---

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blease, L.
Bragg, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Crawley, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Denham, L.
Desai, L.
Diamond, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Eatwell, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gilbert, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grenfell, L.
Hacking, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hayman, B.
Healey, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Islwyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Kilbracken, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Lauderdale, E.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Longford, E.
Lovell-Davis, L.
McCarthy, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Mallalieu, B.
Mar, C.
Marsh, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Molloy, L.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Monkswell, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Nicol, B.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Shepherd, L.
Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Simon, V.
Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Tenby, V.
Thornton, B.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Varley, L.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Ailesbury, M.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Blyth, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carlisle, E.
Dholakia, L. [Teller]
Falkland, V.
Goodhart, L.
Greenway, L.
Grey, E.
Hampton, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hylton, L.
Jacobs, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Kinnoull, E.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lichfield, Bp.
Limerick, E.
McNair, L.
Maddock, B.
Merrivale, L.
Monk Bretton, L.
Newby, L.
Ogmore, L.
Oxford, Bp.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Richardson of Calow, B.
Sandwich, E.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Southwark, Bp.
Taverne, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Thurso, V.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller]

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 129 votes. The Clerks recorded 131 names.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

18 Oct 1999 : Column 788

18 Oct 1999 : Column 789

5.45 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 15:

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause--

ESCORTS FOR PERSONS REMOVED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM UNDER DIRECTIONS
(“.--(1) Directions for, or requiring arrangements to be made for, the removal of a person from the United Kingdom may include or be amended to include provision for the person who is to be removed to be accompanied by an escort consisting of one or more persons specified in the directions.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3) The regulations may, in particular, include provision--
(a) requiring the person to whom the directions are given to provide for the return of the escort to the United Kingdom;
(b) requiring him to bear such costs in connection with the escort (including, in particular, remuneration) as may be prescribed;
(c) as to the cases in which the Secretary of State is to bear those costs;
(d) prescribing the kinds of expenditure which are to count in calculating the costs incurred in connection with escorts.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this group we find Amendments Nos. 15, 15A and 283. Amendment No. 15 is a government amendment; Amendment No. 15A is tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; and Amendment No. 283 is a government amendment.

Perhaps I may speak quite briefly to these amendments because my understanding is that they fall within the category on which it has been generally agreed that the views of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee will be helpful. I hope I am not in error on that. I shall deal briefly with the points as they presently stand on the indication that I have given.

As I said, Amendment No. 15A is tabled in the names of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, where a passenger is refused leave to enter, the captain of the ship or aircraft may be directed to remove him from the United Kingdom; or the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft may be given directions to remove him.

Under paragraph 9 of that schedule, such directions may be given in respect of an illegal entrant, although not where leave to enter has been obtained by deception. Under paragraph 10, the Secretary of State may give certain directions relating to removals at public expense. Schedule 3 allows such direction to be given in respect of someone who is being deported. For completeness, Amendment No. 283 is a consequential amendment to Section 27 of the 1971 Act.

I spoke briefly to Amendment No. 15A. I said at the outset that Amendments Nos. 15 and 15A fall into the category upon which I believe there is general agreement among your Lordships. Therefore, I shall confine myself to saying that, if pressed, as I shall be by the noble Baroness in a moment or two, I shall be

18 Oct 1999 : Column 790

content to subscribe to the agreement which was reached earlier. I do not believe it is helpful to address your Lordships further. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 15A:

Line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his explanation and for kindly saying that this is one of the provisions to which the undertaking he gave a few minutes ago applies. In other words, we need not waste a great deal of time on it because it will come back to us--perhaps in a different form--at Third Reading.

As I understand it, the directions to remove a person or to make arrangements for his removal can be given to the captain, owners or agents of the ship or aircraft on which the person arrived. The noble and learned Lord has referred back to the provisions in the schedule to the 1971 Act on which these powers are originally based.

The clause provides for an unlimited number of escorts. The carrier has to pay not only the cost of carrying the person being removed, but also the cost of carrying the escorts. The carrier also has to pay the remuneration of the escorts, presumably for the time that it takes them to travel overseas and back.

Further, the Secretary of State can oblige the carrier to pay other costs in connection with the escorts, which are to be defined in regulations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to those regulations and the fact that they shall need to be looked at by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.

The clause does not say who is to be landed with such costs. We are obliged to the Minister for the note that clarified that. I wonder whether that should be on the face of the Bill. Do the carriers know about that provision? Have they been consulted?

On previous occasions, on other parts of the Bill, there have been expressions of concern from carriers about the enormous costs being imposed on them under this Bill. If we are to tell them that they not only have to carry those who are being removed, but also an unlimited number of escorts, and that they have to pay for the remuneration of the escorts and any other incidental costs that the Minister may impose on them by such regulations, they must be entitled to have their say. They should be able to make representations that there should be a right of appeal against the penalties which the clause imposes on them. I see nothing in the clause about the rights of the carrier to appeal to an independent authority against having to pay those additional costs when the carrier had no means of knowing that the passenger was not a bona fide entrant.

I am sure that in many cases where a person is given notice of removal, and has to be returned by the carrier, the carrier had no reason to assume that the documents used by that person to travel to the United

18 Oct 1999 : Column 791

Kingdom were not genuine and that he did not have a legal reason for entering the country until that fact was discovered by the immigration officer.

We are anxious about this clause. I need not say more about it at this stage because we shall have an opportunity to refer to it again at Third Reading. I beg to move.

---