§ 2.42 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the protection afforded by the possession of a valid British passport is the normal right of a British-born subject either in the United Kingdom or the Colonies; and for what, if any, reasons it is held that a passport can be withheld or withdrawn.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD)My Lords, the protection of a British-born subject does not derive from the possession of a passport but is the exercise of one of the normal functions of a sovereign State. No British subject has a legal right to a passport. The grant of a United Kingdom passport is a Royal prerogative exercised through Her Majesty's Ministers and, in particular, the Foreign Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary has the power to withhold or withdraw a passport at his discretion, although in practice such power is exercised only very rarely and in very exceptional cases. First, in the case of minors suspected of being taken illegally out of the jurisdiction; secondly, persons believed on good evidence to be fleeing the country to avoid prosecution for a criminal offence; thirdly, persons whose activities are so notoriously undesirable or dangerous that Parliament would be expected to support the action of the Foreign Secretary in refusing them a passport or withdrawing a passport already issued in order to prevent their leaving the United Kingdom; and fourthly, persons who have been repatriated to the United Kingdom at public expense and have not repaid the expenditure incurred on their behalf.
861 In the Colonies the prerogative is exercised by the Governor as the representative of the Queen, and the policy and practice of Colonial Governors in issuing or withholding passports follows broadly the lines of the United Kingdom policy.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that very clear reply. May I ask him this question: how does the Foreign Secretary make up his mind whether the withholding of a passport would meet with the approval of Parliament?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, have we got to the stage now when the Government governs by its own judgment? The question I am asking is: what about the power of Parliament?
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether be is aware that in Cyprus many passports are withdrawn, although no charges are made against the individuals concerned?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I do not think there was anything in my reply which said that any charges bad to be laid in order to withdraw a passport.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, how in that case can you find a man guilty unless you try him?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, there is no suggestion of guilt in the withdrawal of a passport, the issue of which is a Royal Prerogative.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, in the event of the Minister's exercising the power to withhold a passport because in his judgment that would meet with the approval of Parliament, does he subsequently take steps to confirm that it is the view of Parliament?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, this is very obscure. Are we really to understand that the Foreign Secretary sits and says, "In my judgment Parliament will support me in refusing a passport to Mr. A, and therefore I do it"? What I am asking is this: what steps does he take to confirm his estimate of the Parliamentary wish?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, as I replied to the noble Viscount's original question, the Foreign Secretary obviously uses his own judgment as to whether he considers he will, or will not, have the support of Parliament. Obviously, if he subsequently proves not to have the support of Parliament he will be in an awkward position; therefore he would not take steps about which he was not reasonably certain. However, if the Foreign Secretary did, in fact, take such steps, there is nothing to prevent a Member of Parliament from putting down a Question subsequently which would, presumably, elicit an answer one way or the other.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, would Parliament have the power to reverse the decision which was made proprio motu, on his own judgment, by the Foreign Secretary?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, if Parliament decided that the Foreign Secretary had overstepped his prerogative, I imagine, though I will not commit the Foreign Secretary in any way, the Foreign Secretary would re-exercise his prerogative on the ground that he had made a personal misjudgment.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I hope some opportunity will be given to elucidate this extremely obscure constitutional position.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, does the noble Earl imply that the sole right to decide whether a passport shall or shall not be granted rests with the Home Secretary, and the only action open to one aggrieved would be in fact to defeat the Government?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, that is a very difficult but not unknown process.
§ LORD KILLEARNWould not the noble Earl agree that it is an extremely wise and salutary thing that the Secretary of State should have this discretion in regard to passports? Surely that is the common-sense point of it.
§ LORD BIRDWOODWould not the noble Earl also agree that in fact all this does is to give to the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary the powers 863 which are given to a Government under emergency powers during a state of emergency?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question: is he aware that what is in people's minds is the undesirability of our following the American precedent, where the withholding of a passport is a definite act of State.
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, this process has been going on for many years. The number of passports withheld annually is one or, at the most, two, as against the many millions which are issued.