Concern at passport seizure plan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8014872.stm

Version 0 of 1.

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.