HC Deb 11 January 1993 vol 216 cc699-700
Mr. Fraser

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'in consequence of the refusal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 47, at end insert— '() Nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall be taken to prevent a person appealing against a refusal to revoke a deportation order under the preceding subsection where that person remains in the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Fraser

The amendment may seem to make a trivial point, but we propose to leave out the words in consequence of the refusal because the appeal should be based on whatever grounds are available rather than simply on the consequence of the approval. I cannot understand why it is necessary for those words to appear in the Bill as they seem to restrict the right to appeal. The Minister may have an explanation. If he assures us that they do not inhibit the appeal, then so be it.

Amendment No. 12 was raised in Committee. As the Minister knows, section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971 prevents an appeal against a revocation of a deportation order while the appellant is in the United Kingdom. The Minister promised to ensure that the law was amended so that, if the application for revocation of the deportation order could be made to raise a political asylum matter under the convention, section 15 of the 1971 Act would not prevent that application from being made. Unless it was intended for the issue to be covered by Government new clause 6, it is still not clear to us how an application for revocation can be made while a person remains in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Charles Wardle

Amendment No. 11 is unnecessary since removal is only at issue following a refusal. The wording of the current draft thus accurately and clearly reflects the appeal rights of a person who has been refused leave to enter.

Amendment No. 12 appears to reflect misunderstanding about the way in which the new rights of appeal against a deportation decision for asylum seekers will work. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issues raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).

Clause 7(3) confers a right of appeal against a decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5) of the 1971 Act. It also confers a right of appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order which has already been made, either under section 3(5) or, on the recommendation of a court, under section 3(6). Unlike the equivalent provision in the 1971 Act, there is no requirement in the Bill that an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order should be made from abroad. The only restriction is that a person may not bring an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order if he has already appealed under clause 7 against the decision to make the order.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide that nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall prevent an appeal under clause 7 against a refusal to revoke a deportation order being made while the person is still in this country. But the key words of section 15(5) are: A person shall not be entitled to appeal under this section against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so long as he is in the United Kingdom". The restriction clearly applies only to appeals under section 15 of the 1971 Act, not to appeals under clause 7 of the Bill.

Therefore, I trust that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Norwood will accept that both amendments are unnecessary, and I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Fraser

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to