§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 3, leave out from 'refer' to 'the' in line 6 and insert:
'for consideration under this section any matter relating to the case which was not before the adjudicator or Tribunal.(2) Any reference under this section shall be to an adjudicator or to the Tribunal, and the adjudicator or Tribunal shall consider the matter which is the subject of the reference and report to the Secretary of State'.The Amendment has two purposes: first, to alter the definition of the circumstances in which the Home Secretary may refer a case back to the appellate authorities for further consideration, and, secondly, to make it clear that a case which, on appeal, went no higher than an adjudicator can be referred to the Tribunal.This matter was discussed at some length in Committee, when the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggested that the wording of the Clause, namely
… the Secretary of State may at any time refer to an adjudicator or the Tribunal any further matter relating to that case which has subsequently been brought to his notice …was too limiting. It was pointed out that a matter might have been brought to the notice of an immigration officer or of the Home Office at an early stage, but its significance might not have been fully appreciated until after the appeal had ben dismissed. The Amendment meets this criticism by enabling the Home Secretary to refer to the appellate authorities any matter which was not before them when the appeal was dismissed.Where a case which, on appeal, went no higher than an adjudicator is referred for further consideration under the Clause, it would be useful for the Home Secretary to have a choice between referring it to an adjudicator and referring it to the Tribunal. Reference to an adjudicator may be appropriate if the new matter bears only on the facts of the particular case, and particularly if it involves the taking of fresh oral evidence.
Reference to the Tribunal may be more appropriate if the new matter raises any 693 general question of principle. The Clause us altered by the Amendment, at the cost of some increase in its length, avoids any implication that a case must be referred back at the level at which the appeal was decided.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman)—who has explained to me that he cannot be here tonight—asked whether a case referred under the Clause to an adjudicator would come before the same adjudicator who dealt with it on appeal. The answer is that the assignment of cases to particular adjudicators is not a matter for the Home Secretary but for the Chief Adjudicator under Schedule 1(5) who would no doubt have in mind the desirability in certain cases of bringing a fresh mind to bear on the evidence.
§ Mr. BuckAs the Minister indicated, our approach in Committee was to try to be helpful about the general drafting of this Measure, although we made clear our grave doubts about the cost, scope and so forth. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for admitting that the point we raised in connection with this Amendment had some substance, but we question whether the Amendment goes far enough. Would it not be useful for the Minister himself to have power of his own volition to refer a matter where there is doubt to an adjudicator? It is useful that he should have power to refer any new matters to the adjudicator for consideration in a particular case which is the subject of appeal. It might be useful for him to have this power if there is doubt so that it can be considered in a semi-judicial way. Perhaps such a provision could be made in another place.
As the Amendment was begotten, as it were, by us, we welcome it and hope that the Minister may consider going further and acquiring more discretion.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI looked most carefully at this point and at all the suggestions made in Committee. I think, however, that this is as far as we need to go, but I will look again at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
§ Amendment agreed to.