§ 2.41 p.m.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government on what authority the police confiscated some 30 passports held by British citizens who had voluntered as mercenaries (against whom no charge had been made) and why these passports will not be returned until they sign certain undertakings.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the grant or with withdrawal of passport facilities is a Prerogative matter exercised in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The list of categories of persons to whom passports are refused or from whom they may be withdrawn, given in another place on the 15th November 1974, included those
whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest".Having made the decision to withdraw the passports from returning mercenaries on these grounds, the Secretary of State saw no reason to restrict their freedom to travel to any country but Angola.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, is it not setting a dangerous precedent to threaten citizens into signing documents giving up their lawful rights on the ground that their actions do not suit the present policy of Her Majesty's present Government?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the noble Lord refers to dangerous precedents. This is a power very rarely invoked; the last recorded cognate instance. I think, occurred in 1961 when a similar set of circumstances existed in the Congo. At that time the Government of the day, of which the noble Lord was a distinguished member, acted in precisely the way we have acted this time.
§ Lord SH1NWELLMy Lords, if these people are considered undesirable is that not surely a very good reason why they should be allowed to leave? Apart from that, does my noble friend recall the Communiqué which emerged from the Conference at Helsinki, which included, among other declarations, although it was presented in a somewhat ambiguous form, the assertion that there should be complete mobility of labour and of persons who wished to leave their own country? Surely it would be quite wrong to do something about which we protest when it is done by the Soviet Union? Will my noble friend at the same time reply to this supplementary question: under which Statute does the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs come to a decision on a matter of this kind? Is it possible to point to any law on the subject?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the position is that there is no Statute law on the grant of passports, which is a Royal Prerogative exercised in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. In regard to agreements such as Helsinki, or indeed any convention on human rights, no such convention or agreement would exclude the power of States to intervene in this way, for instance, in cases of criminality, or, as in this instance, where a clear public interest is involved.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, can the Minister confirm that this undertaking, if it is given by the mercenaries, will have no legal significance because, once a British citizen leaves these shores, he is not within the jurisdiction of this country and can do precisely what he likes in any other part of the world? Secondly, does the Minister also agree that any citizen can leave this country without a passport, and that the only necessity on leaving these shores is to be able to show one's identity? Therefore, the passport is not a legal document which is necessary in order to leave these shores.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, referring to the second part of the question, that may be so. However, the person in question would have to find a willing carrier and would also have to be admitted at the point of his proposed destination. On the first point, as to the 1203 likelihood that the people who have made these undertakings may break them, that is always possible. If so, such persons would be breaking the law—that is to say, they would be contravening the 1925 Act.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, the noble Baroness has just put part of the question which I should have liked to put. Is it not a fact that no British subject can be prevented from leaving this country if he chooses to do so, or from coming back if he chooses to do so, unless there is some criminal offence under which he might be arrested? Secondly, is the passport the property of the person—because we now have to pay some £5 to obtain one—or is it the property of the Government?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, without notice I could not say what is the exact legal position as to the property in this matter, but I shall try to do so if the noble Baroness will put down a Question to me, or possibly to the Minister who answers on Home Office Questions. On the first point, if, in contravention of an undertaking signed, a person were in fact to leave the country, he would he breaking the law—that is, the 1925 Statute—which makes it an offence to obtain a passport (and, in this case, to re-obtain a passport) by signing a false declaration or by not conforming with a signed declaration. As to his return, clearly somebody who had left the country illegally might not wish to return to face charges: if he did, he would prompty be charged.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, would the Minister kindly say what agreement has been reached between this Government and the Government of Angola as to stopping these people entering Angola?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I do not think that such an agreement has been found to be necessary. As events have moved so swiftly in Angola, the fact is that, to our knowledge, no further mercenaries have left these shores for that country. If they had, it is very unlikely that they would have been allowed to land there.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has seen 1204 the Justice report on passports, which is now over a year old and which unanimously recommended that every citizen should have a legal right to a passport, with a right of appeal to a court? If so, have the Government formed any view about this?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the Government have not come to any new decision on this. We are aware of the strong arguments for changing the position in that way. We are not so far convinced that the rights of the citizen would be substantially increased if such a change were made. The operation of granting and, on rare occasions, withdrawing passports, has, retrospectively, worked very well under the system of the Royal Prerogative exercised by the Secretary of State responsible.
§ Lord GORE-BOOTHMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the withdrawal of passports, the limitation of the issue of passports, and especially the limitation of destination, are some of the favourite weapons used by authoritarian countries to keep control over their citizens and, therefore, that any use of this power must give rise to some disquiet?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, naturally any use of a restrictive power of this kind must give rise to questioning and reappraisal. I repeat that this power is very rarely used; I gave an example showing how rarely it has been exercised in this particular type of case.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in insisting upon an undertaking, the Government are weakening the power of the Prerogative of withdrawing the passport? Is he aware that it is one thing to withdraw a passport—which denotes that someone really has not the support of his own country—but another thing to insist upon an undertaking? Ought not the undertaking to be open to appeal to see whether it is a fair one? Otherwise, the two together will put us almost into the category of a totalitarian country.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I would not go anywhere near so far as to suggest that these conditions place us within the totalitarian ambit. However, I concede to the noble Lord, 1205 as I do to my noble friend Lord Gore-Booth, that this is a matter which we must constantly examine and reappraise, and a power which we must exercise only rarely and after very careful consideration.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, does that mean that the Government are at the moment reappraising this practice which has led to some misgiving?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we are constantly reappraising the workings of Executive actions, particularly when they do not rest on Statutes and when, indeed, they rest on Prerogative, as in this case.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he has considered, or is considering, the Justice report at the present time? He says that he is constantly considering these things, but is he in fact now considering the Justice report?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that was the point put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I cannot say that I am considering it; the Government are, of course, taking that report very fully into cognisance.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is it not the fact that the passport promises great protection by our Government for citizens abroad? Is it not also true that it would be impossible to carry out that promise for citizens who have joined armed forces in another country?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that has been found to be the case. The two cases which I have adduced this afternoon—the present one and the one in the Congo in 1961—would seem to bear that out.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether in 1961 people were asked to sign a document before their passports were returned to them? May I further ask him to say what were the conditions—if he cannot give me an answer now perhaps he could publish the details in the Official Report—or what was the wording of the document they were asked to sign? In view of the noble Lord's obvious anxiety and the obvious anxiety in all parts of the House over this matter, may I ask him 1206 to consider whether, if this action is to be taken in future, it would be in the interests of our standards in this country that the condition which these people have been asked to sign should be made public so that we may all see when a Government interfere with lawful rights of the citizen?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSYes, my Lords, I can give an immediate undertaking on the second point and, indeed, I have given the conditions that were laid down in the case of the Angolan mercenaries. As to the wording, as the noble Lord put it, of the conditions—and I will look into whether any conditions were indeed laid down in 1961—I will see whether I can circulate in the Official Report, as he suggests, exactly what was said then.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that when, in 1961, the then Government introduced their policy, it was in regard to the number of colonials who were coming into this country and who were carrying British passports? We find ourselves in the situation today of being more cosmopolitan than ever before in our history. Would he agree that this particular question does not help the matter at all?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the situation in 1961 and the situation today are in many respects closely analogous. I will endeavour to obtain the details in which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is interested. There is, of course, the other very substantial matter that my noble friend Lord Slater has raised, in regard to passports generally, but for the moment I think we are concerned with conditions applied to withdrawn passports and their restoration to those who held them.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, may I ask the Minister to explain what he meant by the phrase "illegally leaving this country" when, as two noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite have pointed out, any British subject is at complete liberty to leave this country with or without a passport?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, before my noble friend replies to that supplementary question. I suggest that we have already discussed this matter at some length. 1207 Perhaps the House will agree that this should be the last supplementary question, and that if the matter requires to be raised we should find another occasion for it.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSI would suggest, my Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a person who had had his passport restored to him under these regulations on a condition that he accepted on the honour of his signature, which would be that he should not leave the country for a specified country would, if he then broke that condition, in fact be leaving the country illegally, having obtained a passport by false pretences.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, may I ask—
§ Several Noble Lords: No!