Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill: Instruction (Hansard, 11 February 1993)

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 be considered after Clause 4; and that, further to the Instruction of Tuesday last, Amendments Nos. 96 to 106 be considered after Amendment No. 95.—(Earl Ferrers.)

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Minister for taking account, in this Instruction to the Committee, of the points that I made in responding to the first Instruction to the Committee on Tuesday last. I hope that he will not think me ungrateful if I express the wish that the Instructions had been taken at one time. When I approached the Government on Monday and suggested that the schedules should be taken with the clauses to which they refer, only half that suggestion was taken into account on Tuesday. The second half is being implemented now. It would have been better for the orderly conduct of business in Committee if the decision had been taken straightaway on Monday, or indeed, before.
I hope that I may be forgiven for raising at the same time the matter of the availability of relevant documents for Members of the House in relation to the Bill. On two occasions we have been told just prior to the matter coming before the Committee that the documents to which we have to refer and indeed to which we have put down amendments were not the most up-to-date. On the first occasion we were told only on Monday evening that the draft Immigration Rules to which we had been working, and which we had obtained from the Printed Paper Office, were not the most recent version. Yesterday evening we were told for the first time that the draft procedure rules to which we had been working, and which we had obtained from the Printed Paper Office, were not the most up-to-date version. I have ascertained that no up-to-date version was delivered to the Printed Paper Office in time for it to be considered.
I suggest that the proper conduct of the business of the House in its capacity as a revising Chamber is not helped by the failure of the relevant department to provide to the Printed Paper Office the relevant documents as soon as they are available. The damage is compounded by the fact that the absence of those documents was not first noted when amendments were put down. It was then denied. It was only at the very last moment that we were told that the proper documents were not available.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I refer to the first part of the noble Lord's complaint. I agree that if the Instructions had been dealt with at one time it would probably have been tidier. I do not believe that anything has been lost. We moved the Instruction on Tuesday; we are moving an Instruction today. The 768 schedules can be taken in their due course, and correctly. I accept the noble Lord's stricture. I believe that such a course would have been easier. I am sorry if I have inconvenienced him thus far.
On the second point, the noble Lord complains that the relevant documents were not available. What he really says is that he put down the wrong amendments. The amendments which he put down referred, as he had anticipated, to the rules for immigration officers and then to the appeals procedure rules. If the noble Lord puts down amendments which he then finds are the wrong ones, he cannot blame the Government. We gave the correct rules to the Printed Paper Office, as I understand it, when the Bill was first published on 21st October. If, for some reason, the noble Lord has picked up the wrong version and put down his amendments in the wrong format, I do not believe that the Home Office or myself can be blamed.
If the noble Lord had been in touch with the Home Office first and had said, "This is what I anticipate putting down. Do you think it is all right?", we would have been only too happy to have given guidance. I recommend that to him.
I believe that I am right in saying that the amendments which the noble Lord put down were to the appeals procedure rules belonging to the previous Bill which was withdrawn on the dissolution of Parliament. The present Bill has rules for immigration officers and for appeals procedures. They were laid in the Printed Paper Office. I am sorry if the noble Lord picked up the wrong ones.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, that is grossly unfair. If the mistake had occurred once there might be some justification for what the noble Earl says. The fact is that it occurred twice. As I understand it, the arrangement was that the noble Earl's department sent to the Printed Paper Office the up-to-date rules so that they could be printed in the Marshalled List and amendments to those rules set down. A mistake was made on the first occasion. It is possible that there may have been some misunderstanding at that stage.
Clearly, once the mistake had been corrected, it should not have been repeated. But it was. The situation was corrected by his department, I understand, at about six o'clock last night—unfor-tunately, too late for the Printed Paper Office to correct the Marshalled List. That leaves your Lordships in some difficulty.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I do not see that. The noble Lord said that my reply was grossly unfair. I do not believe that it was. My department carried out its responsibilities and ensured that the Printed Paper Office had the correct rules. The noble Lord shakes his head. If he can tell me that the Home Office has not provided those rules, I shall certainly look into the matter. My information is—I have no reason whatever to doubt it—that the rules were given to the Printed Paper Office when the Bill was published.
It may be that there were two sets of rules. Perhaps they looked the same. It may be that the noble Lord picked up the wrong version. We let the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, know as soon as we discovered the problem. I accept that there is a problem. However, 769 with respect, I do not believe that it is the department's fault when it gave the Printed Paper Office the correct papers.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I go further than saying that the reply was unfair. I am sorry but I have to say that the reply is incorrect. Having given notice at Second Reading that we were going to incorporate the draft Immigration Rules and Procedure Rules into the Bill as amendments so that the matter could be properly debated, we then—as I think is the correct procedure—went to the Printed Paper Office and obtained from it the text of the draft rules. We only discovered on the eve of each of the debates that the most up-to-date version of the draft rules had not been provided to the Printed Paper Office by the Home Office. My inquiries indicate that the Printed Paper Office is entirely guiltless in the matter.
Clearly, there is a conflict of evidence here and it is not a matter which can be pursued on the Floor of the House between Dispatch Boxes. But I shall certainly seek to ensure that the truth is investigated and reported to your Lordships' House.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, clearly the information which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has is different from the information that I have and there is a difficulty. The important point is to ensure that whatever has happened does not happen again so that everyone is armed with the right papers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.