§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 38, line 27, leave out 'legal' and insert 'criminal'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I believe that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 147, in page 38, line 28, leave out '(including' and insert 'or'.
§ Mr. Davis
We alluded to this matter in Committee. This part of the Schedule provides that, if an immigration officer finds certain documents, he may detain them and that, if he considers that they may be needed in connection with any legal proceedings, he can detain them until he is satisfied that they will not be so needed. I took the view in Committee—I see no reason for altering it—that this is a very wide and somewhat untidy piece of draftsmanship.
It was clear that what the Secretary of State intended was that the documents which would be required were those for use in connection with proceedings which 713 were the subject of appeal, or possibly for criminal proceedings. That of course is not what the Schedule says. It refers to "any" proceedings, which could cover civil proceedings in which the appellant might be a party or a witness. It would invest an immigration officer with a discretion which is unnecessary and far too wide.
The Minister of State said in Committee:I think that there is some point in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should like to consider very carefully what he has said and to see whether the adjudicator might not have the power to order production of the documents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th May, 1971; c. 1616.]That relates to the other Amendment, but he conceded that there was some purpose in what I was saying.
He gave no undertaking to meet the point, but I hope that it will not cause the Government any embarrassment to define the provision more carefully. This would clarify the situation and assist the immigration officer.
§ 7.00 p.m.
§ Mr. Sharples
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) is correct in saying that I promised in Committee to look at this matter with the Solicitor-General. I have done so, and I admit that there is some force in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
It is necessary that these documents should be retained, and that there should be an absolute power to retain them where criminal proceedings are likely to follow. However, I accept that the Clause as drafted is probably wider than is necessary. I have not had much time to consider the point, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I accept the principle of it but would like to look at the drafting more carefully.
§ Mr. Clinton Davis
The Minister has stated the position moderately, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 158, in page 38, line 29, at end insert:Provided that the person producing such documents may apply to the appropriate adjudicator at any time after 21 days of such 714 detention for an order that the documents should be released to him.This Amendment is designed to provide some relief to an immigrant where an immigration officer, perhaps wrongfully or mistakenly, detains documents for an indefinite period. As drafted, this provision would enable an immigration officer, if he considers that the documents may be needed in connection with legal proceedings, to detain them indefinitely. As I submitted when we debated this matter in Committee, there could be a slip, some bureaucratic mistake, and the immigrant would be denied the opportunity of making a protest to seek redress from any other quarter.
The Amendment would enable an application to be made to the adjudicator, who could determine whether there was substance in the immigration officer's hope that the application would be rejected, or he could find that the documents should no longer be detained. This is closely parallel to the situation which exists in the courts. I hope that the Minister will be as sympathetic towards this Amendment as he was to the last.
§ Mr. Sharples
I think I have largely met the point that the hon. Gentleman raises through the acceptance of the principle of his previous Amendment. Having accepted that principle, we are here considering the case where documents are required in connection with criminal proceedings. I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that I cannot be as forthcoming on this occasion, because I do not think it would be right for the adjudicator to decide in cases of this kind. Having narrowed the gap considerably, as we have done, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
§ A mendment negatived.
§ Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)
I beg to move Amendment No. 161, in page 40. line 23, at end insert:' unless when he arrived in the United Kingdom the falsity of any documents required to be produced by him was not reasonably apparent '.I raised this matter in Committee, and I would not be raising it again if further information had not reached me. In fact, such information did reach me, and only this week.
This point covers the right of the immigration officer to require a carrier to return a person to his or her country of 715 origin where it is decided that the person is in breach of the regulations and, therefore, should not be allowed to enter or remain here.
My Amendment would at least give the earlier reasonable protection, and the case which has recently come to my attention shows the need for the Amendment. This case emphasises the difficulty that could arise from the Schedule in its present form. One of the nation's main shipping companies ran a cruise from Southampton and took on board among the passengers a lady who was born in Trinidad, who was in possession of a valid Trinidad passport and who had originally entered this country by another shipping line from Las Palmas. She stated on arrival that she would stay with friends and that she wanted to be allowed in as a visitor. Her passport was marked:Allowed permission to remain in this country for six months as a visitor.It appeared to the authorities that she was in possession of sufficient funds and that she intended to do nothing other than stay as a visitor for that period.
She joined the cruise from Southampton on 7th May. The carriers naturally looked at her documents and were satisfied that the duration of the cruise would enable her to return to Britain within the six months which she had been allowed. They fully believed that she was in possession of proper documents.
The cruise terminated at Southampton on 21st May when, as with the other passengers, this lady's documents were re-examined by immigration officers. She was refused permission to land, and for good reason. Indeed, the immigration officers said that they had received information that the lady had obtained employment at a children's hospital in Oxford during the period of her permission to stay in this country, and they therefore said that she could not be allowed to remain here, being in breach of the conditions of her entry. I make no complaint about that.
The cruise line had only taken this lady from Southampton on a cruise and had returned her to Southampton, believing that she was in possession of valid documents. The line was then required to return her to her country of origin, which obviously presented difficulty to 716 the company because it had not been the original line which brought her here. Had it been a smaller firm it might have had to employ another carrier to take her to her country of origin at the expense of the smaller cruise line.
The shipping line made an appeal to the Southampton immigration office, and on being advised that the office was unable to alter its decision, the company approached the Home Office which, while sympathetic, upheld the decision of the Southampton office. In these circumstances the shipping line had no way of dealing with the matter other than to ensure that the lady was kept in security until it could arrange for one of its ships which was sailing in the direction of her home country to take her there.
The shipping line had no reason to know in the first instance that this lady was other than a bona fide passenger in possession of documents giving her a right to stay in this country for six months as a visitor. It had no way of knowing that this lady had broken the terms of that right to enter Britain, and yet, at the end of the day, it was required to return her to her country of origin when, on all grounds, it surely should not have been required to carry out any responsibility of this kind.
Shipping lines that run cruises from this country carry all sorts of foreign nationals on non-United Kingdom passports. It could easily create a dangerous precedent if the onus were placed upon the carrier without giving him reasonable opportunity of satisfying himself that the travel documents appeared to be in order and if, because of circumstances over which he had no control, at the end of the day he would be required to carry that person at his expense back to his country of origin.
I do not want to repeat all that I said in Committee, but this is a matter in which there has been a move in the right direction in that the carrier is no longer required to pay for the board and lodging of a suspect immigrant while investigations are taking place. Carriers are still, however, required to bear both the physical and the financial responsibility of returning that person to his country of origin. But all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will realise that in this particular circumstance—I have no 717 knowledge that this is an isolated case—this shows that a carrier can get into difficulties and be required to return a person to a country with which the carrier has no contact and to which he runs no services.
Therefore, I again ask whether we cannot put what appears to be a reasonable wording into this particular requirement to make certain that the immigration officer can require the master of the vessel to' return the person to his country of origin only where it is apparent to a reasonable person that the travel documents of the person are not valid. Only in those circumstances should the immigration officer be able to require the carrier to carry a person back to his country of origin at the carrier's cost.
§ Mr. Sharples
As my hon. Friend said, this is a matter which we considered in Standing Committee. Since the Committee proceedings have finished, I have considered very carefully the powerful arguments he then put forward. However, I am about to disappoint him. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment, in spite of his powerful arguments today.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, until 1969 the carrier also had to bear the cost of detaining the person ashore, but this burden was removed by Section 21 of the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969, and by the Aliens Order, 1969. That was absolutely right because the costs of detention were costs over which the carrying company probably had very little control. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the difficult case to which he referred. But he will probably agree that a case of that kind is pretty exceptional. The normal method by which carrier companies return people to their home country is to place them in seats which would otherwise be unused. The real cost to the carrying company, in very many cases one of the airline companies, is very slight. In the majority of cases, it is probably only the cost of the meals which the person has while on board.
If, however, carrying companies were to have to charge the full cost to the Government, which they would do if they were not required themselves to carry a person in these circumstances at their expense, the cost to the Government 718 would be very much greater than that to the carrying company.
I have considered very carefully my hon. Friend's arguments. I realise the feeling amongst certain carrying companies. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
§ A mendment negatived.
§ Mr. Sharples
I beg to move, Amendment No. 78, in page 41, line 15, leave out from 'may' to end of line 28 and insert:
- (a) give the captain of that ship or aircraft directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or
- (b) give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or
- (c) give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or territory so specified, being either—
- (i) a country of which he is a national or citizen; or
- (ii) a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or
- (iii) a country or territory in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or
- (iv) a country or territory where he was engaged as a member of the crew of the ship or aircraft which he arrived in the United Kingdom to join; or
- (v) a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.
§ 7.15 p.m.
With this Amendment the House can discuss Amendment No. 141, in line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (3). Government Amendments Nos. 79 to 83; Amendment No. 142, in page 42 line 13, leave out subparagraph (3), and Government Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 90.
§ Mr. Sharples
In Standing Committee the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) asked whether I would give an interpretation off the cuff of paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 2, and for what I now find very good reasons, I declined to do so, because the purpose of these Amendments is to spell out what was previously referred to by reference. At the time, I said that if one spelt it 719 out in detail it would considerbly lengthen the Bill. The Amendments now before us considerably lengthen it. Nonetheless, in view of the difficulty with which anyone would have been faced—certainly as I was in the interpretation of Section 12(3), it is right that this should be done. I have met the point raised rightly and properly by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.
§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He said that he would look into this matter, and he has done so. Possibly his temerity at having to come here on Report stage to be challenged in the same way persuaded him to do so. But he has denied me one thing. I now feel that I shall not be able to enter sub-paragraph (3) to "This England".
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: No. 79, in page 41, line 42, after 'person', insert '(not being patrial)'.
§ No. 80, in line 43, leave out from 'aircraft' to 'and' in line 45.
§ No. 81, in page 42, line 2, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
§ No. 82, in line 6, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
No. 83, in page 42, Schedule 2, leave out lines 8 to 16 and insert:
an immigration officer may—
13A.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that directions might be given in respect of a person under paragraph 12 or 13 above, but that it is not practicable for them to be given or that, if given they would be ineffective, then the Secretary of State may give to the owners or agents of any ship or aircraft any such directions in respect of that person as are authorised by paragraph 12(2)(c) or 13(2)(c).
(2) Where the Secretary of State may give directions for a person's removal in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, he may instead give directions for his removal in accordance with arrangements to be made by the Secretary of State to any country or territory to which he could be removed under sub-paragraph (1).
(3) The costs of complying with any directions given under this paragraph shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
13B. A person in respect of whom directions are given under any of paragraphs 12 to 13A above may be placed, under the authority of an immigration officer, on board any ship or aircraft in which he is to be removed in accordance with the directions.—[Mr. Sharples.]
§ Mr. S. C. Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 42, line 21, at end insert:Provided that such person may not be detained for a period in excess of seven days unless—The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 empower an immigration officer to examine a person who has arrived in Britain for the purpose of determining whether he is patrial and, if not, whether he should be allowed to enter Britain, and also to decide whether a medical examination is necessary and to have such person medically examined.
- (a) a justice of the peace is by written information on oath satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so detaining him; or
- (b) in Scotland, a sheriff, or a magistrate or justice of the peace, having jurisdiction in the place where such person is detained, is by evidence on oath so satisfied.
The provisions of paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 enable anyone who is required to submit to such an examination to be detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending his examination and pending the decision to give or refuse him leave to enter.
There are, however, no provisions which in any way limit the time for that detention. It is theoretically possible for the detention to continue for a very long 721 time. It is not only theoretical. The Minister of State, when dealing with an Amendment on this matter in Committee, said this:I agree that there have been cases where detention has been much longer than I would have wished …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 27th May, 1971, c. 1622.]Where a person is in custody and charged with an offence, the law requires that he should come up periodically before a magistrates' court which will decide whether he should continue to be held in custody. We sought in Committee to insert a similar provision in relation to this power so that a person detained must be brought up before a magistrates' court every seven days, so that the magistrates might satisfy themselves that continued detention is necessary.
The Minister of State, in reply, suggested that a magistrates' court is not normally conversant with the complexities of the administration of immigration control, and at first was even inclined to take the view that this was not a matter which should be dealt with otherwise than by representation by Members of Parliament to the Home Office Minister concerned—a song we heard only too often in Committee, but which I am glad to say has been somewhat abandoned since the Government had second thoughts at this stage of the Bill.
However, at the end of the debate the Minister of State said that he would give most careful consideration to the argument which had been advanced. On that assurance we did not press the matter to a Division.
We, too, have reconsidered the matter in the light of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that magistrates' courts do not understand the complexities of immigration control. We have found that in the very next paragraph—paragraph 15—the Government themselves provide that certain people can be arrested without warrant but that in other cases those concerned must go before a justice of the peace and satisfy himby written information on oath … that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a person liable to be arrested … is to be found on any premises".There are similar provisions relating to Scotland.
722 In those cases the Government are apparently satisfied that the magistrates' courts in the two countries have sufficient knowledge to deal with these matters. It is difficult to understand why they are not similarly satisfied on this problem.
In the Amendment we seek to insert in paragraph 14 the precise words in paragraph 15. We think that the Government should be ready to accept that their own wording is appropriate.
§ Mr. Sharples
I have given very careful consideration to this point, as I undertook in Standing Committee to do. I was concerned about the fact that people could be held in detention for very long periods. One case was drawn to my attention on the very morning when we discussed this matter in Committee.
In the time which has been available I have not been able to bring forward Government Amendments to meet the point as I would have wished. This is a matter of considerable importance. For the reasons I gave in Committee. I do not think that the magistrates' court is the appropriate place. We are not dealing with the same kind of situation as that dealt with in paragraph 15, which is the normal case of an application for a warrant. We are dealing with matters of the relationship with people who may be held in detention in connection with immigration matters.
As I said in Committee, probably no one knows better than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the considerations which may have to be taken into account in dealing with such matters. The solution I have in mind is that there should be able to be a reference possibly to an adjudicator. That would be a better solution. An adjudicator is someone who is used to dealing with immigration matters like this.
I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment on the firm assurance that I will do my best to introduce Amendments in another place to meet the point, although not necessarily with the kind of procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. I hope that this will meet the point, because I do not think that the magistrates' court is satisfactory, although I accept that some form of independent decision should be given in such cases.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Mr. John Hall(seated and covered) (Wycombe)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Division was first called and hon. Members came to the Division Lobbies they were met with statements that the Division was off. Those statements were made by a number of people and in consequence those Members who were approaching the Lobby with the intention of voting went elsewhere. As a result, it is quite likely that a certain number of Members who would have voted will find themselves shut out of the Division Lobbies. May I ask under what circumstances the Division was first called and then statements were made that it was off, thus misleading many right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. What has some bearing on that point is the question of who made the alleged statements and whether they came from official sources. No reference as to who made such statements has been made to the Chair.
§ Mr. David James(seated and covered) (Dorset, North)
Further to that point of order. I was told that the Division was off by a colleague whose name I still do not know.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am sure that hon. Members make comments to one another during a Division, but the Chair cannot take them as official.
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack(seated and covered) (Cannock)
I, too, was accosted by a Member whose name I could give but will not.
§ Mr. John Hall (seated and covered)
Further to that point of order. It appeared that the servants of the House were also under the impression at the time that the
§ Division was not on. The impression was conveyed to those coming into the Lobbies that the Division was off.
§ Mr. Charles Pannell(seated and covered) (Leeds, West)
On a point of order. The behaviour of the servants of the House has been prayed in aid of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. It is completely out of order to refer to their behaviour. In any case, Members are responsible for their action or inaction, or for whether they are asleep or awake.
§ Mr. John Hall (seated and covered)
Further to that point of order. I mentioned the servants of the House in the way that I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, only in response to your request for information about the official sources from which the statement might have come.
§ Dame Irene Ward(seated and covered) (Tynemouth)
When I arrived at the Division Lobby to vote there was a great conglomeration of hon. Members of all kinds standing in a block. I thought to myself, "I shall have to make a dive through this". I asked, "What's all this about?" Nobody seemed to know anything. Various people—I did not pay attention to who they were—all said that the Division was off. Certainly the entrance just before we go in to the Division Lobby was blocked by people. I do not know whether it was deliberate or whether they were all trying to find out what was going on. But it was very trying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Lady's difficulties, but she must appreciate the Chair's difficulties. The confusion has not helped the Chair.
§ The House having divided: Ayes 139, Noes 192.725
|Division No. 383.]||AYES||[7.28 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Beaney, Alan||Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James|
|Allen, Scholefield||Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Cant, R. B.|
|Ashley, Jack||Bidwelt, Sydney||Carmichael, Neil|
|Atkinson, Norman||Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)|
|Barnes, Michael||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)|
|Barnett, Joel||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Clark, David (Colne Valley)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Orme, Stanley|
|Cohen, Stanley||Heffer, Eric S.||Oswald, Thomas|
|Concannon, J. D.||Horam, John||Palmer, Arthur|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jannrer, Greville||Pendry, Tom|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Pentland, Norman|
|Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Prescott, John|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Rankin, John|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Kinnock, Neil||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lamond, James||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Delargy, H. J.||Latham, Arthur||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Lawson, George||Roper, John|
|Dempsey, James||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Driberg, Tom||Loughlin, Charles||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Sheldon, Robert (Asnton-under-Lyne)|
|Dunn, James A.||McCartney, Hugh||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Dunnett, Jack||McElhone, Frank||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Edelman, Maurice||McGuire, Michael||Small, William|
|Edwards, Robert (Button)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Mackie, John||Stallard, A. W.|
|Ellis, Tom||Mackintosh, John P.||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|English, Michael||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Strang, Gavn|
|Evans, Fred||McNamara, J. Kevin||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Faulds, Andrew||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Tomney, Frank|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersficld, E.)||Tomey, Tom|
|Foley, Maurice||Marks, Kenneth||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Foot, Michael||Marsden, F.||Watkins, David|
|Ford, Ben||Marshall, Dr. Edmund||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Forrester, John||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Whitehead, Philip|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mayhew, Christopher||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Ginsburg, David||Mendelson, John||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mikardo, Ian||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Moyle, Roland||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||O'Malley, Brian||Mr. John Golding and|
|Hardy, Peter||Orbach, Maurice||Mrs. Doris Fisher|
|Adley, Robert||Dixon, Piers||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Drayson, G. B.||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Elliot, capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hunt, John|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Eyre, Reginald||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Astor, John||Farr, John||James, David|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Fell, Anthony||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Baker, H. K. (Banff)||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Jessel, Toby|
|Batsford, Brian||Fidler, Michael||Jopling, Michael|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Kimball, Marcus|
|Bell, Ronald||Fowler, Norman||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Fox, Marcus||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Kinsey, J. R.|
|Biffen, John||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Kirk, Peter|
|Boscawen, Robert||Gibson-Watt, David||Knox, David|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Lane, David|
|Boycl-Carpentcr, Rt. Hn. John||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Bray, Ronald||Goodhew, Victor||Loveridge, John|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Gorst, John||Luce, R. N.|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Gray, Hamish||Mac Arthur, Ian|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Green, Alan||McCrindlei, R. A.|
|Buck, Antony||Grylls, Michael||McLaren, Martin|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Gummer, Selwyn||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||McMaster, Stanley|
|Channon, Paul||Hall, John (Wycombe)||McNair-Wilson, Michael|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Maddan, Martin|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Madel, David|
|Clegg, Walter||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Maginnis, John|
|Cooke, Robert||Hasethurst, Alan||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest|
|Coombs, Derek||Hawkins, Paul||Marten, Neil|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hay, John||Maudling, Rt, Hn. Reginald|
|Cordle, John||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Mawby, Ray|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Heseltine, Michael||Maxwell-Hystop, R. J,|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hicks, Robert||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Costain, A. P.||Hiley, Joseph||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Crouch, David||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Moate, Roger|
|Curran, Charles||Holland, Philip||Molyneaux, James|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Holt, Miss Mary||Montgomery, Fergus|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James||Hordern, Peter||More, Jasper|
|Dean, Paul||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Mudd, David||Ridsdale. Julian||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Neave, Airey||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Normanton, Tom||Rost, Peter||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Nott, John||Scott, Nicholas||Waddington, David|
|Onslow, Cranley||Sharpies, Richard||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Osborn, John||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Skelton, William (Clapham)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Sinclair, Sir George||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Skeet, T. H. H.||Warren, Kenneth|
|Pike, Miss Mervyn||Soref, Harold||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Pink, B. Bonner||Speed, Keith||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Pounder, Rafton||Spence, John||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Sproat, Iain||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Proudtoot, Wilfred||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Quennell, Miss J. M.||Sutcliffe, John||Younger, Hn. George|
|Raison, Timothy||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Redmond, Robert||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)||Mr. Hector Monro and|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Tebbitt, Norman||Mr. Tim Fortescue.|
§ Amendments made: No. 85, in page 42, line 23, leave out '13' and insert '13A'.
§ No. 86, in line 37, after 11', insert 'or 13B'.
§ No. 87, in page 44, line 30, leave out: 'if any of them may not'
' unless the owners or agents have reasonable cause to believe all of them to '.—[Mr Sharples.]
§ Mr. Sharples
I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 45, line 4, leave out 'passengers' and insert:' persons on board 'I understand that it will be convenient to discuss with it Government Amendment No. 89.
Paragraph 20(1) of the Schedule requires the captain of a ship or aircraft to present his passengers for examination by immigration officers either on the ship or aircraft or under approved arrangements ashore. The effect of the Amendment is to oblige the captain also to present for examination any members of his crew who are outside the scope of Clause 8(1).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: No. 89, in page 45, line 7, after 'officer', insert: ', or they are members of the crew who may lawfully enter the United Kingdom without leave by virtue of section 8(1) of this Act'.—[Mr. Sharples.]
§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 49, line 2 leave out from 'surety' to first 'of' in line 4.
728 The very short point I want to make is that it seems that there is a duty on the part of the surety to convey the information that the person is likely to break the condition, and he must also provide information that he desires to be relieved of his obligations as a surety. I believe that the first part of the paragraph is sufficient. The alternative might be that the provisions should not be construed conjectively. There is an unnecessary burden on the surety. It is sometimes difficult to act as a surety, and unnecessary burdens should not be placed on such people. If a surety simply wishes to be relieved of his obligation as a surety, that should be enough.
§ Mr. Sharples
Paragraph 26(1)(b), which the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend, reproduces the effect of paragraph 9(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969, which in turn was based on Section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, relating to bail in ordinary criminal proceedings. The wording of the equivalent passage in all those provisions is identical, and includes the words which the Amendment would delete. This would not be the right place to make a fundamental alteration in respect of bail of this kind. I hope that in view of my explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment made: No. 90, in page 50, line 11, after 'under', insert 'paragraph 8 of.—[Mr. Sharples.]