Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support. As ever, the noble Earl gave a practical example of where problems bite in this area. I am certainly pleased that I have the support of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Although we on the Front Bench may not have been as much an Opposition to the Government as he liked, I hope that today, at least, he has seen that we have scored some victories over the Government on matters of principle.

The Minister said that whenever stuck for an amendment I might choose one of these. I can assure him that I shall never be stuck for an amendment and I hope that they will always be reasonable and rational. He said that this is a hardy annual. I am a lifer—I do not know whether that makes me a hardy annual, biennial or perennial, but I shall keep going as long as the Government allow this House to hold them to account.

The Minister seemed to perambulate around the subject. He did not give me a single example of where information about immigration figures is collated and to be found so that we can hold the Government to account on them. This is a matter of parliamentary accountability. I have taken the advice of outside organisations. I believe that there is a need for such an annual report and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

11.13 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No. 8


Anelay of St Johns, B.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Blatch, B.
Bridgeman, V. [Teller]
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Burnham, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Dholakia, L.
Goodhart, L.
Hamwee, B.
Kingsland, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Roper, L.
Russell, E. [Teller]
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.


Acton, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Brett, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Judd, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

31 Oct 2002 : Column 407

11.23 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 106:

    After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—

Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 114 [Leave pending decision on variation application]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 107:

    Page 63, line 25, at end insert—

"(2A) Leave extended by virtue of this section shall lapse if the applicant leaves the United Kingdom.
(2B) A person may not make an application for variation of his leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom while that leave is extended by virtue of this section.
(2C) But subsection (2B) does not prevent the variation of the application mentioned in subsection (1)(a)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this tidying-up amendment explains what happens to the extension of leave if a person leaves the United Kingdom. It also safeguards the one-stop principle by ensuring that technically there is only one application—although an application may be made and varied on any number of grounds. People who have no grounds to remain in the United Kingdom may be required to leave.

31 Oct 2002 : Column 408

Amendment No. 109 allows us to encourage them to explain at an early stage why they should not be so required.

These are minor, technical amendments. I have no real interest in detaining your Lordships' House unless noble Lords wish to raise related issues. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder why there is no discretion in subsection (2A) of the amendment. On occasions, there may be perfectly good reasons for leaving the United Kingdom, even if not for returning to the country of origin. Suppose, for example, the applicant has a mother living in France, it is reported that she is dying, and he goes home to see her. Would not "may" be more appropriate to that case than "shall"?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think not, my Lords, but I am sure that good sense will prevail in the exercising of the powers. A person can make a fresh application on return, so I do not think that the problem that the noble Earl foresees is a real one. I hope that the amendments will be supported.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 108:

    After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—

In paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (deemed leave on cancellation of notice of refusal) after "and the immigration officer does not at the same time give him indefinite or limited leave to enter" there shall be inserted "or require him to submit to further examination"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, under current legislation, if an immigration officer cancels a notice refusing a person leave to enter, that person will be deemed to have been granted six months' leave to enter unless a fresh decision is taken at the same time. This new clause means that the granting of six months' deemed leave can be avoided if the immigration officer, when cancelling the first decision, advises the individual that the case is to be further examined. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 115 [Requirement to state additional grounds for application]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 109:

    Page 63, line 40, after "from" insert "or required to leave"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 119 [Authority to carry]:

Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 110:

    Page 65, line 25, leave out "passengers" and insert "individuals known to pose either a security or an immigration threat"

31 Oct 2002 : Column 409

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would limit the definition of "passengers" and insert instead,

    "individuals known to pose either a security or an immigration threat".

That is in conformity with what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, told us was the purpose of the clause when we discussed it at an earlier stage. He used the words,

    "people who are known already to pose a security or immigration control threat".—[Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1353.]

The noble Lord repeated that terminology in other contributions at that stage. It was also used in a letter that the then Minister sent to Members of another place when she was commenting on the powers. She said that carriers would normally be given a simple yes or no against each proposed passenger by e-mail or some other means after the Immigration Service had checked that name against warnings.

If the intention of the clause is to prevent known immigration offenders, individuals named in travel bans or people whose passports are listed as stolen or lost coming into the United Kingdom, we do not need the enormous breadth of the powers on the face of the Bill, which ostensibly would allow Ministers to designate whole classes of passenger as subject to the clause. I beg to move.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we have debated these provisions a number of times, but I am still struggling to understand fully what is worrying about including in the Bill more effective ways of checking on passengers.

Amendment No. 110 would require carriers operating under an authority-to-carry scheme to seek authority to bring to the UK a person who is known to pose either a security or immigration threat. This amendment would render the idea of authority to carry unworkable as it assumes that carriers would know whether a passenger poses such a threat before making the authority-to-carry check. The clause as drafted requires carriers to check to see if a person poses a threat.

Authority to carry is designed to help carriers to identify unacceptable passengers, rather than to authorise the travel of such passengers. Amendment No. 111 would limit the flexibility of any authority-to-carry scheme and remove the scope to apply different versions of authority to carry to different types of passenger.

The ability to apply different criteria to different types of passenger is necessary to ensure that the scheme can be responsive to the different requirements placed by the Immigration Rules on different categories of passenger. An example would be the need to apply different levels of checks on EEA nationals as opposed to non-EEA nationals. Any scheme that applied to EEA nationals would be limited to a confirmation that the document presented by an EEA national was genuine and that it was not known to have been lost or stolen. A scheme covering non-EEA

31 Oct 2002 : Column 410

nationals would include that document check but also whether the holder was known to pose a security or immigration threat.

Any regulations establishing an authority-to-carry scheme would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and would be transparent. An authority to carry represents an important potential development in the immigration field, recognising that, across the country, we already handle 90 million transactions through the system each year. So it is important that we allow these ideas to be developed, although we have no immediate plans to roll them out. We therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos. 110 or 111.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page