OUTLAWRIES (No. 2) (Hansard, 18 June 1968)

§ Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the more effectual preventing of clandestine withdrawals of passports from British subjects. As many hon. Members know, the Outlawries Bill, which, for greater clarity, perhaps I should call the Outlawries (No. 1) Bill, has been read in the House at the beginning of every Session since 1727. During those 240 years it has made no further progress. I have no doubt that the Editor of The Times—and we all put on record our regrets that his many efforts to enter Parliament have been unsuccessful—would look at this as further proof, if further proof were needed, that our procedure requires reform.

On the other hand, the symbolic value of this is very great. Ever since 1603 the House has introduced and passed the First Reading of a Bill which was not contained in the Queen's Speech. It is to show that in this House we have the right to give priority to discussion of matters other than Government business. At a time when the House is so much in the power of those who both hate Parliament and fear it, it is valuable that we should not tear away the decent draperies of Parliamentary procedure.

The Outlawries (No. 1) Bill is in existence in manuscript form in the Public Bill Office. Much of it is obscure and would amuse the leisured and the learned. But the general drift of it is perfectly clear. The Long Title is that it is a Bill for the better prevention of clandestine outlawries. What that means in modern terms is that it is a Bill to prevent people's rights being taken away by forms of secret skulduggery and, as the apprehension of an intelligent audience runs far ahead of the power of the speaker to express himself, I have no doubt that the House is aware that I am about to discuss passports.

My Bill seeks to prevent the secret removal of passports and the secret refusal to issue them, and it is the second which is by far the most important.

The House will remember that, when speaking in the debate about Sir Frederick Crawford's passport, my right hon. 918 Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) gave an instance of a young man who had written to him to say that his Rhodesian-born wife, resident in this country for four and a half years, had been refused a passport in her married name for more than six months. He did not say whether she had been asked to sign a declaration, but I suspect that she had.

I had an instance some time ago of a neighbour of mine who married a Rho-desian girl some years ago. By accident, she had a Rhodesian passport. He husband is a United Kingdom citizen resident here. He is a farmer. Her mother in Rhodesia had a stroke, and she had to fly to Rhodesia to see her. At that time, she had a Federal passport. When she got to Rhodesia, she was informed that her Federal passport was no longer valid. She asked for a United Kingdom passport. She was told that she was entitled to one, but that the formalities would take a long time, and that it would be much quicker to get a Rhodesian passport. She did so, and subsequently returned to this country.

When U.D.I. came, she wanted to take a holiday abroad with her husband—not, I may say, in Rhodesia. She was told that she could have a United Kingdom passport for six months only, provided that she signed an anti-Smith declaration.

It is quite unheard of to be required to make a political declaration before being given a passport. In Hitler's time, no one who married a German girl was asked to make an anti-Hitler declaration. No one was asked to make an anti-Stalin declaration if he married a Russian girl.

Immediately that this was brought to my notice, I rang the Private Office of the Foreign Secretary, who was the present Foreign Secretary in his previous avatar. I spoke to someone there, but I have no idea of his name. I said, "This is incredible. There must be some mistake." He replied "I agree. I have never heard anything like it." The poor man has no doubt found out since what sort of masters he is serving.

Suppose an Englishman married an Ibo girl. Would she be asked to sign a declaration that she supported the legal Government of Nigeria and supported the sale of arms to the legal Government in order that they might butcher her people?

919 In the past, it has been accepted that the wife of a United Kingdom citizen had a right to a United Kingdom passport. Now we are told that no one has a right to a passport and that it is a matter of prerogative. That is one of the most formidable "boss" words. It means the ipse dixit of a Minister.

The first part of my Bill lays down that the wife of a United Kingdom citizen has a legal right to a British passport. I hope that everyone will support that. The second part of the Bill concerns the withdrawal of passports and the review procedure announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.

The third leader in The Times today makes the most devastating criticism of the Secretary of State's proposals. I have not time to elaborate on the matter now, but I think that they are wrong. The point is that the Secretary of State said that he was not bound by the findings of the review body and would prevent anyone from going to the Parliamentary Commissioner subsequently.

The terms on which the Advisory Committee has to make its decision could not be more vague. I do not know how it is to decide whether Sir Frederick Crawford was wrong not to sign the book in Government House, Salisbury. Per- 920 sonally, I have never signed the book in any Government House, so perhaps I may lose my passport.

My Bill lays down simply that everyone has a right to take his case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, whether it is for the removal of a passport or the refusal to grant one, and it is mandatory upon the Ombudsman to consider it. It lays down, too, that the Government have no right of certification to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner doing his duty. Those seem to me to be two perfectly simple and good provisions.

Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that today is the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. I hope that it will inspire hon. Members to support the Bill and pass it through all its stages in less than 240 years.