrong, I will happily accept any direction to the correct part of the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is not wrong--in fact, he is quite right. However, on Second Reading we discuss not only the Bill, but those issues that might form part of the Committee stage. The promoter of the Bill has stated that the provisions to which I refer will be tabled in Committee. In an attempt to be helpful, I am inclined to say, although I have slight concerns, that I have no major objections to the Bill as it stands and I shall not vote against Second Reading. However, I would not welcome the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford described and I do not want the Home Office to take that line, for that would be to cross the rubicon.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I think that the situation is worse than he suggests. I can reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). Clauses 3(5A) and 3(5B) of the Bill use weasel words. Clause 3(5A) states:

"The court may, if it thinks fit, impose conditions in the order which the person subject to the order shall comply with."

16 Apr 1999 : Column 515

That sentence ends with a preposition: I wish that legalese were more old-fashioned grammatical. The legislation continues:


"Those conditions may include . . . surrender of the passport".

Although the word "surrender" is used, it is prefaced by the phrase "impose conditions". So those who are hiding behind the word "surrender" are being less than honest.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that concern must be addressed in Committee. Many clauses of the Bill have been drafted badly. I am not surprised to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford has received assistance from the Home Office, which is notorious for badly drafted legislation that consistently does not meet the exacting standards that we expect of Departments.

One of the great principles of United Kingdom law is not only habeas corpus but the fact that one is innocent until proven guilty. Only two years ago, one of my constituents was detained for 11 weeks by the French police in Boulogne. He was held without charge and was not allowed to see his relatives or a lawyer. That could not happen in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand where English law reigns supreme. My constituent was finally released without any apology from the French officials and without having been charged with any crime. That is heinous.

I am concerned that, if we are not careful about the wording of this Bill, someone who has not been charged with any crime will have his or her passport confiscated. We must never forget that, despite the European Union and Napoleonic law--which, thank God, we have not had to adopt in this country so far--one is innocent until proven guilty in the United Kingdom. In France--the country nearest to our borders--one is considered guilty until proven innocent. That is a fundamental difference. We must not allow the Bill to encroach on that right, no matter how well meaning this legislation may seem.

We all take for granted the words on the inside cover of our passports--I have a dark blue passport, not one of the little red abortions that are now in general issue--which read:

"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 may be necessary."

They are important words because they allow freedom of travel. Returning to my days in the Soviet Union, few people there had external passports--and they were confiscated if people said anything that the state did not like. I suspect that many hon. Members may not be aware that citizens of the Soviet Union also needed internal passports to travel from one oblast--or region--to another.

Mr. Forth: I hope that before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks--which I am finding instructive and fascinating--he will tell us something of his experiences of surveillance in the Soviet Union. The Bill's sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), said earlier with pride that he believed that existing surveillance in this country would

16 Apr 1999 : Column 516

be sufficient to allow us to finger people who had not been convicted of any offence. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on that point in his remarks.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall deal with that matter now. My right hon. Friend is correct to raise that point. I do not like to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who referred to photographs of people committing crimes in Marseilles and Toulon. No hon. Member condones loutish behaviour by British citizens at football matches or any other sporting event at home or abroad. However, photos can be, and occasionally are, taken out of context. I gave the example of my friend who, in Toulon, picked up a table to protect himself from rioters. If he had been caught on film and if members of NCIS had seen it, they might have said, "It is time to take away his passport. He has no conviction, but we have a picture of him picking up a table."

I repeat that in this country one is innocent until one is proven guilty. It is all very well for hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, to say that it is right to require people to surrender their passports for a few days, but a passport gives one freedom of travel, and that is one of our great constitutional rights. No hon. Member should ever forget either the principle that people are innocent until they are proven guilty, or the right to freedom of travel. To confiscate a passport is a great step.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said in his rational and calm way that there is a precedent for that provision--the treatment of people on bail. However, that is not a precedent for the provision that we are debating because people on bail have been charged with an offence. They have not been proved guilty and the case has not yet gone to court, but they will at least have been arrested and charged with an offence. We are considering the confiscation of the passports of people who have not even been charged with an offence, let alone found guilty.

---