§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples)I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 18, line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'is able to'.
The Amendment is made to meet a point raised in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Subsections (2) and (3) enable a person appealing against refusal of entry, or deportation, to object, on that appeal, to the country or territory to which he is to be removed if notice of the proposed destination is given to him either before or after his appeal is brought. My right hon. Friend contended that such a notice might be given not only after the appeal was brought, but after it was heard, in which case the applicant would be deprived of any opportunity to object to the proposed destination.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that he would consider the point. The Amendment meets the point made by my right hon. Friend, although not precisely in the manner which he suggested at the time.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 18, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
This is an Amendment with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar, because it was discussed in Committee. The Clause provides a right of appeal to someone who is being removed from the 664 country and who objects specifically to the destination to which he is being sent.
We then reach subsection (6), which applies to someone who is being deported as a member of someone else's family, and it is at that point that we suddenly find that what appeared to be an eminently sensible right of appeal is subject to all sorts of exceptions. For example, there is no right of appeal to the applicant
unless he appeals under this section by virtue of subsection (1)(c)….That, as I understand it, is where the directions are given because he entered in breach of a deportation order.One is left wondering why that does not apply if he appeals under subsection (1)(b), that is to say if the directions are given in consequence of a deportation order made against him. We are left wondering what the explanation is. It may be a perfectly convincing one, but in Committee—and it may have had something to do with the hour in the morning when it was discussed—the right hon. Gentleman was not very specific, and we were left wondering about it.
Then we turn to another exception. We are told that no appeal lies unless he is
also appealing against the directions under section 16 above.That is more puzzling than ever. One can well understand that he may well be concerned not only about the destination to which he is being sent. He may be worried by something else in the direction and in that situation no doubt he will appeal also about whatever else it was in the direction to which he objected. Then, of course, quite sensibly, one would expect the two appeals to be heard together. But what is the situation if he 665 has no objection to anything else in the direction? Is he then to invent some complaint? Is he to search around in the barrel for some artificial objections in the direction in order to found his complaint about the destination to which he is being sent? Or, as a penalty if he cannot do so, is he to be deprived of his appeal as to his destination?
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Again, we are left wondering as to the reason for this rather curious provision. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he would look at this matter again. We are listening with ears flapping to hear the explanation. If it is a convincing one we will not, of course, take the matter any further.
§ Mr. SharplesSubsection (6) of Clause 17 refers to deportation orders made against people belonging to the family of another person to be deported. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking to the House that he will re-examine the whole of this question. He will, of course, include in that re-examination the particular points just raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Our intention is to look again at this whole question of rights of appeal exercisable by members of families whom it is proposed to deport with the head of the family. I hope that with that assurance the hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. ArcherIf the whole of the subsection is to be looked at again it may be that we do not require an explanation as to the very curious form in which this was originally drafted. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.