§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 14, line 25, at end insert:
(6) No provision of Part I of this Act shall be construed as conferring a right of appeal against any decision or action which was taken before the coming into operation of that provision.This is an Amendment for the removal of doubt. The question may be raised in the early stages of the appeal system whether Clauses 2 to 5 confer rights of appeal against decisions taken before the relevant Clause comes into operation. For example, will it be possible on the date when Clause 2(1)(a)—appeal against refusal of admission—comes into operation, to appeal against a decision to refuse admission which was taken the previous day? This will be a question of practical importance if the person concerned is still awaiting removal. The Government are advised that the Bill as it stands would probably not be interpreted as affording a right of appeal against a decision taken before the relevant Clause came into force unless there were some express provision to that effect. Nevertheless, the contrary view could be argued and it would be undesirable to leave a question of such importance open to argument at the very start of the appeal system.The Amendment accordingly makes it clear that the Bill confers no right of appeal against a decision taken before the relevant provision comes into operation. There are strong practical reasons for imposing this restriction.
§ 1.0 a.m.
§ Mr. BuckWe on this side are on almost every occasion against retrospective legislation. The Amendment makes it clear that we shall in no circumstances be dealing with or be involved in any way with retrospection, so we welcome it.
Perhaps the Minister will indicate what is the intended timetable relative to the bringing into operation of the Measure. It would be useful for the House to have this information. A great deal of work must obviously be done to prepare accommodation. It will be necessary to 695 prepare the appropriate orders which will govern the procedures of the tribunal and of the adjudicators. We should be interested to hear where there is any prospective timetable or whether indications can be given. We have grave doubts about the whole of the Bill.
Our view has been made clear that there should be a reorientation of the whole system for the control of immigration, in which control in the country of origin and the introduction of an entry certificate system become virtually universal. As that is our policy, which we shall introduce in due course, we are especially interested in the proposed timetable relative to the bringing into operation of various parts of the Bill. If a system such as that I have described were to come into effect, large parts of the Bill would become superfluous.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI am interested to learn that compulsory entry certificates would become universal. Such certificates would lead to great practical problems that the hon. Gentleman knows not of.
§ Mr. ReesThe smal print which we are now given brings us a little closer together. If the argument is as to the need for entry certificates, there is no division between us on the desirability of advertising that people should use entry certificates.
On the timing of the implementation of Part I, it is still too early to fix a date. It depends, not only on the passage of the legislation, but on the completion of a great many administrative preparations. There are rules of procedure to be drafted and these will be rules of some complexity. They will have to be submitted in draft to the Council on Tribunals for comment. This process can begin while the Bill is in another place, but the rules cannot be made until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. The rules will then be subject to review in Parliament under the negative Resolution procedure. There is the appointment of members of the Tribunal and of adjudicators. Preliminary steps in this direction can be taken while the Bill is before Parliament, but naturally no definite offer of appointment can be made before the Royal Assent. There are preparations to 696 be made at the ports by way of ensuring that accommodation is available. We discussed that point in Committee. There will also have to be discussions with the voluntary bodies, a point which we discussed in Committee and about which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) knows a great deal. Extra staff will be needed at the Home Office to deal with the additional work arising from appeals. I do not want to exaggerate the amount of work involved, but it is considerable. There is certainly a built-in incentive for the Home Office to move as quickly as possible, but I cannot give any precise date. As soon as practical, we shall do so but, as I have indicated, there are a number of practical problems to be dealt with first.
§ Amendment agreed to.