Concern at passport seizure plan
Plans to allow civil servants and private firms to seize passports
without a court order violate the constitution, peers have warned.
The government wants to take passports and driving licences away from
parents who refuse to pay child support.
It says it would only use the measures - contained in the Welfare Reform
Bill - as a "last resort".
But the Lords Constitution Committee fears bureaucrats and firms hired
by them are gaining too much power.
The soon-to-be-defunct Child Support Agency could confiscate the driving
licences of parents who refused to pay for their children, but it had to
apply for a court order to do so.
Last year, Parliament passed an act giving the CSA's successor - the
Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC) - the same power in
relation to passports.
'Elegant U turn'
Plans to allow officials to bypass the courts to confiscate the
documents were dropped after objections from the Conservatives.
But Junior Work and Pensions minister Kitty Ussher told MPs last month
the powers would be included in the new Welfare Reform Bill currently
passing through Parliament.
She claimed the Conservatives had "done an elegant U-turn, hopefully
enabling this clause to go through".
“ We are concerned that an unintended change in the constitution is
occurring in which the executive is acquiring ever more powers to impose
sanctions and punish people that a generation ago would have fallen
within the remit of the courts ”
Lords Constitution Committee
She said new evidence from Australia had shown seizing travel documents
was an effective method of making errant parents pay.
She rejected concerns about mistakes being made by officials and assured
MPs that the power would not be "used willy-nilly by junior clerks in
the organisation"
But the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which scrutinises all
proposed laws, said it was not convinced by Ms Ussher's assurances.
In a statement, it said: "The freedom to travel to and from one's
country is a constitutional right of such significance that restricting
this right as a punishment demands rigorous examination by an
independent judge."
The Committee, which is chaired by Tory peer Lord Goodlad and includes
former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf, expressed concern that the power
to seize travel documents would also be available to private contractors
hired by CMEC.
Appeal
It said: "It would not be constitutionally appropriate for a third party
to have decision-making power over who may leave the United Kingdom."
The committee acknowledged parents who have their documents seized would
have the right to appeal to a court but said it was concerned about the
growing power of bureaucrats.
"We are concerned that an unintended change in the constitution is
occurring in which the executive is acquiring ever more powers to impose
sanctions and punish people that a generation ago would have fallen
within the remit of the courts.
"A line needs to be drawn around the type of power that civil servants
can appropriately exercise and those for which judges should be
responsible.
"In our view suspending a person's right to hold a passport, because of
its impact on a constitutional right, should fall into the latter
category."
The Committee called on the government, if it did not drop the plan, to
introduce the new powers for a trial period of two years, when it could
review progress.
It added: "In our view, something more than ministerial assurances are
required to make sure that decision making within CMEC is organised in
such a way as to ensure that sufficiently senior and experienced
officers hold this power."
The Welfare Reform Bill also allows officials to impose curfews and
search premises for money, but they must apply for permission from a
court.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.
Published: 2009/04/23 16:24:48 GMT
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Posts
