RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO SECRETARY OF STATE ETC. (Hansard, 25 January 1984)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell
I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 34, leave out from 'interview' to end of line 4 on page 7.
The amendment removes from the Bill a most extraordinary provision. In considering this, I believe that the Committee finished rather more puzzled than when it started, and certainly far from satisfied that the Government had thought through the implications of what they appeared to be doing.
The amendment seeks to delete the remainder of subsection (8) after the word "interview" and the whole of subsections (9) and (10). The provision up to the point of the proposed deletion contains the thoroughly intelligible arrangement that 974 the person against whom the exclusion order has been made shall be granted a personal interview with the person or persons so nominated if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is reasonably practicable to grant him such an interview". Up to that point, the provision is at large and would cover an interview arranged by the Secretary of State in any circumstances that the Secretary of State thought reasonably practicable. However, the clause then refers to an appropriate country or territory and defines that in the way set out in subsection (9). For an exclusion from Great Britain, the appropriate territory is Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. For an exclusion from Northern Ireland, the appropriate territory is Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. For an exclusion altogether from the United Kingdom, the appropriate territory is the Republic of Ireland.
That seems to us to give undue weight and significance to the Republic of Ireland in this connection. It may well be that it is mostly to the Republic of Ireland that persons excluded under any of these powers, and especially that in clause 6, will resort, but that does not seem sufficient reason to restrict the matter in that way, having given the Secretary of State power to arrange an interview where he thinks it reasonably practicable to do so. Why should it be reasonably practicable only in the Irish Republic?
Very difficult matters of jurisdiction and relationship between neighbouring independent states are raised if United Kingdom legislation gives the Irish Republic a special position and provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may specify a place in the Republic. It was suggested that he might specify a place in Dublin. Perhaps I may give him a tip. If he is on that line, Dundalk might serve better. As it stands, the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to specify a place in the territory of another country in which to arrange for interviews with persons coming within the ambit of an exclusion order.
It seems to many of us that it is an improper provision in United Kingdom legislation to make such arrangements and that, even if it were envisaged that an interview could be arranged at a British consulate or embassy, there is no reason to restrict it to the Irish Republic in this way or to put ourselves in the position of treating the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom as a type of joint jurisdiction in any place in which the Secretary of State can arrange for interviews with persons to whom exclusion orders apply.
The Minister must give a clearer and more satisfactory answer than he gave in Committee to satisfy my right hon. and hon. Friends and me that he has made out a case for this peculiar provision.

§ Mr. Proctor
In Committee an exchange occurred between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and me, in terms of custom and practice, about where he envisaged such interviews, if conducted in the Republic, would take place. After some consideration, my hon. and learned Friend said that the interviews would be in the embassy. He said: I cannot…envisage circumstances in which it would be decided that it would be more convenient to hold them elsewhere." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 November 1983; c. 205.] Will my hon. and learned Friend go a little further than that and say that any such interview, conducted in the Republic, will be only at our embassy in Dublin?

§ Mr. Waddington
I do not want to spend too long reminding the House of the effect of clause 7, but it is an improvement on the earlier legislation. It increases the right of a person to make representations.
The effect of the amendment would be that a person, having consented to removal and having made representations within the requisite period, would be granted an interview only if it appeared reasonably practicable to the Secretary of State to grant it, and the clause will be silent as to when the interview might be held. That certainly does not reflect Lord Jellicoe's intention. In recommending, The right to an interview should apply to all persons excluded— whether from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole—provided that they have been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland", Lord Jellicoe, at paragraph 195, said that it would be clearly unreasonable for the Adviser to have to travel further than this to conduct an interview. Objection has been raised to the fact that clause 7 provides specifically for interviews in the Republic of Ireland. It has been argued that if provision is to be made for interviews outside the United Kingdom, the facility should not be limited to one specified country. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right. I do not believe that one can elevate this to a matter of principle. The fact is that people excluded because of their involvement in terrorism connected with Northern Ireland affairs are almost invariably removed to Northern Ireland, Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland, which is what we would expect.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell
The Minister quoted Lord Jellicoe as referring to cases where the removal was specifically to the Republic of Ireland and he recommended this provision in that context. It does not appear that there is any such limitation in the Bill, as drafted, which simply takes the Republic of Ireland as the only place outside the United Kingdom where such interviews can be arranged. I accept the Minister's point that the words "within a reasonable period" to the end of the subsection do not form part of my argument and ought reasonably to remain part of the subsection.

§ Mr. Waddington
I am looking at the heavy type in page 76, paragraph 195, wherein Lord Jellicoe states: The right to an interview should apply to all persons excluded—whether from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole—provided that they have been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland". It seems clear that Lord Jellicoe intended that a interview should take place in a part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that he was not envisaging the circumstance in which a person was removed to the Republic of Ireland and then decided of his own volition to go on to Australia. It would be an extraordinary use of public money in those circumstances to say that the man who had been removed to the Republic of Ireland should be entitled to have an interview, even if he went to Australia.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell
I do not believe that the Minister has quite taken my point. He has made it clear that the Jellicoe recommendation is not implemented by the clause as it stands, because the clause does not refer only to persons who have been removed to the Republic of 976 Ireland. Lord Jellicoe refers to persons removed to the Republic of Ireland or from one part of the United Kingdom to another. There is no such limitation, so far as I can understand it, in the clause as it stands. The clause seems to refer to exclusion orders under clause 6 applying to anywhere outside the United Kingdom, not only to the Republic of Ireland. Even in those cases where there has been a removal under clause 6—not to the Republic of Ireland — an interview can be arranged only in the Republic of Ireland, if I have construed the clause correctly. Does the Minister agree that the clause does not in its present form conform with Lord Jellicoe's recommendation and needs reconsideration in the light of the apparent discrepancy between the Jellicoe report and the natural construction of the clause?

§ Mr. Waddington
I must confess that I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument somewhat difficult to follow, but any argument advanced by him is worth considering, and I promise to do so.
Perhaps we are all falling into the trap which time and again we envisaged in Committee. We tend often to talk about people being removed to the Republic of Ireland, but we are talking about people removed from the United Kingdom. I understand that Lord Jellicoe was talking about the circumstance in which a person was removed from the United Kingdom and finished up somewhere else in the world. Lord Jellicoe said that in those circumstances it was not reasonable to expect interviews to be held anywhere other than in the Republic of Ireland if the person concerned had been removed from the United Kingdom.
In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), I cannot go further than I did before. I stated plainly in Committee that the chances were that the interview would be in the obviously convenient place, which is the British embassy. I do not see why we should be expected to tie our hands in that regard. One can imagine circumstances in which it might be convenient to hold the interviews elsewhere.

§ Mr. Waddington
I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 19, leave out 'notify' and insert 'give notice in writing to'. The Government tabled the amendment to fulfil a commitment made in Committee when we accepted in principle the spirit of an Opposition amendment, the effect of which would have been identical to that of amendment No. 19. Indeed, it was only for drafting reasons that the amendment was not accepted in Committee.
Amendment No. 19 enshrines in the Bill what has always been the practice. Excluded persons who make representations against their exclusion are notified in writing of the Secretary of State's decision on their representations. That is generally done by an official, acting for and on behalf of the Secretary of State, and the notification is sent either directly to the excluded person or, if his representations have been made through a legal representative, through that representative.