---

Column 666

I have already made clear, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State earlier today, that we shall abide by our obligations under the 1951 convention in relation to people who have arrived in this country and who seek our protection. There is no obligation upon us, however, to facilitate the passage of that person to the United Kingdom. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Norwood allowed, it is frequently the pattern these days that passengers do not embark for the United Kingdom directly from the country of alleged persecution ; they first find their way to a country of transit.

The new clause would effectively render the 1987 Act unworkable, and for that reason I urge the House to reject it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

Period of notice after notice of decision to appeal

.--(1) No rule made by virtue of Schedule 2 of this Act shall provide for a notice of appeal against an asylum decision to be given, unless it provides for a period of ten days after receiving notice of the decision to give notice of appeal.

(2) Asylum decision in this section means a decision to refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom or to remove a person from the United Kingdom or to refuse to vary the leave of a person in the United Kingdom, or to make a decision to deport, or to refuse to revoke a deportation order, or to refuse entry clearance to the United Kingdom where the grounds of appeal are that the decision is contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention. (3) Where the Secretary of State has given a certificate under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act the period of ten days shall be read as a period of five days.'.-- [Mr. Blair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blair : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments :

No. 24, in page 13, line 28, at end insert--

(4)(A)(1) The time limit for giving notice of any appeal shall be no less than 10 days unless the Secretary of State has certified that in his opinion the person's asylum claim is without foundation. (2) In the event that he shall so certify, the time limit shall be 2 days provided that the person is in detention and has submitted a claim for asylum on arrival to an immigration officer.'.

No. 25, in page 13, line 33, leave out from he' to refer' and insert shall'.

Mr. Blair : The new clause and the amendments raise two issues : first, when the accelerated procedure for lodging appeals arises under the legislation--in other words, the 48-hour rule--and, secondly, whether that time limit is sufficient for those with appeals to be able to lodge them properly.

In respect of the first issue, the category of cases to which the 48-hour rule applies, the intention of the Government was put on the record in Committee when the Minister made it clear that the accelerated procedure-- the fast-track procedure--for hearing appeals should apply only to port entry cases where the person was in detention and the Secretary of State had certified the claim as groundless. It was made clear that those two preconditions should apply. That is somewhat at odds with the explanation of the legislation given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, but we will let that pass.

---

Column 667

The problem is that the interpretation and intention of the Government is by no means clear from the legislation and the rules themselves. Rule 5(2) of the draft appeal rules states :

"The time limit for giving notice of appeal shall be two days in a case where the appeal is made under section 7(1) of this Bill." Clause 7(1) applies in any case where there has been personal service on the appellant of the notice of decision. On the face of it, the combination of the rules plus clause 7 means that this accelerated procedure applies in any circumstance when notice of the decision is served personally. As I understand it, the Government's answer to that is that, as a matter of practice, it will apply only to those in detention and, again as a matter of practice, the only people detained will be those whose claims are deemed groundless. Therefore, the Government say that the practical effect of their procedure is that the accelerated procedure will apply only to those with groundless claims who are in detention.

I should be grateful if the Minister would address the following two points. First, the limitation on the plain meaning of the rules and the clause is not stipulated anywhere in the rules. Secondly, it does not appear to accord with practice. I am advised, and I have checked with a number of those operating in this area, that some people are detained even though their claims are not groundless, while some are served notices personally even though they have neither been detained nor are their claims groundless. The notion that this applies in practical circumstances--that personal service is effected only on those in detention whose claims have been certified as groundless--does not appear to be the case. Some notices are served personally even though that applicant is neither in detention nor is his claim groundless.

If the Government's intention is clear and not in dispute, the simple solution would be to alter the rules to ensure that the stated intention accords with the precise letter of the rules. Since it is now three months since this matter was first raised on Second Reading, I should have thought that the Minister would be able to give us an undertaking about the rules and their nature.

The other issue on which I seek clarification is the time limit. I do not want to go back over the territory that we explored in relation to clause 6, but it has become increasingly clear from debates in Committee and in the House that when we talk about an accelerated procedure weeding out bogus claims, in reality the term "bogus" is a misdescription and a particularly pejorative one. Claims will be made in good faith but will concern the category of people who, although not strictly refugees under the United Nations convention, are in fear of their lives because they are fleeing from civil distress, civil war or some other calamity.

The two days for the accelerated procedure has been criticised by many of those who operate in that area. It has also been criticised by the Law Society, the Bar Council, churches, and experts on and representatives of refugee groups. As there is a procedure for that time limit to be extended, our amendment extending the two-day period to five days is not unreasonable.

I draw the Minister's attentition to the strong case that was made in the other place, when the matter was debated before the general election. Lord Ackner said that if the

---

Column 668

appeal procedures are truncated and there is insufficient time for people to prepare and launch an appeal satisfactorily, the only danger that we face is an increase in the number of applications for judicial review. That is a much more protracted and costly process and would slow down the procedure for determination. If there were a possibility of that happening as result of shortening the appeal period, it would not be in the interests of applicants, the Government or those with a view of the public interest.

Will the Minister respond, first, to the time limit, which we believe is too short to allow proper preparation of the case, and, secondly, ensure that the draft appeal rules are brought into accordance with the Government's stated intentions so that there can be no mistake about people's rights or to whom the accelerated procedure will apply?

Mr. Charles Wardle : First, I give the assurance which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seeks. I confirm that the draft rules will be amended in accordance with the undertakings that I gave in Committee. If those who are detained are refused but it is deemed that their case is not groundless, the accelerated timetable will not apply, so there will be a longer period. I hope that that clarifies another point which the hon. Gentleman raised.

New clause 4 and amendment No. 24 deal with time limits for bringing appeals and the accelerated procedure for certain unfounded cases. Although the hon. Member for Sedgefield said that he was reluctant to go back over that ground, I hope that he will be patient with me if I cover a little of it rapidly with the aim of clarification.

Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 sets up a special procedure for appeals against refusal of entry, refusal to revoke a deportation order or directions for removal as an illegal entry where the Secretary of State certifies the asylum claim to be without foundation. Where a special adjudicator agrees with that view, there is no further appeal to the tribunal. Where he does not agree, he may either allow or dismiss the appeal or he may refer the case back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.

In addition, the draft procedure rules contain a provision for a shorter time limit for lodging an appeal against refusal of entry--two days instead of 10--where the notice of refusal is served in person. In practice, that means that the applicant will be detained. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear on Second Reading that this shorter time limit is intended to apply only in cases where the claim is certified to be without foundation and I confirm that that will be incorporated into the draft procedure rules when they are revised. Amendment No. 24 correctly summarises the position in which the shorter time limits will apply. However, time limits are appropriately dealt with in the procedure rules, rather than the primary legislation.

New clause 4 is misconceived in a number of ways. For example, it includes in the definition of an asylum decision a refusal of entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom. The Bill does not confer a right of appeal to a special adjudicator against refusal of entry clearance, since a person must be in the United Kingdom to claim asylum here.

Amendment No. 25 would require a special adjudicator who disagreed with the Secretary of State's view that a claim was without foundation to refer the case back for reconsideration rather than allowing or dismissing the appeal. In most such cases reference back will be the

---

Column 669

appropriate course as there will not have been substantive consideration of the claim--for example, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State considers the claim not to engage our obligations under the convention because it is proposed to remove the appellant to a safe third country. In cases where there has already been substantive consideration of the claim, however, the special adjudicator may have before him the necessary information to enable him to dismiss or allow the appeal and there is no good reason to prevent him from doing so.

I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause and both amendments.

7.15 pm

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :

The House divided : Ayes 231, Noes 290.

Division No. 106] [7.15 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Armstrong, Hilary

Austin-Walker, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Berry, Dr. Roger

Betts, Clive

Blair, Tony

Boateng, Paul

Boyce, Jimmy

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard

Byers, Stephen

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Canavan, Dennis

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coffey, Ann

Cohen, Harry

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Ms Jean

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Dafis, Cynog

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Denham, John

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Donohoe, Brian H.

Dowd, Jim

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Eagle, Ms Angela

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Gapes, Mike

Garrett, John

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Godsiff, Roger

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Gunnell, John

Hain, Peter

Hall, Mike

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Harman, Ms Harriet

Harvey, Nick

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Henderson, Doug

Heppell, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hinchliffe, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Hoon, Geoffrey

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

---