NO2ID

Has anyone heard an explanation of the legal basis for using the UK Passport Office for ID cards? Constitutionally, foreign policy is granted to FCO by Royal Prerogative, which means that it falls outside parliamentary scrutiny. Historically, issuance of passports has been treated as part of foreign policy and hence falls under the same regime.

Surely a domestic policy issue like ID cards cannot be classed as falling under the Royal prerogative?

In 2003 the Constitutional Affairs Ctte lambasted the governments abuse of the prerogative in issuing passports. The official response from the government was for them to go ‘take a hike’.
http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/reports/prerogative.htm

If UKIPS was operating outside the prerogative then any new powers would require a bill to be passed through Parliament, wouldn't they? Or am I being naïve in assuming that this lot in power needs to consider the legality of what they do any more?

Can we get legal opinion on this or is that going to cost big, big bucks? Would it be worth launching an appeal if it's thought we have a case?

Justin.

All form of legal opinion costs "big, big bucks".

I guess this is why I have a pathological hatred of lawyers.

Unless you find a nice human rights lawyer willing to work for free.

Hey... what about that one who wears the bad suits. Spends a lot on hair-dos. She often opposes the government in cases like this... her name'll come to me eventually.

:-)

Helena Kennedy per chance?

There is a chance that Clive Stanford Smith or Shami Chakrabato might be tempted to offer some pro bono work, but if they don't, then we'll all have to dig very deep into our pockets.

The UKIPS is in essence set up by Order in Council. Prerogative extends to the whole organisation of government departments. Witness the rapid creation and destruction of the DCA, DCMS, MAFF/DEFRA, and most recently, the unceremonious dismemberment of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister over a weekend.

Its functions in relation to ID cards may be subject to the Identity Cards Act 2006, but those relating to pasports are still largely under prerogative, and relevant statutes where they exist - though there is some new weirdness in that the Act introduces substantive equivalence for many purposes between passports and identity cards, and passports - viewed as a form of identity card - may therefore be more subject to the law than they were. The law on the things it does is much more in doubt than its own legal status. It was a confused mess before and the Identity Cards Act 2006 (compounded by the swiftly following Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) makes matters much worse.

Passports ought to be a foreign policy issue, agreed, since the theory of passports is that they are about exrending protection of HM government to travellers abroad; but in practice they are controlled by the Home Office, as a citizenship and immigration matter.

Gesh, when the Select Committee on Public Administration looked into it they cast doubt on the way that the Passport Office was issuing passports under the Prerogative.
See App1. of Hansard from 2003: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /42202.htm
Blurring the Passport Office's foreign duties with domestic activities should now sever the link with the prerogative and hence make it accountable to Parliament. Has UKIPS done that?

[A curious issue that was raised by the 4th report was the Passport Office's ability to refuse to issue a passport, without any appeal. Would it possible to refuse to issue an ID card?]

Well that would be nice, but...



Of course not. Departments like arbitrary power. And the Home Office has the strongest taste for it of all.




Seemingly not in the case of an individual who is actually registered. (Though it could subsequently be arbitrarily withdrawn, repeatedly, or witheld on the ground they were a suspected football hooligan.) However, there is an interesting question of whether they, or another designated documents authority, can refuse an application to be registered made at the same time as an application for a designated document that is refused.

I would imagine that the point of having the NIR would mean there was a "Passport" field, which will eventually contain "never applied" "issued" "expired" "revoked", so that even if you had your passport taken away, you could still access NHS facilities if you had to.