| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I 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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Forth:
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, leave out lines 19 to 25.
This is the amendment that I have been waiting for, although I will try not to make a meal of it. I well remember an impassioned speech on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who expressed grave reservations about this aspect of the Bill. I am only sorry that he is not with us today. I would have liked to hear the speech again, it was so good. I will try to make up for his absence by my own modest contribution.
A passport is not merely something that we possess and are able to show--many authorities, of course, require it to be shown for various purposes--but is an expression of our sense of national pride and identity, which are very important to us. In the context of the Bill and the amendment, however, a passport is the symbol and statement of one's inalienable--at least I thought that it was inalienable--right to travel freely and untrammelled.
Part of our consideration of the Bill should include the extent to which it is necessary to hold and produce a British passport to travel across the European Union. I should like to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and of the Minister on whether the compulsory surrender of one's passport would prevent one from travelling across the European Union. Although, in a sense, the point deals with an argument that is the reverse of the one that I want to make, it is relevant to our consideration.
I have heard it argued that one can and should be able to--I have done it myself on one or two occasions--travel throughout the European Union without having to show a passport, and that any other method of identity should be adequate. Are my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and Ministers sure that, if someone's passport were to be confiscated, that person would be prevented from travelling? It is one important aspect of the argument, although, strictly, not germane to the amendment.
I am much more worried--this is why I tabled amendment No. 16--that the authorities will be able to march in and compulsorily take away one's passport. As I said, I am no great fan of the European convention on human rights, but I know that there are those--not least Liberty--who argue that temporary removal of one's passport may well be a contravention of article 1 of the convention's first protocol. Allowing the authorities to take someone's passport may well be a worry for those who are fans of the convention.
As interestingly, Liberty is also arguing that to require surrender of a passport might conflict directly with our international obligations to guarantee freedom of movement under article 12 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. I never thought that I would hear myself arguing that, as I am not a great fan of the covenant. I always regard that type of thing as international verbiage. I could use a much ruder word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you probably would not allow me, and the House will get the sense of what I mean. Nevertheless, hon. Members will need reassurances that, in so far as we think that those guarantees are important, the Bill will not contravene them.
I am really interested in a much more fundamental and British point. How content are we that our authorities should be in the business of taking away our passport and saying that what we always thought was one of our fundamental rights--the freedom of travel--is to be removed? Around the world, people take the view that their right to leave their country is one of their most important freedoms.
I am sure that, internationally, over many decades, if not centuries, we have rather pompously taken that view, and said to people, "We are very proud that our citizens are free to escape from the authorities if they think that they are being unreasonable." Almost the entire United States is populated by the successors of those who sought freedom and escaped not only from countries on the continent--many of whom came to the United Kingdom for their freedom--but from the United Kingdom. Therefore, let us not underestimate the importance of the issue.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
I am surprised that my right hon. Friend has not alluded to the remarkable statistic that only 12 per cent. of Americans carry passports--which demonstrates that, having got there, they have no desire to return.
Mr. Forth:
Indeed. As someone who has recently returned from the United States--voluntarily, I should add--I appreciate exactly what my right hon. Friend is saying. Nevertheless, the fact remains--it is part of the case that I am trying to make--that, for a very long time, we have argued that the ability to leave the country freely and untrammelled is a very important element of individual and political freedoms and of civil liberties. The proposal in this case is that, as part of a penalty and as a guarantee that people will not travel abroad possibly to do things of which we disapprove, we will make them surrender their passports. That is a serious step to take.
The point was made on Second Reading that there is a precedent for such a move. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) also made the argument, saying, "Don't worry, we've done it before, so it's all right now." I am not sure that it is all right now. The fact that, in a moment of weakness, the Government of whom I was apparently a member allowed the removal of passports does not mean that I can rest easy that we are to do it again. The fact that we have mistakenly done something before does not mean that we should compound the mistake by doing it again.
I am not convinced that as serious a measure is the right step in the context of this Bill. It may be justifiable for offences such as treason or murder, although I would like to hear the arguments and I would not accept them readily. I do not know whether the offences we are contemplating, however awful they appear, justify the power to remove passports. We should not forget that the Bill is called the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, and yet we are talking about taking people's passports away. What is the world coming to? Have we lost all reason? Are we out of our minds? Are we suggesting that offences related to football should be dealt with through the compulsory removal of people's passports, which will mean the removal of one of our most sacred rights?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |