Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which goes a long way to meet the concerns I expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63 agreed to.

Clause 64 [Duty to disclose grounds for appeal etc.]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 118ZA:

Page 42, line 2, at end insert--
("( ) This section also applies if--
(a) the Secretary of State has decided to make a deportation order against a person under section 5(1) of the 1971 Act as a result of his liability to deportation under section 3(5) of that Act; and
(b) that person, while he is in the United Kingdom, is entitled to appeal against that decision under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 118A not moved.]

21 Jul 1999 : Column 994

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 42, line 3, leave out subsection (3)

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 119 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121. I can be brief because this amendment flows from the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its comments that the House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to place the categories concerned on the face of the Bill, leaving the regulations to make any necessary adaptation. My amendments crudely followed up the point made by the committee. The reason I can be brief is that both amendments have been supported by the Minister on the Marshalled List. I have every hope therefore that he will speak in their favour. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group consists of Amendments Nos. 119, 121, 121A, 122D, 207B and 210B. I am grateful for the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and, as he said, we are in agreement with the principle. We accepted with gratitude the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in respect of the regulation-making powers in Clause 64. But we tabled additional amendments to go a little further than Amendments Nos. 119 and 121.

The new clause following Clause 64 sets out the categories of case to which the regulations would have applied the one-stop procedures. Much of it simply reflects the equivalent provisions of Clause 64, which the Committee has already agreed. The additional categories are illegal entrants, overstayers and port applicants without a form of pre-clearance on arrival. The one-stop procedures will apply to those if, and only if, they make a claim that removal or requirement to leave would be contrary to either the refugee convention or the human rights convention. The purpose is to ensure that such persons do not claim under one convention and, if that claim is refused, claim under the other.

Amendments Nos. 122D, 207B and 210B are consequential. They essentially speak for themselves and I am happy to accede to the noble Lord's invitation and commend the amendments.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am also grateful to the Minister, in particular for his response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, will the regulations under the new Amendment No. 121A following Clause 64 be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe our present experience is described as a "short hiatus" while I obtain confirmation that what I am about to say is accurate. I do not want to give misleading or incomplete information. I understand it is negative, but wanted to be sure.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]

Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 120YA:

21 Jul 1999 : Column 995

Page 42, line 14, at end insert ("and, where the applicant is a child, such period shall take account of any relevant circumstances applicable to the serving of the notice").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment speaks for itself and I shall not waste the time of the Committee. We simply ask that the period shall take account of relevant circumstances because repeatedly UNICEF, Save the Children Fund and others have pointed out that it often takes a good deal longer to obtain information from a child than from an adult, particularly where there may have to be the establishing of some sort of relationship of trust between the child and the person questioning that child and trying to put together a case. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group consists of Amendments Nos. 120YA, 120ZA and 122. Perhaps I can deal with our response generally.

We want to avoid unnecessary delays and this group of amendments, if accepted, would provide that the serving of a statement from a child applicant to the Secretary of State might, without penalty, exceed the period prescribed. I share the concern underlying these amendments relating to children, which is the same fountain of concern which caused the more lengthy discussions when my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was dealing with earlier amendments.

I hope that I can persuade the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary. I am happy to repeat that each application will be considered on its merits. Generally speaking, a failure to meet a deadline by a person who genuinely could not comply with it for reasons beyond their control would be considered a "reasonable excuse". I remind the Committee that that saver is to be found in Clause 65(3)(b).

Children, in particular those without a responsible adult acting for them or assisting them, may well come within the category of those persons who had a reasonable excuse for not meeting the deadline. That is one of the reasons why we have the "reasonable excuse" saver. I personally believe that it is better to have that general discretion rather than try to limit matters. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Baroness that that would be a saver which would enable children in those circumstances to be given decent consideration.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 120ZA in my name, although it is worded slightly differently, goes to the same point. I am reassured by what the Minister has said. The noble Baroness may wish to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 120ZA and 120A not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 42, line 26, leave out subsection (10).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.

21 Jul 1999 : Column 996

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 121A:

After Clause 64, insert the following new clause--


(" .--(1) This section applies if a person who--
(a) is an illegal entrant,
(b) is liable to be removed under section 8, or
(c) has arrived in the United Kingdom without--
(i) leave to enter;
(ii) an entry clearance; or
(iii) a current work permit in which he is named,
makes a claim for asylum or a claim that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.
(2) The person responsible for the determination of the claim must serve on the claimant and on any relevant member of his family a notice requiring the recipient of the notice to state any additional grounds which he has or may have for wishing to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(3) The statement must be--
(a) in writing; and
(b) served on the person who is responsible for the determination of the claim before the end of such period as may be prescribed.
(4) Regulations may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with notices given and statements made in accordance with this section and, in particular, may prescribe the form in which such notices and statements are to be given or made.
(5) Regulations may prescribe the persons who, in relation to a claimant, are relevant members of his family.
(6) Regulations may provide that, if a claim is determined against the claimant, prescribed provisions of section 63, 65, 66 or 67 are to apply to an appeal against that determination by a person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (2), with such modifications (if any) as may be prescribed.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Result of failure to comply with section 64]:

[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 agreed to.

Clause 67 ["One-stop" appeals: other cases]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122A:

Page 44, line 5, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 [Transfer of appellate proceedings]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122B:

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page